[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 546-549]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            VOTING RIGHTS DISENFRANCHISEMENT AND SUPPRESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. FREDERICA S. WILSON

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 31, 2012

  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to voice my strong 
opposition to the legislative efforts across the nation aimed at 
suppressing voter turnout. Democracy is not a spectator sport. It is 
something we should encourage every American to engage in. A vibrant 
democracy is a healthy democracy, and back home in my district we take 
that lesson to heart. I come from Miami, one of the most vibrant cities 
in the world, and I intend to keep it that way. Unfortunately, some of 
my former colleagues in the state legislature feel differently and are 
doing their best to ensure that some people don't enjoy the same access 
to the polls this November as they did last November.
  In Florida, we have enacted a series of changes to our voting laws, 
and I wanted to make this Chamber aware of them. I want you to hear 
personally, Mr. Speaker, the reasons why I feel that these new laws are 
not only uncalled for, but a detriment to American democracy. I feel 
that the letter the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, the Florida 
Conference of Black State Legislators, and the Florida State Conference 
of the NAACP submitted to Chris Herren of the Department of Justice on 
June 17, 2011 regarding the voting changes in Florida states my 
feelings clearly and succinctly. I'd like to read that letter for you 
now, Mr. Speaker:

[[Page 547]]

                                                    June 17, 2011.

            Comment Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

     Re: Section 5 Submission No. 2011-2187 (Submission by the 
         State of Florida Regarding Omnibus Elections Law Bill, 
         Laws of Florida 2011, Chapter 2011-40)

     Chris Herren,
     Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, Room 7254-NWB, 
         U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Herren:

                              Introduction

       The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), the 
     Florida Conference of Black State Legislators, and the 
     Florida State Conference of the NAACP, urge the Attorney 
     General to object to the pending Section 5 submission of the 
     State of Florida's omnibus elections law bill, Laws of 
     Florida, Chapter 2011-40 / HB 1355 (hereinafter ``Chapter 
     2011-40''), which provides for, inter alia: (1) a reduction 
     in the number of days for early voting from 14 days to 8 
     days; (2) a requirement that registered voters who have moved 
     between counties cast provisional ballots rather than regular 
     ballots; and (3) unprecedented restrictions on volunteer 
     third-party voter registration efforts. The state has failed 
     to meet its burden of showing either that Chapter 2011-40 
     will not have a retrogressive effect, or that its adoption 
     was free of discriminatory purpose.
       Each of the measures described above will have a 
     retrogressive effect on minority voting rights. Moreover, 
     Chapter 2011-40 was enacted despite strong and measured 
     concerns presented by a majority of members of the Florida 
     Conference of Black State Legislators about the bill, and the 
     justifications proffered by the State do not help the State 
     satisfy its burden of showing the absence of discriminatory 
     purpose.

                                Analysis


                             I. Background

       The implementation of all proposed statewide voting changes 
     in Florida is subject to the requirements of Section 5 of the 
     Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a). Because five counties 
     in Florida are covered by Section 5 (Collier, Hardee, Hendry, 
     Hillsborough, and Monroe Counties), statewide voting changes 
     in Florida are subject to Section 5's preclearance 
     requirements. See Lawyer v. Dep't of Justice, 521 U.S. 567, 
     570 (1997) (Section 5 applies to statewide voting changes in 
     Florida); see also Lopez v. Monterey County, 525 U.S. 266, 
     283-84 (1999) (statewide voting changes are subject to 
     Section 5 review where a state is partially covered by 
     Section 5).
       Laws of Florida, Chapter 2011-40, the Omnibus Elections Law 
     Bill that is the subject of this Section 5 submission, was 
     signed into law by the Governor of Florida on May 19, 2011, 
     and submitted for review to the Department of Justice 
     pursuant to Section 5 on June 8, 2011. See Section 5 
     Submission No. 2011-2187.


