[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 24, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H4384-H4415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JOHN R. LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 2021
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 601, I call
up the bill (H.R. 4) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise
the criteria for determining which States and political subdivisions
are subject to section 4 of the Act, and for other purposes, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Beatty). Pursuant to House Resolution
601, the amendment printed in House Report 117-117 is adopted and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 4
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act of 2021''.
SEC. 2. VOTE DILUTION, DENIAL, AND ABRIDGMENT CLAIMS.
(a) In General.--Section 2(a) of the Voting Rights Act of
1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301(a)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``applied by any State or political
subdivision'' the following: ``for the purpose of, or''; and
(2) by striking ``as provided in subsection (b)'' and
inserting ``as provided in subsection (b), (c), (d), or
(f)''.
(b) Vote Dilution.--Section 2(b) of such Act (52 U.S.C.
10301(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``A violation of subsection (a)''
the following: ``for vote dilution'';
(2) by inserting after the period at the end the following:
``For the purposes of this subsection:'';
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(1) To prevail, in demonstrating that a representational,
districting, or apportionment scheme results in vote
dilution, a plaintiff shall, as a threshold matter, establish
that--
``(A) the members of the protected class are sufficiently
numerous and geographically compact to constitute a majority
in a single-member district;
``(B) the members of the protected class are politically
cohesive; and
``(C) the residents of that district who are not the
members of the protected class usually vote sufficiently as a
bloc to enable them to defeat the preferred candidates of the
members of the protected class.
``(2) Upon a plaintiff establishing the required threshold
showing under paragraph (1), a court shall conduct a totality
of the circumstances analysis with respect to a claim of vote
dilution to determine whether there was a violation of
subsection (a), which shall include the following factors:
``(A) The extent of any history of official voting
discrimination in the State or political subdivision that
affected the right of members of the protected class to
register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the
political process.
``(B) The extent to which voting in the elections of the
State or political subdivision is racially polarized.
``(C) The extent to which the State or political
subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend
to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the
members of the protected class, such as unusually large
election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single
shot provisions, or other qualifications, prerequisites,
standards, practices, or procedures that may enhance the
opportunity for discrimination against the members of the
protected class.
``(D) If there is a candidate slating process, whether the
members of the protected class have been denied access to
that process.
``(E) The extent to which members of the protected class in
the State or political subdivision bear the effects of
discrimination both public or private, in such areas as
education, employment, health, housing, and transportation,
which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the
political process.
``(F) Whether political campaigns have been characterized
by overt or subtle racial appeals.
``(G) The extent to which members of the protected class
have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.
``(3) In conducting a totality of the circumstances
analysis under paragraph (2), a court may consider such other
factors as the court may determine to be relevant,
including--
``(A) whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness
on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs
of the members of the protected class, including a lack of
concern for or responsiveness to the requests and proposals
of the members of the protected class, except that compliance
with a court order may not be considered evidence of
responsiveness on the part of the jurisdiction; and
``(B) whether the policy underlying the State or political
subdivision's use of such voting qualification, prerequisite
to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous.
``In making this determination, a court shall consider
whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice,
or procedure in question was designed to advance and
materially advances a valid and substantiated State
insterest.''.
``(4) A class of citizens protected by subsection (a) may
include a cohesive coalition of members of different racial
or language minority groups.''; and
(4) Vote denial or abridgement.--Section 2 of such Act (52
U.S.C. 10301), as amended by subsections (a) and (b), is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c)(1) A violation of subsection (a) resulting in vote
denial or abridgement is established if the challenged
qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure--
``(A) results or will result in members of a protected
class facing greater costs or burdens in participating in the
political process than other voters; and''.
``(B) the greater costs or burdens are, at least in part,
caused by or linked to social and historical conditions that
have produced or produce
[[Page H4385]]
on the date of such challenge discrimination against members
of the protected class.
``In determining the existence of a burden for purposes of
subparagraph (A), the absolute number or the percent of
voters affected or the presence of voters who are not members
of a protected class in the affected area shall not be
dispositive, and the affected area may be smaller than the
jurisdiction to which the qualification, prerequisite,
standard, practice, or procedure applies.''
``(2) The challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard,
practice, or procedure need only be a but-for cause of the
discriminatory result described in paragraph (1) or
perpetuate pre-existing burdens or costs.
``(3)(A) The factors that are relevant to a totality of the
circumstances analysis with respect to a claim of vote denial
or abridgement pursuant to this subsection include the
following:
``(i) The extent of any history of official voting-related
discrimination in the State or political subdivision that
affected the right of members of the protected class to
register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the
political process.
``(ii) The extent to which voting in the elections of the
State or political subdivision is racially polarized.
``(iii) The extent to which the State or political
subdivision has used photographic voter identification
requirements, documentary proof of citizenship requirements,
documentary proof of residence requirements, or other voting
practices or procedures, beyond those required by Federal
law, that may impair the ability of members of the minority
group to participate fully in the political process.
``(iv) The extent to which minority group members bear the
effects of discrimination, both public and private, in areas
such as education, employment, health, housing, and
transportation, which hinder their ability to participate
effectively in the political process.
``(v) The use of overt or subtle racial appeals either in
political campaigns or surrounding adoption or maintenance of
the challenged practice.
``(vi) The extent to which members of the minority group
have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction,
provided that the fact that the minority group is too small
to elect candidates of its choice shall not defeat a claim of
vote denial or abridgment.
``(vii) Whether there is a lack of responsiveness on the
part of elected officials to the particularized needs of
minority group members, including a lack of concern for or
responsiveness to the requests and proposals of the group,
except that compliance with a court order may not be
considered evidence of responsiveness on the part of the
jurisdiction.
``(viii) Whether the policy underlying the State or
political subdivision's use of the challenged qualification,
prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure is tenuous. In
making a determination under this clause, a court shall
consider whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard,
practice, or procedure in question was designed to advance
and materially advances a valid and substantiated State
interest.
``(ix) Subject to paragraph (4), such other factors as the
court may determine to be relevant.
``(B) The factors described in subparagraph (A),
individually and collectively, shall be considered as a means
of establishing that a voting practice amplifies the effects
of past or present discrimination in violation in subsection
(a).
``(C) A plaintiff need not show any particular combination
or number of factors to establish a violation of subsection
(a).
``(4) The factors that are relevant to a totality of the
circumstances analysis with respect to a claim of vote denial
or abridgement do not include the following:
``(A) The degree to which the challenged qualification,
prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has a long
pedigree or was in widespread use at some earlier date.
``(B) The use of an identical or similar qualification,
prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure in other
States or jurisdictions.
``(C) The availability of other forms of voting unimpacted
by the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard,
practice, or procedure to all members of the electorate,
including members of the protected class, unless the
jurisdiction is simultaneously expanding such other practices
to eliminate any disproportionate burden imposed by the
challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice,
or procedure.
``(D) Unsubstantiated defenses that the qualification,
prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure is necessary
to address criminal activity.
``(d)(1) A violation of subsection (a) for the purpose of
vote denial or abridgement is established if the challenged
qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure
is intended, at least in part, to dilute minority voting
strength or to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of
the United States to vote on account of race, color, or in
contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2).
``(2) Discrimination on account of race, color, or in
contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2)
need only be one purpose of a qualification, prerequisite,
standard, practice, or procedure to demonstrate a violation
of subsection (a).
``(3) A qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure intended to dilute minority voting strength or to
make it more difficult for minority voters to cast a ballot
that will be counted violates this subsection even if an
additional purpose of the qualification, prerequisite,
standard, practice, or procedure is to benefit a particular
political party or group.
``(4) The context for the adoption of the challenged
qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure, including actions by official decisionmakers
before the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard,
practice, or procedure, may be relevant to a violation of
this subsection.
``(5) Claims under this subsection require proof of a
discriminatory impact but do not require proof of a violation
pursuant to subsection (b) or (c).''.
``(e) For purposes of this section, the term `affected
area' means any geographic area, in which members of a
protected class are affected by a qualification,
prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure allegedly in
violation of this section, within a State (including any
Indian lands).''.
SEC. 3. RETROGRESSION.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301
et seq.), as amended by section 2 of this Act, is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) A violation of subsection (a) is established when a
State or political subdivision enacts or seeks to administer
any qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard,
practice, or procedure with respect to voting in any election
that has the purpose of or will have the effect of
diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States
on account of race or color, or in contravention of the
guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), to participate in
the electoral process or elect their preferred candidates of
choice. This subsection applies to any action taken on or
after January 1, 2021, by a State or political subdivision to
enact or seek to administer any such qualification or
prerequisite to voting or standard, practice or procedure.
``(g) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (f),
final decisions of the United States District Court of the
District of Columbia on applications or petitions by States
or political subdivisions for preclearance under section 5 of
any changes in voting prerequisites, standards, practices, or
procedures, supersede the provisions of subsection (f).''.
SEC. 4. VIOLATIONS TRIGGERING AUTHORITY OF COURT TO RETAIN
JURISDICTION.
(a) Types of Violations.--Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10302(c)) is amended by striking
``violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment'' and
inserting ``violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment,
violations of this Act, or violations of any Federal law that
prohibits discrimination in voting on the basis of race,
color, or membership in a language minority group,''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3(a) of such Act (52
U.S.C. 10302(a)) is amended by striking ``violations of the
fourteenth or fifteenth amendment'' and inserting
``violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment, violations of
this Act, or violations of any Federal law that prohibits
discrimination in voting on the basis of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group,''.
SEC. 5. CRITERIA FOR COVERAGE OF STATES AND POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS.
(a) Determination of States and Political Subdivisions
Subject to Section 4(a).--
(1) In general.--Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of
1965 (52 U.S.C. 10303(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Determination of States and Political Subdivisions
Subject to Requirements.--
``(1) Existence of voting rights violations during previous
25 years.--
``(A) Statewide application.--Subsection (a) applies with
respect to a State and all political subdivisions within the
State during a calendar year if--
``(i) fifteen or more voting rights violations occurred in
the State during the previous 25 calendar years;
``(ii) ten or more voting rights violations occurred in the
State during the previous 25 calendar years, at least one of
which was committed by the State itself (as opposed to a
political subdivision within the State); or
``(iii) three or more voting rights violations occurred in
the State during the previous 25 calendar years and the State
itself administers the elections in the State or political
subdivisions in which the voting rights violations occurred.
``(B) Application to specific political subdivisions.--
Subsection (a) applies with respect to a political
subdivision as a separate unit during a calendar year if
three or more voting rights violations occurred in the
subdivision during the previous 25 calendar years.
``(2) Period of application.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
if, pursuant to paragraph (1), subsection (a) applies with
respect to a State or political subdivision during a calendar
year, subsection (a) shall apply with respect to such State
or political subdivision for the period--
``(i) that begins on January 1 of the year in which
subsection (a) applies; and
``(ii) that ends on the date which is 10 years after the
date described in clause (i).
``(B) No further application after declaratory judgment.--
``(i) States.--If a State obtains a declaratory judgment
under subsection (a), and the judgment remains in effect,
subsection (a) shall no longer apply to such State pursuant
to paragraph (1)(A) unless, after the issuance of the
declaratory judgment, paragraph (1)(A) applies to the State
solely on the basis of voting rights violations occurring
after the issuance of the declaratory judgment.
``(ii) Political subdivisions.--If a political subdivision
obtains a declaratory judgment under subsection (a), and the
judgment remains in effect, subsection (a) shall no longer
apply to such political subdivision pursuant to paragraph
(1), including pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) (relating to the
statewide application of subsection (a)), unless, after the
issuance of the declaratory judgment, paragraph (1)(B)
applies to the political subdivision solely on the basis of
voting rights violations occurring after the issuance of the
declaratory judgment.
``(3) Determination of voting rights violation.--For
purposes of paragraph (1), a voting rights violation occurred
in a State or political subdivision if any of the following
applies:
[[Page H4386]]
``(A) Judicial relief; violation of the 14th or 15th
amendment.--Any final judgment, or any preliminary,
temporary, or declaratory relief (that was not reversed on
appeal), in which the plaintiff prevailed or a court of the
United States found that the plaintiff demonstrated a
likelihood of success on the merits or raised a serious
question with regard to race discrimination, in which any
court of the United States determined that a denial or
abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States
to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a
language minority group occurred, or that a voting
qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard,
practice, or procedure with respect to voting created an
undue burden on the right to vote in connection with a claim
that the law unduly burdened voters of a particular race,
color, or language minority group, in violation of the 14th
or 15th Amendment, anywhere within the State or subdivision.
``(B) Judicial relief; violations of this act.--Any final
judgment, or any preliminary, temporary, or declaratory
relief (that was not reversed on appeal) in which the
plaintiff prevailed or a court of the United States found
that the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on
the merits or raised a serious question with regard to race
discrimination, in which any court of the United States
determined that a voting qualification or prerequisite to
voting or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to
voting was imposed or applied or would have been imposed or
applied anywhere within the State or subdivision in a manner
that resulted or would have resulted in a denial or
abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States
to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a
language minority group, in violation of subsection 4(e) or
4(f) or section 2, 201, or 203 of this Act.
``(C) Final judgment; denial of declaratory judgment.--In a
final judgment (that was not been reversed on appeal), any
court of the United States has denied the request of the
State or subdivision for a declaratory judgment under section
3(c) or section 5, and thereby prevented a voting
qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard,
practice, or procedure with respect to voting from being
enforced anywhere within the State or subdivision.
``(D) Objection by the attorney general.--The Attorney
General has interposed an objection under section 3(c) or
section 5, and thereby prevented a voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure
with respect to voting from being enforced anywhere within
the State or subdivision. A violation per this subsection has
not occurred where an objection has been withdrawn by the
Attorney General, unless the withdrawal was in response to a
change in the law or practice that served as the basis of the
objection. A violation under this subsection has not occurred
where the objection is based solely on a State or political
subdivision's failure to comply with a procedural process
that would not otherwise constitute an independent violation
of this act.
``(E) Consent decree, settlement, or other agreement.--A
consent decree, settlement, or other agreement was adopted or
entered by a court of the United States or contained an
admission of liability by the defendants, which resulted in
the alteration or abandonment of a voting practice anywhere
in the territory of such State or subdivision that was
challenged on the ground that the practice denied or abridged
the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on
account of race, color, or membership in a language minority
group in violation of subsection 4(e) or 4(f) or section 2,
201, or 203 of this Act, or the 14th or 15th Amendment. An
extension or modification of an agreement as defined by this
subsection that has been in place for ten years or longer
shall count as an independent violation. If a court of the
United States finds that an agreement itself as defined by
this subsection denied or abridged the right of any citizen
of the United States to vote on account of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group, violated subsection
4(e) or 4(f) or section 2, 201, or 203 of this Act, or
created an undue burden on the right to vote in connection
with a claim that the consent decree, settlement, or other
agreement unduly burdened voters of a particular race, color,
or language minority group, that finding shall count as an
independent violation.
``(F) Multiple violations.--Each voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure
with respect to voting, including each redistricting plan,
found to be a violation by a court of the United States
pursuant to subsection (a) or (b), or prevented from
enforcement pursuant to subsection (c) or (d), or altered or
abandoned pursuant to subsection (e) shall count as an
independent violation. Within a redistricting plan, each
violation found to discriminate against any group of voters
based on race, color, or language minority group shall count
as an independent violation.
``(4) Timing of determinations.--
``(A) Determinations of voting rights violations.--As early
as practicable during each calendar year, the Attorney
General shall make the determinations required by this
subsection, including updating the list of voting rights
violations occurring in each State and political subdivision
for the previous calendar year.
``(B) Effective upon publication in federal register.--A
determination or certification of the Attorney General under
this section or under section 8 or 13 shall be effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 4(a) of such Act (52
U.S.C. 10303(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the first sentence of the matter
preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ``any State with
respect to which'' and all that follows through ``unless''
and inserting ``any State to which this subsection applies
during a calendar year pursuant to determinations made under
subsection (b), or in any political subdivision of such State
(as such subdivision existed on the date such determinations
were made with respect to such State), though such
determinations were not made with respect to such subdivision
as a separate unit, or in any political subdivision with
respect to which this subsection applies during a calendar
year pursuant to determinations made with respect to such
subdivision as a separate unit under subsection (b),
unless'';
(B) in paragraph (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking the second sentence;
(C) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``(in the case of a
State or subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment under the
second sentence of this subsection)'';
(D) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``(in the case of a
State or subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment under the
second sentence of this subsection)'';
(E) in paragraph (3), by striking ``(in the case of a State
or subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment under the
second sentence of this subsection)'';
(F) in paragraph (5), by striking ``(in the case of a State
or subdivision which sought a declaratory judgment under the
second sentence of this subsection)'';
(G) by striking paragraphs (7) and (8); and
(H) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (7).
(b) Clarification of Treatment of Members of Language
Minority Groups.--Section 4(a)(1) of such Act (52 U.S.C.
10303(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``race or color,'' and
inserting ``race, color, or in contravention of the
guarantees of subsection (f)(2),''.
(c) Administrative Bailout.--
(1) In general.--Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
(52 U.S.C. 10303) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) Administrative Bailout.--
``(1) Determination of eligibility.--
``(A) In general.--After making a determination under
subsection (b)(1)(A) that the provisions of subsection (a)
apply with respect to a State and all political subdivisions
within the State, the Attorney General shall determine if any
political subdivision of the State is eligible for an
exemption under this subsection, and shall publish, in the
Federal Register, a list of all such political subdivisions.
Any political subdivision included on such list is not
subject to any requirement under section 5 until the date on
which any application under this section has been finally
disposed of or no such application may be made.
``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to provide--
``(i) that the determinations made pursuant to the creation
of the list shall have any binding or preclusive effect; or
``(ii) that inclusion on the list--
``(I) constitutes a final determination by the Attorney
General that the listee is eligible for an exemption pursuant
to this subsection or that, in the case of the listee, the
provisions of subparagraphs (A) through (F) of subsection
(a)(1) are satisfied; or
``(II) entitles the listee to any exemption pursuant to
this subsection.
``(2) Eligibility.--A political subdivision that submits an
application under paragraph (3) shall be eligible for an
exemption under this subsection only if, during the ten years
preceding the filing of the application, and during the
pendency of such application--
``(A) no test of device referred to in subsection (a)(1)
has been used within such political subdivision for the
purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right
to vote on account of race or color or in contravention of
the guarantees of subsection (f)(2);
``(B) no final judgment of any court of the United States,
other than the denial of declaratory judgment under this
section, has determined that denials or abridgements of the
right to vote on account of race or color have occurred
anywhere in the territory of such political subdivision or
that denials or abridgements of the right to vote in
contravention of the guarantees of subsection (f)(2) have
occurred anywhere in the territory of such subdivision and no
consent decree, settlement, or agreement has been entered
into resulting in any abandonment of a voting practice
challenged on such grounds; and no declaratory judgment under
this section shall be entered during the pendency of an
action commenced before the filing of an action under this
section and alleging such denials or abridgements of the
right to vote;
``(C) no Federal examiners or observers under this Act have
been assigned to such political subdivision;
``(D) such political subdivision and all governmental units
within its territory have complied with section 5 of this
Act, including compliance with the requirement that no change
covered by section 5 has been enforced without preclearance
under section 5, and have repealed all changes covered by
section 5 to which the Attorney General has successfully
objected or as to which the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia has denied a declaratory judgment;
``(E) the Attorney General has not interposed any objection
(that has not been overturned by a final judgment of a court)
and no declaratory judgment has been denied under section 5,
with respect to any submission by or on behalf of the
plaintiff or any governmental unit within its territory under
section 5, and no such submissions or declaratory judgment
actions are pending; and
``(F) such political subdivision and all governmental units
within its territory--
``(i) have eliminated voting procedures and methods of
election which inhibit or dilute equal access to the
electoral process;
[[Page H4387]]
``(ii) have engaged in constructive efforts to eliminate
intimidation and harassment of persons exercising rights
protected under this Act; and
``(iii) have engaged in other constructive efforts, such as
expanded opportunity for convenient registration and voting
for every person of voting age and the appointment of
minority persons as election officials throughout the
jurisdiction and at all stages of the election and
registration process.
``(3) Application period.--Not later than 90 days after the
publication of the list under paragraph (1), a political
subdivision included on such list may submit an application,
containing such information as the Attorney General may
require, for an exemption under this subsection. The Attorney
General shall provide notice in the Federal Register of such
application.
``(4) Comment period.--During the 90-day period beginning
on the date that notice is published under paragraph (3), the
Attorney General shall give interested persons an opportunity
to submit objections to the issuance of an exemption under
this subsection to a political subdivision on the basis that
the political subdivision is not eligible under paragraph (2)
to the Attorney General. During the 1 year period beginning
on the effective date of this subsection, such 90-day period
shall be extended by an additional 30 days. The Attorney
General shall notify the political subdivision of each
objection submitted and afford the political subdivision an
opportunity to respond.
``(5) Determination as to objections.--In the case of a
political subdivision with respect to which an objection has
been submitted under paragraph (4), the following shall
apply:
``(A) Consideration of objections.--The Attorney General
shall consider and respond to each such objection (and any
response of the political subdivision thereto) during the 60
day period beginning on the day after the comment period
under paragraph (4) concludes.
``(B) Justified objections.--If the Attorney General
determines that any such objection is justified, the Attorney
General shall publish notice in the Federal Register denying
the application for an exemption under this subsection.
``(C) Unjustified objections.--If the Attorney General
determines that no objection submitted is justified, each
person that submitted such an objection may, not later than
90 days after the end of the period established under
subparagraph (A), file, in the District Court of the District
of Columbia, an action for judicial review of such
determination in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, United
States Code.
``(6) Exemption.--The Attorney General may issue an
exemption, by publication in the Federal Register, from the
application of the provisions of subsection (a) with respect
to a political subdivision that--
``(A) is eligible under paragraph (2); and
``(B) with respect to which no objection under was
submitted under paragraph (4) or determined to be justified
under paragraph (5).
``(7) Judicial review.--Except as otherwise explicitly
provided in this subsection, no determination under this
subsection shall be subject to review by any court, and all
determinations under this subsection are committed to the
discretion of the Attorney General.
``(8) Savings clause.--If a political subdivision was not
subject to the application of the provisions of subsection
(a) by reason of a declaratory judgment entered prior to the
effective date of this subsection, and such political
subdivision has not violated any eligibility requirement set
forth in paragraph (2) at any time thereafter, then that
political subdivision shall not be subject to the
requirements of subsection (a).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--
(A) In general.--Section 4(a)(1) of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10303(a)(1)), as amended by this Act, is
further amended by inserting after ``the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia issues a
declaratory judgment under this section'' the following: ``,
or, in the case of a political subdivision, the Attorney
General issues an exemption under subsection (g)''.
(B) Expiration of time limit.--On the date that is 1 year
after the effective date of this subsection, section 4(g)(3)
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10303(g)(3)) is
amended by striking ``During the 1 year period beginning on
the effective date of this subsection, such 90-day period
shall be extended by an additional 30 days.''. For purposes
of any periods under such section commenced as of such date,
the 90-day period shall remain extended by an additional 30
days.
SEC. 6. DETERMINATION OF STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
SUBJECT TO PRECLEARANCE FOR COVERED PRACTICES.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.) is
further amended by inserting after section 4 the following:
``SEC. 4A. DETERMINATION OF STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
SUBJECT TO PRECLEARANCE FOR COVERED PRACTICES.
``(a) Practice-Based Preclearance.--
``(1) In general.--Each State and each political
subdivision shall--
``(A) identify any newly enacted or adopted law,
regulation, or policy that includes a voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting, or a standard, practice, or procedure
with respect to voting, that is a covered practice described
in subsection (b); and
``(B) ensure that no such covered practice is implemented
unless or until the State or political subdivision, as the
case may be, complies with subsection (c).
``(2) Determinations of characteristics of voting-age
population.--
``(A) In general.--As early as practicable during each
calendar year, the Attorney General, in consultation with the
Director of the Bureau of the Census and the heads of other
relevant offices of the government, shall make the
determinations required by this section regarding voting-age
populations and the characteristics of such populations, and
shall publish a list of the States and political subdivisions
to which a voting-age population characteristic described in
subsection (b) applies.
``(B) Publication in the federal register.--A determination
or certification of the Attorney General under this paragraph
shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
``(b) Covered Practices.--To assure that the right of
citizens of the United States to vote is not denied or
abridged on account of race, color, or membership in a
language minority group as a result of the implementation of
certain qualifications or prerequisites to voting, or
standards, practices, or procedures with respect to voting
newly adopted in a State or political subdivision, the
following shall be covered practices subject to the
requirements described in subsection (a):
``(1) Changes to method of election.--Any change to the
method of election--
``(A) to add seats elected at-large in a State or political
subdivision where--
``(i) two or more racial groups or language minority groups
each represent 20 percent or more of the political
subdivision's voting-age population; or
``(ii) a single language minority group represents 20
percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands
located in whole or in part in the political subdivision; or
``(B) to convert one or more seats elected from a single-
member district to one or more at-large seats or seats from a
multi-member district in a State or political subdivision
where--
``(i) two or more racial groups or language minority groups
each represent 20 percent or more of the political
subdivision's voting-age population; or
``(ii) a single language minority group represents 20
percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands
located in whole or in part in the political subdivision.
