[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 138 (Tuesday, August 4, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4734-S4735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Warren, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Merkley, 
        Ms. Hirono, Mr. Markey, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Blumenthal):
  S.J. Res. 75. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relative to the fundamental right to 
vote; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the days since we lost our colleague 
Congressman  John Lewis, many of us have come to the floor to talk 
about his extraordinary courage and tenacity.
  At the age of 25--25--he joined 600 civil rights activists to march 
across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, in pursuit of the right 
to vote. We have talked about how that day became known as Bloody 
Sunday, after John and the other courageous marchers were met with 
brutal beatings from Alabama State troopers, and how, in the days that 
followed, President Lyndon B. Johnson called on Congress to pass the 
Voting Rights Act.
  It was 55 years ago this week that President Johnson sat at a desk in 
the President's Room right off this Chamber, a room that we walk by 
many times each week, and signed the Voting Rights Act into law. He 
noted at the signing ceremony:

       [L]ast March, with the outrage of Selma still fresh, I came 
     down to this Capitol one evening and asked Congress and the 
     people for swift and for sweeping action to guarantee to 
     every man and woman the right to vote. In less than 48 hours, 
     I sent the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Congress. In little 
     more than 4 months the Congress, with overwhelming 
     majorities, enacted one of the most monumental laws in the 
     history of American freedom.

  Those were the words of Lyndon Johnson. He signed the Voting Rights 
Act in 1965.
  Well, we have made significant progress since that day, thanks to 
great men like John Lewis, who marched to enact the Voting Rights Act, 
and the advocates and litigators who battled for decades to enforce it.
  But there is a grim reality. Insidious voter suppression efforts 
still continue in America today. These efforts may not seem as obvious 
as the old-school poll taxes and literacy tests. But make no mistake. 
They are aimed at denying the fundamental right to vote, and all too 
often they are successful.
  When I was chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, I decided to travel to 
the States of Florida and Ohio for public hearings to speak to 
officials and experts on the ground and to determine why those States, 
through their legislatures, were passing laws--what I considered 
burdensome laws, such as reducing opportunities for early voting. Why 
were they making it harder to vote in Ohio and Florida?
  In both States I asked witnesses, under oath, what evidence of 
widespread voter fraud prompted these laws that made it more difficult 
for people to vote and limited the time when they could vote. The 
answer was simple. Under oath, what was the evidence of fraud? There 
was no evidence of fraud.
  It turned out that there were a handful of election fraud cases here 
and there, rarely prosecuted, and that is it.
  In contrast to the mere specter of widespread voter fraud, we learned 
that these voter suppression laws really had consequences. We heard 
over and over that restrictive voting laws have a disproportionate 
impact on whom? Low income voters, Black voters, Brown voters, young 
voters, elderly, vulnerable voting populations.
  When you make it harder to vote, it is tougher for these people to 
show up and vote. Someone knew that.
  After the hearings, we learned more about the real reason behind 
those laws. According to news reports, Republican consultants and 
former officials admitted after the 2012 election that the Florida law 
discussed at my hearing was literally designed to suppress the vote, 
particularly among those leaning toward the Democratic column.
  A year later, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Shelby 