                          Retrogressive Effect

       Section 5 prohibits voting changes that would result in ``a 
     retrogression in the position of racial minorities with 
     respect to their effective exercise of the electoral 
     franchise.'' Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976). 
     This Comment Letter focuses on the retrogressive effect of 
     three provisions of Chapter 2011-40: (1) reductions in 
     Florida's early voting period; (2) new provisional ballot 
     requirements for registered voters who move across county 
     lines; and (3) new restrictions with attendant penalties on 
     third party organizations engaged in independent voter 
     registration efforts. As documented below, each of these 
     proposed voting changes will have a retrogressive effect.
     A. Early Voting
       Section 39 of Chapter 2011-40 (``Section 39'') amends 
     Florida Statutes section 101.657(1) to reduce the number of 
     early voting days from 14 to 8, and gives local supervisors 
     of elections discretion over early voting hours, changing the 
     hours that early voting sites must operate from a mandatory 8 
     hours per day (other than weekends), to a discretionary range 
     of 6 to 12 hours per day. Thus, Section 39 not only 
     essentially eliminates the first week of early voting in 
     Florida, by decreasing the total number of days of early 
     voting from the benchmark practice of 14 early voting days to 
     only 8 days, it also makes possible a reduction in total 
     hours of early voting from a mandatory 96 hours to a minimum 
     of only 48 hours. Moreover, by providing for wide discretion 
     in early voting hours, Section 39, as compared to the 
     benchmark practice, will likely result in substantial 
     inconsistency in early voting hours across the 5 covered 
     counties, risking confusion amongst minority voters in these 
     areas.
       Significantly, African Americans make up a disproportionate 
     percentage of early voters in Florida's covered counties. 
     African Americans constitute only 12.15% of the voting age 
     population in the five covered jurisdictions in Florida, but 
     were 18.86% of early voters during the 2008 General Election, 
     with over 41,000 African Americans voting early.
       Additionally, Section 39 essentially eliminates the first 
     week of early voting, which will have a clear retrogressive 
     effect on minority voters in the covered counties. During the 
     first week of early voting in the 2008 General Election, 
     African Americans constituted an even higher percentage of 
     early voters, 20.08% in the covered counties.
       A total of over 17,000 African Americans voted during the 
     first week of early voting in the covered counties during the 
     2008 General Election. We note that the percentages vary from 
     county to county, and, as the table above demonstrates, 
     Hillsborough County featured the highest level of racial 
     disproportionality among voters during the first week of 
     early voting in the 2008 General Election, with African 
     Americans constituting only 14.63% of the voting age 
     population, but 27.70% of early voters.
       The figures in our independent analysis are confirmed by at 
     least one news report indicating that, during the 2008 
     general election, African Americans were 22% of voters during 
     the first week of early voting in Florida statewide, despite 
     being only 13% of the Florida electorate. Overall, nearly 54% 
     of Florida's African-American voters in 2008 voted at early-
     voting sites. In other words, African Americans were 
     significantly overrepresented in the pool of early voters 
     overall, and were much more likely than white voters to take 
     advantage of the first week of early voting. Under Section 
     39, however, the first week of early voting would be 
     eliminated, and the total number of mandatory early voting 
     hours potentially reduced substantially, with inevitable 
     retrogressive effects.
       It is unsurprising that, as a group, African-American 
     voters have taken advantage of the access currently afforded 
     by the existing early voting period in Florida, given that, 
     as this Department has noted, minorities in the Section 5-
     covered counties in Florida have lower rates of vehicle 
     ownership and therefore benefit from the flexibility afforded 
     by a wider range of early voting days. More recent Census 
     data shows that 17.6% of African Americans in Florida's 
     covered counties live in homes without a vehicle, as compared 
     to only 4.8% of whites. These disparities in access to 
     transportation mean that African American voters are more 
     likely to encounter greater difficulties obtaining 
     transportation on Election Day, such that an elimination of 
     early voting days would substantially curtail existing levels 
     of access to the polls with a resulting retrogressive effect 
     on minority voters.
       These concerns were confirmed by Leon Russell of the 
     Florida State Conference of the NAACP. Mr. Russell stated the 
     Florida NAACP's Get-Out-the-Vote efforts will likely ``be 
     impacted by'' Section 39. He added that the benchmark 
     practice of two weeks of early voting is essential because