``(2) Changes to jurisdiction boundaries.--Any change or
series of changes within a year to the boundaries of a
jurisdiction that reduces by 3 or more percentage points the
proportion of the jurisdiction's voting-age population that
is comprised of members of a single racial group or language
minority group in a State or political subdivision where--
``(A) two or more racial groups or language minority groups
each represent 20 percent or more of the political
subdivision's voting-age population; or
``(B) a single language minority group represents 20
percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands
located in whole or in part in the political subdivision.
``(3) Changes through redistricting.--Any change to the
boundaries of election districts in a State or political
subdivision where any racial group or language minority group
that is not the largest racial group or language minority
group in the jurisdiction and that represents 15 percent or
more of the State or political subdivision's voting-age
population experiences a population increase of at least 20
percent of its voting-age population, over the preceding
decade (as calculated by the Bureau of the Census under the
most recent decennial census), in the jurisdiction.
``(4) Changes in documentation or qualifications to vote.--
Any change to requirements for documentation or proof of
identity to vote or register to vote that will exceed or be
more stringent than such requirements under State law on the
day before the date of enactment of the John R. Lewis Voting
Rights Advancement Act of 2021; and further, if a State has
in effect a requirement that an individual present
identification as a condition of receiving and casting a
ballot in an election for Federal office, if the State does
not permit the individual to meet the requirement and cast a
ballot in the election in the same manner as an individual
who presents identification--
``(A) in the case of an individual who desires to vote in
person, by presenting the appropriate State or local election
official with a sworn written statement, signed by the
individual under penalty of perjury, attesting to the
individual's identity and attesting that the individual is
eligible to vote in the election; and
``(B) in the case of an individual who desires to vote by
mail, by submitting with the ballot the statement described
in subparagraph (A).
``(5) Changes to multilingual voting materials.--Any change
that reduces multilingual voting materials or alters the
manner in which such materials are provided or distributed,
where no similar reduction or alteration occurs in materials
provided in English for such election.
``(6) Changes that reduce, consolidate, or relocate voting
locations, or reduce voting opportunities.--Any change that
reduces, consolidates, or relocates voting locations,
including early, absentee, and election-day voting locations,
or reduces days or hours of in-person voting on any Sunday
during a period occurring prior to the date of an election
during which voters may cast ballots in such election, or
prohibits the provision of food or non-alcoholic drink to
persons waiting to vote in an election except where the
provision would violate prohibitions on expenditures to
influence voting--
``(A) in one or more census tracts wherein two or more
language minority groups or racial groups each represent 20
percent or more of the voting-age population of the political
subdivision; or
``(B) on Indian lands wherein at least 20 percent of the
voting-age population belongs to a single language minority
group.
[[Page H4388]]
``(7) New list maintenance process.--Any change to the
maintenance of voter registration lists that adds a new basis
for removal from the list of active registered voters or that
incorporates new sources of information in determining a
voter's eligibility to vote, wherein such a change would have
a statistically significant disparate impact on the removal
from voter rolls of members of racial groups or language
minority groups that constitute greater than 5 percent of the
voting-age population--
``(A) in the case of a political subdivision imposing such
change if--
``(i) two or more racial groups or language minority groups
each represent 20 percent or more of the voting-age
population of the political subdivision; or
``(ii) a single language minority group represents 20
percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands
located in whole or in part in the political subdivision; or
``(B) in the case of a State imposing such change, if two
or more racial groups or language minority groups each
represent 20 percent or more of the voting-age population
of--
``(i) the State; or
``(ii) a political subdivision in the State, except that
the requirements under subsections (a) and (c) shall apply
only with respect to each such political subdivision.
``(c) Preclearance.--
``(1) In general.--Whenever a State or political
subdivision with respect to which the requirements set forth
in subsection (a) are in effect shall enact, adopt, or seek
to implement any covered practice described under subsection
(b), such State or subdivision may institute an action in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia for
a declaratory judgment that such covered practice neither has
the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging
the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in
a language minority group, and unless and until the court
enters such judgment such covered practice shall not be
implemented. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, such
covered practice may be implemented without such proceeding
if the covered practice has been submitted by the chief legal
officer or other appropriate official of such State or
subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General
has not interposed an objection within 60 days after such
submission, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an
expedited approval within 60 days after such submission, the
Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such
objection will not be made. Neither an affirmative indication
by the Attorney General that no objection will be made, nor
the Attorney General's failure to object, nor a declaratory
judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent
action to enjoin implementation of such covered practice. In
the event the Attorney General affirmatively indicates that
no objection will be made within the 60-day period following
receipt of a submission, the Attorney General may reserve the
right to reexamine the submission if additional information
comes to the Attorney General's attention during the
remainder of the 60-day period which would otherwise require
objection in accordance with this section. Any action under
this section shall be heard and determined by a court of
three judges in accordance with the provisions of section
2284 of title 28, United States Code, and any appeal shall
lie to the Supreme Court.
``(2) Denying or abridging the right to vote.--Any covered
practice described in subsection (b) that has the purpose of
or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any
citizens of the United States on account of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group, to elect their
preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right
to vote within the meaning of paragraph (1) of this
subsection.
``(3) Purpose defined.--The term `purpose' in paragraphs
(1) and (2) of this subsection shall include any
discriminatory purpose.
``(4) Purpose of paragraph (2).--The purpose of paragraph
(2) of this subsection is to protect the ability of such
citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice.
``(d) Enforcement.--The Attorney General or any aggrieved
citizen may file an action in a Federal district court to
compel any State or political subdivision to satisfy the
obligations set forth in this section. Such actions shall be
heard and determined by a court of three judges under section
2284 of title 28, United States Code. In any such action, the
court shall provide as a remedy that any voting qualification
or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or
procedure with respect to voting, that is the subject of the
action under this subsection be enjoined unless the court
determines that--
``(1) the voting qualification or prerequisite to voting,
or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting,
is not a covered practice described in subsection (b); or
``(2) the State or political subdivision has complied with
subsection (c) with respect to the covered practice at issue.
``(e) Counting of Racial Groups and Language Minority
Groups.--For purposes of this section, the calculation of the
population of a racial group or a language minority group
shall be carried out using the methodology in the guidance
promulgated in the Federal Register on February 9, 2011 (76
Fed. Reg. 7470).
``(f) Special Rule.--For purposes of determinations under
this section, any data provided by the Bureau of the Census,
whether based on estimation from sample or actual
enumeration, shall not be subject to challenge or review in
any court.
``(g) Multilingual Voting Materials.--In this section, the
term `multilingual voting materials' means registration or
voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other
materials or information relating to the electoral process,
including ballots, provided in the language or languages of
one or more language minority groups.''.
SEC. 7. PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY TO ENFORCE THE VOTING RIGHTS
ACT.
(a) Transparency.--
(1) In general.--The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C.
10301 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 5 the
following new section:
``SEC. 6. TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CHANGES TO PROTECT VOTING
RIGHTS.
``(a) Notice of Enacted Changes.--
``(1) Notice of changes.--If a State or political
subdivision makes any change in any qualification or
prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure
with respect to voting in any election for Federal office
that will result in the qualification or prerequisite,
standard, practice, or procedure being different from that
which was in effect as of 180 days before the date of the
election for Federal office, the State or political
subdivision shall provide reasonable public notice in such
State or political subdivision and on the website of the
State or political subdivision, of a concise description of
the change, including the difference between the changed
qualification or prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure and the prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure which was previously in effect. The public notice
described in this paragraph, in such State or political
subdivision and on the website of a State or political
subdivision, shall be in a format that is reasonably
convenient and accessible to persons with disabilities who
are eligible to vote, including persons who have low vision
or are blind.
``(2) Deadline for notice.--A State or political
subdivision shall provide the public notice required under
paragraph (1) not later than 48 hours after making the change
involved.
``(b) Transparency Regarding Polling Place Resources.--
``(1) In general.--In order to identify any changes that
may impact the right to vote of any person, prior to the 30th
day before the date of an election for Federal office, each
State or political subdivision with responsibility for
allocating registered voters, voting machines, and official
poll workers to particular precincts and polling places shall
provide reasonable public notice in such State or political
subdivision and on the website of a State or political
subdivision, of the information described in paragraph (2)
for precincts and polling places within such State or
political subdivision. The public notice described in this
paragraph, in such State or political subdivision and on the
website of a State or political subdivision, shall be in a
format that is reasonably convenient and accessible to
persons with disabilities who are eligible to vote, including
persons who have low vision or are blind.
``(2) Information described.--The information described in
this paragraph with respect to a precinct or polling place is
each of the following:
``(A) The name or number.
``(B) In the case of a polling place, the location,
including the street address, and whether such polling place
is accessible to persons with disabilities.
``(C) The voting-age population of the area served by the
precinct or polling place, broken down by demographic group
if such breakdown is reasonably available to such State or
political subdivision.
``(D) The number of registered voters assigned to the
precinct or polling place, broken down by demographic group
if such breakdown is reasonably available to such State or
political subdivision.
``(E) The number of voting machines assigned, including the
number of voting machines accessible to persons with
disabilities who are eligible to vote, including persons who
have low vision or are blind.
``(F) The number of official paid poll workers assigned.
``(G) The number of official volunteer poll workers
assigned.
``(H) In the case of a polling place, the dates and hours
of operation.
``(3) Updates in information reported.--If a State or
political subdivision makes any change in any of the
information described in paragraph (2), the State or
political subdivision shall provide reasonable public notice
in such State or political subdivision and on the website of
a State or political subdivision, of the change in the
information not later than 48 hours after the change occurs
or, if the change occurs fewer than 48 hours before the date
of the election for Federal office, as soon as practicable
after the change occurs. The public notice described in this
paragraph and published on the website of a State or
political subdivision shall be in a format that is reasonably
convenient and accessible to persons with disabilities who
are eligible to vote, including persons who have low vision
or are blind.
``(c) Transparency of Changes Relating to Demographics and
Electoral Districts.--
``(1) Requiring public notice of changes.--Not later than
10 days after making any change in the constituency that will
participate in an election for Federal, State, or local
office or the boundaries of a voting unit or electoral
district in an election for Federal, State, or local office
(including through redistricting, reapportionment, changing
from at-large elections to district-based elections, or
changing from district-based elections to at-large
elections), a State or political subdivision shall provide
reasonable public notice in such State or political
subdivision and on the website of a State or political
subdivision, of the demographic and electoral data described
in paragraph (3) for each of the geographic areas described
in paragraph (2).
``(2) Geographic areas described.--The geographic areas
described in this paragraph are as follows:
``(A) The State as a whole, if the change applies
statewide, or the political subdivision as a
[[Page H4389]]
whole, if the change applies across the entire political
subdivision.
``(B) If the change includes a plan to replace or eliminate
voting units or electoral districts, each voting unit or
electoral district that will be replaced or eliminated.
``(C) If the change includes a plan to establish new voting
units or electoral districts, each such new voting unit or
electoral district.
``(3) Demographic and electoral data.--The demographic and
electoral data described in this paragraph with respect to a
geographic area described in paragraph (2) are each of the
following:
``(A) The voting-age population, broken down by demographic
group.
``(B) If it is reasonably available to the State or
political subdivision involved, an estimate of the population
of the area which consists of citizens of the United States
who are 18 years of age or older, broken down by demographic
group.
``(C) The number of registered voters, broken down by
demographic group if such breakdown is reasonably available
to the State or political subdivision involved.
``(D)(i) If the change applies to a State, the actual
number of votes, or (if it is not reasonably practicable for
the State to ascertain the actual number of votes) the
estimated number of votes received by each candidate in each
statewide election held during the 5-year period which ends
on the date the change involved is made; and
``(ii) if the change applies to only one political
subdivision, the actual number of votes, or (if it is not
reasonably practicable for the political subdivision to
ascertain the actual number of votes) in each subdivision-
wide election held during the 5-year period which ends on the
date the change involved is made.
``(4) Voluntary compliance by smaller jurisdictions.--
Compliance with this subsection shall be voluntary for a
political subdivision of a State unless the subdivision is
one of the following:
``(A) A county or parish.
``(B) A municipality with a population greater than 10,000,
as determined by the Bureau of the Census under the most
recent decennial census.
``(C) A school district with a population greater than
10,000, as determined by the Bureau of the Census under the
most recent decennial census. For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `school district' means the geographic
area under the jurisdiction of a local educational agency (as
defined in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965).
``(d) Rules Regarding Format of Information.--The Attorney
General may issue rules specifying a reasonably convenient
and accessible format that States and political subdivisions
shall use to provide public notice of information under this
section.
``(e) No Denial of Right To Vote.--The right to vote of any
person shall not be denied or abridged because the person
failed to comply with any change made by a State or political
subdivision to a voting qualification, prerequisite,
standard, practice, or procedure if the State or political
subdivision involved did not meet the applicable requirements
of this section with respect to the change.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `demographic group' means each group which
section 2 protects from the denial or abridgement of the
right to vote on account of race or color, or in
contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2);
``(2) the term `election for Federal office' means any
general, special, primary, or runoff election held solely or
in part for the purpose of electing any candidate for the
office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector,
Senator, Member of the House of Representatives, or Delegate
or Resident Commissioner to the Congress; and
``(3) the term `persons with disabilities', means
individuals with a disability, as defined in section 3 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 3(a) of such Act (52
U.S.C. 10302(a)) is amended by striking ``in accordance with
section 6''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection
(a)(1) shall apply with respect to changes which are made on
or after the expiration of the 60-day period which begins on
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 8. AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN OBSERVERS.
(a) Clarification of Authority in Political Subdivisions
Subject to Preclearance.--Section 8(a)(2)(B) of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10305(a)(2)(B)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(B) in the Attorney General's judgment, the assignment of
observers is otherwise necessary to enforce the guarantees of
the 14th or 15th Amendment or any provision of this Act or
any other Federal law protecting the right of citizens of the
United States to vote; or''.
(b) Assignment of Observers To Enforce Bilingual Election
Requirements.--Section 8(a) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 10305(a))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) the Attorney General certifies with respect to a
political subdivision that--
``(A) the Attorney General has received written meritorious
complaints from residents, elected officials, or civic
participation organizations that efforts to violate section
203 are likely to occur; or
``(B) in the Attorney General's judgment, the assignment of
observers is necessary to enforce the guarantees of section
203;''; and
(3) by moving the margin for the continuation text
following paragraph (3), as added by paragraph (2) of this
subsection, 2 ems to the left.
(c) Transferral of Authority Over Observers to the Attorney
General.--
(1) Enforcement proceedings.--Section 3(a) of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10302(a)) is amended by
striking ``United States Civil Service Commission in
accordance with section 6'' and inserting ``Attorney General
in accordance with section 8''.
(2) Observers; appointment and compensation.--Section 8 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10305) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(2), in the matter following
subparagraph (B), by striking ``Director of the Office of
Personnel Management shall assign as many observers for such
subdivision as the Director'' and inserting ``Attorney
General shall assign as many observers for such subdivision
as the Attorney General''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``Director of the Office
of Personnel Management'' and inserting ``Attorney General''.
(3) Termination of certain appointments of observers.--
Section 13(a)(1) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C.
10309(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``notifies the Director
of the Office of Personnel Management,'' and inserting
``determines,''.
SEC. 9. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO SEEK RELIEF.
(a) Poll Tax.--Section 10(b) of the Voting Rights Act of
1965 (52 U.S.C. 10306(b)) is amended by striking ``the
Attorney General is authorized and directed to institute
forthwith in the name of the United States such actions'' and
inserting ``an aggrieved person or (in the name of the United
States) the Attorney General may institute such actions''.
(b) Cause of Action.--Section 12(d) of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10308(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Whenever any person has engaged'' and all
that follows through ``in the name of the United States'' and
inserting ``(1) Whenever there are reasonable grounds to
believe that any person has implemented or will implement any
voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard,
practice, or procedure that would (A) deny any citizen the
right to vote in violation of the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, or
26th Amendments, or (B) would violate this Act (except for
section 4A) or any other Federal law that prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in
a language minority group in the voting process, an aggrieved
person or (in the name of the United States) the Attorney
General may institute''; and
(2) by striking ``, and including an order directed to the
State and State or local election officials to require them
(1) to permit persons listed under chapters 103 to 107 of
this title to vote and (2) to count such votes''.
(c) Judicial Relief.--Section 204 of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10504) is amended by striking ``Whenever
the Attorney General has reason to believe'' and all that
follows through ``as he deems appropriate'' and inserting
``Whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that a
State or political subdivision has engaged or is about to
engage in any act or practice prohibited by a provision of
title II, an aggrieved person or (in the name of the United
States) the Attorney General may institute an action in a
district court of the United States, for a restraining order,
a preliminary or permanent injunction, or such other order as
may be appropriate''.
(d) Enforcement of Twenty-Sixth Amendment.--Section
301(a)(1) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10701)
is amended by striking ``The Attorney General is directed to
institute'' and all that follows through ``Constitution of
the United States'' and inserting ``An aggrieved person or
(in the name of the United States) the Attorney General may
institute an action in a district court of the United States,
for a restraining order, a preliminary or permanent
injunction, or such other order as may be appropriate to
implement the twenty-sixth amendment to the Constitution of
the United States''.
SEC. 10. PREVENTIVE RELIEF.
Section 12(d) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C.
10308(d)), as amended by section 9, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(2)(A) In considering any motion for preliminary relief
in any action for preventive relief described in this
subsection, the court shall grant the relief if the court
determines that the complainant has raised a serious question
as to whether the challenged voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure
violates this Act or the Constitution and, on balance, the
hardship imposed on the defendant by the grant of the relief
will be less than the hardship which would be imposed on the
plaintiff if the relief were not granted.
``(B) In making its determination under this paragraph with
respect to a change in any voting qualification, prerequisite
to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect
to voting, the court shall consider all relevant factors and
give due weight to the following factors, if they are
present:
``(i) Whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard,
practice, or procedure in effect prior to the change was
adopted as a remedy for a Federal court judgment, consent
decree, or admission regarding--
``(I) discrimination on the basis of race or color in
violation of the 14th or 15th Amendment;
``(II) a violation of the 19th, 24th, or 26th Amendments;
``(III) a violation of this Act; or
``(IV) voting discrimination on the basis of race, color,
or membership in a language minority group in violation of
any other Federal or State law.
``(ii) Whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard,
practice, or procedure in effect prior
[[Page H4390]]
to the change served as a ground for the dismissal or
settlement of a claim alleging--
``(I) discrimination on the basis of race or color in
violation of the 14th or 15th Amendment;
``(II) a violation of the 19th, 24th, or 26th Amendment;
``(III) a violation of this Act; or
``(IV) voting discrimination on the basis of race, color,
or membership in a language minority group in violation of
any other Federal or State law.
``(iii) Whether the change was adopted fewer than 180 days
before the date of the election with respect to which the
change is to take or takes effect.
``(iv) Whether the defendant has failed to provide timely
or complete notice of the adoption of the change as required
by applicable Federal or State law.
``(3) A jurisdiction's inability to enforce its voting or
election laws, regulations, policies, or redistricting plans,
standing alone, shall not be deemed to constitute irreparable
harm to the public interest or to the interests of a
defendant in an action arising under the Constitution or any
Federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of
race, color, or membership in a language minority group in
the voting process, for the purposes of determining whether a
stay of a court's order or an interlocutory appeal under
section 1253 of title 28, United States Code, is
warranted.''.
SEC. 11. RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF VOTING RIGHTS LAWS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Relief for violations of voting rights laws.--In this
section, the term ``prohibited act or practice'' means--
(A) any act or practice--
(i) that creates an undue burden on the fundamental right
to vote in violation of the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States or violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States; or
(ii) that is prohibited by the 15th, 19th, 24th, or 26th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, section
2004 of the Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 10101), the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.), the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.), the
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (52
U.S.C. 20301 et seq.), the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52
U.S.C. 20901 et seq.), the Voting Accessibility for the
Elderly and Handicapped Act (52 U.S.C. 20101 et seq.), or
section 2003 of the Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 10102); and
(B) any act or practice in violation of any Federal law
that prohibits discrimination with respect to voting,
including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to diminish the authority or scope of authority of
any person to bring an action under any Federal law.
(3) Attorney's fees.--Section 722(b) of the Revised
Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by inserting ``a
provision described in section 2(a) of the John R. Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021,'' after ``title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964,''.
(b) Grounds for Equitable Relief.--In any action for
equitable relief pursuant to a law listed under subsection
(a), proximity of the action to an election shall not be a
valid reason to deny such relief, or stay the operation of or
vacate the issuance of such relief, unless the party opposing
the issuance or continued operation of relief meets the
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the
issuance of the relief would be so close in time to the
election as to cause irreparable harm to the public interest
or that compliance with such relief would impose serious
burdens on the party opposing relief.
(1) In general.--In considering whether to grant, deny,
stay, or vacate any order of equitable relief, the court
shall give substantial weight to the public's interest in
expanding access to the right to vote. A State's generalized
interest in enforcing its enacted laws shall not be a
relevant consideration in determining whether equitable
relief is warranted.
(2) Presumptive safe harbor.--Where equitable relief is
sought either within 30 days of the adoption or reasonable
public notice of the challenged policy or practice, or more
than 45 days before the date of an election to which the
relief being sought will apply, proximity to the election
will be presumed not to constitute a harm to the public
interest or a burden on the party opposing relief.
(c) Grounds for Stay or Vacatur in Federal Claims Involving
Voting Rights.--
(1) Prospective effect.--In reviewing an application for a
stay or vacatur of equitable relief granted pursuant to a law
listed in subsection (a), a court shall give substantial
weight to the reliance interests of citizens who acted
pursuant to such order under review. In fashioning a stay or
vacatur, a reviewing court shall not order relief that has
the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote of any
citizen who has acted in reliance on the order.
(2) Written explanation.--No stay or vacatur under this
subsection shall issue unless the reviewing court makes
specific findings that the public interest, including the
public's interest in expanding access to the ballot, will be
harmed by the continuing operation of the equitable relief or
that compliance with such relief will impose serious burdens
on the party seeking such a stay or vacatur such that those
burdens substantially outweigh the benefits to the public
interest. In reviewing an application for a stay or vacatur
of equitable relief, findings of fact made in issuing the
order under review shall not be set aside unless clearly
erroneous.
SEC. 12. ENFORCEMENT OF VOTING RIGHTS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Section 12 of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. 10308), as
amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(g) Voting Rights Enforcement by Attorney General.--
``(1) In general.--In order to fulfill the Attorney
General's responsibility to enforce the Voting Rights Act and
other Federal civil rights statutes that protect the right to
vote, the Attorney General (or upon designation by the
Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights) is authorized, before commencing a civil action, to
issue a demand for inspection and information in writing to
any State or political subdivision, or other governmental
representative or agent, with respect to any relevant
documentary material that he has reason to believe is within
their possession, custody, or control. A demand by the
Attorney General under this section may require--
``(A) the production of such documentary material for
inspection and copying;
``(B) answers in writing to written questions with respect
to such documentary material; or
``(C) both.
``(2) Contents of an attorney general demand.--
``(A) In general.--Any demand issued under paragraph (1),
shall include a sworn certificate to identify the voting
qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard,
practice, or procedure with respect to voting, or other
voting related matter or issue, whose lawfulness the Attorney
General is investigating and to identify the civil provisions
of the Federal civil rights statute that protects the right
to vote under which the investigation is being conducted. The
demand shall be reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of documentary material and information relevant to
such civil rights investigation. Documentary material
includes any material upon which relevant information is
recorded, and includes written or printed materials,
photographs, tapes, or materials upon which information is
electronically or magnetically recorded. Such demands are
aimed at the Attorney General having the ability to inspect
and obtain copies of relevant materials (as well as obtain
information) related to voting and are not aimed at the
Attorney General taking possession of original records,
particularly those that are required to be retained by State
and local election officials under Federal or State law.
``(B) No requirement for production.--Any demand issued
under paragraph (1) may not require the production of any
documentary material or the submission of any answers in
writing to written questions if such material or answers
would be protected from disclosure under the standards
applicable to discovery requests under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure in an action in which the Attorney General or
the United States is a party.