County v. Holder. In a 5-to-4 vote, the divided Court struck down the 
provisions of the Voting Rights Act that required certain jurisdictions 
to preclear any changes in their voting laws with the Department of 
Justice.
  The decision effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and in 
the aftermath, several State legislatures pushed through discriminatory 
restrictions on voting that previously would have required approval by 
the Justice Department ahead of time.
  As an example, in North Carolina the legislature enacted a massive 
voter suppression bill, including a strict photo ID requirement, early 
voting cutbacks, and the elimination of same-day registration, out-of-
precinct voting, and preregistration for teenagers who were about to 
turn 18 before an election.
  What did a three-judge Federal panel have to say about this North 
Carolina law? They said ``it targeted African Americans with almost 
surgical precision'' and ``enacted the law with discriminatory 
intent.''
  Those are unequivocal words. Despite all the press releases to the 
contrary, the Court knew exactly what was going on in North Carolina. 
They were trying to stop African-American voters in that State from 
being counted.
  Unfortunately, litigation targeting these voter suppression efforts 
has faced an increasingly uphill battle, as President Trump has packed 
the Federal courts with partisan, rightwing judges, including several 
with appalling records on voting rights.
  And though the Supreme Court continues to state that the right to 
vote is both ``fundamental'' and ``preservative of other basic civil 
and political rights,'' the Court has also continued to permit broad 
assaults on America's access to the ballot box.
  Let me give you an example. In April, the Court forced thousands of 
Wisconsin primary voters in April of this year to choose between their 
health and exercising their right to vote in the middle of a COVID-19 
pandemic. The Court refused to extend the deadline for returning 
absentee ballots, despite the public health national emergency we face.
  A State official in Wisconsin recently said that at least 71 people 
were infected with COVID-19 after voting in person or working at the 
polls during that primary election.
  In June, the Supreme Court turned down a request to reinstate a Texas 
district court judge's order which would have ensured that all voters 
in the State could ask to vote by mail, in light of the pandemic.
  And just last month, the same Court refused to lift a stay in Florida 
that will prevent hundreds of thousands of otherwise eligible 
Floridians from voting in this month's primary election, simply because 
they can't pay the fines and fees imposed on them long ago as part of a 
criminal sentence.
  What did Justice Sotomayor say in her dissent about this Florida 
case? ``This court's inaction continues a trend of condoning 
disfranchisement.''
  Well, it is time for this to end. I am introducing today a joint 
resolution. I don't do this lightly.
  In the time that I have served in Congress, I believe that this is 
only the second time that I have proposed an amendment to this 
Constitution.
  I believe, at least personally, that I am humbled by this document. I 
know it was far from perfect when written. We have learned that over 
the years with all the amendments and the history that has followed. 
But I have never thought myself worthy to add words to that document. 
One other time, on abolishing the electoral college, I had a bipartisan 
measure that I offered. But this is only the second time I have done 
it.
  This joint resolution would create and enshrine an explicit, 
individual right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, and protect all 
Americans who seek to exercise this fundamental right.
  Specifically, the amendment would provide an affirmative right to 
vote for every American citizen of legal voting age at any public 
election held in the jurisdiction in which they reside.
  It would also require that any efforts to limit the fundamental right 
to vote would be subject to the strictest level of review in the 
courts.
  Additionally, it would ensure that States could no longer rely on 
section

