[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1634-1639]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 CBC HOUR: VOTING RIGHTS ACT, SECTION 5

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Nevada?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HORSFORD. The Congressional Black Caucus is proud to anchor this 
hour, and I'm pleased to be here with our chair, the Honorable Marcia 
Fudge, from the 11th Congressional District of Ohio, and to yield her 
such time as she may consume.
  Ms. FUDGE. Thank you so very much. And thank you, as well as Mr. 
Jeffries, for anchoring these CBC hours. It is wonderful to have new 
Members come to the House floor and do the work that we've been doing 
for so long. I am so proud of them and appreciative of the work they 
do, so thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to send a clear message to those who would 
seek to undermine our constitutional right to vote: You will not win. 
The race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. This is not 
the first time section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has been challenged, 
and there is a very good chance that it will not be the last.

                              {time}  2020

  The Congressional Black Caucus and many others, even a number of 
Members from the other side of the aisle, have continually reauthorized 
and worked to protect section 5. In a matter of days, the Supreme Court 
will review the constitutionality of section 5. If the Supreme Court 
does not ultimately decide to protect the uninhibited right to vote for 
all voters, no matter their race, the Court will not and must not have 
the last word on this matter.
  The 15th Amendment provides that the right of citizens to vote shall 
not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account 
of race, color, or previous servitude. Despite the passage of the 15th 
Amendment and ratification by the States, Congress has been forced to 
act in order to protect African American voters from violence and 
intimidation.
  Prior to the Voting Rights Act, the courts' attempts to protect 
voters proved inadequate. In 1965, at the height of the civil rights 
movement, when vicious dogs and poll taxes were used to block the 
ballot, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act. This law was necessary 
then, and the last two Federal elections have shown, without a shadow 
of a doubt, that section 5 remains essential today.
  The right to vote is among the most important rights we enjoy as 
Americans. Because of its importance, because of the power behind the 
vote, it is the one right most often compromised; and for the same 
reasons, it is a right that we must do everything in our power to 
protect.
  Martin Luther King, Jr., once said:

       So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the 
     right to vote, I do not possess myself.

  As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in Shelby County, 
Alabama v. Holder, we must remember the words of Dr. King and the 
importance of section 5.
  Since 1982, approximately 2,400 discriminatory voting changes have 
been successfully blocked by the section 5 preclearance process. After 
the 2010 midterm elections, 8 of 11 States that were a part of the 
former confederacy passed new voting restrictions. These laws require 
government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot, proof of citizenship to 
register to vote, many cut back on early voting, and several 
disenfranchise ex-offenders. These laws are specifically designed to 
make it more difficult for minorities and other traditionally 
marginalized eligible voters to participate in the political process.
  The recent assault on voters was not restricted to the States with a 
history of voting discrimination. In my home State of Ohio, and in many 
other States and jurisdictions not covered by section 5, there were 
attempts to pass restrictive laws. Leading up to the 2012 election, 22 
laws and 2 executive actions restricting voting rights were passed in 
17 States, and 176 restrictive bills were filed in 41 States.
  The Federal Government should be doubling down on the Voting Rights 
Act by expanding and strengthening Federal protections. The long lines 
in Florida and the voting scams in Arizona were no coincidence. Section 
5 is as necessary today is it was on the date of its inception in 1965 
and should include more States and jurisdictions.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Chairwoman Fudge. We look forward to your 
leadership on this issue and other issues under your steady hand of the 
Congressional Black Caucus in the 113th Congress.
  I now yield to the distinguished Member from North Carolina, 
Representative Butterfield.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and particularly 
thank the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus for her leadership in 
convening this special hour tonight.
  As many of our colleagues know, before being elected to Congress 8 
years ago, I was a trial judge and an appellate judge in my home State 
of North Carolina. But what many of you may

[[Page 1635]]