``(C) Documentary material.--If the demand issued under
paragraph (1) requires the production of documentary
material, it shall--
``(i) identify the class of documentary material to be
produced with such definiteness and certainty as to permit
such material to be fairly identified; and
``(ii) prescribe a return date for production of the
documentary material at least twenty days after issuance of
the demand to give the State or political subdivision, or
other governmental representative or agent, a reasonable
period of time for assembling the documentary material and
making it available for inspection and copying.
``(D) Answers to written questions.--If the demand issued
under paragraph (1) requires answers in writing to written
questions, it shall--
``(i) set forth with specificity the written question to be
answered; and
``(ii) prescribe a date at least twenty days after the
issuance of the demand for submitting answers in writing to
the written questions.
``(E) Service.--A demand issued under paragraph (1) may be
served by a United States marshal or a deputy marshal, or by
certified mail, at any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of any court of the United States.
``(3) Responses to an attorney general demand.--A State or
political subdivision, or other governmental representative
or agent, must, with respect to any documentary material or
any answer in writing produced under this subsection, provide
a sworn certificate, in such form as the demand issued under
paragraph (1) designates, by a person having knowledge of the
facts and circumstances relating to such production or
written answer, authorized to act on behalf of the State or
political subdivision, or other governmental representative
or agent, upon which the demand was served. The certificate--
``(A) shall state that--
``(i) all of the documentary material required by the
demand and in the possession, custody, or control of the
State or political subdivision, or other governmental
representative or agent, has been produced;
``(ii) that with respect to every answer in writing to a
written question, all information required by the question
and in the possession, custody, control, or knowledge of the
State or political subdivision, or other governmental
representative or agent, has been submitted; or
``(iii) both; or
``(B) provide the basis for any objection to producing the
documentary material or answering the written question.
To the extent that any information is not furnished, the
information shall be identified and reasons set forth with
particularity regarding the reasons why the information was
not furnished.
``(4) Judicial proceedings.--
``(A) Petition for enforcement.--Whenever any State or
political subdivision, or other governmental representative
or agent, fails to comply with demand issued by the Attorney
General under paragraph (1), the Attorney General may file,
in a district court of the United States in
[[Page H4391]]
which the State or political subdivision, or other
governmental representative or agent, is located, a petition
for a judicial order enforcing the Attorney General demand
issued under paragraph (1).
``(B) Petition to modify.--
``(i) In general.--Any State or political subdivision, or
other governmental representative or agent, that is served
with a demand issued by the Attorney General under paragraph
(1) may file in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia a petition for an order of the court to
modify or set aside the demand of the Attorney General.
``(ii) Petition to modify.--Any petition to modify or set
aside a demand of the Attorney General issued under paragraph
(1) must be filed within 20 days after the date of service of
the Attorney General's demand or at any time before the
return date specified in the Attorney General's demand,
whichever date is earlier.
``(iii) Contents of petition.--The petition shall specify
each ground upon which the petitioner relies in seeking
relief under clause (i), and may be based upon any failure of
the Attorney General's demand to comply with the provisions
of this section or upon any constitutional or other legal
right or privilege of the State or political subdivision, or
other governmental representative or agent. During the
pendency of the petition in the court, the court may stay, as
it deems proper, the running of the time allowed for
compliance with the Attorney General's demand, in whole or in
part, except that the State or political subdivision, or
other governmental representative or agent, filing the
petition shall comply with any portions of the Attorney
General's demand not sought to be modified or set aside.''.
SEC. 13. DEFINITIONS.
Title I of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 21. DEFINITIONS.
``In this Act:
``(1) Indian.--The term `Indian' has the meaning given the
term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act.
``(2) Indian lands.--The term `Indian lands' means--
``(A) any Indian country of an Indian tribe, as such term
is defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code;
``(B) any land in Alaska that is owned, pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, by an Indian tribe that
is a Native village (as such term is defined in section 3 of
such Act), or by a Village Corporation that is associated
with the Indian tribe (as such term is defined in section 3
of such Act);
``(C) any land on which the seat of government of the
Indian tribe is located; and
``(D) any land that is part or all of a tribal designated
statistical area associated with the Indian tribe, or is part
or all of an Alaska Native village statistical area
associated with the tribe, as defined by the Bureau of the
Census for the purposes of the most recent decennial census.
``(3) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' or `tribe' has
the meaning given the term `Indian tribe' in section 4 of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
``(4) Tribal government.--The term `Tribal Government'
means the recognized governing body of an Indian Tribe.
``(5) Voting-age population.--The term `voting-age
population' means the numerical size of the population within
a State, within a political subdivision, or within a
political subdivision that contains Indian lands, as the case
may be, that consists of persons age 18 or older, as
calculated by the Bureau of the Census under the most recent
decennial census.''.
SEC. 14. ATTORNEYS' FEES.
Section 14(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C.
10310(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) The term `prevailing party' means a party to an
action that receives at least some of the benefit sought by
such action, states a colorable claim, and can establish that
the action was a significant cause of a change to the status
quo.''.
SEC. 15. OTHER TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Actions Covered Under Section 3.--Section 3(c) of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10302(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``any proceeding instituted by the Attorney
General or an aggrieved person under any statute to enforce''
and inserting ``any action under any statute in which a party
(including the Attorney General) seeks to enforce''; and
(2) by striking ``at the time the proceeding was
commenced'' and inserting ``at the time the action was
commenced''.
(b) Clarification of Treatment of Members of Language
Minority Groups.--Section 4(f) of such Act (52 U.S.C.
10303(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking the second sentence; and
(2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).
(c) Period During Which Changes in Voting Practices Are
Subject to Preclearance Under Section 5.--Section 5 of such
Act (52 U.S.C. 10304) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``based upon
determinations made under the first sentence of section 4(b)
are in effect'' and inserting ``are in effect during a
calendar year'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``November 1, 1964'' and
all that follows through ``November 1, 1972'' and inserting
``the applicable date of coverage''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) The term `applicable date of coverage' means, with
respect to a State or political subdivision--
``(1) June 25, 2013, if the most recent determination for
such State or subdivision under section 4(b) was made on or
before December 31, 2021; or
``(2) the date on which the most recent determination for
such State or subdivision under section 4(b) was made, if
such determination was made after December 31, 2021.''.
SEC. 16. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this
Act, or the application of such a provision or amendment to
any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional or
is otherwise enjoined or unenforceable, the remainder of this
Act and amendments made by this Act, and the application of
the provisions and amendment to any person or circumstance,
and any remaining provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
shall not be affected by the holding.
SEC. 17. GRANTS TO ASSIST WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants
each fiscal year to small jurisdictions who submit
applications under subsection (b) for purposes of assisting
such small jurisdictions with compliance with the
requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to submit or
publish notice of any change to a qualification,
prerequisite, standard, practice or procedure affecting
voting.
(b) Application.--To be eligible for a grant under this
section, a small jurisdiction shall submit an application to
the Attorney General in such form and containing such
information as the Attorney General may require regarding the
compliance of such small jurisdiction with the provisions of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
(c) Small Jurisdiction Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``small jurisdiction'' means any political
subdivision of a State with a population of 10,000 or less.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
{time} 1615
General Leave
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement
Act of 2021, would revitalize and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of
1965 to confront the onslaught of discriminatory voting laws and
practices that have emerged in recent years across the country.
In 2013, the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, gutted the
Voting Rights Act's most important enforcement mechanism, the Section 5
preclearance regime, which required jurisdictions with a history of
discrimination against racial and ethnic minority voters to seek
approval of any changes to their voting laws before they could go into
effect.
Almost immediately after the decision, many of these jurisdictions
unleashed a raft of voter suppression measures, knowing that these laws
now could only be challenged after the fact and only through a costly
and time-consuming process that made such challenges unlikely and when
people's votes had already been improperly invalidated.
When the Court struck down the coverage formula that determined which
jurisdictions were subject to preclearance, it explicitly invited
Congress to devise a new formula to meet the current need to remedy
voting discrimination.
H.R. 4 answers that call.
This legislation would create a new geographic coverage formula that
is fine-tuned to capture only those places with longstanding and
persistent discrimination. At the same time, it targets only recent
discrimination and does not leave jurisdictions frozen in time.
The bill also requires preclearance of certain practices that are
historically associated with voting discrimination; it responds to the
recent Supreme Court decision in Brnovich v. DNC, which severely
limited enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and it
provides other important tools to strengthen enforcement of the VRA.
H.R. 4 rests on a substantial record that documents the myriad ways
that
[[Page H4392]]
the right to vote, the most fundamental right in a democracy, remains
under threat for too many Americans.
I want to thank Terri Sewell for introducing this bill, Steve Cohen
for the 13 hearings he held on voting rights in the Constitution
Subcommittee, as well as our colleagues on the Subcommittee on
Elections and the Committee on House Administration for their work.
I urge all Members to join me in honoring the legacy of our beloved
colleague, the late John Lewis, who shed his blood to secure passage of
the Voting Rights Act, by supporting this vital legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), the ranking member of the House
Administration Committee.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, recently, another friend
of ours and our colleague, Congressman Burgess Owens, who grew up in
the Jim Crow South, testified before my committee, and I want to
highlight two very important points he made: Not only is our country
not facing a new era of Jim Crow voting laws, as many of my Democrat
colleagues have falsely claimed, but it is incredibly offensive to lie
to the American people to further a political agenda.
Our country has come a long way since the Jim Crow era, and it is in
part because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
More Americans voted in the last two elections than in any midterm or
Presidential election in our Nation's history. This includes historic
turnouts among African Americans and other minority voters.
We should celebrate this progress, not ignore it.
Using Georgia as an example, since my friends on the other side of
the aisle were so quick to condemn new election integrity laws in this
State; in Georgia, which was once covered under the VRA's preclearance
formula, African-American turnout in the last election was 64 percent,
compared to 27 percent in 1965. And an amazing 95 percent of the total
eligible voting-age population in Georgia is registered to vote.
That is incredible. It is easier to vote in Georgia than it is in
Democrat-run States like New York and Delaware and even others.
Democrats on the Committee on House Administration held hearing after
hearing on election issues where they produced zero evidence of voter
suppression, likely due to the fact that voter discrimination and
suppression remain against the law in this country.
Yet, the bill before us goes far beyond the original VRA and would
subject every State to preclearance, an extraordinary measure
established in 1965 to prevent Democratic-led Southern States, with a
history of discrimination, from intimidating and preventing African
Americans from voting.
If you vote for this legislation, you are voting for a Federal
takeover of elections; you are removing the people elected at the State
and local level to run elections from making decisions about how
elections are run, including voter ID laws, and putting an
unaccountable, unelected election czar at the DOJ, the Attorney
General, in charge of all election decisions in this country.
Members of this body and the American people should be asking the
simple question: If it is easier to vote today than at any time in our
history and more Americans are voting than ever before, then why are
Democrats going to such extreme measures to ensure a Federal takeover
of elections?
I hope my colleagues and the American people will see this bill for
what it is, a partisan power grab which circumvents the people to
ensure a one-party rule.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a report I released as ranking
member of the House Administration Committee earlier this month titled
``The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional Authority Over
Elections.''
[From Representative Rodney Davis (IL-13), Ranking Member, House of
Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Aug. 12, 2021]
Report--The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional Authority
Over Elections
Executive Summary
Republicans believe that every eligible voter who wants to
vote must be able to do so, and all lawful votes must be
counted according to state law. Through an examination of
history, precedent, the Framers' words, debates concerning
ratification, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution itself,
this document explains the constitutional division of power
envisioned by the Framers between the States and the federal
government with respect to election administration. Article
1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States
have the primary authority over election administration, the
``times, places, and manner of holding elections''.
Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely
secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the
extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate
refusal to pass election laws. As do other aspects of our
federal system, this division of sovereignty continues to
serve to protect one of Americans' most precious freedoms,
the right to vote.
The Constitution reserves to the States the primary
authority to set election legislation and administer
elections--the ``times, places, and manner of holding of
elections''--and Congress' power in this space is purely
secondary to the States' power. Congress' power is to be
employed only in the direst of circumstances. Despite
Democrats' insistence that Congress' power over elections is
unfettered and permits Congress to enact sweeping legislation
like H.R. 1, it is simply not true. History, precedent, the
Framers' words, debates concerning ratification, the Supreme
Court, and the Constitution itself make this exceedingly
clear.
The Framing Generation grappled with the failure of the
Articles of Confederation, which provided for only a weak
national government incapable of preserving the Union. Under
the Articles, the States had exclusive authority over federal
elections held within their territory; but, given the
difficulties the national government had experienced with
State cooperation (e.g., the failure of Rhode Island to send
delegates to the Confederation Congress), the Federalists,
including Alexander Hamilton, were concerned with the
possibility that the States, in an effort to destroy the
federal government, simply might not hold elections or that
an emergency, such as an invasion or insurrection, might
prevent the operation of a State's government, leaving the
Congress without Members and the federal government unable to
respond. Indeed, as counsel for the Democrat Members of our
Committee so keenly observed:
For the Founders, particularly during the Federal
Constitutional Convention, the primary concern was informing
the discussions of federal elections in Article I was the
risk of uncooperative states. For example, Alexander Hamilton
noted that by providing states the authority to run
congressional elections, under Article I, Section 4,
``risk[ed] `leaving the existence of the Union entirely at
their mercy.' '' Following the failings of the Articles of
Confederation, the Founders looked for processes that would
insulate Congress from recalcitrant states. Indeed, ``[t]he
dominant purpose of the Elections Clause, the historical
record bears out, was to empower Congress to override state
election rules, not to restrict the way States enact
legislation[,]'' and that ``the Clause `was the Framers'
insurance against the possibility that a State would refuse
to provide for the election of representatives to the Federal
Congress.' ''
Quite plainly, Alexander Hamilton, a leading Federalist and
proponent of our Constitution, understood the Elections
Clause as serving only as a sort of emergency fail-safe, not
as a cudgel used to nationalize our elections process.
Writing as Publius to the people of New York, Hamilton
further expounds on the correct understanding of the
Elections Clause: ``T[he] natural order of the subject leads
us to consider, in this place, that provision of the
Constitution which authorizes the national legislature to
regulate, in the last resort, the election of its own
members.''
When questioned at the States' constitutional ratifying
conventions with respect to this provision, the Federalists
confirmed this understanding of a constitutionally limited,
secondary congressional power under Article 1, Section 4:
Maryland: ``[C]onvention delegate James McHenry added that
the risk to the federal government [without a fail-safe
provision] might not arise from state malice: An insurrection
or rebellion might prevent a state legislature from
administering an election.''
N. Carolina: ``An occasion may arise when the exercise of
this ultimate power of Congress may be necessary . . . if a
state should be involved in war, and its legislature could
not assemble, (as was the case of South Carolina and
occasionally of some other states, during the [Revolutionary]
war).''
Pennsylvania: ``Sir, let it be remembered that this power
can only operate in a case of necessity, after the factious
or listless disposition of a particular state has rendered an
interference essential to the salvation of the general
government.''
John Jay made similar claims in New York. And, as
constitutional scholar Robert Natelson, notes in his
invaluable article, The Original Scope of the Congressional
Power to
[[Page H4393]]
Regulate Elections, Alexander Contee Hanson, a member of
Congress whose pamphlet supporting the Constitution proved
popular, stated flatly that Congress would exercise its
times, places, and manner authority only in cases of
invasion, legislative neglect or obstinate refusal to pass
election laws [providing for the election of Members of
Congress], or if a state crafted its election laws with a
`sinister purpose' or to injure the general government.''
Cementing his point, Hanson goes further to decree, ``The
exercise of this power must at all times be so very
invidious, that congress will not venture upon it without
some very cogent and substantial reason.'' In Floor debate
during the 117th Congress concerning H.R. 1, the Democrats'
intended nationalization of elections, Ranking Member Davis
argued, as he has many other times, that:
According to Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution,
States have the primary role in establishing ``[t]he Times,
Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives.'' Under the Constitution, Congress has a
purely secondary role in this space and must restrain itself
from acting improperly and unconstitutionally. Federal
election legislation should never be the first step and must
never impose burdensome, unfunded federal mandates on state
and local elections officials. When Congress does speak, it
must devote its efforts only to resolving highly significant
and substantial deficiencies. State legislatures are the
primary venues to correct most issues.
In fact, had the Democrats' view of the Elections Clause
been accepted at the time of the Constitution's drafting--
that is, that it offers Congress unfettered power over
federal elections--it is likely that the Constitution would
not have been ratified or that an amendment to this language
would have been required. Indeed, at least seven of the
original 13 states--over half and enough to prevent the
Constitution from being ratified--expressed specific concerns
with the language of the Elections Clause. However,
``[l]eading Federalists . . .'' assured them, ``. . . that,
even without amendment, the [Elections] Clause should be
construed as limited to emergencies.''
Three states, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island,
specifically made their ratification contingent on this
understanding being made express:
New York: ``Under these impressions and declaring that the
rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and the
Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said
Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which
have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive
early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the
Name and in [sic] the behalf of the People of the State of
New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said
Constitution. In full Confidence . . . that the Congress will
not make or alter any Regulation in this State respecting the
times places and manner of holding Elections for Senators or
Representatives unless the Legislature of this State shall
neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the
purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the
same, and that in those cases such power will only be
exercised until the Legislature of this State shall make
provision in the Premises[.]''
N. Carolina: ``That Congress shall not alter, modify, or
interfere in the times, places, or manner of holding
elections for senators and representatives, or either of
them, except when the legislature of any state shall neglect,
refuse or be disabled by invasion or rebellion, to prescribe
the same.''
Rhode Island: ``Under these impressions, and declaring,
that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and
that the explanations aforesaid, are consistent with the said
constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter
mentioned, will receive an early and mature consideration,
and conformably to the fifth article of said constitution,
speedily become a part thereof; We the said delegates, in the
name, and in [sic] the behalf of the People, of the State of
Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, do by these
Presents, assent to, and ratify the said Constitution. In
full confidence . . . That the Congress will not make or
alter any regulation in this State, respecting the times,
places and manner of holding elections for senators and
representatives, unless the legislature of this state shall
neglect, or refuse to make laws or regulations for the
purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the
same; and that [i]n those cases, such power will only be
exercised, until the legislature of this State shall make
provision in the Premises[.]
This clearly demonstrates that the Framers designed and the
ratifying States understood the Elections Clause to serve
solely as a protective backstop to ensure the preservation of
the Federal Government, not as a font of limitless power for
Congress to wrest control of federal elections from the
States.
This understanding was also reinforced by debate during the
first Congress that convened under the Constitution. ``During
the first session of the First Congress . . . Representative
Aedanus Burke unsuccessfully proposed a constitutional
amendment to limit the Times, Places and Manner Clause to
emergencies.'' But those on both sides of the Burke amendment
debate already understood the Elections Clause to limit
Federal elections power to emergencies.
For example, the recorded description of opponent
Representative Goodhue's comments notes that he believed the
Elections Clause as written was intended to prevent ``. . .
the State Governments [from] oppos[ing] and thwart[ing] the
general one to such a degree as finally to overturn it. Now,
to guard against this evil, he wished the Federal Government
to possess every power necessary to its existence.'' With any
change to the original text therefore unnecessary to achieve
Burke's desired goal, Mr. Goodhue voted against the proposed
amendment.
Similarly, proponent Representative Smith of South Carolina
also believed the original text of the Elections Clause
already limited the Federal Government's power over federal
elections to emergencies and so thought there would be no
harm in supporting an amendment to make that language
express. So, even the records of the First Congress reflect a
recognition of the emergency nature of congressional power
over federal elections.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has supported this
understanding. In Smiley v. Holm, the Court held that Article
1, Section 4 of the Constitution reserved to the States the
primary
``. . . authority to provide a complete code for
congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but
in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting,
protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt
practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and
canvassers, and making and publication of election returns;
in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure
and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order
to enforce the fundamental right involved. And these
requirements would be nugatory if they did not have
appropriate sanctions in the definition of offenses and
punishments. All this is comprised in the subject of ``times,
places and manner of holding elections,'' and involves
lawmaking in its essential features and most important
aspect.''
This holding, of course, is consistent with the
understanding of the Elections Clause since the framing of
the Constitution. The Smiley Court also held that while
Congress maintains the authority to ``. . . supplement these
state regulations or [to] substitute its own[ ]'', such
authority remains merely ``a general supervisory power over
the whole subject.'' More recently, the Court noted in
Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. that ``[t]his
grant of congressional power [that is, the fail-safe
provision in the Elections Clause] was the Framers' insurance
against the possibility that a State would refuse to provide
for the election of representatives to the Federal
Congress.'' The Court explained that the Elections Clause ``.
. . imposes [upon the States] the duty . . . to prescribe the
time, place, and manner of electing Representatives and
Senators[.]'' And, while, as the Court noted, ``[t]he power
of Congress over the `Times, Places and Manner' of
congressional elections `is paramount, and may be exercised
at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and
so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations
effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent
therewith[ ]'', the Inter-Tribal Court explained, quoting
extensively from The Federalist no. 59, that it was clear
that the congressional fail-safe included in the Elections
Clause was intended for the sorts of governmental self-
preservation discussed in this Report: ``[E]very government
ought to contain in itself the means of its own
preservation[.]''; ``[A]n exclusive power of regulating
elections for the national government, in the hands of the
State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union
entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate
it by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to
administer its affairs.''
Conclusion
It is clear in every respect that the congressional fail-
safe described in the Elections Clause vests purely secondary
authority over federal elections in the federal legislative
branch and that the primary authority rests with the States.
Congressional authority is intended to be, and as a matter of
constitutional fact is, limited to addressing the worst
imaginable issues, such as invasion or other matters that
might lead to a State not electing representatives to
constitute the two Houses of Congress.'' Our authority has
never extended to the day-to-day authority over the ``Times,
Places and Manner of Election'' that the Constitution clearly
reserves to the States. Unfortunately for Democrats, this
clear restriction on congressional authority means that we do
not have the power to implement the overwhelming majority--if
not the entirety--of their biggest legislative priority, H.R.
1 and related legislation, which would purport to nationalize
our elections and centralize their administration in
Washington, D.C. Thankfully, the Framers had the foresight to
write our Constitution so as to prevent those bad policies
from going into effect and preserve the health of our
republic.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Ms. Sewell), the chief sponsor of this legislation.
Ms. SEWELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in full support of H.R. 4,
the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote.
[[Page H4394]]
Nothing is more precious to my district, Alabama's 7th Congressional
District, the home of Birmingham, Montgomery, and my hometown of Selma,
Alabama, than the fight to protect the right to vote for all Americans.
It was in my district that ordinary Americans peacefully protested
for the equal right to vote for all Americans.
Nothing is more personal to me, nothing more represents America's
civil rights district than to be able to stand here, as so many of us
have, with John Lewis at the foot of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, as I
announced with glee that we have reintroduced H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act.
It was on that same bridge in Selma, Alabama, that a 26-year-old John
Lewis was bludgeoned by State troopers with billy clubs in the name of
justice.
Their efforts led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
the seminal piece of legislation in Congress to protect the right of
all Americans to vote.
Those protections were gutted in 2013 by the Supreme Court's decision
in Shelby v. Holder, and Section 2 was also affected by the most recent
decision in Brnovich.
Today, 8 years after Shelby, Congress is finally answering the
Supreme Court's call to action by passing H.R. 4.
H.R. 4 will create a new coverage formula to determine which States
have been the most egregious actors and subject them to preclearance
that is based on current evidence of voter discrimination.
Madam Speaker, old battles have indeed become new again. While
literacy tests and poll taxes no longer exist, certain States and local
jurisdictions have passed laws that are modern-day barriers to voting.
As long as voter suppression exists, the need for the full protections
of VRA will continue. We must fully restore the VRA.
Why? Because as John Lewis would say: When you hear something or see
something that is not right, that is not just, that is not fair, we
have a moral obligation to do something about it.
We, the Members of the House of Representatives, can today do
something about it. Let's pass H.R. 4. Let's do so not just in the name
of John Lewis; let's do so for the people, the American people. We must
secure the right to vote.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record 14 letters of support and
statements of support from all across this Nation, from civil rights
groups, from labor groups, from amazing folks who are fighting every
day on the front lines for the right to vote.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 4--John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021--Rep.
Sewell, D-AL, and 218 cosponsors
The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.
4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021
(VRAA).
The right to vote freely, the right to vote fairly, the
right to have your vote counted is fundamental. In the last
election, all told, more than 150 million Americans of every
age, of every race, of every background exercised their right
to vote.
This historic level of participation in the face of a once-
in-a-century pandemic should have been celebrated by
everyone. Instead, some have sought to delegitimize the
election and make it harder to vote, in many cases by
targeting the methods of voting that made it possible for
many voters to participate. These efforts violate the most
basic ideals of America.
Yet another massive wave of discriminatory action may be
imminent as we enter a new legislative redistricting cycle.
Unfortunately, incumbents too often cling to power by drawing
district lines to favor their own prospects at the expense of
minority communities, choosing their voters instead of the
other way around.
