[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 195 (Friday, December 6, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H9338-H9339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          ONE VOTE, ONE PERSON

  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to again indicate the enormity 
of what we accomplished today in voting for H.R. 4.
  It seems like H.R. 4 has been the center point of giving opportunity 
to so many across the Nation. That is a bill to give every American one 
vote, one person.
  It was derailed in the Shelby case from Alabama, misguided by a 5-4 
decision by the Supreme Court, ignoring the sacrifice of our colleague, 
the Honorable   John Lewis, who almost died on the Edmund Pettus 
Bridge, brutally attacked by State and local police. That is the same 
as local laws and State laws continuing into the decade to oppress 
voters.
  I indicated in that case, that 5-4 decision, that wrongheaded 
decision, that H.R. 4 corrects, that it was as if we were getting the 
best of polio and we said we no longer need the vaccine.
  I have lived through the question of purging, along with my friends 
from MALDEF and the NAACP legal defense fund, and I worked hard to get 
language into H.R. 4 that would stop people being purged illegally off 
the polls, off the rolls.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from MALDEF and a 
letter from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.


                                                       MALDEF,

                                Los Angeles, CA, December 4, 2019.
     Re MALDEF Urges Support of the Voting Rights Advancement Act 
         of 2019, H.R. 4.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: There is no right more fundamental to 
     our democracy than the right to vote, and for Latino voters 
     and other voters of color, that right is in danger. Following 
     the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, which effectively 
     ended preclearance review under Section 5 of the Voting 
     Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), states and localities moved to 
     implement discriminatory voting practices that would 
     previously have been blocked by the VRA. What we have seen 
     post-Shelby County confirms what we have long-known--that 
     voter discrimination lives on. Congress must act to restore 
     the preclearance coverage formula in the VRA, legislation 
     that has long-enjoyed bipartisan support. MALDEF (Mexican 
     American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), the nation's 
     leading Latino legal civil rights organization, urges you to 
     support the Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA) of 2019, 
     H.R. 4, to reenact safeguards to protect minority voters from 
     discriminatory voting laws.
       The VRA is regarded as one of the most important and 
     effective pieces of civil rights legislation due to its 
     ability to protect voters of color from discriminatory voting 
     practices before they take place. Since its founding, MALDEF 
     has focused on securing equal voting rights for Latinos, and 
     promoting increased civic engagement and participation within 
     the Latino community, as among its top priorities. MALDEF 
     played a significant role in securing the full protection of 
     the VRA for the Latino community through the 1975 
     congressional reauthorization of the VRA. Over its now 51-
     year history, MALDEF has litigated numerous cases under 
     section 2, section 5, and section 203 of the VRA, challenging 
     at-large systems, discriminatory redistricting, ballot access 
     barriers, undue voter registration restrictions, and failure 
     to provide bilingual materials. As the growth of the Latino 
     population expands, our work in voting rights increases as 
     well.
       Section 5 of the VRA required states with a history of 
     discrimination in voting to seek pre-approval of voting-
     related changes from the U.S. Department of Justice or a 
     three-judge panel in Washington, DC. A voting-related change 
     that would have left minority voters worse off than before 
     the change would be blocked. The states and political 
     subdivisions that were required to submit voting-related 
     changes for preclearance were determined by a coverage 
     formula in section 4 of the VRA. The preclearance scheme--an 
     efficient and effective form of alternative dispute 
     resolution--prevented the implementation of voting-related 
     changes that would have denied voters of color a voice in our 
     elections, and it deterred many more restrictions from ever 
     being conceived. The Supreme Court in Shelby County struck 
     down section 4 and called on Congress to enact a new formula 
     better tailored to current history. As a result, currently, 
     states or political subdivisions are no longer required to 
     seek preclearance unless ordered by a federal court.
       However, Chief Justice Roberts recognized in the majority 