     [t]wo weeks provided folks with options and allowed them to 
     coordinate voting with other reasons for being in the 
     vicinity of an early voting location. Even though you may 
     provide the same number of hours of operation, those hours 
     don't automatically equate to the same opportunity. With a 
     limited number of locations, time of day and transportation 
     are important.

       Joyce Russell, African-American Affairs Liaison for the 
     Hillsborough County Government, echoed these concerns. She 
     stated, ``[t]he fact that [the proposed law is] going to 
     shorten [early voting] is going to affect African-American 
     voters'' in Hillsborough County, where many African-American 
     voters ``work different hours of the day, so they can't 
     always get into the regular voting hours. Many have non-
     traditional working hours.'' She noted that in Hillsborough 
     County, ``[w]e've seen African-American voter participation 
     soar because of the early voting days.'' Ms. Russell stated 
     that a longer early voting period ``gives you more 
     flexibility'' for transportation, explaining that ``Black 
     churches have gotten involved'' in helping African-American 
     voters get to the polls, and that it is ``easier to arrange 
     church buses on a Saturday'' than it is on Election Day.
       State Senator Arthenia Joyner, whose district encompasses 
     part of Hillsborough County, stated that ``[e]arly voting has 
     changed the landscape of voting'' by making possible broader 
     participation among minority voters,'' and that the proposed 
     reduction of early voting days would have a ``dramatic 
     impact'' on Black voters in Hillsborough County. She noted 
     that the total number of early voting hours in each County 
     will be left to the discretion of each Supervisor of 
     Elections, who could set the number of early voting hours as 
     low as 48. Senator Joyner also stated that, even if the 
     number of early voting hours remained the same, ``compressing 
     into 8 days will not do what we had before--we're losing an 
     entire weekend, including the Sunday before the election.''
       State Representative Darryl Rousson, whose district also 
     encompasses part of Hillsborough County, raised similar 
     concerns, stating that, for his African-American 
     constituents, ``[c]utting back the number of [early voting] 
     days erodes access and absolutely chips away at a person's 
     opportunities to vote.'' He explained that despite statements 
     to the contrary, Section 49 does not ensure that the same 
     number of early voting hours will be ``available, because 
     local election officials will have discretion'' to reduce the 
     number of early voting hours significantly. Representative 
     Rousson added that ``Black leaders in my community,'' such as 
     pastors, will now have a harder time

[[Page 548]]