While anti-voter action undermines democracy for all
Americans, we know that communities of color often suffer the
worst effects of these measures--and all too often, that is
not by accident.
The sacred right to vote is under attack across the
country.
The VRAA will strengthen vital legal protections to ensure
that all Americans have a fair opportunity to participate in
our democracy. Among other things, it would create a new
framework for allowing DOJ to review voting changes in
jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to ensure that
they do not discriminate based on race. It would also clarify
the scope of legal tools designed to challenge discriminatory
voting laws in court, ensuring that the Voting Rights Act
offers protection against modern forms of voter suppression.
In an essay published shortly after he died, Congressman
John Lewis wrote, ``Democracy is not a state. It is an
act[.]'' This bill not only bears his name, it heeds his
call. The Administration looks forward to working with
Congress as the VRAA proceeds through the legislative process
to ensure that the bill achieves lasting reform consistent
with Congress' broad constitutional authority to protect
voting rights and to strengthen our democracy.
____
August 18, 2021.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Southern Poverty Law
Center Action Fund, we write to urge you to support H.R. 4,
the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, when the
House considers this essential legislation next week. When
enacted into law, this legislation will restore Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) and require states and
localities with recent histories of racial discrimination to
seek federal approval before implementing any voting changes;
would require any state or jurisdiction to seek federal
approval before implementing any voting practice known to
have racially discriminatory impact; and would strengthen
Section 2 of the VRA, which gives the Department of Justice
and voters the ability to challenge discriminatory voting
laws and practices.
Through our collaborative, intersectional work with
community partners around the Deep South, the SPLC has
witnessed first-hand continued efforts to suppress the vote
and undermine the democratic process--particularly for
communities of color--since the Supreme Court's Shelby County
v. Holder decision in 2013. Earlier this week, during an
oversight hearing held by the U.S. House of Representatives
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and
Civil Liberties on the need for federal voting rights
protection legislation, SPLC submitted a series of detailed
reports revealing current, consistent, and well-documented
racial discrimination in voting in Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi for the legislative record. The reports highlight
a range of recent and persistent efforts to make it more
difficult to vote, from reducing early voting to closing
polling places in majority-Black communities and banning
Sunday voting that has the effect--and often the intent--of
blocking Black voters and other voters of color from voting.
The United States claims to be the world's oldest democracy,
but from its founding to today it has never fully secured and
defended the right to vote for all Americans, particularly
Black Americans and other voters of color.
For generations, legislators of both parties and Americans
across all ideologies have supported the VRA--because they
have understood that for our democracy to be healthy, every
voter in the country must have safe, easy, and equitable
access to their fundamental right to vote. The VRA has
extraordinary bipartisan roots. Passed in 1965, Congress has
reauthorized the VRA four times since then, with four
Republican Presidents signing the legislation into law:
President Nixon in 1970, President Ford in 1975, President
Reagan in 1982, and President George W. Bush in 2006. In
2006, after more than twenty hearings, with over 90
witnesses, and over 15,000 pages of evidence of ongoing voter
suppression and discrimination, Congress approved a 25-year
extension of the VRA by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-
33 in the House. More than ninety current Members of Congress
voted for that legislation. Yet, notwithstanding well-
documented findings and overwhelming congressional support,
just seven years later, in the Shelby County decision, a 5-4
majority of the Supreme Court held that Section 5's coverage
formula was not based on ``current conditions,'' and we lost
a critical tool in the fight for equal voting rights--the
Justice Department's opportunity to review and reject
discriminatory voting changes in jurisdictions with a history
of racial discrimination in voting.
Enactment of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement
Act will enable the federal government to once again act as a
barrier to prevent racially discriminatory voting changes and
help protect a democracy that works for all of us--no matter
where we live. Congress should utilize every legislative tool
in its capacity to get this done; democracy is too important
to be subject to a minority veto.
Last month, Justice Elena Kagan wrote eloquently about the
Voting Rights Act in her stirring dissent in another Supreme
Court refusal to recognize and enforce broad voting rights,
the deeply disappointing Brnovich v. Democratic National
Committee decision:
``If a single statute represents the best of America, it is
the Voting Rights Act. It marries two great ideals: democracy
and racial equality . . . . If a single statute reminds us of
the worst of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. Because it
was--and remains--so necessary.''
We could not agree more.
In the wake of Supreme Court decisions that have
significantly weakened the VRA, and a proliferation of state
anti-voter laws--primarily in the South--Congress must act to
restore the Voting Rights Act to its full vigor and promise
and ensure that citizens in every state have broad
opportunities to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
Respectfully,
LaShawn Y. Warren,
Chief Policy Officer.
Nancy Abudu,
Interim Director of Strategic Litigation
[[Page H4395]]
& Deputy Legal Director for Voting Rights.
____
August 23, 2021.
Friends: This week, the House is scheduled to take up the
FY22 Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 14) and the John Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4), as well as the rule
to consider these bills. The Human Rights Campaign urges
Members to vote in favor of the rule, the budget resolution,
and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. We will
consider these key votes.
The FY22 Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 14) will pave the
way for reconciliation. The provisions of that package will
include paid leave, a long-needed benefit particularly for
the 40% LGBTQ+ adults working in restaurants and food
service, who often lack the ability to take leave care for a
family member. It will also provide a pathway to citizenship
for the approximately 75,000 LGBTQ+ Dreamers living in the
United States, as well as the millions of TPS holders, many
of whom are essential workers that have helped keep our
country running during the pandemic.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4) would
restore key voting rights protections that the Supreme Court
gutted in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision. Since
the Supreme Court's decision, states and localities have
brazenly pushed forward discriminatory changes to voting
practices, such as changing district boundaries to
disadvantage select voters, instituting more onerous voter
identification laws, and changing polling locations with
little notice. These laws especially disenfranchise people of
color, the elderly, low-income people, transgender people and
people with disabilities.
Transgender people are particularly vulnerable to voting
discrimination and disenfranchisement due primarily to
challenges around valid identification documents. Many
transgender people do not have forms of ID that reflect their
true gender identity, either because they are in the process
of changing their documents or because they face financial or
legal barriers to doing so. In addition, many LGBTQ+ people
face compounded discrimination based on other
characteristics, including race, age, disability, and
economic status. These vulnerabilities weaken our entire
community's voting power.
Again, we urge Members to vote in favor of the rule, S.
Con. Res. 14, and H.R. 4.
Best,
David Stacy,
Government Affairs Director,
Human Rights Campaign.
____
Hi Hillary: J Street, along with over 100 other
organizations, is proud to share our support for the newly
reintroduced John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021
(H.R. 4). The bill would restore the preclearance protections
stripped from the Voting Rights Act and strengthen voting
rights across the country.
With voting rights under threat, the passage of H.R. 4
would be a critical step toward protecting the future of our
democracy and functioning governance.
J Street urges both co-sponsorship and a YES vote when the
bill comes to the floor next week.
As always, please do not hesitate to let me know if you
have any questions.
All the best,
Hannah Morris,
Deputy Director of Government Affairs,
J Street.
____
Tuesday, August 17, 2021.
LDF Media
For Immediate Release
LDF Issues Statement on Introduction of H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting
Rights Advancement Act, by the U.S. House of Representatives
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced H.R. 4,
the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a much needed
piece of legislation aimed at protecting the right to vote.
In response, Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel
of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF)
issued the following statement:
``We commend the House of Representatives for taking this
critically important step in protecting the right to vote
with its introduction today of the John Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act, H.R. 4. This legislation provides the
building blocks for Congress to fully engage in its duty to
protect citizens from any efforts to restrict or abridge
their most fundamental right--the right to vote.
``H.R. 4 includes provisions that would require states and
localities with recent records of discrimination in voting to
have their proposed voting changes reviewed before they are
implemented to ensure they are not discriminatory. These
provisions are crucial to ensure that people are not
disenfranchised and able to freely participate in the
political process. If these provisions had been in effect
this year--as was the case prior to the Shelby County
decision--the restrictive voting bills that were recently
enacted in states, such as Georgia, Florida, and Arizona,
would not have been able to go into effect unless and until
the states proved that those laws would not discriminate
against racial, ethnic, or language minorities.
``Time is of the essence. Today's introduction of H.R. 4 is
the beginning of the process that ultimately must end in the
passage of this critically important piece of legislation.
With the fall election season nearly upon us and nation-wide
midterm elections a year away, Congress must ensure that
every voter--especially Black voters and other voters of
color--can exercise their right to participate in the
political process without barriers to having their votes cast
and counted.''
____
August 20, 2021.
Dear Representative: As President and CEO of the National
Urban League, and on behalf of its 91 affiliates in 37 states
and the District of Columbia, I am writing to express our
strong support for H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act as it is considered on the House floor this
week. As a historic civil rights organization dedicated to
ensuring that all people are able to exercise their
fundamental right to vote, we stand with our fellow racial
justice organizations in supporting this bill.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act reauthorizes
the Voting Rights Act, while putting in place ``fixes'' in
response to the Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and Brnovich
v. Democratic National Committee (2021) decisions. After the
Shelby County decision, the number of discriminatory voting
laws and practices have drastically increased across the
country. The bill is in response to the current needs of this
nation in the fight for voting rights, which have been
presented in months-long congressional investigations and
hearings. The Voting Rights Act has a long history of
bipartisan support that must continue to prevent future
inequitable bills and manipulative redistricting efforts from
discriminating against voters of color.
Specifically, this legislation updates the ``preclearance
formula'' that blocks discriminatory voting laws from being
implemented by establishing a new review criterion that
accounts for current conditions and requires federal review
of specific voting practices known to impact voters of color.
Additionally, the bill mandates greater nationwide
transparency of voting laws and policy changes, expands and
updates the frameworks that allow courts to ``bail in'' and
``bail out'' judicial review of jurisdictional practices, and
restores voters' ability to legally challenge racially
discriminatory changes in voting laws and policies. Lastly,
the bill allows the Justice Department to compel documents to
investigate voting rights violations, expands the federal
observer program, and pauses discriminatory voting changes
during judicial review.
This bill is a concrete way to advance the nation's fight
against discriminatory voting laws which specifically target
people of color. We will continue to support the John Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act and other proposals that
advance the fight for the rights, safety, and empowerment of
all people in our nation.
For more information, please contact Yvette Badu-Nimako,
Senior Director for Judiciary, Civil Rights and Social
Justice at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Marc H. Morial,
President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Urban League.
____
Pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
The bill would restore crucial protections that have been removed from
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
On Tuesday afternoon, Democratic lawmakers stood on
consecrated ground--the foot of the Edmund Pettus Bridge in
Selma, Alabama.
The members of Congress weren't there simply to honor the
sacrifices of the late civil rights icon John Lewis and the
hundreds of other marchers who braved police tear gas and
clubs for the right to vote, as they've done in the past.
They were gathered to announce the introduction of the John
R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H. R. 4),
transformative legislation that would restore the protections
of the Voting Rights Act that Lewis fought so hard to enact
as a civil rights activist.
In 2013, the Supreme Court's infamous Shelby County v.
Holder decision invalidated the 1965 law's Section 5
``preclearance'' requirements. which prevented jurisdictions
with a history of racial discrimination from changing voting
rules without permission from the Justice Department or a
federal court. In the ruling gutting the landmark civil
rights law, Chief Justice John Roberts waved away concerns of
new voting restrictions, claiming that ``nearly 50 years
later, things have changed dramatically.''
Unfortunately, things have changed dramatically--just not
how Roberts thought.
The danger of new voting restrictions is no longer
theoretical. It's a grim reality. After record voter turnout
in 2020, Republican state legislators around the country have
responded by cracking down on the right to vote. Brennan
Center research shows that this year, 49 states have
introduced over 400 bills with provisions that make it harder
to vote, 30 of which have become law in 18 states. Just last
month, the Supreme Court's decision in Brnovich v. Democratic
National Committee weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act, degrading citizens' ability to challenge policies that
lead to voting discrimination.
[[Page H4396]]
This all paints a bleak picture as the nation's first
redistricting cycle since the Shelby County decision looms,
potentially redefining the balance of power in Congress and
state legislatures for the next decade.
As my colleague Wendy Weiser told Congress yesterday, the
bill named for Lewis is an essential step in turning the tide
in this war on voting rights. Restoring preclearance and
strengthening Section 2 of the original Voting Rights Act
would undo much of the damage from the Brnovich and the
Shelby County rulings.
President Biden has placed his full support behind it, and
his Justice Department has told Congress that the bill must
be passed so that the federal government can properly protect
Americans' voting rights nationwide as the midterms quickly
approach. The legislation would provide a desperately needed
bulwark against continuing state voter suppression efforts.
Congress must pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act without delay.
____
Re: NHLA Urges Support of the John Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act, H.R. 4
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the National
Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA), a coalition of the
nation's leading Latino nonpartisan civil rights and advocacy
organizations, to urge you to vote ``yes'' on the John Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 (VRAA), H.R. 4. This
legislation restores necessary voting protections to ensure
that discriminatory voting-related changes are blocked before
they are implemented. There is no right more fundamental to
our democracy than the right to vote, and for more than 50
years the Voting Rights Act (VRA) provided voters with one of
the most effective mechanisms for protecting that right. H.R.
4 would provide Latino voters and other voters of color new
and forward-looking protections against voter discrimination.
NHLA will closely monitor all votes related to this
legislation for inclusion in future NHLA scorecards
evaluating Member support for the Latino community.
The VRA is regarded as one of the most important and
effective pieces of civil rights legislation in our country's
history because it protected voters of color from
discriminatory voting practices before they occurred. In
2013, the Supreme Court, in its decision in Shelby County v.
Holder, struck down the formula that determined which states
and political subdivisions were required to seek federal pre-
approval of their voting-related changes to ensure they did
not discriminate against minority voters. After Supreme
Court's decision, states or political subdivisions were no
longer required to seek preclearance unless ordered by a
federal court in the course of litigation. The Supreme Court
put the onus on Congress to enact a new formula better
tailored to current conditions.
H.R. 4 includes both a new geographic coverage formula to
identify those jurisdictions that will have to ``preclear''
their voting-related changes and a new provision requiring
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. Any jurisdiction in the U.S. that is home to a
racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse population
and that seeks to adopt a covered practice will be required
to preclear the change before implementation. The known
practices covered under the bill include: (1) changes in
method of election to change a single-member district to an
at-large seat or to add 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, realignments, or efforts to
deny sustenance to voters waiting in line; (6) the withdrawal
of multilingual materials and assistance not matched by the
reduction of those services in English; and (7) certain voter
registration list maintenance changes. Preclearance is an
efficient and effective form of alternative dispute
resolution that prevents the implementation of voting-related
changes that would deny voters of color a voice in our
elections. Preclearance saves taxpayers in covered
jurisdictions a considerable amount of money because the
jurisdiction can obtain quick decisions without having to pay
attorneys. expert witnesses, or prevailing plaintiffs fees
and costs that are incurred in complex and expensive
litigation.
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.
Between 2007 and 2014, five of the ten U.S. counties with 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 identifies
different voting changes most likely to discriminatorily
affect access to the vote in increasingly diverse
jurisdictions whose minority populations are attaining
visibility and influence. The approach is tailored to the
current needs of voters today and is supported by a large
body of evidence that shows that certain practices are used
routinely to discriminate against voters of color.
Congress must protect the access to the polls, and it must
include a known-practices coverage formula. H.R. 4 is a
critical piece of legislation, including to the Latino
community, that will restore voter protections that were lost
after the Shelby County decision. NHLA urges you to stand
with voters and to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4.
Please feel free to contact Andrea Senteno, of MALDEF, at
[email protected] or
(202) 293-2828 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Saenz,
NHLA Civil Rights Committee, Co-Chair MALDEF, President &
General Counsel.
Juan Cartagena,
NHLA Civil Rights Committee, Co-Chair LatinoJustice PRLDEF,
President & General Counsel.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, August 23, 2021.
Re: MALDEF Support for the John Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act of 2021, H.R. 4
Dear Congressmember: On behalf of MALDEF (Mexican American
Legal Defense and Educational Fund), I write to strongly urge
you to support the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
of 2021, H.R. 4. Following the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder
decision, which effectively ended pre-clearance 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 pre-clearance coverage formula in the VRA,
legislation that has long-enjoyed bipartisan support.
Founded in 1968, MALDEF is the nation's leading Latino
legal civil rights organization. Commonly known as the ``law
firm of the Latino community,'' MALDEF promotes social change
in the areas of voting rights, immigrants' rights, education,
employment, and access to justice. Since its founding, MALDEF
has worked diligently to secure equal voting rights for
Latinos and to promote increased civic engagement and
participation within the Latino community. MALDEF played a
leading role in securing the full protection of the VRA for
the Latino community through the 1975 congressional
reauthorization of the 1965 VRA. In court, MALDEF has, over
the years, 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 requirements, voter assistance
restrictions, and failure to provide bilingual ballot
materials.
Discrimination in voting, including against Latino voters,
continues to be a serious and persistent threat to our
democracy today. This is demonstrated in the comparative
rates of voter registration and voter participation among
racial groups, including Latinos. The 2020 presidential
general election showed unprecedented numbers of voters
participating and rates of eligible participation unseen in a
century, but instead of celebrating this work to reduce voter
suppression and continue a trend toward expanding the
franchise, the election has been used to justify increased
efforts to reduce minority voter participation in future
elections. This is a continuation of a recent pattern of
increasing voter suppression efforts, which stems from
ongoing demographic changes, including in particular the
unprecedented growth of the Latino voting community.
In the aftermath of Shelby County, MALDEF originated the
idea of practice-based pre-clearance coverage as a limited
complement to a geographic, history-based formula for broader
pre-clearance coverage. Practice-based coverage would address
the increasing introduction and enactment of voter
suppression measures precisely in response to the growth of
the local Latino community to a level viewed as a threat to
the political establishment. Practice-based pre-clearance
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, 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.
While litigation, by private parties and by the Department
of Justice, under Section 2 of the VRA remains a powerful
means to stop voter suppression, such litigation is not
sufficient to address all the current and future potential
for elections changes tied to voter suppression. Pre-
clearance review benefits jurisdictions by reducing their
costs in
[[Page H4397]]
defending potential elections changes, and benefits voting
rights by yielding more timely resolution of voting rights
disputes.
Congress must protect access to the polls and pass H.R. 4,
including provisions for practice-based preclearance. This
legislation is critical to restore voter protections that
were lost due to Shelby County. We cannot allow any more time
to pass 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.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Andrea Senteno,
Regional Counsel.
____
August 24, 2021.
Dear Representative: Democracy 21 strongly urges you to
vote for passage of H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act, when it comes to the floor for a vote.
H.R. 4 is a vitally important--and urgently needed--step
forward in the work to protect the sacred right to vote for
all eligible citizens.
Today, millions of Black, brown, other minorities, the
disabled, elderly, and young, are at risk of losing their
ability to vote due to voter suppression laws being passed in
numerous states.
These efforts, if not overridden, will represent the
greatest voter suppression in the United States since the Jim
Crow era.
H.R. 4 will restore the preclearance provision of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 and would modernize the formula for
determining which states have a pattern of discrimination and
would fall under the preclearance provision.
Voting is not a privilege, it is a right. It is incumbent
that Congress act now as the right to vote is being severely
threatened in states around the country.
The passage of H.R. 4 and H.R. 1, the For the People Act,
which the House passed in March, are essential if we are to
protect the right to vote in federal elections for all
eligible citizens. The two bills protect the right to vote in
complementary ways and both must be enacted.
``The vote is precious. It is almost sacred,'' the late
Representative John Lewis, the civil rights champion, once
said. ``It is the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a
democracy.''
Democracy 21 strongly urges you to vote for H.R. 4.
Our democracy deserves nothing less.
Sincerely,
Fred Wertheimer,
President.
____
August 17, 2021.
End Citizens United // Let America Vote Action Fund Statement on the
Introduction of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
End Citizens United // Let America Vote Action Fund President Tiffany
Muller released the following statement on the U.S. House introducing
the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act:
``In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the landmark
Voting Rights Act of 1965 during a critical moment in our
nation when Jim Crow laws were being used to prevent Black
Americans from exercising their fundamental right to vote.
Since then, the Voting Rights Act has been gutted by a right-
wing Supreme Court and partisan Republican-led legislatures
have moved once again to take away that right. We've seen 400
bills introduced nationwide that include restrictive voting
proposals with 30 of these bills becoming law in 18 states
just this year alone.
``The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is a
fundamental step in protecting our freedom to vote by fully
restoring the power of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and
ensuring that any changes to voting rules could not
discriminate against voters based on race and that we all
have an equal voice in our democracy.
``From his historic march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge,
to his decades of fighting for voting rights and social
justice, Congressman John Lewis never gave up in the pursuit
of America adhering to its core values and principles--that
every American citizen should be heard and have a voice.
Congress must honor his legacy by passing the John Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For the People Act to
protect access to the ballot and ensure that our democracy is
truly representative of the American people.''
____
Dear Hillary: As you prepare to consider H.R. 4, the John
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, Foreign Policy for
America encourages you to uphold the principles of democracy
and efforts to protect the right to vote. Foreign Policy for
America urges members of the House of Representatives to
support H.R. 4 to restore democracy and safeguard the right
to vote. We will consider scoring final passage in our 117th
Congressional Scorecard.
Foreign Policy for America (FP4A) is a non-partisan 501c4
organization founded to promote principled American
engagement in the world. Each Congress, we convene a group of
experts from across the foreign policy community to advise on
the development of our Policy Agenda and our biennial
Congressional Scorecard. The FP4A Scorecard offers our
members, concerned voters nationwide, and the media a way to
quickly and easily understand the degree to which Members of
Congress support strong, principled American foreign policy.
America's commitment to pluralism, equality, and non-
partisan election administration are the hallmarks of our
democracy and have inspired transitions to democracy in every
region of the world. The United States is able to rally
allies and mobilize action on the biggest global challenges
because of who we are as a pluralistic, democratic country
that for generations has inspired the world. H.R. 4 is needed
to safeguard our democracy--the beating heart of our
prosperity and strength.
Our democracy is at risk today. The John Lewis Voting
Rights Advancement Act restores and expands key ballot access
provisions enshrined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that
were dramatically weakened by 2013 Supreme Court decision in
Shelby County v. Holder. The right to vote is one of the most
critical pillars of American Democracy. We must protect it.
We urge all Members of the House of Representatives to
support the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (H.R. 4) to help
strengthen our democracy and protect the right to vote.
Please don't hesitate to reach out if we can answer any
questions about our position.
Sincerely,
Cassandra Varanka,
Advocacy Director,
Foreign Policy for America.
____
Civil Rights Groups Tell Congress To Pass John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act Now
Washington, D.C.--Today at 1pm ET, standing on the Edmund
Pettus Bridge, Rep. Terri Sewell will introduce H.R. 4, the
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a bill to
restore the pre-clearance protections stripped from the
Voting Rights Act, and strengthen voting rights across the
country. The bill is expected to be voted on in the House
next week.
Stephany Spaulding, Just Democracy Spokesperson and Founder
of Truth and Conciliation, issued the following statement:
``H.R. 4 is essential legislation to ensure that the over
400 state-level voter suppression laws proposed around the
country will be countered by federal law. But this bill can
only stop the bleeding--it cannot repeal the dangerous
suppression laws already passed in Georgia, Florida, and
more. We need Congress to take comprehensive action to
protect our country's voting rights and pass the For the
People Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and the
Washington, D.C. Admissions Act--and we have to eliminate the
Jim Crow filibuster to get it done.
This fight for voting rights won't be easy, but it is an
existential turning point for the fate of our democracy--
that's why we're marching in cities around the country in the
March On for Voting Rights on August 28, to raise our voices
and demand Congress take action. We're marching in the spirit
of Congressman John Lewis, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa
Parks, and countless civil rights leaders who never gave up
on the fight for voting rights--and neither will we.''
About Just Democracy. Just Democracy is an intersectional
coalition with racial justice at its core--uplifting voices
from all walks of American life that are too often left out
of the conversation. The coalition is made up of over 40
Black and Brown-led organizations working across issue areas.
It mobilizes thousands who know that advancing social and
racial justice issues first requires bold structural
democracy reform.
____
For Immediate Release,
August 17, 2021.
March On for Voting Rights Responds to John Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act Introduction in the House
Martin Luther King III, Arndrea Waters King, Rev. Al Sharpton, Andi
Pringle and other voting rights leaders organize mass mobilization to
pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
Washington, D.C.--Today, standing on the Edmund Pettus
Bridge, Congresswoman Terri Sewell (D-AL) introduced the John
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which will restore
critical provisions of the Voting Rights Act gutted by the
Supreme Court. Expected to receive a vote in the House of
Representatives next week, the bill will help stem the rush
of attacks on voting rights across the country by ensuring
that states with a recent history of voter discrimination are
once again subject to federal oversight.