not know is that, for some 6 years before becoming a judge, I spent 
considerable time litigating cases under the Voting Rights Act and 
presenting comments to the Department of Justice in section 5 cases.
  Mr. Speaker, so many people do not understand section 5. This 
preclearance provision does not apply in every jurisdiction in America. 
It only applies to selected counties where there was evidence of 
discriminatory voting practices when the Voting Rights Act was first 
enacted in 1965. These jurisdictions are required to submit to the 
Department of Justice any changes in election law or procedure for 
determination of whether the change could have a negative impact on the 
voting strength of minority groups. If the jurisdiction fails in their 
proof, the change is not allowed. And I will say for the Record today 
that, in the early days of section 5, many jurisdictions ignored the 
requirement.
  It has been proven, Mr. Speaker, time and time again in courtrooms 
across America that racially polarized voting has existed at the ballot 
box since the 15th Amendment was ratified--and it exists today. My 
congressional district in North Carolina, though it is improving, 
continues to have voting based on the race of the candidate. Many white 
voters choose not to vote for a candidate who is clearly the preferred 
candidate of the African American community. When this happens, the 
black community is handicapped. We call it vote dilution. And so 
section 5's preclearance provision simply is a backstop against 
jurisdictions devising election schemes that will make it more 
difficult for the African American community to elect a candidate of 
its choice, taking into consideration the existence of racially 
polarized voting.
  Mr. Speaker, I can cite dozens of instances in North Carolina where 
discriminatory changes were proposed to election systems and the 
Department of Justice stepped forward and denied the change. Had it not 
been for section 5, black electoral success in my congressional 
district would be considerably less. Many of the cities and counties in 
my district now have single-member election districts that were ordered 
by the courts. The courts have required that some of these districts 
had to be majority African American, which now enable the African 
American community to elect candidates of their choice. Elimination of 
section 5 could enable mischievous jurisdictions to eliminate this in 
favor of at-large elections, where concentrations of black voters would 
be submerged into at-large systems.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has not come when we should eliminate the 
protection of section 5. The evidence continues to suggest racially 
polarized voting that discriminates against the African American 
community. If this protection is struck down, some governing boards at 
the State and the local level will seize the opportunity to promulgate 
election rules that disadvantage minority voters, and the only remedy 
then will be to file an expensive Federal lawsuit and prove intentional 
discrimination in the district court. And so, Mr. Speaker, I urge the 
Supreme Court to carefully look at the legislative history that we have 
provided and decide to maintain the protection of section 5.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Nevada for his friendship and his 
leadership and for working to make this hour happen tonight.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield. We, again, appreciate your 
leadership as the vice chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and 
look forward to working under your leadership, as well as Chairwoman 
Fudge.
  At this time I now yield to my colleague and friend, the 
distinguished Member from New Jersey, Representative Payne.
  Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friends and colleagues, 
Congressman Horsford of Nevada and Congressman Jeffries of New York, 
for anchoring tonight's CBC Special Order on the Voting Rights Act.
  Fair and equal access to the ballot box is an important topic and one 
of these that has not been fully resolved. One hundred-fifty years ago, 
President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, but it took 
another 100 years to pass the Civil Rights Act, and eventually the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965. Since then, our country has made progress in 
achieving justice and equality, but it is no secret this process has 
been painfully slow and noticeably deficient.
  The Supreme Court will hear the case this week of Shelby v. Holder, 
which, if ruled in the favor of Shelby County, Alabama, would take us 
back 50 years and undo protections granted in the Voting Rights Act.

                              {time}  2030

  Some argue that we no longer need some of these protections provided 
in the Voting Rights Act. Some argue that we have achieved equality and 
justice for all. Some argue that section 5 is outdated because racism 
has been eviscerated. It is true we've come a long way and times have 
changed, but the unfortunate fact is that we have not changed enough.
  Let's look at the facts. This past November, people across this 
Nation had to wait in line to vote for hours in places such as Miami, 
Tampa, Richmond, Charlotte, and Raleigh. Sometimes people waited 6, 7, 
or 8 hours to exercise their fundamental right to vote.
  In the President's State of the Union Address, President Obama had a 
guest, a woman by the name of Desiline Victor, who waited 6 hours in 
Florida to vote. She was 102 years old. This is simply unacceptable. 
And unfortunately, long voting lines have become all too commonplace, 
particularly in urban and minority-rich areas.
  So the big question I get asked from my constituents is: Why wouldn't 
we want everyone who is eligible to have the opportunity to vote? The 
answer is simple: When more Americans vote, they tend to vote for 
Democrats.
  Regardless of someone's political persuasions, every eligible 
American should have the fair opportunity to cast their ballot--whether 
they be white, black, Asian, Latino, man, woman, gay, straight, 
Protestant, Catholic, atheist, or agnostic--because of the simple fact 
that we are all Americans and voting is a fundamental right in this 
country. This is about preserving democracy, and eliminating section 5 
would undermine that right upon which this country was founded.
  This past year, 37 State legislatures shamelessly passed laws that 
oftentimes targeted minorities and attempted to limit their access to 
the ballot. Strict photo ID laws, limitations on early voting, and 
stringent voter registration laws all had one purpose: It wasn't about 
reducing fraud; it was about preventing certain populations from 
voting.
  It is astonishing--and it could not be more evident--that racism and 
the effort to suppress the right to vote is alive and well in this 
Nation. Luckily, section 5 rightly ensured that many of these laws 
never passed preclearance. So it cannot be plainer that now is the time 
to strengthen, not weaken, section 5, as it still serves as a very real 
and critical purpose in preserving our democracy and the right to vote 
for millions.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Representative Payne, Jr. We appreciate your 
remarks.
  I now yield to the distinguished Member from Maryland, Representative 
Cummings, who is the ranking member on the House Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee, the committee that has jurisdiction on 
voting reform issues.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I also take this moment to thank the Congressional Black Caucus for 
making this happen. And I thank Representatives Horsford and Jeffries 
for leading this. It is quite encouraging--and I know that our 
chairman, Marcia Fudge, agrees with me--when we see our new Members 
come to the forefront and lead. That's why our constituents sent us 
here. I just want you to know that we are very, very, very proud of 
you, as we are of our other new Member, Mr. Payne, who just