     opinion in Shelby County that, ``voting discrimination still 
     exists; no one doubts that.'' Across the U.S., racial, 
     ethnic, and language-minority communities are rapidly 
     growing--the country's total population is projected to 
     become majority-minority by 2044. Many officials in states 
     and local jurisdictions fear losing political power, and the 
     rapid growth of communities of color is often seen as a 
     threat to existing political establishments. Fear provokes 
     those in positions of power to implement changes to dilute 
     the voting power of the perceived threatening minority 
     community. Unfortunately, now that states and local 
     jurisdictions are not required to submit voting-related 
     changes for review, there is no longer a well-kept track 
     record on newly-implemented discriminatory practices. 
     Nonetheless, we know, based on our litigation and analysis of 
     voting changes, that states and local jurisdictions are still 
     using discriminatory voting tactics to suppress the political 
     power of minority communities.
       Last month, MALDEF, NALEO, and Asian Americans Advancing 
     Justice--AAJC released a new report, Practice-Based 
     Preclearance: Protecting Against Tactics Persistently Used to 
     Silence Minority Communities' Votes, detailing the need for 
     forward-looking voting rights legislation that provides 
     protections for emerging minority populations. During the 
     VRA's more than 50-year history, all racial and ethnic 
     populations grew, but the growth of communities of color 
     significantly outpaced nonHispanic whites. While there are 
     states and localities where communities of color have 
     traditionally resided in larger numbers, growing communities 
     of historically underrepresented voters are now emerging in 
     new parts of the U.S. Between 2007 and 2014, five of the ten 
     U.S. counties that experienced the most rapid rates of Latino 
     population growth were in North Dakota or South Dakota, two 
     states whose overall Latino populations still account for 
     less than ten percent of their residents and are dwarfed by 
     Latino communities in states like New Mexico, Texas, and 
     California. It is precisely this rapid growth of different 
     racial or ethnic populations that results in the perception 
     that emerging communities of color are a threat to those in 
     political power.
       H.R. 4 includes important protections for these emerging 
     populations in the form of practice-based preclearance, or 
     ``known-practices'' coverage. Known-practices coverage would 
     focus administrative or judicial review narrowly on suspect 
     practices that are most likely to be tainted by 
     discriminatory intent or to have discriminatory effects, as 
     demonstrated by a broad historical record. This coverage 
     would extend to any jurisdiction in the U.S. that is home to 
     a racially, ethnically, and/or linguistically diverse 
     population and that seeks to adopt a covered practice, 
     despite that practice's known likelihood of being 
     discriminatory when used in a diverse population. The known 
     practices that would be required to be pre-approved before 
     adopted in a diverse state or political subdivision include: 
     1) changes in method of election to add or replace a single-
     member district with an at-large seat to a governing body, 2) 
     certain redistricting plans where there is significant 
     minority population growth in the previous decade, 3) 
     annexations or deannexations that would significantly alter 
     the composition of the jurisdiction's electorate, 4) certain 
     identification and proof of citizenship requirements, 5) 
     certain polling place closures and realignments, and 6) the 
     withdrawal of multilingual materials and assistance when not 
     matched by the reduction of those services in English. The 
     Practice-Based Preclearance report looked at these different 
     types of changes and found, based on two separate analyses of 
     voting discrimination, that these known practices occur with 
     great frequency in the modem era.
       Congress must protect access to the polls and pass the 
     VRAA, with known-practice coverage provisions. The VRAA is a 
     critical piece of legislation that will restore voter 
     protections that were lost due to the Shelby County decision. 
     We cannot allow another federal election cycle to take place 
     without ensuring that every voter can register and cast a 
     meaningful ballot. MALDEF urges you to stand with all voters 
     and to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4.
       Please feel free to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Andrea Senteno,
     Regional Counsel.
                                  ____



          The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,

                                                 December 4, 2019.