March On for Voting Rights will call on the Senate to pass
the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For the
People Act on Saturday, August 28, when millions join the
March On for Voting Rights in D.C., Phoenix, Atlanta,
Houston, Miami and more than 40 other cities across the
country to make their voices heard. Marchers will also call
for the Senate to remove the filibuster as a roadblock to
critical voting rights legislation.
Rev. Al Sharpton, President and Founder of National Action
Network, commented in response: ``If you want to understand
why the vote is so important, look at the last 4 years, the
last 10 years, and the last 100 years. Freedom fighter and
Congressman John Lewis knew it was essential that every vote
must count in order to assure every voice is represented, but
unfortunately
[[Page H4398]]
through federal voter suppression and gerrymandering, that
hasn't been the case. Today, Members of Congress continue to
fight for the rights of the voiceless with the introduction
of H.R. 4, the first step to right the wrongs done to the
Voting Rights Act and reassert our Constitutional authority
over democracy. Whether in Congress, in the streets, or
during our March On for Voting Rights, this is the summer of
activism.''
Martin Luther King III, Chairman of the Drum Major
Institute, commented in response: ``Both John Lewis and my
father agreed that there is no right more central to
democracy than our right to vote. It is the cornerstone of
democracy, the way we have our voices heard. Congress must
pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Restoration Act. Our nation
is being put to the test, and we must remember my father's
words about the fierce urgency of now.
Arndrea Waters King, President of the Drum Major Institute,
commented in response: ``Coretta Scott King told us, `Freedom
is never really won, you earn it and win it in every
generation.' Now is the time to earn and win our sacred right
to vote. It is up to us to remind Congress they represent the
people, and the people demand the passage of the John Lewis
Voting Rights Restoration Act.''
Andi Pringle, Political and Strategic Campaigns Director at
March On, commented in response: ``Voting rights in America
hang by a thread, and we are grateful to our leaders in
Congress who understand the gravity of this moment. But some
of those in Congress act as though voting rights are
debatable. They are not--voting rights are a fundamental
requirement of democracy. Without legislation like the John
R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For the People
Act to protect both voters and elections, millions will be
disenfranchised and America will cease to be the democracy we
claim to be. This is why millions will take to the streets on
August 28 to demand passage of this legislation before it's
too late.''
Stasha Rhodes, Campaign Manager of 51 for 51, commented in
response: ``We are resolved to march on August 28 to make
sure Congress does everything in its power to pass the John
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, the For the People Act
and the Washington D.C. Admissions Act. We can no longer
allow states with long histories of disenfranchising our
communities to strip away voting rights for Black and Brown
people. After it passes the House, the Senate must remove the
Jim Crow filibuster as a roadblock. Millions will march to
make that call crystal clear.''
Sopia Woodrow, Community Manager of Future Coalition
commented in response: ``As a young advocate, it is
fundamental that our voting rights be protected. This act,
combined with the action imminent with March On For Voting
Rights, demonstrates a renewed commitment to protecting the
voices of every American. Congress must pass the John Lewis
Voting Rights Act to ensure the voices of Americans and youth
for generations to come are heard. Disenfranchised
communities have waited far too long for the voting rights
necessary to justice.''
Ms. SEWELL. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I want to thank the
chairman of this committee, Chairman Nadler; the chairman of the
subcommittee, Steve Cohen; the chairwoman of the House Administration
Committee, Representative Zoe Lofgren; as well as G.K. Butterfield, for
the countless hours of testimony and the reams of documents that show
that voter suppression is still alive and well.
The price of freedom is not free. Let's pay for it by passing the
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Thousands of Americans are stranded in Afghanistan, fearing for their
lives, and Democrats are focused on passing legislation to make sure
States can't require a photo ID to vote.
Thousands of Americans are stranded in Afghanistan, while hundreds of
thousands of illegal immigrants cross our southern border every single
month. March was the largest month on record for illegal crossings
until April; April was the largest month of illegal crossings until
May; May was the largest month until June; and June was the largest
month until July; and Democrats are focused on passing legislation
which says: States who want to go back to the election law they had
just a year ago before the virus, you can't do that unless you come get
permission from the Department of Justice.
As Mr. Davis said, in 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, a
good piece of legislation that did things that needed to be done, put
things in place that needed to be put in place. But we are a long way
from that and so much better.
In 2013, in the Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court decision, the
Court said there is no need to continue preclearance requirements.
Here's a quote from the Chief Justice: ``The conditions that originally
justified'' these measures ``no longer characterize voting in the
covered jurisdictions,'' Justice Roberts stated. African-American
turnout today exceeds White voter turnout in five of the six originally
covered States. During the past election, voter turnout was higher
across all racial groups as compared to prior presidential elections.
The United States of America is the greatest country in the history
of the world. There is no question that our country has done more to
advance the cause of liberty and democracy than any other Nation. But,
unfortunately, it seems the Democrats do not want to acknowledge all of
that amazing progress that has been made and where we are at today.
H.R. 4 would subject States and localities to the whims of partisan
bureaucrats within President Biden's Department of Justice. They get to
decide--not States, as our Constitution says--no, no, no, you have to
go get permission from the big Federal Government, do what they say,
when it comes to your election laws, even if, as I said before, you
just want to go back to where you were a year before COVID.
Republican States that Democrats always want to target actually do
better than Democrat States, like President Biden's home State of
Delaware. But for some reason, you don't hear Democrats raising alarms
about Delaware, and you don't see the Biden administration bringing
lawsuits against Delaware.
Democrats want to focus on this manufactured crisis, because they
have no plans to deal with the real crises that are facing our country:
inflation; crime; the border; and, of course, what is going on in
Afghanistan as we speak.
Don't be fooled. Today, it is easier to vote than ever in our
country. We need to applaud the strides this Nation has taken. We need
to embrace the greatness of our country. This bill is not about
expanding voting rights; it is about Democrats consolidating their
political power. That is why they are focused on this. At a time when
there are so many critical issues and crises facing our Nation, they
are focused on consolidating their power and, I think, taking it away
from the States.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I support the John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act.
Congress first passed the Voting Rights Act while Martin Luther King,
Jr. led for civil rights and John Lewis stood by his side. The law made
a difference, defeating racial discrimination in voting.
But the Court, in the Shelby and Brnovich cases, destroyed important
parts of the law. This bill fixes that. With an updated coverage
formula, practice-based preclearance, and rational standards to
challenge racial discrimination, this bill is essential.
Representatives Butterfield and Fudge both chaired the Subcommittee
on Elections, whose hearings established the factual bases for this
bill. All the members of the Subcommittee on Elections worked hard
holding hearings around America. I thank them, and I thank my
colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for their work.
As we vote to restore the Voting Rights Act, to protect the rights of
Americans from being denied the right to vote because of their race, we
should remember, honor, and thank those who came before us, and
especially our late colleague, John Lewis.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa).
{time} 1630
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, our colleague Rahm Emanuel famously said:
``You never let a serious crisis go to waste.'' Today, my Democratic
colleagues are not letting a serious crisis go to waste.
While America is focused on the tragedy halfway around the world in
Afghanistan, a plan to fail that now has successfully failed, the
reality is, here, instead of holding real hearings, looking at the
causes, and maybe, in fact, being more helpful in preventing further
suffering of the 37 million people
[[Page H4399]]
in Afghanistan, what are we doing? We are codifying a permanent
majority of the Democratic Party everywhere they can. We are making
changes to election law that pull into Washington and into the Attorney
General's office control of elections that the Constitution clearly
gave to legislatures.
What we are doing, by the statements of my own colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, is we are clearly saying we don't like the
Supreme Court's decisions, so we are going to find a way to do what we
want to do even though, in fact, the time and the success of the Civil
Rights Act has, in fact, mostly passed.
Why can't you take success? Because it no longer benefits the goals
of a permanent Democratic majority. I am sorry for my Democratic
colleagues that, in fact, the people of America do not at times approve
of things like the tragedy in Afghanistan or, in fact, are not willing
to accept a permanent smear of we can never have elections without
Federal intervention.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, the Republicans say we don't need this
voting rights bill, that we should leave the power with the States. My
subcommittee had 13 hearings over 2 years, and the professors and the
attorneys told us that every time Black and Brown people gain in
population and start to take power, there start to be changes in the
laws to stop them from having power.
Just this year, 18 States have enacted 30 laws restricting the
ability to vote. There were at least 495 voter suppression bills
pending in the States as of yesterday.
For them to say we don't need a bill in the year that this Capitol
faced an insurrection, when they tried to overturn the electoral
college and overturn a free and fair election, and after that happened,
two-thirds of the Republicans voted to overturn the election by
throwing out the results in Arizona and Pennsylvania. And then we
wanted to study that insurrection, and a very thin number of
Republicans even voted to study it.
Democracy is on the line. The right to vote is on the line. What we
learned from our hearings is that we need to pass the Voting Rights Act
and protect people's rights to vote because that is what America is
about. I support this John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman that
Democrats have objected to the electors for every Republican President
this century--every single one.
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Steil).
Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, this House just passed a spending framework
for $3.5 trillion in new government spending. And immediately
following, what is next? A plan for a Federal Government takeover of
elections.
H.R. 4 is focused on overturning the Supreme Court decision in Shelby
County v. Holder and reinstituting Federal power over State election
laws.
Preclearance was established in 1965 because there were blatant
attempts to disenfranchise African Americans. We are not debating that
today. We have made great progress since 1965.
What is the purpose of H.R. 4? H.R. 4 is a Federal power grab. This
bill would gut voter ID laws across the country. The bill would allow
the Biden Department of Justice to veto State voter ID laws.
In my home State of Wisconsin, some said commonsense voter ID laws
would lower turnout. They were wrong. In 2020, Wisconsin had the fourth
highest voter turnout in the country.
This bill would make it harder for States to maintain accurate voter
rolls. Accurate voter rolls are essential for local election officials
to accurately administer elections.
This bill is a Federal overreach. Instead of Federal overreach, let's
get to work and make it easier to vote and hard to cheat.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I am proud to be an
original cosponsor of this vital legislation. This is one of the most
important bills we will consider this Congress.
Voting rights are the foundation of our democracy, ensuring that
every American gets a fair say in who represents them and who makes the
laws governing their lives.
Voting rights have been under attack all across this country. This
year alone, 30 new discriminatory voting restriction laws have targeted
communities of color, young people, and working people across 18
States. We cannot allow this in America.
This critical legislation will restore voting rights protections and
provide the tools necessary to ensure discriminatory voting laws cannot
stand. There is nothing more American than protecting the right to
vote.
I want to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Sewell, for her
leadership. I thank Chairman Nadler, Speaker Pelosi, and all the
leadership for the important work they are doing to ensure that voting
rights are protected for all Americans.
I want to end by taking a moment to recognize and remember the late
Congressman John Lewis, our colleague and friend, one of history's
greatest fighters for equality and voting rights, after whom this
legislation is so appropriately named.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, we have to be clear about
what is happening here.
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to overcome shameful
State resistance and barriers that prevented minorities from exercising
their right.
But in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that continuing to require
States to preclear election law changes based upon conduct from a half
century ago was an unconstitutional invasion of State sovereignty.
The truth is, as Jim said a moment ago, it is easier today for
Americans to vote than it has ever been before in our Nation's history.
The VRA worked. Thank the Lord that it did. We overcame those problems.
In fact, voter registration disparities between minority and
nonminority voters in States like Texas, Florida, North Carolina,
Mississippi, and my home State of Louisiana, all previously covered
under the old VRA provisions, are now below the national average and,
get this, they are lower than Democrat-run States like New York,
California, and President Biden's home State of Delaware.
H.R. 4 is a radical, unprecedented Federal power grab by
unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington that every conscientious
American ought to oppose. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).
Mrs. DEMINGS. Madam Speaker, my mother was a maid and my father a
janitor, but they were good, decent, honest people who saw voting as
their duty and knew their vote mattered regardless of who they were and
where they lived.
When did some of us, as elected officials, start believing it is okay
to no longer protect basic rights but to lie if you have to, cheat if
you have to, suppress the vote if you have to, and then stand up and
claim victory?
John Lewis called the right to vote ``precious, almost sacred,'' and
he was willing to risk his life to protect it.
We reject the politically motivated lies that seek to undermine faith
in our elections. We are the United States of America. Yes, we are the
greatest Nation in the world.
Let's live up to America's promise once again by protecting the
precious, almost sacred right to vote.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, not long ago, our elections worked
well. We maintained accurate voter registration rolls and routinely
removed people who moved or died.
After all the candidates had their say, on election day, we went to
our local polling place. We brought our children to watch the process
and taught them to respect it.
Our neighbors on the precinct board handed us our ballot after we
identified ourselves and signed the roll. We took
[[Page H4400]]
it into a curtained booth where no one could pressure us to vote a
certain way. We then handed that ballot back to our neighbor, who
placed it in a locked box.
It was very hard to cheat because every ballot had a simple chain of
custody.
The woke left seeks to destroy that process. Where they control the
law, registration is instant, and outdated registrations are rarely
removed. Ballots are sent to every name, followed by partisan
harvesters to collect them. In fact, over 300 mail-in recall ballots
were just found in the possession of a felon passed out in his car in
Torrance, California.
Back in California, you can print ballots on your home printer and
then send them in. Ballots are no longer secret. Family members,
spouses, caregivers, or party hacks can cajole or pressure you as you
cast your vote.
Every fraudulent vote disenfranchises a legitimate voter. That is the
ultimate in voter suppression.
This bill effectively makes it impossible for States to restore
integrity measures like in-person election day voting or voter ID. It
ensures that the chaos and turmoil of recent elections is magnified and
institutionalized.
In every election, somebody wins and somebody loses. Democracy
depends on both sides having the confidence that an election was fair
and accurately reflects the will of the majority. How can anyone have
that confidence under such a system as the left would impose? The
answer is we can't.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article
with breaking news: The Texas Speaker of the House signs arrest
warrants for absent Democrats in bid to end chamber's weekslong
stalemate to fight against suppression and oppression in S.B. 7.
[From the Texas Tribune, Aug. 10, 2021]
Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan Signs Arrest Warrants for Absent
Democrats in Bid To End Chamber's Weekslong Stalemate
(By Cassandra Pollock and Patrick Svitek)
House Speaker Dade Phelan signed arrest warrants Tuesday
evening for Democrats who broke quorum to block a
controversial GOP elections bill. The warrants will be
delivered to the House Sergeant-at-Arms Wednesday. Credit:
Jordan Vonderhaar for The Texas Tribune. Sign up for The
Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on
the most essential Texas news.
Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan on Tuesday evening signed
civil arrest warrants for 52 House Democrats still missing
from the state Capitol as he aimed to regain the quorum
needed for the chamber to begin moving legislation during the
second special session.
The move was confirmed by Phelan spokesperson Enrique
Marquez, who said the warrants ``will be delivered to the
House Sergeant-at-Arms tomorrow morning for service.''
The warrants were first reported by The Dallas Morning
News. Democrats who may be arrested would not face criminal
charges or fines and could only be brought to the House
chamber. Dozens of minority party members fled to Washington,
D.C., during the first special session to block a GOP voting
restrictions bill.
The 52 warrants represent all but 15 Democrats in the lower
chamber. There were at least 11 present Tuesday. There were
no additional new Democrats on the floor Tuesday after four
returned a day earlier--and drew the wrath of some Democratic
colleagues still in Washington, and prompted a renewed push
inside the party to hold the line.
Earlier Tuesday, the House voted overwhelmingly to
authorize law enforcement to track down lawmakers absent from
the chamber.
That 80-12 vote came hours after the Texas Supreme Court
ordered that those missing Democrats could soon be detained
by state authorities. The order by the all-GOP court came at
the request of Gov. Greg Abbott and Phelan, both of whom had
asked the court Monday to overturn a ruling from a state
district judge that blocked those leaders from ordering the
arrest of the quorum-breaking Democrats.
In a statement after the warrants were signed Tuesday
evening, state Rep. Chris Turner of Grand Prairie, who chairs
the House Democratic Caucus, said it is ``fully within our
rights as legislators to break quorum to protect our
constituents'' and reiterated Democrats' commitment ``to
fighting with everything we have against Republicans' attacks
on our freedom to vote.''
Since the Legislature gaveled in Saturday for its second
special session ordered by Abbott, the House has been unable
to make a quorum as dozens of Democrats have remained absent
from the chamber.
When the House was unable to meet its 100-member threshold
to conduct business Monday, members adopted a procedural move
known as a ``call of the House'' in an effort to secure a
quorum. That move locks doors to the chamber and prevents
members on the floor from leaving unless they have permission
in writing from the speaker.
That vote earlier Tuesday marks the second time in recent
weeks that the chamber has voted to send law enforcement
after Democrats still missing from the House.
During the first special session in July, and after more
than 50 House Democrats flew to D.C., members present
authorized state authorities to track down their colleagues--
but the move carried little weight since Texas law
enforcement lacks jurisdiction outside the state.
By the time that first 30-day stretch ended last week,
Phelan had signed only one civil arrest warrant, for Rep.
Philip Cortez, a San Antonio Democrat. But that move came too
late since Cortez, who had briefly returned to Austin, had
already gone back to the nation's capital.
Intraparty pressure has been mounting on House Democrats
since the second special session started. After at least four
of them returned to the floor Monday, bringing the chamber
within five members of a quorum, some of their Democratic
colleagues who were still in Washington unleashed on them.
Rep. Ana-Maria Ramos of Richardson tweeted at the returning
Democrats that they ``all threw us under the bus today.''
Pressure ramped up Tuesday morning, when a coalition of
Democratic-aligned groups released a statement urging House
Democrats to hold firm and continue breaking quorum. The 21
groups included Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, the state's
Sierra Club chapter, the Texas Organizing Project, Progress
Texas, the Communications Workers of America and several
groups that advocate for Latino Texans.
``To every pro-democracy Texas lawmaker: the only way to
preserve our right to vote and the best way to fight is to
stay off the House floor,'' the coalition's statement said.
The group also released a four-page memo arguing that far
more was at stake in the second special session than just the
elections bill, citing a ``host of radical conservative
priorities'' throughout the agenda. The memo was particularly
emphatic about a new proposal for the second special
session--dropping the quorum threshold to a simple majority--
calling it an ``ominous allusion to reducing or eliminating
minority rights in the Legislature, breaking centuries of
Texas bipartisanship.''
Meanwhile, a number of House Democrats have returned to
Texas but have not come to the House floor to help provide
quorum.
One of them is state Rep. Evelina ``Lina'' Ortega, who says
she is home in El Paso but not showing up on the House floor
until there is already a quorum or a majority of the
Democratic caucus decides to be there.
``I pretty much feel that it's a shame that the governor
and Republicans . . . are really using the dirtiest tactic
available to them,'' Ortega told the Tribune on Tuesday
evening after the House's vote to send law enforcement after
the absentee Democrats. ``To me it's all about a power grab.
I'm glad to stay away and continue to fight them.''
As for whether she is concerned about arrest, Ortega said
she believes it would be a ``big mistake'' by Republicans.
``We'll see what happens,'' she said.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is John Lewis, and he says: ``We will stand up
for what is right, for what is fair, and what is just,'' and we will
ensure that we have courage, the kind of courage that is ``raw
courage.''
Today, I ask my Republican colleagues to reject the big lie, to
reject the insurrection, and to reject the idea that there is not voter
suppression.
I stand with H.R. 4, a bill that is the continuation of the
reauthorization that I have done over the years as a member of the
Judiciary Committee. I thank Chairman Nadler, Chairman Cohen, Terri
Sewell, all those who are part of this great effort, and our whip.
But the real important point is that we give the vote back to the
American people, to the disabled, to young people, to senior citizens,
and we reject that unfortunate statement. The State of Texas attorney
general, the secretary of state, never found any fraud in the election,
in particular in 2020.
I am very glad that this will particularly have the look-back. It
will protect us against such dilution and diminution.
This is a bill that has to pass, and the Senate has to pass it. Give
the vote back to the American people. Have raw courage.
Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and an
original cosponsor, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the John
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which corrects the damage done in
recent years to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and commits the national
government to protecting the right of all Americans to vote free from
discrimination and without injustices that previously prevented them
from exercising this most fundamental right of citizenship.
I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Terri Sewell of Alabama for
introducing this
[[Page H4401]]
legislation, to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and the Democratic
leadership, and to the many colleagues and countless number of ordinary
Americans who never stopped agitating and working to protect the
precious right to vote.
Madam Speaker, in response to the Supreme Court's invitation in
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), H.R. 4 provides a new
coverage formula based on ``current conditions'' and creates a new
coverage formula that hinges on a finding of repeated voting rights
violations in the preceding 25 years.
It is significant that this 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 have a clean record
during that time period, they can be extracted from coverage.
H.R. 4 also establishes ``practice-based preclearance,'' which 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.
Under the bill, this process of reviewing changes in voting is
limited to a set of specific practices, including such things as:
1. Changes to the methods of elections (to or from at-large
elections) in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically
diverse.
2. Redistricting in areas that are racially, ethnically, or
linguistically diverse.
3. Reducing, consolidating, or relocating polling in areas that are
racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse; and
4. Changes in documentation or requirements to vote or to register.
Madam Speaker, while I am proud to strongly support this bill, I
would be remiss if I did not express my disappointment at the decision
to not include my amendments to this bill.
Jackson Lee Amendments #6, #7, and #8 are easy to understand and
vitally important--they simply protect state legislators who, in
keeping with their sacred oath to uphold the Constitution of the United
States, refuse to perform unconstitutional acts under the guise of
legislative process.
Specifically:
Jackson Lee Amendment #6 allows for federal judicial review of any
warrants issued for the arrest of a state legislator where said state
legislator refuses to engage in the state legislative process due to a
reasonably held belief that doing so would infringe on the right to
vote.
Jackson Lee Amendment #7 inserts a Sense of the Congress stating that
a state's power to arrest a duly elected representative of a
constituency for refusal to engage in a state's legislative process
should be subject to federal judicial review where such elected
representative's refusal is premised upon a reasonable belief that
participation would result in the suppression of voting rights or other
violations of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Jackson Lee Amendment #8 privileges against arrest any member of a
state legislature for any reason except treason or murder while the
legislature of that state is debating or voting on legislation relating
to redistricting or election practices or legislation relating to the
right to vote in federal, state, or municipal elections.
These amendments would have critically strengthened H.R. 4 because
state legislatures across the country are utilizing every weapon in
their arsenal to curtail voting rights; and no one should fear arrest
due to fighting for the Constitutional rights of their constituents.
This includes my home state of Texas, where earlier this month
officers of the Texas House of Representatives delivered civil arrest
warrants, signed by the Texas state Speaker of the House, for more than
50 absent Democrats in an attempt force a vote on the naked attempt at
voter suppression known as Texas S.B. 7.
This is the latest Republican attack on these brave state
legislators, which began on May 30, where after a night of impassioned
debate and procedural objections, these Democratic lawmakers in Texas
took action to block passage of this massive overhaul of the state's
election laws.
With little more than an hour before the voting deadline, these
Democrats staged a walkout, depriving their Republican colleagues of
the 100-member quorum needed to pass the measure.
And when Governor Abbot called a special session in Texas for the
purpose of passing horrific voter suppression legislation, those brave
Texas Democrats rose to the challenge again and broke quorum.
Under the threat of arrest, those heroes fighting for voting rights
have escaped to Washington, D.C.
Since the arrest warrants were issued, it is my understanding that
mass intimidation of the Texas House Democrats has occurred.
State officials came to their homes with the purpose of dragging them
back to eviscerate the voting rights of thousands of Texas.
These elected Texas Representatives have had to hide away from their
friends, their families, and their loved ones, all to ensure that
Texans retain their most sacred of rights.
They are risking their freedom to ensure every Texan has full access
to their constitutional right to vote.
Although the Republicans have tried to spin this in many different
ways, let's be clear--Texas Democrats are taking a righteous stand for
our democracy.
Breaking quorum isn't an easy choice--legislators must leave family,
friends, constituents, and their important work for days or weeks.
But by making this choice, these Texas Democrats are fighting for all
of us, because voting is not a partisan issue.
Access to the ballot is a sacred cornerstone of our democracy, and we
must protect it at all costs.
Last month marked one year since we lost a champion for voting
rights, and the namesake of H.R. 4, Congressman John Lewis.
In his final words, he reminded us that, ``the vote is the most
powerful nonviolent change agent [we] have in a democratic society,''
and that ``Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the
highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly
believe.''
We may no longer have John Lewis with us, but in his absence, the
Texas Democrats are following his example, and stirring up good
trouble, necessary trouble, for our right to vote.
They have followed the truth in his words and have sacrificed much to
follow the highest calling of their hearts.
Texas Republicans seek to pass voting regulation laws focused on
diverse, urban areas, by setting rules for the distribution of polling
places in only the handful of counties with a population of at least 1
million--most of which are either under Democratic control or won by
Democrats in recent national and statewide elections.
These bills would limit extended early voting hours, prohibits drive-
thru voting and makes it illegal for local election officials to
proactively send applications to vote by mail to voters, even if they
qualify.