[[Page 1636]]

spoke. We are certainly glad that you are here and leading.
  We all know our Nation's disgraceful history in this area of voting 
rights. I've often said that if we did not have the Voting Rights Act, 
these past few years have taught us that we would have to invent it.
  For decades and decades, racist and exclusionary voting practices 
kept minorities from accessing the ballot box. I'm reminded of my 
great-great-grandfather, Mr. Scipio Rhame. In the South Carolina of 
1868, he overcame tremendous hardships and life-threatening dangers 
just to register to vote, only a few years after he had come out of 
slavery. Sadly, this country has witnessed very slow progress toward 
equality in voting. The reality is that in the year 2013, we are still 
fighting for the right to vote for all Americans.
  In election after election, discriminatory voting laws and 
exclusionary practices still surface. This past election cycle, we saw 
a new wave of efforts to suppress the vote. We saw racially motivated 
efforts to cut back on early voting. We saw physical destruction of 
voter registration forms. Across the country, we saw eligible voters 
prevented from casting their ballots because of long lines, inaccurate 
voter records, and poorly trained poll workers.
  As the ranking member on the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform, I launched an investigation last year into the actions of True 
the Vote, a Tea Party organization that claims to promote ``voter 
integrity'' efforts. In fact, True the Vote sought to make it harder 
for Americans to vote. They challenged the registration of thousands of 
legitimate voters across the country before Election Day, and they 
deployed volunteers across the country to challenge access to the polls 
for legitimate voters.
  Efforts by groups like True the Vote disproportionately affect 
minority communities, and they are just one small example of the 
practices that still seek to suppress the vote in our country.
  The Voting Rights Act is often cited as the most effective civil 
rights law in our history. Section 5 has been one of the most powerful 
tools in the act because it combats discriminatory attempts to 
marginalize voters before they can take root. When President Lyndon 
Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, he said this:

       There were those who said smaller and more gradual measures 
     should be tried. But they had been tried. For years and years 
     they had been tried, and tried, and tried, and they had 
     failed, and failed, and failed. And the time for failure is 
     gone.

  So, in closing, I hope the Supreme Court Justices remember these 
words as they consider this most recent challenge to section 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act.
  Today, in the year 2013, section 5 remains as critical as ever to 
protecting the right to vote in the United States of America.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Representative Cummings. I know under your 
leadership, as the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform, the issue of voting rights will continue to be a 
top priority in this Congress.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. You're absolutely right. Thank you.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. President, I now--excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I now 
yield to the distinguished Member from Maryland, our whip, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, Steve and I were both in the Senate, and you have a 
president in the Senate. That's why he was referring to you as Mr. 
President. I understand that, Steve.
  I am pleased to join Marcia Fudge, the chairman of the Congressional 
Black Caucus, and my good friend, Steve Horsford, the gentleman from 
Nevada. And I notice that Don Payne is here. His father was a very 
close friend of mine, active some 45 years ago. So it's good to see you 
here, Don, and Hakeem Jeffries, two of our really great new Members. 
I'm pleased to join you.