           support h.r. 4, voting rights and advancement act

       Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference 
     on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 
     national organizations committed to promoting and protecting 
     the civil and human rights of all persons in the United 
     States, and the 68 undersigned organizations, we write in 
     strong support of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act. 
     We oppose any Motion to Recommit.
       The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is one of the most 
     successful civil rights laws ever enacted. Congress passed 
     the VRA in direct response to evidence of significant and 
     pervasive discrimination across the country, including the 
     use of literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation, threats, and 
     violence. By outlawing the tests and devices that prevented

[[Page H9339]]

     people of color from voting, the VRA and its prophylactic 
     preclearance formula put teeth into the 15th Amendment's 
     guarantee that no citizen can be denied the right to vote 
     because of the color of their skin.
       H.R. 4 has received vocal and vigorous support from the 
     civil rights community because it responds to the urgent need 
     to stop the abuses by state and local governments in the 
     aftermath of the Supreme Court's infamous 2013 decision in 
     Shelby County v. Holder, when five justices of the Supreme 
     Court invalidated the VRA's preclearance provision. In its 
     decision, the Court stated: ``Our country has changed, and 
     while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, 
     Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy 
     that problem speaks to current conditions.''
       Since Shelby County, discriminatory policies have 
     proliferated nationwide and continued in areas formerly 
     covered by the preclearance requirement. In states, counties, 
     and cities across the country, public officials have pushed 
     through laws and policies designed to make it harder for many 
     communities to vote. While we have celebrated successful 
     legal challenges to discriminatory voter ID laws in Texas and 
     North Carolina, such victories occurred only after elections 
     in those states were tainted by discrimination. Lost votes 
     cannot be reclaimed and discriminatory elections cannot be 
     undone.
       But voter suppression is not merely the province of those 
     states with a long history of discrimination. Pernicious 
     practices such as voter purging and restrictive 
     identification requirements--which disproportionately affect 
     voters of color--occur in states throughout the nation. 
     Although progress has been made, some elected leaders in this 
     country are still working to silence people who were 
     historically denied access to the ballot box.
       During the 116th Congress, the U.S. House Committee on the 
     Judiciary held extensive hearings and found significant 
     evidence that barriers to voter participation remain for 
     people of color and language-minority voters in African-
     American, Asian American, Latinx, and Native American 
     communities. The hearings examined the History and 
     Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (March 12, 
     2019), Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in the State of 
     Texas (May 3, 2019), Continuing Challenges to the Voting 
     Rights Act Since Shelby County v. Holder (June 25, 2019), 
     Discriminatory Barriers to Voting (September 5, 2019), 
     Evidence of Current and Ongoing Voting Discrimination 
     (September 10, 2019), Congressional Authority to Protect 
     Voting Rights After Shelby County v. Holder (September 24, 
     2019), and Legislative Proposals to Strengthen the Voting 
     Rights Act (October 17, 2019). The Committee on House 
     Administration also conducted numerous hearings and amassed 
     significant evidence of voter suppression during the 116th 
     Congress.
       H.R. 4 restores and modernizes the Voting Rights Act by:
       Creating a new coverage formula that hinges on a finding of 
     repeated voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years.
       Significantly, the 25-year period is measured on a rolling 
     basis to keep up with ``current conditions,'' so only states 
     and political subdivisions that have a recent record of 
     racial discrimination in voting are covered.
       States and political subdivisions that qualify for 
     preclearance will be covered for a period of 10 years, but if 
     they establish a clean record during that time period, they 
     can be extracted from coverage.
       Establishing ``practice-based preclearance,'' a targeted 
     process for reviewing voting changes in jurisdictions 
     nationwide focused on measures that have historically been 
     used to discriminate against voters of color. The process for 
     reviewing changes in voting is limited to a set of practices, 
     including:
       Changes to the methods of elections (to or from at-large 
     elections) in areas that are racially, ethnically, or 
     linguistically diverse;
       Reductions in language assistance;
       Annexations changing jurisdictional boundaries in areas 