These bills are at the forefront of Texas Republicans' crusade to
further restrict voting in Texas, which saw the highest turnout in
decades in 2020, with Democrats continuing to drive up their vote
counts in the state's urban centers and diversifying suburban
communities.
Standing between all of this and the voting rights of thousands of
Texans are those brave state legislators who currently have a warrant
out for their arrest.
No elected representative in this great nation should fear that he or
she will be locked away for simply standing up for justice and ensuring
that America's citizens have the right to vote.
For this reason, I believe that H.R. 4 would have been greatly
strengthened by the inclusion of my amendments in the Rule.
Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage all Members of Congress to
support this bill, because it is the responsibility and sacred duty of
all members of Congress who revere democracy to preserve, protect, and
expand the precious right to vote of all Americans by passing H.R. 4,
the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
It is useful, Madam Speaker, to recount how we arrived at this day.
Madam Speaker, fifty-six years ago, in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of
heroic souls risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to
vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting
rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final,
completed march from Selma to Montgomery.
Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women,
boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so
much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to
bring it even closer to its founding ideals.
The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have
dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the
making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to
vote.
On that day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights
demonstrators, including our beloved colleague, Congressman John Lewis
of Georgia for whom this important legislation is named, were brutally
attacked by state and local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they
marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of the right to vote.
``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because
it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and
effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American.
[[Page H4402]]
No one who witnessed the violence and brutally suffered by the foot
soldiers for justice who gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge will
never forget it; the images are deeply seared in the American memory
and experience.
On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol President Johnson
addressed the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act:
The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by
man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible
walls which imprison men because they are different from
other men.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was critical to preventing brazen voter
discrimination violations that historically left millions of African
Americans disenfranchised.
In 1940, for example, there were less than 30,000 African Americans
registered to vote in Texas and only about 3 percent of African
Americans living in the South were registered to vote.
Poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence were the major
causes of these racially discriminatory results.
After passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which prohibited
these discriminatory practices, registration and electoral
participation steadily increased to the point that by 2012, more than
1.2 million African Americans living in Texas were registered to vote.
In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were
approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just
three in Congress.
Few, if any, African Americans held elective office anywhere in the
South.
Because of the Voting Rights Act, in 2007 there were more than 9,100
black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest
number ever.
Madam Speaker, the Voting Rights Act opened the political process for
many of the approximately 6,000 Hispanic public officials that have
been elected and appointed nationwide, including more than 275 at the
state or federal level, 32 of whom serve in Congress.
Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered
harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited
greatly.
The crown jewel of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is Section 5, which
requires that states and localities with a chronic record of
discrimination in voting practices secure federal approval before
making any changes to voting processes.
The preclearance requirement of Section 5 protects minority voting
rights where voter discrimination has historically been the worst.
Between 1982 and 2006, Section 5 stopped more than 1,000
discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107
discriminatory changes right here in Texas.
Passed in 1965 with the extraordinary leadership of President Lyndon
Johnson, the greatest legislative genius of our lifetime, the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 was bringing dramatic change in many states across
the South.
But in 1972, change was not coming fast enough or in many places in
Texas.
In fact, Texas, which had never elected a woman to Congress or an
African American to the Texas State Senate, was not covered by Section
5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the language minorities living in
South Texas were not protected at all.
But thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Barbara Jordan was
elected to Congress, giving meaning to the promise of the Voting Rights
Act that all citizens would at long last have the right to cast a vote
for person of their community, from their community, for their
community.
Madam Speaker, it is a source of eternal pride to all of us in
Houston that in pursuit of extending the full measure of citizenship to
all Americans, in 1975 Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who also
represented this historic 18th Congressional District of Texas,
introduced, and the Congress adopted, what are now Sections 4(f)(3) and
4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, which extended the protections of
Section 4(a) and Section 5 to language minorities.
We must remain ever vigilant and oppose all schemes that will abridge
or dilute the precious right to vote.
Madam Speaker, I am here today to remind the nation that the need to
pass this legislation is urgent because the right to vote--that
``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice''--
faces grave threats.
The threats stem from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme
Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which
invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of
the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements.
Not to be content with the monument to disgrace that is the Shelby
County decision, the activist right-wing conservative majority on the
Roberts Court, on July 1, 2021, issued its evil twin, the decision in
Brnovich v. DNC, 594 U.S. __, No. 19-1257 and 19-1258 (July 1, 2021),
which engrafts on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act onerous burdens
that Congress never intended and explicitly legislated against.
Madam Speaker, were it not for the 24th Amendment, I venture to say
that this conservative majority on the Court would subject poll taxes
and literacy tests to the review standard enunciated in Brnovich v.
DNC.
According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down
Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was that ``times change.''
Now, the Court was right; times have changed.
But what the Court did not fully appreciate is that the positive
changes it cited are due almost entirely to the existence and vigorous
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
And that is why the Voting Rights Act is still needed and that is why
we must pass H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Let me put it this way: in the same way that the vaccine invented by
Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 eradicated the crippling effects but did not
eliminate the cause of polio, the Voting Rights Act succeeded in
stymieing the practices that resulted in the wholesale
disenfranchisement of African Americans and language minorities but did
not eliminate them entirely.
The Voting Rights Act is needed as much today to prevent another
epidemic of voting disenfranchisement as Dr. Salk's vaccine is still
needed to prevent another polio epidemic.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in Shelby County v. Holder,
``[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to
work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella
in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.''
Madam Speaker, in many ways my home state of Texas is ground-zero for
testing and perfecting schemes to deprive communities of color and
language minorities of the right to vote and to have their votes
counted.
Consider what has transpired in Texas in recent past, let alone the
noxious voter suppression bill, SB7, it is currently trying to ramrod
through the legislature.
Only 68 percent of eligible voters are registered in Texas and state
restrictions on third party registration, such as the Volunteer Deputy
Registrar program, exacerbate the systemic disenfranchisement of
minority communities.
These types of programs are often aimed at minority and underserved
communities that, for many, many other reasons (like demonization by
the president, for example) or mistrust of law enforcement are afraid
to live as openly as they should.
In Harris County, we had a system where voters were getting purged
from the rolls, effectively requiring people to keep active their
registrations and hundreds of polling locations closed in Texas,
significantly more in number and percentage than any other state.
In addition, the Texas Election Code only requires a 72-hour notice
of polling location changes.
Next, take what happened here in Texas in 2019 when the Texas
Secretary of State claimed that his office had identified 95,000
possible noncitizens on the voter rolls and gave the list to the Texas
State Attorney General for possible prosecution--leading to a claim
from President Trump about widespread voter fraud and outrage from
Democrats and activist groups.
The only problem was that list was not accurate.
At least 20,000 names turned out to be there by mistake, leading to
chaos, confusion, and concern that people's eligibility vote was being
questioned based on flawed data.
The list was made through state records going back to 1996 that show
which Texas residents were not citizens when they got a driver's
license or other state ID.
But many of the persons who may have had green cards or work visas at
the time they got a Texas ID are on the secretary of state's office's
list, and many have become citizens since then since nearly 50,000
people become naturalized U.S. citizens in Texas annually.
Latinos made up a big portion of the 95,000-person list.
Texas Republicans adopted racial and partisan gerrymandered
congressional, State legislative redistricting plans that federal
courts have ruled violate the Voting Rights Act and were drawn with
discriminatory intent.
Even after changes were demanded by the courts, much of the damage
was already done.
Reversing the position by the Obama administration, the Trump
Department of [in]Justice represented to a federal court that it no
longer believed past discrimination by Texas officials should require
the state to get outside approval for redistricting maps that will be
drawn in 2021.
In addition to affirmative ways to making it harder to vote, we also
know face other odious impediments in Texas.
Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical
of voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll
[[Page H4403]]
taxes and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability
of seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast
their votes.
This is the harm that can be done without preclearance, so on a
federal level, there is an impetus to act.
Consider the demographic groups who lack a government issued ID:
1. African Americans: 25 percent
2. Asian Americans: 20 percent
3. Hispanic Americans: 19 percent
4. Young people, aged 18-24: 18 percent
5. Persons with incomes less than $35,000: 15 percent
And there are other ways abridging or suppressing the right to vote,
including:
1. Curtailing or eliminating early voting.
2. Ending same-day registration.
3. Not counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on
Election Day will not count.
4. Eliminating adolescent pre-registration.
5. Shortening poll hours.
6. Lessening the standards governing voter challenges thus allowing
self-proclaimed ``ballot security vigilantes'' like the King Street
Patriots to cause trouble at the polls.
The malevolent practice of voter purging is not limited to Texas; we
saw it in 2018 in Georgia, where then Secretary of State and now
Governor Brian Kemp purged more than 53,000 persons from the voter,
nearly the exact margin of his narrow win over his opponent, Stacy
Abrams in the 2018 gubernatorial election.
Voter purging is a sinister and malevolent practice visited on
voters, who are disproportionately members of communities of color, by
state and local election officials.
This practice, which would have not passed muster under section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act, has proliferated in the years since the Supreme
Court neutralized the preclearance provision, or as Justice Ginsburg
observed in Shelby County v. Holder, ``threw out the umbrella'' of
protection.
Madam Speaker, citizens in my congressional district and elsewhere
know and have experienced the pain and heartbreak of receiving a letter
from state or local election officials that they have been removed from
the election rolls, or worse, learn this fact on Election Day.
That is why I am very pleased that H.R. 4 includes language that I
worked hard to include in the Manager's Amendment to the Voting Rights
Advancement Act of 2019 that strengthens the bill's ``practice-based
preclearance'' provisions by adding specifically to the preclearance
provision, voting practices that add a new basis or process for
removing a name from the list of active registered voters and the
practice of reducing the days or hours of in-person voting on Sundays
during an early voting period.
For millions of Americans, the right to vote protected by the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 is a sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil
and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was
possible to accomplish extraordinary things.
Madam Speaker, it is the responsibility and sacred duty of all
members of Congress who revere democracy to preserve, protect, and
expand the precious right to vote of all Americans by passing H.R. 4,
the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, was it a big lie when the Democrats for 4
years questioned the 2016 election, when in October of 2020 Secretary
Clinton said the election was stolen from her in 2016? Was that the big
lie that the previous speaker was talking about?
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Bentz).
Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, this bill would operate to freeze in place,
to substantially chill, changes to the election processes of some of
the 90,126 State and local government units found in this United
States.
Madam Speaker, I assure you, the election processes of many of these
State and local units are not perfect, but this bill would chill
necessary corrections and updating of such election processes. Why?
Because the bill creates a private enforcement cause of action, with
attorney fees to the prevailing party, and establishes a clear risk to
these 90,126 government units of incurring tens if not hundreds of
thousands of dollars of attorney fees if the government unit gets it
wrong and violates the subjective standards, such as the undefined term
``diminishes'' found in section 4A(c)(2) in the bill.
Madam Speaker, after what we have been through in the last election,
we should be working to encourage certainty and clarity in our election
processes. This bill does not do that. It does the opposite.
{time} 1645
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).
Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, how dare Republicans come to this floor
and lecture America about masks and liberty over and over again while
at the same time undermining the precious right to vote?
Free and fair elections are central to our liberty, and we are not
going to let anyone take that away from us.
Those who worship at the altar of voter suppression will fail. Those
who worship at the altar of Jim Crow-like oppression will fail. Those
who worship at the altar of turning back the clock to make America hate
again will fail.
We are not going backward.
The John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act will become law,
and when it is all said and done, democracy will prevail, and good
trouble will win the day.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, as has been said earlier by Darrell Issa,
it was Rahm Emanuel that pointed out, don't let a good crisis go to
waste.
So here we have a crisis on our southern border and Afghanistan, and
what do we do? The majority comes in here and says, we don't want our
Members to have to vote on a $3.5 trillion spending bill, so we will
just pass a rule that says without anybody voting on it we pass a $3.5
trillion spending bill. And then we will immediately jump over to a
noble man with a great name that did such great work for America along
with Dr. King, John Lewis, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act bill.
Well, I was here when that was reauthorized, when that was redone,
and I begged, after talking to some liberal constitutional professors
of law, I begged Jim Sensenbrenner and John Conyers not to go forward
with section 4(b) the way it was and section 5. Let's do this right so
that it won't be struck down. Mr. Sensenbrenner was not open to that
whatsoever; John Conyers, to his credit, was. I said, please talk to
some professors, let them tell you, it is at risk of being struck down.
And he said, well, they say there is a decent chance of that, but let's
see what happens.
What happens now? We come in here, and we are going to disenfranchise
American voters by taking over the voting across America. The
Constitution reserves those provisions to the State legislature. We
shouldn't be doing this.
Back after the 2000 election when there were some people in Florida
that were not as smart as fifth graders because they couldn't figure
out the butterfly ballots, this body jumped in, took over, and said
everybody go to electronic ballots and electronic voting, and they have
caused us misery ever since.
Let's let States and local government do the job the Constitution
gave them.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).
Mr. CORREA. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the John
Lewis Voting Rights Act.
Today across the Nation, States are eliminating same-day voter
registration, reducing voting times, and limiting the availability of
polling places. These changes essentially make it harder for our
friends and neighbors to vote.
This bill is a simple bill. It ensures that all legally cast ballots
are counted. It ensures that the voices of Americans are louder than
those of special interests.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the John Lewis Voting Rights
Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4.
This legislation is named after a good man and a fellow Georgian,
John Lewis, whom I was honored to call friend while we served together
in this body.
And let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and
the Speaker that I was the only Republican to join you in San Diego for
the christening of the USNS John Lewis, and I
[[Page H4404]]
did it because he was my friend. I did it because he should be honored.
While he was a good man, this legislation does nothing to advance the
rights of our citizens to vote as my friends on the other side of the
aisle would claim.
H.R. 4 is a radical and unprecedented Federal power grab over State-
administered elections under the guise of updating the Voting Rights
Act of 1965.
At the time, the extraordinary measures employed by the Voting Rights
Act were important, however, thankfully, as the U.S. Supreme Court
recognized in a 2013 decision, things have changed dramatically in the
U.S. since 1965.
In fact, elections in 2018 and 2020 saw record turnout among
Americans from minority communities.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 4 must be rejected to ensure that the Federal
takeover of our elections stops right here.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the recognition,
and I acknowledge his tremendous leadership over time, including right
now on the issue of voting rights in our country. I thank him for
bringing this important legislation to the floor and to do so under the
name of Congresswoman Terri Sewell, the author of the bill, who has
been working on this for a long time, since the assault on the
legislation, on these laws by the Supreme Court.
I also thank Mr. Clyburn, a champion from the civil rights era to
now, always fighting for all of this; and Zoe Lofgren, the chair of the
Committee on House Administration.
We have so many people to acknowledge; Mr. Butterfield for his work
in establishing the constitutional record, as well as Marcia Fudge, now
Secretary Fudge, for her work. So many people worked to build a
constitutional basis to make it ironclad so that the Supreme Court of
the United States cannot once again do violence as it did in Shelby
County v. Holder and the most recent assault on section 2.
Madam Speaker, I think my colleagues will all agree that many
wonderful honors are afforded us as Members of Congress. I can think of
none that is more poignant than being here today to be able to speak on
this important issue named for John Lewis. It is almost a religious
experience because of the sanctity of the vote, which is greatly at
risk.
Our colleagues have mentioned some of the assaults on voting that
have taken place to undermine what we are, a democracy. We talk about
the preamble where 230 years ago our Founders gave us guidance in the
words, ``we the people'' establishing a government in which the people,
not a king, would shape their own destiny.
Ever since, Americans have fought to make real that promise for all
citizens while enshrining in the Constitution the 13th and 15th
amendments and the 19th amendment, which we are celebrating this week
to expand voting rights to women and to passing landmark civil and
voting rights protections, including the Voting Rights Act.
Right here in this very Chamber the Voting Rights Act was passed.
President Lyndon Johnson spoke in a beautiful speech, the ``We Shall
Overcome'' speech, in which he called the VRA's passage, ``The history
of this country, in large measure, is the history of the expansion of
that right to all of our people.''
We all know that the story of America is a story of ever-expanding
freedoms, yet today, that story and those rights are under threat from
a targeted, brazen, and partisan campaign to deny Americans the ballot.
This campaign is anti-democratic, it is dangerous, and it demands
action.
Today, the House will pass H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act to combat this anti-democratic tide. This bill restores
the power of the Voting Rights Act, as President Johnson said, `` . . .
one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American
freedom.''
Any diminishment of the Voting Rights Act is a diminishment of our
democracy. In America, the right to vote must never be compromised.
Again, I thank Representatives Sewell, Mr. Butterfield, Marcia Fudge,
Jerry Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Mr. Clyburn, and so many who made this day
possible.
And let me pause to salute our beloved conscience of the Congress,
the late John Lewis, whose words guide us. ``The vote is precious,'' he
said. ``It is almost sacred. It is the most powerful, nonviolent tool
we have in a democracy.''
The previous speaker mentioned that he had been at the christening of
the USNS John Lewis. We were all together in San Diego, and we were
honored that the Congressman was there with us.
As he was saying those words, I was remembering that day. We were all
very excited. It was the largest contingent of Members of Congress to
go to the christening of a ship--and I have been to several, so I
know--and what it was reminding me of is when we had gone a couple
years ago in 2019 to Ghana; John Lewis led us there. It was the 400th
anniversary. You were there, Madam Speaker. Mr. Clyburn and so many
others were there. We were there with John Lewis, and we went to the
door of no return, which now is the door of return as they were
welcoming people back.
I have on this bracelet that I got from the President of Ghana when
we were there as a remembrance of that trip, and I have it on now
because what John Lewis said then, and apropos of the christening of a
ship, We may have all come to this country on different ships, but now
we're all in the same boat. That is what John Lewis said. He said it in
Ghana. He said it many times.
We are all in the same boat. We all should have the right to vote.
And that should not be diminished by anyone. It is unpatriotic to
undermine the ability of people who have a right to vote to have access
to the polls.
As John knew, this precious pillar of our democracy is under attack
from what is the worst voter suppression campaign in America since Jim
Crow. Unleashed by the dangerous Shelby v. Holder in 2013 and 2021,
State lawmakers have introduced over 400 suppression bills.
I am very honored today, Madam Speaker, that we have legislators from
the State of Texas who are fighting the fight for voting rights for
people in their State and in our country. They are patriotic Americans.
And let us hear applause for those Texans who have done so much.
Much has been said about preclearance and thousands of discriminatory
voting changes. But let us just say that in the Shelby decision, the
dissent was written by Justice Ginsburg, and she noted in her dissent
the Court's reasoning in Shelby was nonsensical. ``Throwing out
preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop
discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a
rainstorm because you are not getting wet.''
Sadly, the Court has since continued that assault on the ballot.
So H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, would be
a remedy to this assault and to restore the preclearance provisions.
I have said earlier today on the rule on this vote, in 2006 we all
came together in a bipartisan way to pass the Voting Rights Act. Nearly
400 votes in the House, unanimous in the Senate. We came together in
the center of the Capitol, marched down the Capitol steps celebrating
that.
The bill was signed by President George Bush proudly. He joined us in
Selma, hosted by Congresswoman Sewell. He and President Obama joined us
in Selma, and he came and spoke as the President who had signed the
Voting Rights Act. As I say, more importantly, Mrs. Laura Bush was
there, so their hearts were in all of this. It was bipartisan. I wish
it could be today.
In our work to protect the ballot, let us recall John Lewis' final
message published after his passing. ``Democracy is not a state. It is
an act.'' With H.R. 4, his namesake, the Congress takes this action to
build a future in which we all have equitable access to the ballot and
to our democracy.
In memory of our beloved John, for whom this legislation is named,
and in the interest of passing it and H.R. 1, of which he wrote the
first 300 pages, let us honor our patriotic duty and make justice and
equality there for everyone to vote.
[[Page H4405]]
{time} 1700
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives just applauded Texas legislators for not showing up to
work, for not doing their job. I mean, the things we see today, it is
truly amazing to me.
Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, since the founding of our country, our
quest for a more perfect union has featured measures to expand, not
contract, the right to vote.
In 1965, activists, including a young John Lewis, put their lives on
the line to pass the original Voting Rights Act.
For decades, that law enjoyed broad bipartisan support, but in recent
years, State legislatures have passed hundreds of laws to restrict
voter access.
In 2020, our system held. It held because voters turned out in
overwhelming numbers. It held because election officials did their jobs
faithfully, regardless of party. It held because brave officers of the
U.S. Capitol and Metro Police defended our Constitution.
But let's be clear, the assault on voting rights continues, inspired
by corrupt and cynical efforts to hold power at all costs. We must do
our job to protect and reinforce our democratic system against these
new threats because it won't hold indefinitely.
Madam Speaker, I urge all Americans to hold the line to protect and
defend our democracy. I urge swift passage of the John R. Lewis Voting
Rights Advancement Act by the House and the Senate.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time once more.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4
and its efforts to protect access to the ballot box and advance justice
and democracy for all, including Latinos, which represent 77 percent of
my district.
We are all equal under the law and should be treated equally at the
ballot box. Recent attempts by the GOP-led legislatures in States like
my home State of Texas, demonstrate how urgent it is to protect our
democracy. These attempts could disenfranchise nearly 8 in every 10 of
my constituents.
Our country has one of the strongest democracies in the world, and it
is simply un-American to disenfranchise voters. I urge my colleagues to
pass H.R. 4, which would maintain elections free, fair, and accessible
to all eligible voters. Let's make our democracy stronger.
Si se puede. Yes, we can.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).
Ms. TENNEY. Madam Speaker, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 4. When our
Founders created this self-governing constitutional republic, they
vested the power to administer time, place, and manner of elections
with our State legislatures. They knew the sacred right to vote would
be better preserved by democratically elected, accountable State and
local officials rather than unelected Federal bureaucrats. This
principle has endured for two centuries. However, this principle is now
under attack here in the people's House.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that democracy is
somehow in peril. And their solution to this problem is to relinquish
total control of our elections, again, to Federal, unelected
bureaucrats--a complete opposite of democratic concepts; bureaucrats
with the power to prosecute based on political views and party
affiliations.
These are the same officials who were absent when now-disgraced
former Democrat Governor Cuomo unilaterally altered New York election
laws last year in violation of New York's constitution, which
chaotically overstressed the system and compromised the guarantee of a
free, secure, and fair election.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).
Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the John R.
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
During the Civil Rights Movement, I was a child in the stroller at
the March on Washington. And my father, who was the president of the
Illinois branch of the NAACP for over 20 years, he raised me to always
fight for what is right and what is just; to stand up for those who
don't always have a voice.
John Lewis embodied the spirit of justice, and he inspired so many to
fight for voting rights. John did say, ``Freedom is not a state, it is
an act.'' Freedom is the continuous action we all must take, and each
generation must do its part to create an even more fair and more just
society.
Today, we do our part. We stand up for the right to vote; freedoms
this Nation was founded upon and freedoms which must long endure.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in the act of
fighting for freedom, fighting for democracy, and supporting the John
R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support for the
Advancement Act.
[From the New Democrat Coalition, Aug. 23, 2021]
New Democrat Coalition Endorses H.R. 4
The New Democrat Coalition (NDC) announced its endorsement
of H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
The bill, introduced by NDC Member Terri Sewell (AL-07),
seeks to address the most egregious forms of recent voter
suppression by restoring the protections of the 1965 Voting
Rights Act and determining which states and localities with a
recent history of voting rights violations must pre-clear
election changes with the U.S. Department of Justice.
``Our responsibility as members of Congress is to ensure
that the American people have trust in our democratic process
and equitable access to the ballot box,'' said New Democrat
Coalition Chair Suzan DelBene. ``Congresswoman Sewell is
continuing Congressman John Lewis' legacy by reintroducing
this crucial legislation all to keep our elections fair and
open. The Coalition endorsed this bill because the right to
vote is the most sacred and fundamental right our nation
offers. We urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
join us in passing this historic piece of legislation.''
I'm so proud that the John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act has earned the endorsement of the New
Democrat Coalition,'' said New Democrat Member Rep. Terri
Sewell. ``The right to vote is the most sacred and
fundamental right we enjoy as American citizens and one that
the Foot Soldiers fought, bled, and died for in my hometown
of Selma, Alabama. Today, old battles have become new again
as we face the most pernicious assault on the right to vote
in generations. By restoring federal oversight and preventing
states with a recent history of voter discrimination from
restricting the right to vote, this bill keeps the promise of
our democracy alive for all Americans and advances the legacy
of those brave Foot Soldiers like John Lewis who dedicated
their lives to preserving the sacred right to vote.
The Coalition has long been an advocate for promoting
voting rights and protecting American elections and endorsed
H.R. 4 last Congress. Earlier this year, the Coalition also
endorsed H.R. 1. the For the People Act, earlier this year.
With the endorsement and expected House action on H.R. 4, the
Coalition remains committed to advancing voting and campaign
reform legislation through the Senate and to the President as
soon as possible.