                              {time}  2040

  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus for 
organizing this Special Order hour. America's greatest strength--and 
its greatest gift to the world--is our democratic system of government 
based on an equal voice for every citizen. It is what grants legitimacy 
to our laws and earns us respect from those in other parts of the world 
who yearn for the freedoms we enjoy.
  For most of our history, our democracy was deeply flawed: excluding 
women, African Americans, Native Americans and many others. But part of 
what makes America great is that we are constantly working to perfect 
our democracy by correcting such flaws. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 
was a central part of that effort--and an incredibly successful one. 
Before that legislation was enacted, millions of African Americans were 
systematically prevented from registering to vote or casting their 
ballots across much of the South. And I would venture to say that there 
were other parts of America where they were dissuaded from voting, as 
well. Poll taxes, ``grandfather clauses,'' literacy tests and other 
nefarious devices were employed to keep Americans from exercising their 
most fundamental civil right.
  Perhaps the greatest impetus for enacting the Voting Rights Act was 
the horrific violence and hatred of ``Bloody Sunday,'' when peaceful 
civil rights marchers were beaten and turned back at the Edmund Pettus 
Bridge outside Selma, Alabama.
  Mr. Speaker, this weekend, a number of us here will be traveling to 
Selma, led by the same man who helped organize those 1965 marches, our 
friend and colleague, Representative John Lewis, an extraordinary 
historic figure, an extraordinary gentle man, but a giant of courage 
and principle. We are going as part of an annual pilgrimage to remember 
that day, ``Bloody Sunday,'' March 7, 1965, and the cause for which 
those brave Americans, black and white, risked their lives: political 
equality and the perfection of our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I've been privileged to walk with John Lewis across that 
bridge and others, including at least two Presidents, for 10 out of the 
13 times that John Lewis has reenacted that walk. Walking in their 
footsteps is one way to honor that cause. But it is far from the best 
way. The best way to do it is to carry on their work--to defend and 
promote the protections included in the Voting Rights Act that they 
fought so hard to bring about.
  On Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in 
Shelby County v. Holder, which challenges the constitutionality of one 
of the Voting Rights Act's central provisions, and that is pre-
clearance, making sure that the Justice Department says, yes, this is 
fair; yes, this will not exclude; yes, this is a policy that will be 
consistent with our democracy. Pre-clearance, established by section 5 
of the act, mandates that jurisdictions with a long history of voter 
suppression and civil rights violations must submit to the Justice 
Department for approval any plans to change their election practices or 
district boundaries before doing so. Section 5 has been instrumental in 
ending discrimination and protecting eligible voters at the polls. Its 
constitutionality is rooted in article I and has been working as 
intended for nearly half a century.
  At a time when we are hearing about problems voters faced all over 
the country in last November's election--with long lines, registration 
errors, voting machines that malfunctioned and deceptive practices--we 
ought to be working together to make the Voting Rights Act stronger, 
not weaker.
  I will continue, along with my colleagues, to stand up for the Voting 
Rights Act on this floor and in every forum of debate. Because those 
who marched at Selma or braved the dangers of the freedom rides did not 
do so in vain. Their legacy is our responsibility. The more perfect 
democracy they helped forge is ours to safeguard, not only for our 
sake, but for the sake of those who will inherit our democracy in 
generations to come.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to join my colleagues in the Congressional 
Black Caucus in strong support of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--
and

[[Page 1637]]

the rest of it as well--as it faces meritless challenges this week that 
I am confident will be surmounted.
  And, again, in closing my part of this Special Order, I want to 
congratulate Steve Horsford, Congressman Horsford, from Nevada. He's 
new to this body, but he's not new to legislative representation. He 
understands the legislative process very, very well; and it is 
appropriate that in one of his first Special Orders on this floor that 
it's on behalf of every American--not just black Americans, not just 
Hispanic Americans and not just disabled Americans--every American. 
Because if one American's right to vote is compromised, there will be a 
risk to all Americans that their vote will be compromised. And I thank 
my friend, Congressman Horsford.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Representative Hoyer. As our whip, you have 
provided a strong and articulate voice on these and other issues, and 
we look forward to continuing to work with you as we move our country 
forward and protect the most fundamental of all rights--the right to 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I now yield to my co-anchor, my colleague 
as a freshman member in this 113th Congress. I am pleased to be working 
with him as one of the co-anchors for the Congressional Black Caucus 
and bringing these important issues to all of our constituents 
throughout this great country, the distinguished Member from New York, 
Representative Hakeem Jeffries.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Let me first just thank the distinguished gentleman 
from the Silver State, my good friend and colleague, Representative 
Steven Horsford, for anchoring this CBC Special Order. I also, of 
course, want to thank Chairwoman Marcia Fudge for the tremendous 
leadership that she has continued to provide and, of course, to our 
whip, Steny Hoyer, for his eloquence and his leadership on this and 
many other issues on behalf of this great country of ours.
  It is my honor and my privilege to co-anchor this CBC Special Order, 
this ``hour of power,'' so to speak, where members of the Congressional 
Black Caucus have an opportunity to speak directly to the American 
people today on an issue of great importance as it relates to the 
integrity of our democracy. There's no more fundamental issue to 
preserving the integrity of the great democracy that we have here in 
America than the right to vote. The right to vote is something that 
should be cherished, something that should be protected, something that 
should be respected. But the right to vote has not always been treated 
in this fashion in this Republic of ours. During the founding of this 
country, we know, of course, that African Americans were largely 
excluded from being able to participate in our democracy as a result of 
the conditions of their enslavement.
  In 1869, this Congress came together and sent to the States for 
ratification the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, an 
amendment that was designed to remedy the situation related to the 
failure to meaningfully include African Americans in our democracy. It 
was designed to provide constitutional protection to limit the ability 
of States to disenfranchise individuals on the basis of race, color, or 
prior conditions of servitude.
  Yet we understand that for about 100 years subsequent to the passage 
and ratification of the 15th Amendment to the United States 
Constitution, it was largely evaded in many parts of America as a 
result of legislative schemes that were devised to prohibit or limit 
the ability of African Americans and other communities of color to 
participate in our democracy. These legislative schemes took many 
forms. Some have already called their names--poll taxes, ``grandfather 
clauses'' and literacy tests--legislative schemes devised to limit the 
ability of African Americans and others to participate in this glorious 
democracy of ours. A large part of it took place in the Deep South, but 
there were instances of this all over America.