     that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse;
       Redistricting in areas that are racially, ethnically, or 
     linguistically diverse;
       Reducing, consolidating, or relocating polling locations in 
     areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically 
     diverse; and
       Changes in documentation or requirements to vote or 
     register.
       H.R. 4 also:
       Allows a federal court to order states or jurisdictions to 
     be covered for results-based violations, where the effect of 
     a particular voting measure is racial discrimination in 
     voting and denying citizens their right to vote;
       Increases transparency by requiring reasonable public 
     notice for voting changes;
       Allows the attorney general authority to request the 
     presence of federal observers anywhere in the country where 
     there is a serious threat of racial discrimination in voting; 
     and
       Revises and tailors the preliminary injunction standard for 
     voting rights actions to recognize that there will be cases 
     where there is a need for immediate preliminary relief.
       For over half a century, protecting citizens from racial 
     discrimination in voting has been bipartisan work. The VRA 
     was passed with leadership from both the Republican and 
     Democratic parties, and the reauthorizations of the 
     enforcement provisions were signed into law each time by 
     Republican presidents: President Nixon in 1970, President 
     Ford in 1975, President Reagan in 1982, and President Bush 
     in 2006.
       Voting must transcend partisanship. No matter what policy 
     issues we care most about, we get closer to these goals 
     through the ballot box. The integrity of our democracy 
     depends on ensuring that every eligible voter can participate 
     in the electoral process. Passing H.R. 4 would be a giant 
     step toward restoring the right to vote and undoing the 
     damage done by the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision. 
     During the civil rights movement, brave Americans gave their 
     lives for the right to vote, and we cannot allow their legacy 
     and the protections they fought for to unravel. We urge 
     Congress to pass this historic legislation.
           Sincerely,
       The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; 
     Advancement Project; American Federation of Labor and 
     Congress of Industrial Organizations; African American 
     Ministers In Action; American Association of University 
     Women; American Civil Liberties Union; American Federation of 
     State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American 
     Federation of Teachers; Andrew Goodman Foundation; Anti-
     Defamation League.
       Arab American Institute; Asian Americans Advancing 
     Justice--AAJC; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Bend the Arc: 
     Jewish Action; Blue Future; Brennan Center for Justice at NYU 
     School of Law; Campaign Legal Center; Connecticut Citizen 
     Action Group; Clean Elections Texas; Communications Workers 
     of America (CWA).
       Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, 
     U.S. Provinces Democracy; 21; Democracy Initiative; Demos; 
     End Citizens United Action Fund; FairVote Action; Fix 
     Democracy First; Franciscan Action Network; Generation 
     Progress; Greenpeace USA.
       Human Rights Campaign; In Our Own Voice: National Black 
     Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda; International Union, 
     United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement 
     Workers of America, (UAW); Jewish Council for Public Affairs; 
     Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Leadership 
     Conference of Women Religious; League of Conservation Voters 
     Education Fund; League of Women Voters of the United States.
       Main Street Alliance; Mexican American Legal Defense and 
     Educational Fund (MALDEF); National Association for the 
     Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); NAACP Legal Defense 
     and Educational Fund, Inc.; NALEO Educational Fund; National 
     Action Network; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of 
     the Good Shepherd; National Council of Jewish Women; National 
     Disability Rights Network (NDRN); National Education 
     Association.
       National Urban League; Native American Rights Fund; NETWORK 
     Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; New American Leaders 
     Action Fund; People Demanding Action; People For the American 
     Way; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Progressive 
     Turnout Project; Public Citizen; Religious Action Center of 
     Reform Judaism.
       Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Sierra Club; 
     Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund; Stand Up America; 
     Texas Progressive Action Network; UnidosUS; Union for Reform 
     Judaism; United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness 
     Ministries; Voices for Progress; YWCA USA.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, now we have a recognition, that one 
vote, one person, we will fight to get this signed by the President 
because the Constitution allows and declares one vote, one person.

                          ____________________