____
Sierra Club,
August, 24, 2021.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Sierra Club's 4
million members and volunteers, we are writing to urge a YES
vote on the rule for the upcoming budget resolution and H.R.
4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and the
Senate Amendment to H.R. 3684.
Vote yes on the Rule containing S. Con 14/H.R. 3684 and
H.R. 4.
The vote on this rule will deem the budget resolution that
would initiate the reconciliation process to tackle the
ongoing climate crisis, one of our nation's greatest threats.
Today's vote comes just days after the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that the changing
climate and extreme weather events we're already experiencing
will continue to rapidly worsen. For many states this
includes sea level rise, coastal flooding, more frequent
storms, and extreme weather conditions, all of which threaten
infrastructure and the abundant natural resources critical
for the local economy. The growing local impacts of climate
change are clear, but so too is the fact that
[[Page H4406]]
climate inaction will have severe costs for the nation's
economy.
The Sierra Club strongly urges you to consider the enormous
significance of this moment and, VOTE YES on the budget
resolution, so we can begin the necessary process through
budget Reconciliation to address the climate crisis.
Vote yes on H.R. 4 The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement
Act.
In addition to addressing our nation's climate crisis, it
is imperative that we also protect our nation's democracy.
The same communities most vulnerable to climate impacts are
those disproportionately impacted and have been harmed by the
dilution of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court in
2013 and 2021.
Since then we have seen a rise in discriminatory voter
laws, from cuts to early voting days to restrictive voter
identification requirements. The John Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act would restore preclearance coverage for
state, localities, and political subdivisions with a history
of voter discrimination, and would increase transparency and
public awareness for changes to voting and polling practices
that can be confusing and deter American voters.
For these reasons we urge a yes vote on the rule for the
budget resolution, and for democracy and the John Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Sincerely,
Dan Chu,
Acting Executive Director.
AFT,
August 23, 2021.
____
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.7 million members
of the American Federation of Teachers, I strongly urge you
to support the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R.
4). The need to strengthen and re-establish the protections
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the crowning achievement of
the civil rights movement, is more pressing now than ever
before.
The late Rep. John Lewis once said, ``The vote is precious.
It is almost sacred. It is the most powerful non-violent tool
we have in our democracy.'' The bedrock of American democracy
is participation at the ballot box for all, no matter their
religion, their race, their income, their gender, their age,
where they come from, what state they reside in or their ZIP
code. Everything relies on voting rights, from the ability of
local communities to run their schools and manage local
services to the peaceful transfer of presidential power.
In the wake of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions--Shelby
County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National
Committee that gutted the Voting Rights Act, states have
considered and enacted a rush of new laws making the right to
vote harder to exercise, especially for communities of color.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, more than 400
voter suppression bills have been taken up by state
legislatures since January of this year, and 18 states have
already enacted 30 laws restricting the right to vote. Recent
voter suppression measures embrace a variety of tactics
including reducing early voting, eliminating polling places,
giving local judges the ability to overturn elections, and
making it a crime to deliver water or food to voters standing
in line. While companion legislation with comprehensive
national voting standards and reforms, such as the For the
People Act, is needed to address the state laws already
enacted, passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
is essential to prevent new state voter suppression measures
from being enacted.
The latest actions of state legislatures show that the
protections of the Voting Rights Act are still woefully
needed. They prove that the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg was right in her Shelby County dissent when
she wrote that to use the success of the Voting Rights Act as
proof that it is unneeded is as wise as not using an umbrella
in a storm because you don't feel the rain. Most of the
states that have recently enacted, or are currently debating,
laws restricting the right to vote have a history of having
their efforts blocked when the Voting Rights Act's
preclearance requirements were in full effect. H.R. 4 would
establish new preclearance formulas that would prevent states
with a history of voter discrimination from enacting new laws
that would suppress the vote. It would also ensure that last-
minute voting changes do not adversely affect voters by
requiring officials to publicly announce all voting changes
at least 180 days before an election, and it would expand the
government's authority to send federal observers to any
jurisdiction where there may be a substantial risk of
discrimination at the polls on Election Day or during an
early voting period.
John Lewis reminded us, ``Each of us has a moral obligation
to stand up, speak up and speak out. When you see something
that is not right, you must say something. You must do
something.'' This is your chance.
We urge you to defend voting rights throughout the country
by supporting the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
and renewing the fight for the comprehensive voting rights
legislation that must accompany it.
Thank you for considering our views on this critical
legislation.
Sincerely,
Randi Weingarten,
President.
____
SEIU,
August 20, 2021.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 2 million members of
the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), I write in
support of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
as well as the Federal Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Resolution,
and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Taken
together, these critical bills will help strengthen our
democracy and deliver on the full promise of President
Biden's Build Back Better agenda.
After years of inaction, the IIJA advances important
programs in public transportation, clean water, broadband and
climate resilience. These public investments would give our
communities a much-needed boost and help support safer
roadways and schools, cleaner water, and more available and
affordable Internet. But much more has to be done to build
our country back better and ensure that workers have unions
and a voice in their own futures.
By advancing the infrastructure bill along with the Build
Back Better reconciliation package, with its commitments to
living-wage care jobs with the opportunity to join together
in a union--a path to citizenship and climate justice,
Congress can take bold measures needed to meet essential
workers' demands for common-sense and transformative policy
solutions.
The budget resolution is the key to creating the pathway we
need for both the IIJA and the reconciliation bill. We call
on you to act immediately to pass the FY 2022 budget
resolution to move forward on President Biden's Build Back
Better full vision. In addition, we strongly urge you to
support the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. This
crucial legislation will help protect our democracy against
the widespread attacks on our freedom to vote that are being
mounted across our country--so that we all have an equal say
in our future and our rights are protected.
For these reasons, we urge you to support the IIJA, the
FY2022 budget resolution, and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act. We will add votes on each of these bills to
our legislative scorecard for the 117th Congress.
Sincerely,
Mary Kay Henry,
International President.
____
LIUNA!,
August 23, 2021.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 500,000 members of
the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA), I
want to express our strong support for H.R. 4, the John R.
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021.
Since the 2013 Supreme Court Shelby County v. Holder
decision, which challenged portions of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965, many states have enacted laws that restrict access
to the polls by shortening early voting hours, enacting
strict voter ID requirements, and decreasing the number of
polling locations. These changes to the law disproportionally
effect minority and disenfranchised communities. Just last
month, in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the
Supreme Court decided that rules that impacted different
populations unequally were not unfair. This decision opened
the door even more broadly to different forms of voter
suppression.
H.R. 4 is critically needed to help to reverse the negative
effects of these restrictive state laws by requiring states
and localities with a history of voting rights violations to
pre-clear any changes to election laws with the Department of
Justice. This important legislation will ensure that
elections across this country remain fair and will restore
the portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that recent
Supreme Court decisions have eliminated. In addition, this
legislation will ensure that multilingual voting materials
are more widely available and that polling places do not
disproportionally serve privileged communities over
communities of color.
For decades LIUNA has stood side by side with civil rights
activists, including the late Congressman John Lewis, as they
marched and took to the streets to fight for the critical
issue of voting rights--one of the cornerstones of our
democracy. LIUNA will continue to speak out against
discriminatory laws and practices that attempt to
disenfranchise voters. Ensuring all Americans have equal
access to their constitutionally enshrined right to vote is a
top priority.
LIUNA supports H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act of 2021, which passed the U.S. House of
Representatives with a bipartisan vote in the last Congress
and urges you to vote for this much-needed legislation.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Terry O'Sullivan,
General President.
____
National Education Association,
August 23, 2021.
Hon. Terri A. Sewell,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Sewell: On behalf of the 3 million
members of the National Education Association who work in
14,000 communities across the nation, we urge you to vote YES
on the John Lewis Voting
[[Page H4407]]
Rights Advancement Act of 2021 (H.R. 4) because it will
protect our most fundamental right as citizens and safeguard
the integrity of our democracy. Votes on this issue may be
included in NEA's Report Card for the 117th Congress.
NEA members help prepare students for the privileges and
responsibilities of citizenship. They want students to
understand how our government works and their role in making
it work--especially through voting. Yet, accessing the vote
has become more difficult in recent years, particularly for
African Americans and other people of color, people with
disabilities, students, and senior citizens. In fact, from
January through mid-July of this year, nearly 400 bills were
introduced in 49 states that would make voting more
difficult, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. At
least 18 of those states have enacted 30 new laws that
restrict our freedom to vote.
The U.S. Supreme Court in the 2013 Shelby v. Holder
decision invalidated a crucial provision in the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 (VRA) that prevented states with a history of
discriminating against voters from changing their voting laws
and practices without preclearance by federal officials. This
federal review was an important feature of the Voting Rights
Act; doing away with it has virtually annulled the federal
oversight that was--and remains--crucial to ensuring that
millions of people have equal access to the ballot box. Since
the Shelby decision, several states have changed their voting
practices in ways that have created barriers for people of
color, low-income people, transgender people, college
students, the elderly, and those with disabilities.
Furthermore, just last month, the Supreme Court ruled in
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee that two
discriminatory Arizona voting laws did not violate Section 2
of the Voting Rights Act. In its opinion in Brnovich, the
Court disregards the congressional purpose of Section 2,
which is to provide a powerful means to combat race
discrimination in voting and representation. The decision
relies on a limited interpretation of the Voting Rights Act
that will make it more difficult to challenge discriminatory
voting laws. This decision underscores the need for Congress
to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to
restore the legislative purpose of Section 2.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act fills a
distinct and critical role in protecting the freedom to vote
and ensuring elections are safe and accessible by reversing
these dangerous, undemocratic trends by taking several steps
that include:
Updating the criteria used for identifying states and
political subdivisions required to obtain federal review and
approval of voting changes to ensure those changes do not
infringe upon the freedom to vote for people of color;
Requiring that every state and locality nationwide that is
sufficiently diverse obtain federal review before enacting
specific types of voting changes that are known to be
discriminatory in their use to silence the growing political
power of voters of color;
Requiring all states and localities to publicly disclose,
180 days before an election, all voting changes, such as
reductions in language assistance and changes in requirements
to vote or register;
Authorizing the Attorney General to send federal observers
to any jurisdiction where there is a substantial risk of
racial discrimination at the polls;
Addressing the Brnovich decision by clarifying factors that
voters of color can use to prove a vote dilution or vote
denial claim under Section 2 of the VRA and restoring voters'
full ability to challenge racial discrimination in voting in
court;
Allowing the Department of Justice and voters of color to
challenge changes in a voting rule that would make voters of
color worse off in terms of their voting rights than the
status quo;
Expanding authority for courts to ``bail-in'' jurisdictions
to the preclearance process and updating the ability of
jurisdictions to ``bail-out'' of the preclearance process
once they demonstrate a record of not harming voters of
color; and
Providing voters with additional protection by easing the
standard for when courts can temporarily block certain types
of voting changes while the change is under review in court.
This is important because once a voter is discriminated
against in an election, it cannot be undone.
NEA members live, work, and vote in every precinct, county,
and congressional district in the United States. They take
their obligation to vote seriously, viewing it as essential
to protecting the opportunities that they believe all
students should have. Educators teach students that voting is
a responsibility of citizenship, a privilege people have died
to protect, and a right we must dedicate ourselves to
upholding. We urge you to vote YES on the John Lewis Voting
Rights Advancement Act so that all may participate in the
electoral process and have a voice in our democracy.
Sincerely,
Marc Egan,
Director of Government Relations,
National Education Association.
____
AARP,
August 24, 2021.
Hon. Terri Sewell,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Sewell: AARP, on behalf of our nearly
38 million members and all older Americans, is proud to
support H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement
Act of 2021. The right to vote is the most fundamental of all
political rights, and all Americans must be able to exercise
their vote freely, easily, and safely.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) has been our nation's
preeminent law protecting the voting rights of all Americans.
But recent Supreme Court decisions have weakened several
provisions of the law. H.R. 4 would help restore the law and
ensure the protections contained in the 14th and 15th
Amendments to the Constitution are enforced, by:
Creating a new coverage formula for all states and
political subdivisions that takes into consideration repeated
voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years;
Establishing a process for reviewing voting changes,
focusing on measures that have historically been used to
discriminate, including voter ID laws, the reduction of
multilingual voting materials, changes to voting districts,
and reductions in the number of polling locations;
Increasing transparency through public notice when voting
changes are made; Expanding voting accessibility for Native
American and Alaska Native voters; Allowing the Attorney
General authority to request federal observers where there is
a threat of racial discrimination in voting;
Allowing a federal court to order states or jurisdictions
to be covered for results-based violations,
Clarifying that a voting change or practice is
discriminatory even if other forms of voting are available to
a protected class and;
Directing the Judicial Branch to discount a state or
locality's claims of fraud as a reason to pass harmful voting
laws if no evidence is presented of such fraud.
AARP looks forward to working with Congress and the
Administration to ensure every citizen's right to vote.
Sincerely,
Nancy A. LeaMond,
Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy & Engagement
Officer.
____
American Public Health,
Association,
August 23, 2021.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Public
Health Association, a diverse community of public health
professionals that champions the health of all people and
communities, I write in strong support of H.R. 4, the John R.
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021.
Over the past decade, U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as
Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National
Committee have unfortunately eroded key protections provided
by the Voting Rights Act that protect against racial
discrimination in the voting process, giving many states the
ability to suppress and discriminate against voters. This
year alone, state lawmakers have introduced 400 bills and
enacted 30 laws restricting access to voting in 48 states.
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 would
restore VRA protections by establishing a federal review
process of changes to state voting laws. Potentially
discriminatory changes would be paused until federal review
is completed, and changes found to be discriminatory would be
blocked entirely. Furthermore, strict oversight would be
applied to states with histories of voter discrimination and
policy changes known to be used to discriminate against
voters of color.
Decades ago, the Institute of Medicine established in a
report that voting is a public health issue because it helps
shape ``the conditions in which people can be healthy.'' The
ballot box is where community members can come together to
decide on key issues that shape our response to today's
public health emergencies: police brutality, gun violence,
climate change and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We commend
Congresswoman Terri Sewell and the other sponsors for
introducing this landmark legislation and the House for
bringing it up for a vote. I write in strong support of H.R.
4 and urge you to vote yes on the bill. The provisions in
this bill would support the advancement of racial and health
equity, a key APHA priority and a crucial step toward
achieving the healthiest nation in one generation.
Sincerely,
Georges C. Benjamin, MD,
Executive Director.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, how pleased our friend would be that Nikema
Williams is presiding, his successor. He was one of her mentors.
Madam Speaker, how proud you must be to preside at this critical time
in our history.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Selma, Alabama, Terri
Sewell. I have been with Terri and her church, worshipped with her,
prayed
[[Page H4408]]
with John Lewis in her church, walked down the streets of her town and
over a bridge called the Edmund Pettus Bridge. And unlike John Lewis,
when we walked across it, there were Alabama troopers to protect us
rather than prevent us from voting.
Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of discussion on the floor today
about how there is no problem in America; people have full access. Too
many people that I talk to throughout the country have told me that is
not the case.
The Supreme Court passed a ruling and said, Oh, everything was fine.
And as soon as they did, as soon as they took this preclearance off,
State after State after State enacted legislation to make it more
difficult to vote; like that.
Justice Ginsburg made an analogy in Shelby that the Supreme Court was
saying, Oh, well, there is no problem left. She said it was like the
man with the umbrella who had the umbrella up; wasn't getting wet. It
was raining, but he wasn't getting wet. So he gave the umbrella away
and said, I'm okay. I am dry. And then immediately, of course, he got
all wet.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my sister, Terri Sewell; John's
sister. John called me brother, and he called all of us brothers and
sisters, in this, the beloved community that he envisioned. That was
King's vision, as John was his disciple.
Today, we are honoring the legacy of a historic Member of this House.
In my view, I have served with two historic Members of the Congress of
the United States and the Senate and the House. There were a lot of
famous, but two historic figures: One was John Lewis. And the other is
Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker and, in my view, the most
effective Speaker with whom I have served in the 40 years that I have
been here.
John Lewis was my dear friend, and he was your dear friend. I called
him the most Christlike person I have ever seen, our dear Saint John,
who preached to us the gospel of getting into ``good trouble'' and
creating a beloved community; the gospel of John Robert Lewis.
He would be proud of us today for bringing this bill to the floor. He
worked hard on this bill. I can remember sitting-- Jim Clyburn and I,
and John Lewis and others--sitting in my whip's conference room,
working on voting rights' legislation.
So let us honor his memory today with strong support for its voting
rights' protection, for its reversal of the damage wrought by the 2013
Shelby v. Holder ruling, and for its recognition that our democracy is
imperfect if it is not open to all eligible to vote.
In that ruling, Shelby v. Holder, the Supreme Court erred in its
assessment of how necessary the Voting Rights Act's preclearance
section was for protecting Americans' right to vote. You are not
protecting Americans' right to vote if the relief that you can seek is
after the fact, after the governor or the President or the Senator or
the House of Delegates or representative, Member has been elected. It
is too late. That is why preclearance was so critically important to
reform and to protection of voters' rights.
In her powerful dissent, as I said, Justice Ginsburg pointed out that
throwing out preclearance when it has worked and has continued to work
to stop discriminatory changes is like that gentleman giving away his
umbrella.
Indeed, since 2013, we have seen a veritable downpour of
discriminatory and exclusionary voter suppression measures. I hear
people arguing--I heard a Texan argue on this floor about how it is so
easy to vote in Texas. Yet, we see them fighting for legislation, which
half of their body--or not quite half, unfortunately--but a big number
of their body who represents minority citizens says, No, you are wrong.
You ought to walk in our shoes and find that they are making it more
difficult for me to vote.
Since 2013, we have seen a veritable downpour, as I said. The John R.
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, sponsored by Terri Sewell, would
confront this tempest head on. We have seen a campaign of voter
suppression efforts in Republican-led jurisdictions that have changed
their laws and voting rules to make it harder for eligible Americans to
vote.
Their leader, Donald Trump, says there was fraud, there was theft.
The problem is the Republican judges to which they appealed said no.
The problem is Attorney General Barr, who covered up almost everything
that Donald Trump said, even he couldn't say that there was fraud.
{time} 1715
And so they justify these laws by somehow there is fraud out there,
they are stealing our elections. That is baloney. It is the same kind
of lie that Donald Trump continues to parrot. And if you say, like Liz
Cheney did, he is lying, you are kicked out of your party.
We have seen a campaign of voter suppression over and over and over
again, making it harder for eligible Americans to vote,
disproportionately targeting African Americans. I am not an African
American. It is hard for me to walk in those shoes.
I try to empathize, but I know if I am not Black, I can't really be
as knowledgeable as I would be if I were Black, and I was every day
subjected to discrimination, or if I were another person of color.
They have reduced early voting opportunities that help working people
cast ballots. They want to eliminate--they haven't in every place--mail
balloting, because they feel somehow if I don't see them when they fill
out that form and attest that they are who they are under penalties of
perjury that somehow----
Now, I can understand, from a party that in the last seven elections,
in the last quarter of a century, have elected a number of Presidents,
only one got a majority; only one, but they won the electoral college
vote. That is why some Republicans said: Are you crazy? You confirm the
electoral college, because it is what is protecting us against the
majority.
They purged voter rolls so that people who believed themselves to be
registered because they had registered and voted in the past, showed up
to vote but were turned away.
I sponsored the Help America Vote Act with a guy named Bob Ney, who
was from Ohio and a Republican, and a dear friend of mine.
Unfortunately, he got in trouble, but he is a good man, still a good
man. And we provided for provisional ballots, which simply said, if you
made a mistake and came to the wrong precinct, fill out the ballot, we
are going to check it tomorrow or the next day and make sure you are
eligible to vote, and if you are, we will count it. That made sense;
efforts to eliminate those.
These are real and pressing challenges facing our elections and our
democracy; not imaginary fraud, but active and visible voter
suppression. We have a duty, my colleagues, Democrat and Republican
colleagues, we have a duty, a responsibility, a moral responsibility to
make sure that people can vote and that we facilitate their vote, not
impede it. Not make it more difficult. Facilitate it. Encourage them.
Lift them up and let them vote.
And we owe it to John Lewis and the other heroes of Selma, and all
the other small towns and byways and big cities and big States, where
people fought, demonstrated, were bruised, battered, beaten, and yes,
some died, so that their brothers and sisters could have the vote.
My colleagues, it falls to us now, today, to continue their march
forward, and to carry on their work. There are no Alabama troopers
waiting on the other side that are going to beat us or batter us or
prevent us. We are not at risk. Whatever way we vote, we are going to
walk out of there today and we are going to be fine.
But we have a moral responsibility to those who fought here and
around the world to protect the vote, to protect democracy.
I urge my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to join you, to join me, to join
our fellow colleagues in voting for H.R. 4, and for the protection of
voting rights in our country. H.R. 4 the people.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Williams of Georgia). The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, my inquiry is, if it is appropriate to call
the previous President a liar, is it appropriate that we can refer to
the current President as a liar also?
[[Page H4409]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As recorded in section 370 of the House
Rules and Manual, the prohibition against engaging in personalities
does not apply to former Presidents.
Mr. BUCK. Does not apply to past Presidents?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. BUCK. Understood. I thank the Speaker.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, is it appropriate on the floor of the House
to tell the truth?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, it is interesting when President Trump
was in office that the name-calling in this place about him occurred
often during the President's time in office.
In California, we currently have a special election about to be
underway here. Just the other day, 300 mail-in ballots were found in
the car of a guy passed out in a 7-Eleven parking lot, 300 ballots. And
we don't think there is an issue sometimes with the way mail-in ballots
are distributed.
I get anecdotes all the time from folks like this current special
election. Oh, I received three ballots for people that haven't lived at
my apartment for a long time, or relatives that have long since passed
away, because you just mail them out willy-nilly everywhere.
H.R. 4 is not about voting rights, it is about election control and
manipulation. It is about political appointees at the Department of
Justice overturning State and legislative process, and controlling from
D.C. local election decisions.
We know that Americans of the right age and legal status have the
right to vote, and no one here is trying to take that away from them.
Voter suppression hype is just a big lie. It is absurd what is trying
to be perpetrated in this legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, 8 years ago the Supreme Court demolished
the Voting Rights Act, in the deluded, dangerous belief that we had
somehow overcome white supremacy and no longer needed the greatest
achievement of the Civil Rights Movement.
The next day, States began making it harder for Black and Brown
Americans to vote, initiating the biggest wave of racist voter
suppression since Jim Crow. But today, we act to restore the Voting
Rights Act. We also act to reverse the Supreme Court's recent assault
on the right to vote by passing my bill with Representative Ruben
Gallego, the Inclusive Elections Act, which is part of this package.
Having said that, let us be clear-eyed about how we got here and the
threat that remains. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act will not be
safe so long as six far-right justices of the Supreme Court stand ready
to destroy our democracy.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I want to just remind everybody, no
matter what side of the bill you are on, there is a huge trust issue
going on in America right now. People do not trust the system, and that
is everyone's problem. If you think a centralized election bill to move
the power to Washington, D.C., and put it in the hands of Congress and
the courts is going to help, you are wrong. They don't trust us and
they don't trust the courts.
A decentralized system is what has worked in America. So make sure
that after you support this legislation, you go back and you meet with
the town clerk that runs the elections, the county clerks, the parish
clerks, the municipal clerks, and yes, the State legislatures. I notice
the State legislatures are taking a real beating here today.
Pre-clearance expansion. Is that a can of worms that this body really
wants to open up? Printed ballots. Photo ID. Now we are going to
mandate polling places, election timelines, primary mechanics, who can
be a poll worker. These are all things that are included in H.R. 4. I
just want to make sure the public is aware of that.
We are now taking the power away from the people and placing it right
here in Washington, D.C., in Congress and in the courts exclusively.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, for years I have said that the 1965
Voting Rights Act was written between Selma and Montgomery. The Voting
Rights Act leveled the playing field and transformed southern electoral
politics.
Since the Shelby decision, the right to vote and access to the ballot
box are being compromised. The Subcommittee on Elections, which I
chair, held five hearings, we called over 35 witnesses, produced a
report detailing clear evidence of ongoing voter discrimination all
across the country.
I thank Chairman Nadler, Chairman Cohen, and Ms. Sewell for a good
bill. The Voting Rights Act is as important today as ever. Passage of
H.R. 4 will protect the right to vote and fully enforce the 15th
Amendment.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, to come to the correct
conclusion, a law professor used to say, ``You've got to know the
facts.'' And that is what the American people need here: the facts, not
emotion.
This bill would comprehensively transfer the power to govern
elections in this country from the sovereign States to the Federal
Government permanently and everywhere.
So what is the factual premise for so fundamentally concentrating the
power here in Washington and diminishing the States? What has happened
to justify making pervasive and permanent what Chief Justice Roberts
explained was ``a drastic departure from basic principles of freedom''
when it was necessarily undertaken in the 1960s, temporarily and in
limited parts of the country?