                              {time}  2050

  Mr. Speaker, that is why the Congress came back in the midst of the 
turbulent era of the 1960s and passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which 
included a section 5 preclearance provision that was designed to 
require those covered jurisdictions, or jurisdictions of all or parts 
of 16 States, to get approval from either the Department of Justice or 
a three-judge Federal Court panel here in Washington, D.C., whenever 
any of these jurisdictions sought to change a law with respect to 
voting.
  The rationale for this section 5 preclearance requirement was 
because, in these covered jurisdictions, there was a history of 
discrimination as it related to the franchise, deliberate schemes 
designed to limit the ability of American citizens to participate in 
our democracy; and as a result of this history, the section 5 
preclearance requirement was put into place. And it has worked. Over 
close to five decades that it has been in effect, it is perhaps the 
most successful piece of civil rights legislation that this Congress 
has passed.
  Now, as a result of its success, there are some who have contended 
that it is no longer a relevant provision of law, and that when the 
Congress came together in bipartisan fashion in 2006 to reauthorize 
this provision, that this body, the House of Representatives and the 
Senate, which passed the reauthorization 98 to 0, Democrats and 
Republicans, the contention is that this body exceeded its 
constitutional authority because section 5 allegedly, according to the 
defenders of disenfranchisement, is no longer relevant.
  Now, in the aftermath of Barack Obama's historic election in 2008, 
there was a Supreme Court case involving Austin, Texas, I believe, in 
2009 that was heard just a few months after his inauguration. And part 
of the argument that was made in that Supreme Court case by those who 
sought to invalidate section 5's preclearance requirement was that, as 
a result of this historic election of Barack Obama, race seems no 
longer to be an issue in America, and they pointed to the elevation of 
Barack Obama to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Now, of course, that was an extremely important moment in the history 
of our Republic. It was a substantial step forward. But the reality is 
that the election of Barack Obama has also served to illustrate that in 
America there's still some issues of race that we've got to confront.
  It's interesting, because if you look at the election of Presidents 
since the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it's unprecedented in 
the aftermath of President Obama's election to have seen the level of 
voter suppression laws and efforts that we were forced to confront in 
this country. These efforts presumably are based on the thin claim that 
those who are advancing these laws are trying to guard against fraud. 
No evidence of fraud, but those who are advancing these voter 
suppression laws are attempting to guard against fraud.
  When you look at the record, what's fascinating is that when Richard 
Nixon was elected in 1968, there was no explosion of concern for 
alleged fraud. He was reelected in 1972, no explosion of concern for 
alleged fraud. And then Jimmy Carter is elected in 1976, no explosion 
of concern for alleged fraud. And then Ronald Reagan is elected in 1980 
and reelected in 1984, no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. 
George H.W. Bush elected in 1988, no explosion of concern for alleged 
fraud. Bill Clinton elected in 1992, reelected in 1996 and no explosion 
of concern for alleged fraud. George W. Bush elected, some would argue 
under questionable circumstances given the dynamics in the great State 
of Florida, but again, no explosion of concern related for alleged 
fraud. The same was true in 2004, notwithstanding some concerns in the 
great State of Ohio, no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. Yet 
Barack Obama is elected in 2008, and all of a sudden in the aftermath 
of this historic election there's an outbreak of concern, a pandemic of 
anxiety as it relates to the fraud that allegedly is taking place in 
America.
  And so, as this chart illustrates--it is a wonderful chart that was 
prepared by the Brennan Center for Justice in my home State of New 
York, connected to my alma mater, New York University.