     ``gather[ing] up members'' for Get-Out-the-Vote efforts. He 
     further stated that, in his opinion, Section 39 is ``aimed at 
     minorities--black folks and Hispanics--whose job restrictions 
     do not permit them to vote at normal hours.''
       This Department has previously objected to changes to 
     Florida's absentee voting rules based on data showing that, 
     in at least some covered jurisdictions, ``minority voters 
     disproportionately avail themselves of the absentee voting 
     option because they often do not have accessible 
     transportation to the polling place on election day and/or 
     have jobs that do not permit time off to vote.'' These same 
     considerations should guide the Department's Section 5 review 
     here.
       To put the significance of early voting into perspective, 
     we note that, in the 2008 General Election, over 2.6 million 
     votes were cast during Florida's early in-person voting 
     period, accounting for an estimated 31.25% of all ballots 
     cast. Most significantly, the percentage of early voters was 
     even higher in four of the five Section 5-covered counties; 
     specifically, the percentage of voters who voted early in the 
     Section 5-covered counties were as follows: Collier (36.85%); 
     Hardee (43.75%); Henry (44.39%); Hillsborough (28.41%); 
     Monroe (33.50%).
       In recent elections, Florida has been beset by ``hours-long 
     lines'' to vote on Election Day. Nowhere was this more true 
     than in Hillsborough County, the largest Section 5-covered 
     jurisdiction in Florida, where, during the 2008 General 
     Election, ``[h]undreds waited for more than four hours to 
     vote,'' and ``where poll workers failed to give hundreds of 
     voters the second page of their ballot. . . .'' At the 
     University of South Florida, which is ranked 14th among 
     undergraduate institutions nationally in awarding degrees to 
     African Americans, ``students waited in lines for in excess 
     of three-hours'' during the 2008 General Election.'' Senator 
     Joyner noted that, in Hillsborough County, ``we have long 
     lines at the inner city polls on Election Day,'' and that the 
     lines at the polls were ``long enough when early voting was 
     14 days, and they will be even longer now.''
       Given these realities, early voting is a crucial means of 
     participation for African-American voters in the covered 
     counties. It is therefore clear that a reduction in early 
     voting days as proposed in Section 39 would have a 
     retrogressive effect on minority voters.
     B. Provisional Ballot Requirements
       Section 26 of Chapter 2011-40 (Section 26) amends Florida 
     Statutes section 101.045 to eliminate the right of registered 
     voters in Florida who move from one Florida county to another 
     to change their addresses at the time of voting. Under the 
     benchmark practice, Florida permitted voters who have moved 
     to update their address information in person at the polls at 
     the time of voting by swearing an affirmation as to their new 
     address. In such cases, the voters' existing registrations 
     are carefully cross-checked in a state database before the 
     voters are given a regular ballot. Section 26 eliminates that 
     right, so that voters who move among Florida's 67 counties 
     will be forced to cast provisional ballot. According to one 
     estimate based on 2008 election figures, the resultwill be 
     that nearly 34,000 additional Florida voters will be required 
     to cast provisional ballots.
       This law will have a clear retrogressive effect on minority 
     voters in the 5 covered counties. For one, the impacted group 
     of voters will be disproportionately comprised of minorities, 
     who tend to move more frequently than do white Americans. 
     According to a study by the Pew Research Center, 43% of 
     African Americans and 48% of Latinos reported moving during 
     the previous 5 years, as compared to only 27% of whites. 
     African Americans and Latinos similarly report a higher 
     likelihood of moving within the next 5 years: 59% for African 
     Americans and 43% for Latinos, as compared to only 35% for 
     whites.
       These numbers are consistent with statistics from the 
     Census Bureau showing that, in Florida's covered counties, 
     African Americans have lower rates of home ownership (41.62% 
     living in owner-occupied homes) than do non-Hispanic whites 
     (74.31%), and other data showing that non-homeowners move 
     three to four times more frequently than do homeowners. We 
     note that this Department has previously relied on statistics 
     indicating that minorities have lower rates of homeownership 
     in the Section 5-covered counties in arriving at a 
     determination to object to voting changes in Florida.
       Furthermore, Florida has the nation's highest foreclosure 
     rate, with three of the Section 5-covered counties in Florida 
     continuing to experience foreclosure rates that are 
     substantially higher than the national average. In our 
     assessment, there are currently higher relative rates of 
     mobility amongst minorities as compared to whites in the 
     covered jurisdictions in Florida, and this trend is one that 
     is likely to continue in the coming years.
       Given these facts, the expected result of Section 26 is 
     that more minority voters will be forced to cast provisional 
     ballots, and at disproportionately higher rates. State 
     Representative Rousson confirmed that this was the likely 
     result for his minority constituents, explaining that, under 
     Section 26, ``people who change addresses--which often 