Well, Democrats offer lurid claims, but the American people are
catching on. Like earlier this year, Stacey Abrams claimed that a
simple voter ID law would be Jim Crow 2.0, but once the absurdity of
that caught up to her, she looked so ridiculous that she tried to deny
ever having claimed it.
Nothing epitomizes this better than the slur repeated in the Rules
Committee yesterday by my law school classmate and colleague,
Congresswoman Ross. She quoted three ultraliberal judges in the Fourth
Circuit who said that when the North Carolina legislature enacted voter
ID and other reforms in 2013, it ``targeted African Americans with
almost surgical precision.''
Activists and media have quoted that phrase over 7,500 times,
according to Google. But few know that the three judges who stated that
finding of fact were appellate judges who were supposed to be bound by
the trial judge's finding of fact; or that the trial judge found in a
painstaking 400-page analysis that the legislature's bill was not
discriminatory. So the three appellate judges abused their power.
Few know how the three liberal appellate judges became the final
word, that a Democrat State Attorney General intentionally sabotaged
the State's appeal to prevent an upcoming review by the Supreme Court.
That AG abused his power.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, when the details are
known, the absence of factual basis becomes plain. Nobody is getting
wet. A University of Oregon economist showed, just in February, that
the Shelby County decision to which this bill purports to respond, has
not impaired Black voter turnout at all. There is no Jim Crow 2.0. This
bill is about abuse of power.
Democrats wish to entrench themselves in power and to use the Federal
[[Page H4410]]
Government to obliterate the States in order to achieve it. You have to
know the facts.
{time} 1730
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the John R.
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. As Rhode Island's former secretary
of state, I know the importance of access to the ballot box.
That is why I was devastated when the Supreme Court gutted one of our
most momentous civil rights bills, opening the door to a litany of
voter suppression laws.
Our dearly departed John Lewis was bloodied on the bridge at Selma
while peacefully urging passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The
scars he carried were not in vain, as decades of progress have shown
us. But it is abundantly clear that we have not yet achieved equality
of access. There are forces at work in this country trying to undo what
we have so painstakingly earned.
That is why it is so important that we pass this bill to restore the
Voting Rights Act and ensure that every American, regardless of race,
can have his or her voice heard in our democracy.
Let's vote in favor of this bill and send a clear message that we
want to protect every vote in America.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
Mrs. BEATTY. Madam Speaker, I am not sure what John Lewis my
Republican colleagues are talking about when they say he was their
friend and what he would have wanted. He helped write this bill.
Let me just say that, on behalf of millions of Black voters who stood
in lines across this country, including in my home State of Ohio, and
leaders like our beloved John Lewis, who risked his life as he crossed
the Edmund Pettus Bridge, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the John
R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021.
On behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, we say we step into
history today as we tread the same path when, 56 years ago, President
Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law calling the day ``a
triumph for freedom as huge as any victory won on any battlefield.''
So to all of my colleagues, I say: Support this bill. Our power, our
message, the Congressional Black Caucus.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Bourdeaux).
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Madam Speaker, Georgia was one of the first States in
the country to pass a voter suppression bill after the 2020 general
election, but S.B. 202 is just our State's latest attempt to
disenfranchise minority communities.
Georgia has a long history of undermining the right to vote, from the
Jim Crow era to recent tactics like voter roll purges and exact match
policies.
It is time for Congress to fix what the Supreme Court broke in their
2013 ruling, which effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act.
When I came to Congress, I vowed to support the John R. Lewis Voting
Rights Advancement Act, and I am proud to keep that commitment today.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4 and protect the
sacred right to vote.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Madam Speaker, we have weak leadership now and a crisis in
Afghanistan. We have a crisis at our border because of weak leadership.
We have an inflation crisis because of weak leadership. And we have a
crime issue in our cities as a result of weak leadership.
Now, we debate preclearance requirements that are unnecessary and
unconstitutional. We hear that they are necessary because of voter ID
laws.
It takes identification to buy liquor in this country, to buy
marijuana in this country, and to drive a car in this country. To enter
this building, it takes identification.
Yet, it is such a burden that we need to have preclearance with the
Department of Justice because of that heavy burden that is being placed
on citizens, preclearance from an administration that has screwed up
Afghanistan, screwed up the border, screwed up inflation. We are
supposed to go to them and ask them for permission because voter ID is
such a burden.
If there weren't people streaming across this border who could
potentially vote, we wouldn't be asking for voter ID laws across this
country, but we are.
Madam Speaker, you can't screw things up on the one hand and, on the
other hand, try to require preclearance.
It is wrong, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 4, critical legislation that confronts the crisis facing our
democracy.
In Florida, we witnessed a Republican legislature attempting to cling
to power through voter suppression, taking special aim at Black and
Brown voices. The blatantly antidemocratic legislation signed by
Governor DeSantis this year makes voter registration harder, limits
voting by mail, and curbs the use of secure ballot drop boxes. Similar
suppression tactics took root across the Nation, with at least 18
States making it harder to vote this year.
To honor our dear friend and colleague, Congressman Lewis, we must
stand up to this assault on our constitutional rights. This bill would
stop those who want to shape the electorate to help them win elections
because they can't win on their losing agenda.
At this moment in history, bold action is necessary to protect the
right to vote. After we pass this bill, we must ensure it moves through
the Senate. Our very democracy depends on it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the John R.
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
It is because of the courage and sacrifices of civil rights leaders
like Congressman John Lewis that we were able to pass the Voting Rights
Act of 1965. But for over a decade, we have witnessed a new era of
voter suppression and Jim Crow laws pursued by Republican State
legislatures, including in my State of Arizona.
These attacks on our right to vote are nothing new. For too long,
Black, Latino, and Native American voters have overcome incredible
barriers to cast their votes.
That is not how American democracy should work. That is why
Representative Mondaire Jones and I were proud to add a provision to
this bill today that bans discriminatory voting laws that harm voters
of color.
I strongly urge my colleagues to pass this bill and this provision
with it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, 66 years ago this week, Emmett Till was
brutally lynched by two white supremacists.
When his body was returned to his mother, Mamie Till, in Chicago, she
held an open casket funeral because, in her words: ``I wanted the world
to see what they did to my baby.''
This was a galvanizing moment for the civil rights movement, but it
was not the end of Mamie Till-Mobley's activism. She spent the rest of
her life touring the country, speaking out about the injustice of her
son's murder and the vital importance of eliminating racial
discrimination, disenfranchisement, and segregation.
[[Page H4411]]
She also spent 23 years teaching in the Chicago public school system,
continuing to speak to students in the Chicago area about civil rights
as late as the year 2000.
Today, we are witnessing the reemergence of the kinds of voting
discrimination that she spoke out against. We must pass the John R.
Lewis Voting Rights Act for Mamie Till, for John Lewis, and for every
hero who fought for civil rights.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have a joint report
from the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on the
Judiciary Republicans titled ``An Unprecedented and Unconstitutional
Power Grab: How Democrats are Abusing the Constitution to Nationalize
Elections.''
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, Congressman John Lewis earned his
reputation as the conscience of this body because of his leadership
during the long march for equal rights at the ballot box.
John and so many people of conscience and courage were arrested,
beaten, bruised, and even murdered. The memory of being denied the
right to vote still dwells in the minds of countless Americans. Many of
those minds, like John's, survived crushing blows to the skull to earn
that right.
John fought and bled for voting rights. He led the charge for voting
rights. He should be honored by passing this bill drafted in his name.
We have had the promise of one man, one vote since the birth of this
country, and we can't backslide on this progress.
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act will help us get to
the promised land where every person has the right to vote.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have the Census Bureau
report detailing record turnout in 2020; the Election Integrity Network
H.R. 4 fact sheet; the Honest Election Project analysis titled ``H.R. 4
Legal and Constitutional Challenges''; the Independent Women's Forum
analysis titled ``D.C. Bureaucrats and Judges Will Steal the Pen in
Drawing Voting Districts''; and also the Foundation for Government
Accountability analysis titled ``H.R. 4 Isn't Voting Progress. It is a
Power Grab.''
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise to announce that
I will not only vote for H.R. 4 but I will also vote for those who are
making it possible and who have made it possible for me to vote for
H.R. 4.
I will vote for Medgar Evers, who was assassinated trying to secure
the right to vote.
I will vote for Schwerner and Goodman, two Jews who died in
Mississippi trying to secure the right to vote.
I will vote for all of those who suffered on the Edmund Pettus Bridge
on Bloody Sunday to secure the right to vote.
I will do so because although it was signed in ink by a courageous
President, it was written in blood.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have the following
reports: an analysis of H.R. 4 titled ``How H.R. 4 Would Let Leftist
Extremists Control the Entire Nation's Elections''; the Lawyers
Democracy Fund H.R. 4 analysis; a RealClear Politics article titled
``'Jim Crow 2.0' Is Imaginary''; a letter opposing H.R. 4 from the
Independent Women's Forum and others; a Heritage analysis titled
``Another Bill in Congress to Give Partisan Bureaucrats Control Over
State Election Laws''; and lastly, the Honest Elections Project Action
analysis titled ``H.R. 4: The Nancy Pelosi Power Grab.''
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for
yielding. I thank Congresswoman Terri Sewell, Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
Whip Clyburn, and so many Members for their leadership in keeping our
eyes on the prize.
Now, the Supreme Court gutted critical protections of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965. Today, we are restoring that constitutional right
that so many States are taking away from Black and Brown people, rural
people, people of color--everyone. Sooner or later, it will be all of
us who will be subject to these voter restrictions acts.
So make no mistake, these are efforts to turn the clock back to the
days of Jim Crow. That is not something I am imagining. Madam Speaker,
I vividly remember, as one who was born and raised in El Paso, Texas.
So I, too, salute our Texas legislators for their boldness in
protecting the right to vote.
H.R. 4 can restore these crucial protections that our beloved John
Lewis and so many others fought for. John said that the right to vote
is ``precious, almost sacred.'' In honor of his legacy as a paragon of
democracy, let us vote to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act.
I thank Congresswoman Terri Sewell, G. K. Butterfield, our Speaker,
everyone who has brought this bill to the floor.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
{time} 1745
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Speaker, like in many States, Republicans in
Michigan's legislature have introduced legislation to suppress the
right to vote. Make no mistake about it, the fundamental right to vote
in this country is under assault. That is why my dear friend, John
Lewis, once said: Voting is the most powerful, nonviolent tool we have
in our democracy.
Today, we fight back. Today, we have an opportunity to restore the
power of the vote. I urge my colleagues to support the John R. Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, one of the greatest honors and
privileges of my life has been to serve with John Lewis whom I had the
privilege of calling a precious friend.
In August, 58 years ago, the young John Lewis led a march to
Washington with Martin Luther King and on August 16 of 1965, the
momentous Voting Rights Act was signed into law, thanks to John Lewis.
Today, on August 25, 2021, we are here to vote for the John R. Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act. A bill that he almost gave his life to
pass all of those years ago will now restore the power of the Voting
Rights Act, the right to vote, in the new legislation named for our
dear friend and the conscience of this Congress. Let's vote ``yes.''
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, COVID was the excuse to bail out blue States poorly
managed and union pensions poorly managed. Our current recession has
been the excuse to pay people more to be on unemployment than to be at
work or to permanently expand the social welfare programs that were
supposed to be temporary and targeted.
The supposed climate crisis is the excuse for destroying our energy
independence. And if you listen to my colleagues' comments today, you
would think there was rampant voter suppression and a rise of racial
discrimination in voting. That is not true. That is
[[Page H4412]]
simply not true. It is divisive, and I would suggest that it is
dangerous for our country.
The real crisis, Madam Speaker, is America's confidence in the
integrity of our elections because elections are the backbone of our
democracy, and so we need to make sure we do everything to ensure a
free and fair process and an accurate outcome.
That is the responsibility, according to the Constitution, of the
States. We don't need Federal Government lawyers or the DOJ to be
weaponized against States' efforts to make these reforms with respect
to voter ID, mail-in ballot eligibility, and other integrity reform
measures.
Madam Speaker, let's stick to the Constitution. Let's uphold it.
Let's protect the States' right to secure and improve election
integrity for our citizens and our electoral process in this great
country.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, over the past decades when
officials in Florida tried to restrict access to the ballot box, the
Voting Rights Act provided protections for all Floridians to cast their
vote.
Maybe they limited hours of voting, or didn't provide timely notice
to changes in polling places, or didn't provide clear ballot language,
but the Voting Rights Act was there. But, unfortunately, the U.S.
Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act and after that State
officials moved to enact other discriminatory practices to keep certain
people and people of color from casting ballots.
It is wrong. So it is vitally important that the Congress adopt the
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to make sure voting is
fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been
historically prevalent.
As John Lewis said: When you see something that is not right and not
fair, you have to speak up. You have to say something. You have to do
something. And that is what we are going to do today. I say to
Representative Sewell, We are going to cast a reinvigorated Voting
Rights Act. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, a foundational
dependency of any democracy sustaining is its citizens having
confidence in the outcome of its elections. Simply put, if people don't
have faith in elections, democracy doesn't work.
According to a recent Gallup poll, America's confidence in our
elections has decreased by 20 percent since 2009. Ensuring that our
elections are run in a way that makes it easy to vote and hard to cheat
increases confidence. A common best practice to ensure election
integrity are voter IDs, a way for people to prove they are who they
say they are.
For Democrats to equate this with the poll taxes of the early 20th
century is a ludicrous, false equivalency. According to the Honest
Elections Project, 77 percent of all Americans support voter ID
requirements, including 75 percent of independents, 64 percent of
African Americans, and 76 percent of low-income voters.
Knowing that, what does the majority do? They include language in
H.R. 4 that would restrict commonsense voter ID requirements and
require the judicial branch to consider voter ID laws as evidence of
voter suppression, and by extension, racism. That doesn't restore faith
in elections.
H.R. 4, as introduced, would require preapproval by an unaccountable
election czar in the Biden DOJ before any State or locality under
preclearance could enact popular, commonsense voter ID laws. H.R. 4
goes even further, requiring almost a dozen States to have their
existing voter ID laws examined by the Biden DOJ before they can
continue to be enforced.
These are the same election integrity laws that have been in place
for years. This is a partisan power grab of maintaining control.
Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct
the Committee on the Judiciary to consider my amendment to H.R. 4 to
strike from the bill the provisions that penalize State and local
governments who implement commonsense voter ID requirements.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Blunt Rochester). Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).
Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in the spirit of
my predecessor, Congressman John Lewis.
Congressman Lewis taught us that when you see something that is not
fair, not just, not right, you have a moral obligation to find a way to
get in the way.
The voter suppression laws that have been enacted across the country
and what is happening in my home State of Georgia is the very
definition of the good trouble that John Lewis taught us to get into,
to push back against.
We might not be counting jelly beans in a jar but make no mistake,
they seek the same purpose: to stop people who look like me from
accessing their right to vote.
We all have an opportunity to get in the way today by voting ``yes''
on the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
If my colleagues ever wondered what they would have done during the
civil rights movement, this is your opportunity to find out. Our
democracy is on the line.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, we have one final Speaker who will close
for us, so I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
The American people can see clearly what is happening here. Democrats
in the Congress are more focused on taking Federal control over the
election processes in Republican-led States than addressing the ongoing
catastrophe that the Biden administration has created in Afghanistan,
at our southern border, with inflation, and the ongoing pandemic. There
are so many things that should be occupying our time and, yet, they are
using it for this.
The cry of voter suppression is not only untrue, but as Mr. Arrington
said so well here just a few moments ago, it is also divisive and
dangerous. We need to speak truth, as Mr. Hoyer said a little while
ago, and we are.
We had six hearings in the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
Liberties Subcommittee since January on this. I am the ranking
Republican there. Not a scintilla of evidence was presented that said
that voters are being suppressed, that the election integrity laws that
are being passed by the States, pursuant to their constitutional
authority, are in any way inappropriate. To the contrary, they are
expanding access to the ballot. As we have said so many times, as I
close, it has never been easier in America to vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished majority
whip.
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Madam Speaker, I want to take this time to thank my colleagues in
this august body for the civility that we have demonstrated here as we
approach this final vote.
I want to thank the Democrats, every single one of whom cosponsored
this legislation. I am hopeful that this can be a bipartisan result. I
think all of us know that our country has a history of voter
suppression and voter denial. I think all of us are quite aware of
recent efforts being made in many States. Forty-nine have passed laws
that are called restrictive by objective analyses that have been made.
These laws are not needed. These laws are very creative instruments
that will be used if not checked to suppress the vote.
[[Page H4413]]
We all heard a recent candidate having lost an election call upon
election officials to: Just find me the number of votes that I need to
win this election. If that is not voter suppression, I would like to
know how we would define it.
So I want to thank all of us for what we have done here today, and I
hope that this result can be a bipartisan one.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to rise today in
support of H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I'd
like to thank Congresswoman Sewell, a daughter of Selma, for
introducing this bill and for being a fierce and relentless advocate of
the right to vote.
How wonderful is it, Madam Speaker, that this bill bears the name of
our late colleague, one of the greatest Americans to ever walk these
halls, Congressman John Lewis. His legacy--and the legacies of other
civil rights leaders who dedicated their lives to ensuring free, fair,
and equitable access to the polls--lives on through this legislation.
For Texans, this fight for voting rights is personal. We have
witnessed, over the past several months, a systematic and antiquated
effort to strip the right to vote away from millions across the state.
This effort is built upon the decades and decades of unfair voting
practices in the history of Texas. In fact, I remember having to pay a
poll tax when I voted in my first election in Dallas. And although
these new efforts are not as blatant as a poll tax, they are equally as
obstructive.
Texas is Just one of many states battling waves of restrictive voting
legislation spurred by Republican majorities at the local level. These
attempts at our rights are not new--and neither is the vigorous,
concerted opposition to them. From Martin Luther King, Jr. and John
Lewis's march on Bloody Sunday to the Texas Democrats risking arrest to
filibuster the passage of these laws, there are always people who are
willing to fight. And as long as there are generations of people who
are willing to fight, our cause will never perish.
But now, Madam Speaker, it's time for Congress to meet the moment. We
must pass H.R. 4--not only because it would prohibit the implementation
of strict voter requirements and reductions in polling locations and
hours; not only because it would restore the originals provisions and
intent of the Voting Rights Act; but because it is also fundamentally
the right thing to do in our democracy.
As a proud cosponsor of H.R. 4, I would urge all of my colleagues,
Democrat and Republican, to support this legislation and, in doing so,
express your support of the right to vote for all Americans.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Madam Speaker, we are living through a 21st century
assault on the right to vote--the likes of which we haven't seen since
Jim Crow.
Without a doubt, it's the most significant test of our democracy
since the Civil War--and future generations will never forgive us if we
don't meet this moment.
Meeting this moment requires us to act--and we need the John Lewis
Voting Rights Act.
The right to vote is sacred, the cornerstone of our Republic. But
like Franklin Roosevelt warned--our Republic, if we can keep it.
Today's vote is a referendum on how willing we are to stand by our
oath--the oath we took to protect our democracy.
We must keep it.
Our democracy depends on how we vote today.
Vote to protect the future of this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Williams of Georgia). Pursuant to House
Resolution 601, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as
amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to
recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 4 to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois
is as follows:
Page 7, strike lines 10 through 17.
Page 26, strike line 19 and all that follows through line
18 on page 27.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212,
nays 218, not voting 1, as follows:
[Roll No. 259]
YEAS--212
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin
NAYS--218
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
[[Page H4414]]
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--1
Costa
{time} 1637
Messrs. BROWN, HOYER, KIND, Ms. TITUS, and Mr. TRONE changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. SESSIONS, GRAVES of Louisiana, BABIN, ARRINGTON, and REED
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Aderholt (Moolenaar)
Amodei (Balderson)
Barragan (Raskin)
Blumenauer (Bonamici)
Bowman (Omar)
Brownley (Clark (MA))
Buchanan (Dunn)
Calvert (Garcia (CA))
Cardenas (Correa)
Cuellar (Green (TX))
Curtis (Moore (UT))
Davids (KS) (Kim (NJ))
DeFazio (Brown)
DeGette (Blunt Rochester)
DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
Deutch (Rice (NY))
Diaz-Balart (Cammack)
Duncan (Babin)
Emmer (Cammack)
Escobar (Garcia (TX))
Fleischmann (Bilirakis)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Garbarino (Miller-Meeks)
Garamendi (Sherman)
Gibbs (Smucker)
Gomez (Raskin)
Granger (Cole)
Grijalva (Stanton)
Hagedorn (Meuser)
Harshbarger (Kustoff)
Herrera Beutler (Simpson)
Horsford (Kilmer)
Jayapal (Raskin)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Katko (Malliotakis)
Kelly (IL) (Clarke (NY))
Khanna (Lee (CA))
Kind (Connolly)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Leger Fernandez (Aguilar)
Luetkemeyer (Long)
Maloney, Carolyn B. (Clarke (NY))
Maloney, Sean (Jeffries)
McEachin (Wexton)
McHenry (Budd)
McNerney (Huffman)
Meijer (Moore (UT))
Meng (Jeffries)
Moore (AL) (Brooks)
Moulton (McGovern)
Mullin (Lucas)
Napolitano (Correa)
Nehls (Jackson)
Newman (Casten)
Nunes (Garcia (CA))
Payne (Pallone)
Pingree (Kuster)
Pocan (Raskin)
Porter (Wexton)
Pressley (Omar)
Reed (Arrington)
Reschenthaler (Meuser)
Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
Roybal-Allard (Aguilar)
Ruiz (Correa)
Rush (Underwood)
Salazar (Cammack)
Sanchez (Aguilar)
Scott, David (Cartwright)
Sires (Pallone)
Steel (Obernolte)
Stefanik (Meuser)
Steube (Cammack)
Stevens (Dingell)
Stewart (Owens)
Strickland (Larsen (WA))
Thompson (PA) (Meuser)
Timmons (Cammack)
Titus (Connolly
Tonko (Pallone)
Torres (CA) (Correa)
Trone (Connolly)
Vargas (Correa)
Velazquez (Clarke (NY))
Wagner (Long)
Walorski (Baird)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Welch (McGovern)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
Young (Malliotakis)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Blunt Rochester). The question is on
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 212, not voting 1, as follows:
[Roll No. 260]
YEAS--219
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--212
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--1
Costa
{time} 1910
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Aderholt (Moolenaar)
Amodei (Balderson)
Barragan (Raskin)
Blumenauer (Bonamici)
Bowman (Omar)
Brownley (Clark (MA))
Buchanan (Dunn)
Calvert (Garcia (CA))
Cardenas (Correa)
Cuellar (Green (TX))
Curtis (Moore (UT))
Davids (KS) (Kim (NJ))
DeFazio (Brown)
DeGette (Blunt Rochester)
DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
Deutch (Rice (NY))
Diaz-Balart (Cammack)
Duncan (Babin)
Emmer (Cammack)
Escobar (Garcia (TX))
Fleischmann (Bilirakis)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Garbarino (Miller-Meeks)
Garamendi (Sherman)
Gibbs (Smucker)
Gomez (Raskin)
Granger (Cole)
Grijalva (Stanton)
Hagedorn (Meuser)
[[Page H4415]]
Harshbarger (Kustoff)
Herrera Beutler (Simpson)
Horsford (Kilmer)
Jayapal (Raskin)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Katko (Malliotakis)
Kelly (IL) (Clarke (NY))
Khanna (Lee (CA))
Kind (Connolly)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Leger Fernandez (Aguilar)
Luetkemeyer (Long)
Maloney, Carolyn B. (Clarke (NY))
Maloney, Sean (Jeffries)
McEachin (Wexton)
McHenry (Budd)
McNerney (Huffman)
Meijer (Moore (UT))
Meng (Jeffries)
Moore (AL) (Brooks)
Moulton (McGovern)
Mullin (Lucas)
Napolitano (Correa)
Nehls (Jackson)
Newman (Casten)
Nunes (Garcia (CA))
Payne (Pallone)
Pingree (Kuster)
Pocan (Raskin)
Porter (Wexton)
Pressley (Omar)
Reed (Arrington)
Reschenthaler (Meuser)
Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
Roybal-Allard (Aguilar)
Ruiz (Correa)
Rush (Underwood)
Salazar (Cammack)
Sanchez (Aguilar)
Scott, David (Cartwright)
Sires (Pallone)
Steel (Obernolte)
Stefanik (Meuser)
Steube (Cammack)
Stevens (Dingell)
Stewart (Owens)
Strickland (Larsen (WA))
Thompson (PA) (Meuser)
Timmons (Cammack)
Titus (Connolly)
Tonko (Pallone)
Torres (CA) (Correa)
Trone (Connolly)
Vargas (Correa)
Velazquez (Clarke (NY))
Wagner (Long)
Walorski (Baird)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Welch (McGovern)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
Young (Malliotakis)
____________________