[[Page 1638]]

It illustrates that since 2001, 41 States introduced 180 restrictive 
laws. Those States are illustrated by the red on the map. 
Parenthetically, a curious choice of colors, but those States are 
illustrated by the red on the map. Forty-one States introduced 180 
restrictive laws.
  And then you have 34 States introduced photo identification 
requirements; 17 States introduced proof of citizenship requirements; 
16 States introduced bills to limit registration; and nine States 
introduced bills to limit or reduce early voting periods--unprecedented 
in the history of our democracy.
  I just went through the election of several Presidents who were 
inaugurated post the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but, for some reason, the 
American people are smart enough to draw cause and effect when this 
President was elected. We had an outbreak of concern related to alleged 
fraud.
  Now, thankfully, the Voting Rights Act in section 5 was in place to 
do something about it. I just talked about the fact that there were 41 
States that introduced some form of voter restrictions.
  On this map, we see that as of October in 2012 there were 25 laws and 
two executive actions that were passed in a total of 19 States. A large 
amount of this activity, as you can see on this map, Mr. Speaker, took 
place in the Deep South and in Texas, States that are largely covered 
by the section 5 preclearance requirements.

                              {time}  2100

  Let me just pause parenthetically and note that what's also 
interesting is that there were two States, Iowa and Florida, that in 
the past had executed through executive order reforms designed to allow 
those who as a result of the criminal justice system had had their 
ability to vote taken away from them restored through a process that 
had been put in place; but in the aftermath of the election of 
President Obama, what we saw is that in Iowa and in Florida--those two 
States--through executive order, they repealed those positive steps 
forward to make it almost impossible for those who had brushes with the 
law to ever be able to reengage in the ability to participate in 
American democracy.
  These were laws that were passed. Yet, because of the section 5 
preclearance requirement, not all of these laws actually were able to 
take effect. That's an important point as it relates to the continuing 
relevance of section 5's preclearance requirement. As of October 2012, 
approximately 12 courts either halted or blunted--they pushed back--
some of those laws that States had attempted to enact.
  Perhaps the most relevant example of why section 5 continues to be 
relevant is due to what took place in the Lone Star State, the great 
State of Texas, when the legislature passed what would have been the 
most restrictive voter identification law in the country. It would have 
prohibited potential voters from presenting student college 
identifications; they were deemed in this law as invalid. It would have 
prevented voters from presenting State government identification; IDs 
that were actually issued by the State of Texas would not have been 
valid under this law.
  I find it interesting, particularly in light of the current debate 
that we're having related to how we deal with gun violence in America, 
that one of the forms of ID that actually would have been accepted was 
a license that allowed an individual to carry a concealed handgun 
permit. This was too much to accept for the Justice Department and for 
those who in good conscience seek to defend our democracy, and because 
Texas is a covered jurisdiction, it had to be presented for 
preclearance by the Department of Justice or a three-judge panel, and 
it was rejected. So this law, though passed, never took effect. The 
same thing happened in Alabama. The same thing happened in South 
Carolina. There is a law that was passed by the State of Florida that 
is under consideration. So, as a result, even though many objectively 
believed it was designed to suppress the vote, it did not take effect 
in advance of the 2012 election because it was under review by the 
Department of Justice and their preclearance requirement.
  Mr. Speaker, in America, certainly we have come a long way, but we 
still have a long, long way to go. Jim Crow may be dead, but he has 
still got some nieces and nephews who are alive and well; and until 
every single descendant of Mr. Jim Crow's is dead and buried, we in the 
Congressional Black Caucus believe that the section 5 preclearance 
requirement of the Voting Rights Act remains as relevant today as it 
was when it was passed in 1965.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Representative Jeffries.
  Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, as the Congressional Black Caucus has 
discussed this evening, voting rights are an issue that all Americans 
are entitled to, and we should be helping more voters to participate in 
our democracy, not creating laws that prevent or discourage anyone from 
voting.
  As my colleague just explained, the coanchor from New York (Mr. 
Jeffries), we have made tremendous progress in recent history in 
securing the right to vote for many minority communities. A fully free 
and democratic society is always a work in progress, and with each 
election we are reminded that we cannot rest. We must always come to 
the defense of voting rights, and we cannot be caught off guard or 
pretend that because time has passed that we do not need to continue to 
fight to safeguard our rights. Now, no successful social justice 
movement has secured freedom absent vigilance, and that's why we are 
here tonight--to defend a pillar of justice and democracy.
  The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was approved by Congress to protect 
fundamental voting rights and to protect minority groups from 
disenfranchisement. After a series of violent attacks on civil rights 
leaders who were registering African Americans to vote, former 
President Lyndon B. Johnson sent draft legislation to Congress to 
protect voting rights, and it was signed into law soon thereafter.
  Since then, the Voting Rights Act has been one of the Nation's most 
effective civil rights laws and tools to combat discrimination and 
voting. Over time, the tactics used to stop people from voting have 
become more sophisticated. Unfair voter ID laws, barriers to voter 
registration, and narrowed early voting opportunities were all used in 
an attempt to suppress the vote in 2012. Overall, 2,400 changes in 
voting laws were stopped because of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 
as my colleague Mr. Jeffries just outlined.
  In January, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said:

       The Nation has been facing some of the ``greatest attacks 
     on voting rights since segregation'' and that the potential 
     to repeal section 5 is the biggest threat yet.

  Whether it's attempts to restrict early voting in Ohio or in Florida 
or whether it's throwing up billboards in minority communities that 
read ``voter fraud is a felony,'' we know that our work is not done. 
Intimidation is still a tactic employed by some seeking to scare voters 
from the polls. Until that threat is extinct, section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act still has a very important role to play in making full 
democratic enfranchisement a reality in our society. We secured the 
integrity of our electorate in 2012, and it's in part because of the 
Voting Rights Act.
  This is not a partisan issue. There is bipartisan consensus on that 
point. In 2006, the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized with 
overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. In fact, this body, 
the House of Representatives, has voted four times--with strong 
bipartisan support every time--to reauthorize section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act.

                              {time}  2110

  Every reauthorization has been signed into law by a Republican 
President. The most recent reauthorization vote was 390-33 in the House 
and 98-0 in the Senate.
  As part of the last reauthorization, Congress released over 15,000 
pages of

[[Page 1639]]

committee reports that demonstrated large-scale evidence of voting 
discrimination. Not only did these findings lead to a bipartisan vote 
to reauthorize the legislation, but Congress also cited the invaluable 
role of section 5 in thwarting racial injustice. According to the 
committee report, without the continuation of the Voting Rights Act's 
protections, the evidence is clear that ``racial and language minority 
citizens will be deprived of the opportunity to exercise their right to 
vote, or will have their votes diluted.''
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act is important for 
many different communities.
  The writing is on the wall. Our work is not done. Section 5 must be 
upheld. And because of that, we stand in strong support of the Voting 
Rights Act here tonight.
  I'd like to now bring my colleague, Mr. Jeffries, up so we can 
highlight some of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, both from a 
historical perspective but most importantly how it still applies today.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Horsford.
  I think you hit on a very important point that should be reemphasized 
in the context of this debate. Every single reauthorization of the 
Voting Rights Act section 5 was signed into law by a Republican 
President. And so in 1970, the reauthorization was signed into law by 
President Richard Nixon. In 1975, it was President Gerald Ford. In 
1982, it was Ronald Reagan. And in 2006, it was George Bush.
  It was the current House majority, held in different form, but when 
Republicans were in charge of the Chamber, they allowed the 
reauthorization to move forward through the Judiciary Committee on a 
bipartisan basis. Now this may seem strange in the current poisonous 
environment of Washington that we exist in right now, but there was 
significant cooperation, tremendous leadership shown by the then-
chairperson and the ranking member, John Conyers. It passed in the 
House of Representatives 390-33.
  It's also interesting to note historically that prior to this year, 
every time section 5 and the Voting Rights Act has been used to address 
alleged concerns with redistricting, which traditionally takes place 2 
years after the completion of the census, when it was used by the 
Justice Department to block or modify redistricting reforms or changes 
prior to the Obama administration, on every other occasion since the 
passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 it was a Republican Justice 
Department charged with the responsibility of addressing concerns with 
redistricting and the problem of racial gerrymandering. It was the 
Nixon Justice Department in 1972. It was the Reagan Justice Department 
in 1982. It was the George H.W. Bush Justice Department in 1992. It was 
the George W. Bush Justice Department in 2002.
  And so the history of section 5 and the Voting Rights Act is a 
glorious one, not just as it relates to the preservation of our 
democracy, addressing the need to make sure that every American, 
regardless of race or color, has the capacity to participate in a 
meaningful way, but it's been traditionally viewed and executed through 
a bipartisan lens. We're hopeful that when the Supreme Court takes up 
oral argument on this matter in 2 days, that they will evaluate it on 
the merits and give due deference to Congress, which has consistently 
reauthorized it pursuant to its power under article I of the 
Constitution as well as the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States of America.
  There really is no case to be made that it should be declared 
invalid. I believe we've illustrated time after time how it's been used 