     happens in minority low-income communities--[will] have[] to 
     cast provisional ballots'' more frequently. Ms. Russell, of 
     the Hillsborough County Government, also explained that this 
     change will ``affect African Americans disproportionately.'' 
     She explained that ``African Americans, like other 
     minorities, are often working class people . . . and 
     sometimes they have to move.'' She noted that Section 26 is 
     particularly problematic because African Americans in 
     Hillsborough County ``have higher rates of unemployment and 
     being laid off,'' and that, ``[w]ith the economy like it is, 
     now people are having to move because of layoffs, or they 
     lose their home or can't pay their rent, through no fault of 
     their own, but they are still eligible to vote.''
       Thus, we anticipate that, if implemented, Section 26 would 
     force a disproportionate number of African-American voters to 
     a different process for casting a ballot during elections, 
     which will be retrogressive because provisional ballots are 
     counted less frequently than are normal ballots, particularly 
     in the covered jurisdictions. During the 2010 general 
     election, the number of provisional ballots counted statewide 
     was 74.27%, but only 55.64% of provisional ballots were 
     counted in Florida's Section 5-covered counties, with 
     particularly low numbers in Collier (58.71%) and Hillsborough 
     (54.35%) Counties.
       Statewide, the number of provisional ballots counted during 
     the 2008 General Election was even worse, with fewer than 
     half (only 48.59%) of all provisional ballots cast in Florida 
     actually counted. Of particular worry is that there was 
     substantial variation within the State with respect to the 
     treatment of provisional ballots: for instance, during the 
     2008 General Election, 80% of provisional ballots were 
     counted in majority-white Duval County, whereas only 60% were 
     counted in Section 5-covered Hillsborough County. Numbers 
     were even lower in Section 5-covered Collier County: 36.45%.
       This suggests that the rules governing the counting of 
     provisional ballots are not being implemented uniformly. Ms. 
     Russell, of the Hillsborough County Government noted that, in 
     her County, forcing voters to use provisional ballots can 
     become ``so confusing that people will get discouraged and 
     stay home,'' and that, even if voters do cast provisional 
     ballots, ``[w]e know that those provisional ballots are not 
     always counted.'' State Senator Joyner also noted that it 
     ``takes additional work by a voter'' to make sure that a 
     provisional ballot is counted, because voters will often have 
     to return to the local election authority after Election Day 
     in order to provide supporting documentation to ensure that 
     their ballots are counted. In Senator Joyner's view, this 
     will have a retrogressive impact on minority voters in 
     Hillsborough County, ``whose incomes are limited, who don't 
     have transportation, who'll have to make an additional trip 
     to verify their information.''
       In sum, given the disproportionately high rate of mobility 
     and high foreclosure rate among minority communities within 
     the 5 covered counties, Section 26 would result in more 
     minority voters in the covered counties casting provisional 
     ballots, which would in turn result in fewer ballots cast by 
     minority voters being counted. The retrogressive effect of 
     Section 26 would be particularly pronounced in Collier and 
     Hillsborough Counties.
     C. Restrictions on Third Party Volunteer Voter Registration 
         Efforts
       Section 4 of Chapter 2011-40 (``Section 4'') amends Florida 
     Statutes section 97.0575 to require that any third party 
     organization engaging in voter registration efforts submit 
     any completed voter registration applications within 48 
     hours, or face penalties of $50 per application per day late. 
     Section 4 represents a substantial change from the benchmark 
     practice, which permitted volunteers working for third party 
     organizations engaged in voter registration drives to submit 
     completed voter registration applications up to 10 days after 
     receipt.
       The 48 hour time period and the threat of substantial 
     financial sanctions for failure to comply with this new 
     restriction will severely hamper or completely deter voter 
     registration efforts by volunteer third party organizations 
     whose mission is to provide voter registration opportunities 
     to minority communities. Leon Russell, of the Florida State 
     Conference of the NAACP, stated that Section 4 ``would likely 
     discourage participation in voter registration efforts.'' Mr. 
     Russell noted that the NAACP's voter registration events take 
     place in many different locations during various days of the 
     week, but that volunteers from individual NAACP units 
     frequently ``may not be able to turn in documents until the 
     unit meets'' again, which could be several days after a 
     planned registration event. The fact that these efforts are 
     volunteer-based and uncompensated makes speedier transmittal 
     of the forms especially onerous on the minority communities 
     within the covered jurisdictions, many of which suffer from 
     higher rates of socio-economic disparities and higher poverty 
     levels. Mr. Russell added, ``[t]he threat of fines will also 
     keep people from volunteering.''
       Harold Weeks, President of the Collier County branch of the 
     NAACP, which regularly conducts voter registration drives in