[[Page S4735]]

2 of the 14th Amendment to prevent Americans from voting due to an 
earlier criminal conviction.
  Finally, the amendment would provide that Congress has the 
irrefutable authority to protect the right to vote through legislation.
  If ratified, this constitutional amendment would protect against 
nefarious election administration changes that lead to long lines and 
people beating on doors, trying to get in to vote. These long lines 
have reduced voter turnout on election day. How in the world can we be 
a stronger nation if fewer people participate in the most important 
part of democracy?
  It would protect against photo identification requirements that 
disproportionately harm low-income voters and African Americans and 
Hispanics.
  Black lives matter. Brown lives matter. American lives matter. And 
when it comes to voting, this insidious effort to undermine the 
opportunity for these people to vote has to be called out for what it 
is.
  It would also provide a path to end discriminatory criminal 
disfranchisement laws that are a relic of the Jim Crow era and yet 
continue to strip millions of citizens of their fundamental right to 
participate in our democracy.
  Some may ask why we should pursue this amendment, when there are 
clearer, perhaps easier, steps that Congress can take right now to 
protect voting rights under its existing constitutional authority
  Let me give you an example. The Senate can quickly pass the  John 
Lewis Voting Rights Act amendment, which the House passed last year, 
but that would rely on the decision by Senator McConnell to actually 
let the Senate vote on a measure coming over from the House. There is 
little hope that is going to happen.
  Given the ongoing ruthless assault on voting rights in America, it is 
clear that additional tools are necessary to push back against 
widespread voter suppression. I recognize that amending the 
Constitution is no small matter. I am well aware that introducing this 
amendment today is not going to lead to any immediate change, but I 
also believe that this moment represents the next step in a movement--a 
movement in America that will ultimately lead to a ratification of this 
amendment.
  I am going to work with my colleagues and constituents to build 
support. I will ask opponents as to why they believe that fundamental 
right, preservative of all other rights in America, should not be 
affirmatively granted to the American people and literally enshrined in 
the United States Constitution--the right to vote. I plan to work with 
grassroots organizations who are fighting for their voting rights to be 
restored.
  I am going to work with Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, who 
has led this effort in the House, and I plan to work with civil rights 
leaders, including an old friend, Jessie Jackson, who for years has 
called for this amendment to be introduced in the Senate.
  I want to thank Reverend Jackson for his timeless leadership and 
advocacy. I am grateful to have the support of the Rainbow/Push 
Coalition as we introduce this amendment, along with the Advancement 
Project national office. Let me thank Senators Warren, Sanders, 
Merkley, Hirono, Markey, Van Hollen, and Blumenthal for cosponsoring, 
and I hope others will join us.
  By accident, I was given a book several years ago entitled ``White 
Rage,'' written by Carol Anderson. Carol Anderson is a professor at 
Emory University. The book was given to me by my brother-in-law, and I 
was skeptical that I would even read it, let alone like it. Well, I 
have to state that I have read it and recommended it over and over to 
my colleagues in the Senate, including giving a copy to then Senate 
Majority Leader Harry Reid. He decided, after reading the book, that it 
was so good that he invited Professor Carol Anderson to come speak to 
our caucus. She is an amazing person and a great historian.
  She followed ``White Rage'' with this book, ``One Person, No Vote.'' 
In it she tells the history of voter suppression. It is an eye-opener.
  After the Civil War and all those deaths to end slavery, after the 
assassination of Lincoln and after the effort was made to finally give 
to Blacks in the South a chance to become full-fledged citizens, they 
ran into Jim Crow laws.
  She talks about something which I had heard of but knew little about. 
I would like to say a word from the book.
  The question is about the efforts made to suppress the Black vote in 
the South, and she writes:

       That became most apparent in 1890 when the Magnolia State 
     passed the Mississippi Plan, a dizzying array of poll taxes, 
     literacy tests, understanding clauses, newfangled voter 
     registration rules, and ``good character'' clauses--all 
     intentionally racially discriminatory but dressed up in the 
     genteel garb of bringing ``integrity'' to the voting booth. 
     This feigned legal innocence was legislative evil genius.
       Virginia representative Carter Glass, like so many others, 
     swooned at the thought of bringing the Mississippi Plan to 
     his own state [of Virginia], especially after he saw how well 
     it had worked. He rushed to champion a bill in the 
     legislature that would ``eliminate the darkey as a political 
     factor . . . in less than five years.'' Glass, whom President 
     Franklin Roosevelt would one day describe as an 
     ``unreconstructed rebel,'' planned not to ``deprive a single 
     white man of the ballot, but [to] inevitably cut from the 
     existing electorate four-fifths of the Negro voters'' in 
     Virginia.
       One delegate questioned him: ``Will it not be done by fraud 
     and discrimination?''
       ``By fraud, no. By discrimination, yes,'' Glass retorted. 
     ``Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose . . 
     . to discriminate to the very extremity . . . permissible . . 
     . under . . . the Federal Constitution, with a view to the 
     elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, 
     legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength 
     of the white electorate.''

  Unapologetic, straight in his remarks, his racism was rampant, and so 
it was across the country.
  Black lives matter. America matters. And our democracy matters. Once 
and for all, the right to vote should be enshrined in our Constitution. 
People died for it. It is time for us to work hard to show that we care
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 75

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds 
     of each House concurring therein), That the following article 
     is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. Every citizen of the United States, who is of 
     legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in 
     any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the 
     citizen resides.
       ``Section 2. The fundamental right of citizens of the 
     United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the 
     United States or by any State or political subdivision within 
     a State unless such denial or abridgment is in furtherance of 
     a compelling governmental interest and is the least 
     restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental 
     interest.
       ``Section 3. The portion of section 2 of the fourteenth 
     article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     that consists of the phrase `or other crime,' is repealed.
       ``Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce 
     this article and protect against any denial or abridgement of 
     the fundamental right to vote by legislation.''.

                          ____________________