to protect the integrity of our democracy, and we're hopeful that at 
some point down the road, it will no longer be necessary. But, Mr. 
Speaker, that moment has not arrived in America as of today.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Representative Jeffries. As you just 
indicated, Wednesday's hearing before the Supreme Court is to hear 
arguments as they pertain to whether to preserve section 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act. That is why the Congressional Black Caucus has come 
to the floor this evening, to bring attention to this very important 
provision of current law and to ensure that, as the legislative branch, 
we have the ability to preserve and to strengthen the Voting Rights Act 
as necessary.
  We want to continue to push forward. There are those who have come 
before who have fought, bled, and died for our right to vote. We want 
to continue to fight and preserve everyone's right to vote.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, in the run-up to the 
2012 elections Republican-controlled legislatures passed a wide range 
of bills designed to restrict, rather than broaden, access to the 
ballot box. Despite multiple comprehensive reports and findings 
demonstrating that impersonating another voter is more rare than being 
struck by lightning, thirty one states now require ID, fifteen require 
photo ID, for voting, potentially disenfranchising five million voters 
mostly minorities, especially African Americans, and senior citizens. 
Other recent oppressive state laws aim at making it more difficult to 
register to vote and scale back early voting periods. Several states 
undertook massive (and subsequently proven fraudulent) purges of the 
voting rolls. Some of the most egregious attempts at suppressing the 
vote occurred in states which required pre-clearance under the 1965 
Voting Rights Act because of their long history of voter suppression. 
Without Section 5 in place, many of the roughly 2,400 blocked voting 
changes proposed since 1982 would have had a significant adverse impact 
on voters.
  Following the Civil War Congress recognized the critical central role 
of voting in our democracy and passed the fifteenth amendment which 
gives the Federal Government primary authority to prevent 
discrimination in voting. The amendment was ratified by the states and 
the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is a direct implementation of that 
authority to prevent any attempt to limit access to the ballot. The 
Supreme Court has itself noted that Congress, not the Court, has the 
special responsibility to protect voting rights. The fact is that, in 
an overwhelming bipartisan vote in 2006, Congress found that voting 
discrimination continues to persist, and it undermines our democracy 
and therefore reauthorized the VRA for twenty-five years.
  This year marks the 48th Anniversary of the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery 
March which led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act and I join in 
calling for a new generation of Freedom Riders to join with tens of 
thousands of original Freedom Riders in standing tall for our hard won 
voting rights.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the Supreme Court 
prepares to hear arguments in Shelby County v. Holder this week, it is 
critical that we recognize the importance of upholding the Voting 
Rights Act (VRA) in order to preserve the rights of all Americans. To 
strip the VRA of its most effective provision now would be to turn our 
backs on millions of Americans who continue to be targeted by 
discriminatory voting practices.
  The 2012 Presidential Election exemplified the persistent threats 
that work to disenfranchise voters. Long lines at polling places, the 
purging of voter registration rolls, and blatant efforts to intimidate 
select groups of voters have mired the electoral process in many 
localities. In Texas, two harsh voter mandates were passed in 2012 
which were designed to create hurdles to voting with restrictive voter 
ID laws, and to dilute the voting power of the burgeoning minority 
population. In a testament to the necessity of the VRA, both measures 
were blocked under Section 5, preventing inequality of voting rights in 
Texas.
  Historically, Congress has always reauthorized Section 5 of the VRA 
on a bipartisan basis, and as recently as 2006. The U.S. Department of 
Justice has filed more than 1,000 objections under Section 5 since 
1982, protecting millions of voters from discrimination. The Supreme 
Court has upheld Section 5 of the VRA four times.
  Mr. Speaker, voter disenfranchisement still poses a great threat to 
the electoral process. The Voting Rights Act is an essential tool in 
our fight to preserve equal voting rights for all Americans. Through 
the VRA, Congress has exercised its constitutional authority under the 
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to ensure voters have free and fair 
access to the polls. Until there is sufficient evidence to suggest that 
efforts to suppress minority voters have been mitigated, the Voting 
Rights Act must be upheld in its entirety.

                          ____________________