[[Page 549]]

     Collier County, stated, in reference to the fines 
     contemplated by Section 4, that he ``wouldn't want to subject 
     anyone to those kind of consequences,'' particularly ``young 
     people'' who may mistakenly fail to turn paperwork in on 
     time. He added, ``[w]e don't have much money to help pay 
     somebody's fines.''
       Ms. Russell, of the Hillsborough County Government, 
     observed that, in her County, ``[t]here are a lot of African 
     Americans, voting age individuals, who are not registered,'' 
     but that Section 4 is ``going to intimidate a lot of African-
     American groups that would love to register people as first 
     time voters.'' She added,

     You want to do your civic duty to register people, and now . 
     . . it's very difficult to do. . . . Most people will feel 
     like it's not worth the trouble. It's really going to hamper 
     African-American Greek organizations (fraternities and 
     sororities) that work on voter registration efforts. . . . It 
     makes it more difficult to do that.

       State Senator Joyner also noted that the ``48 hour cap will 
     cripple voter registration efforts.'' She stated that, ``[i]n 
     the Black churches there's ongoing voter registration,'' but 
     under the proposed change, ``you have to have someone every 
     day'' turn in registration forms, which is an onerous 
     administrative burden on churches serving low-income 
     communities. State Representative Rousson echoed these 
     concerns, stating that ``by making it 48 hours to get 
     registration forms in, you're stifling'' voter registration.
       This is no trivial matter for minority citizens in Florida, 
     who have substantially lower voter registration rates than 
     average. As of 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that, in 
     Florida, African Americans had a registration rate of 53.6%, 
     Latinos a rate of 47.4%, and Asians a rate of 35.3%, as 
     compared with an overall average registration rate in Florida 
     of 62.4%, and an average for white Floridians of 69.2%. Voter 
     registration drives are a crucial means of addressing these 
     inequalities, as studies show that African-American and 
     Latino voters are more than twice as likely to register in 
     these drives.
       The implementation of Section 4 would therefore have the 
     effect of only worsening these registration disparities.


                      III. Discriminatory Purpose

       Assessing a jurisdiction's motivation in enacting voting 
     changes is a complex task requiring a ``sensitive inquiry 
     into such circumstantial and direct evidence as may be 
     available.'' The ``important starting point'' for assessing 
     discriminatory intent under Arlington Heights is ``the impact 
     of the official action whether it `bears more heavily on one 
     race than another.''' Other considerations relevant to the 
     purpose inquiry include, among other things, ``the historical 
     background of the [jurisdiction's] decision''; ``[t]he 
     specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged 
     decision''; ``[d]epartures from the normal procedural 
     sequence''; and ``[t]he legislative or administrative 
     history, especially . . . [any] contemporary statements by 
     members of the decisionmaking body.'' Numerous cases arising 
     under Section 5 have employed this standard to help ferret 
     out discriminatory intent in the Section 5 process.
       As noted above, various features of Chapter 2011-40 will 
     have retrogressive effects on minority voters in the 5 
     covered counties. These concerns were no secret as Chapter 
     2011-40 was debated. To the contrary, they were raised often 
     by members of the public. And, without exception, every 
     single member of the Florida Conference of Black State 
     Legislators voted against this legislation.
       It is noteworthy that these broad changes to long-standing 
     voting laws--some of which have been in place for decades--
     are being proposed so recently after the last General 
     Election, when African Americans in Florida turned out and 
     exercised their political power in record numbers. One news 
     report noted that the changes to early voting, and in 
     particular the elimination of early voting on the Sunday 
     before Election Day, ``appear[] to be aimed directly at 
     discouraging Florida's black voters.'' State Senator Joyner 
     stated, ``we view this as an effort to marginalize the votes 
     of minorities in our County because we had tremendous turnout 
     in recent elections.'' State Representative Rousson added, 
     ``in my mind, and in the minds of the Black leaders in my 
     community, there is no question about the motives behind 
     this. This is absolutely voter suppression and subversion. 
     The perception is that it is aimed directly at [the Black] 
     population. My constituents feel under siege.''
       Chapter 2011-40 was enacted in spite of these and other 
     objections, but we note that the state's proffered interests 
     in enacting Chapter 2011-40 do not withstand even casual 
     scrutiny. Although the State claims that these voting changes 
     are necessary to prevent voter fraud, there is no evidence of 
     a problem of voter fraud in Florida, as even the Florida 
     Secretary of State has ``acknowledged that there is little 
     voter fraud in the state.'' Nor is there any indication of 
     how shortening the early voting period, requiring validly 
     registered voters to cast provisional ballots, or imposing 
     heavy fines on voter registration organizations would 
     actually prevent fraud. Moreover, as this Department has 
     acknowledged in response to a previous Section 5 submission 
     by the State of Florida, ``procedures used to eliminate voter 
     fraud should not unnecessarily burden the rights of minority 
     voters.'' Finally, while legislators also claimed that these 
     changes are necessary for the sake of reducing ``cost,'' an 
     interest in administrative efficiency has not been recognized 
     as a sufficient justification for voting procedures that 
     otherwise violate the VRA.

                               Conclusion

       For the reasons identified above, we urge the Attorney 
     General to interpose an objection to Chapter 2011-40, as the 
     state has failed to meet its burden of showing that it will 
     not have a retrogressive effect, nor that it was adopted free 
     of discriminatory purpose. Indeed, the state's submission 
     contains no analysis whatsoever concerning the retrogressive 
     effect of Chapter 2011-40 on minority voters, simply 
     asserting without any substantiation that the proposed voting 
     changes ``will apply equally to all voters. . . .'' That is 
     not, however, sufficient to satisfy the state's burden to 
     show the absence of retrogressive effect under Section 5 
     analysis. See Beer, 425 U.S. at 141. At a minimum, the 
     Attorney General should issue a More Information Request 
     (MIR) concerning the various issues raised in this letter as 
     they affect minority voters in the five Florida Counties 
     covered by Section 5.
       Should you have any questions regarding the information 
     presented in this Comment Letter, please contact Dale Ho at 
     212-965-2252.
           Sincerely,
     NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.: John Payton, 
     President & Director-Counsel; Kristen Clarke, Co-Director, 
     Political Participation Group; Ryan Haygood, Co-Director, 
     Political Participation Group; Dale Ho, Assistant Counsel; 
     Natasha Korgaonkar, Assistant Counsel.
     Florida Conference of Black State Legislators: Representative 
     Mia Jones, Chair.
     Florida State Conference NAACP: Adora Nweze, President.

  Mr. Speaker, I don't think I could lay out my objections to the new 
voting laws in Florida any more clearly. I thank the authors of the 
letter I just read for their fine work, I only wish it wasn't 
necessary. Mr. Speaker, as we progress through this election season I 
would urge this Chamber and all of my colleagues to remember that every 
vote is important. Every American should be valued, and any effort to 
circumvent the right to vote, which some of us in this Chamber have 
fought so hard for, is a tragedy.

                          ____________________