[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1684-1690]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1610
                           VOTING RIGHTS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join in this Special Order, 
a bipartisan one, in which I thank my judiciary colleague and former 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, 
for joining me in this discussion, as well as Congressman Bobby Scott 
of Virginia, also a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and 
former chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.
  Members of the House, just days before the anniversary of the Edmund 
Pettus Bridge march from Montgomery to Selma--and by the way, our 
colleague, Congressman John Lewis, was the only Member of Congress who 
was in that march--the Supreme Court will review Congress' authority 
under the Constitution to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, 
specifically section 5 of that act. I believe and I am confident the 
Supreme Court will and should uphold the constitutionality of Congress' 
authorization of section 5 for three reasons. The first: Protecting 
minority voting rights is a constitutional imperative that Congress is 
required to enforce.
  When Congress acts under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, it 
acts at the zenith of its constitutional authority. The Supreme Court 
has consistently upheld Congress' authority under the 15th Amendment. 
The 15th Amendment gives Congress a mandate to eliminate racial 
discrimination in

[[Page 1685]]

voting by appropriate legislation. After almost a century of 
ineffective protection for minorities, and in the long wake of the 
Civil War, Congress took action to pass the 15th Amendment, and almost 
a hundred years later passed the Voting Rights Act, which included 
section 5. Protecting minority voting rights is something Congress can 
do, and this authority has been repeatedly affirmed by the United 
States Supreme Court.
  For almost 50 years, the Supreme Court consistently affirmed 
Congress' authority to protect minority voting rights under section 5 
of the Voting Rights Act. Legal challenges to section 5 are nothing new 
to Congress, and are nothing new to the Court. Legal challenges to 
section 5 of the Voting Rights Act have routinely been made after 
Congress has reauthorized temporary provisions.
  The Supreme Court first affirmed the constitutionality of section 5 
in 1966. In the case of South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the Supreme Court 
upheld the Voting Rights Act, including section 5. The Court in that 
decision cited Congress' careful study and the voluminous legislative 
history underlying the Voting Rights Act as the basis for upholding it. 
During Congress' most recent authorization of section 5 in 2006, both 
the Senate and the House studied the continued need for section 5 by 
amassing an extensive record that totaled over 15,000 pages, spanned 20 
hearings, and included testimony from a total of 96 witnesses 
representing interests ranging from Federal and State executive 
officials to civil rights leaders and others. Those 15,000 pages were 
amassed by the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary 
Committee as well.
  Congress paid careful attention to the Court's decisions throughout 
the reauthorization process and acted consistent with them to the 
extent of the law, and only after commencing the evidence, strongly 
suggested widespread violations of the 15th Amendment, which led to 
ample justification for congressional action.
  The result, on July 13, 2006, was the largest bipartisan vote in 
Voting Rights Act history, with a vote of 390-33 in the House and 
unanimous passage in the Senate, 98-0.
  Although dicta from the Court's Namundo decision in 2009 suggested 
that the burdens of section 5 may be unnecessary because times have 
changed, Congress found that the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
  While we have made progress, Congress continues to find that racial 
discrimination in voting is still present and remains concentrated in 
those places covered by section 5. Unfortunately, the methods of 
discrimination have also become more sophisticated. I believe that the 
Court will recognize what Congress found in 2006--that the work of 
section 5 is not yet complete.
  The protections in section 5 don't solely impact our Federal voting 
processes, but rather the breadth of section 5 extends to the smallest 
cities and most centralized local governments. When a voting change 
discriminates against local citizens even at the local level, section 5 
has the ability to halt the impact of discrimination. Without section 
5's strength to arrest the discrimination at the outset, the burden of 
remedying the discrimination would be on these local citizens.
  The facts in Shelby County v. Holder further magnify the importance 
of section 5 to protect the voting rights of minorities. In the Shelby 
case, the Justice Department rejected an electoral map drawn by a city 
in Shelby County which would have decreased the number of black voters 
from 70.9 percent to 29.5 percent. In this instance, section 5 
preserved the ability of the African American community in the city to 
elect their candidate of choice to the city council. Shelby County, 
along with many examples examined by Congress in 2006, highlights the 
importance of reauthorization of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
  The constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act is an important matter 
for the Court to consider and continue to review, and is important to 
the democratic ideals of this country.
  We believe the Supreme Court owes much deference to the considered 
judgment of the people's elected representatives since Congress 
continues to find that racial discrimination in voting is present and 
remains concentrated in many of the places covered by section 5. We 
expect the United States Supreme Court to continue to declare that 
section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is critical to protecting minority 
voting rights--all voting rights--well into the 21st century.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan 
for yielding.
  I was the principal author of the Voting Rights Act extension in 
2006, which did pass this House 390-33, and unanimously was passed by 
the Senate.

                              {time}  1620

  The Shelby County case concentrates on the constitutionality of 
section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and that is the section that 
requires pre-clearance of electoral changes in covered jurisdictions. 
The plaintiffs in the Shelby County case allege that since things have 
changed since 1965, section 5 is no longer applicable. They're wrong.
  When Congress considered, in 2006, the extension of the Voting Rights 
Act, including section 5, the Constitution Subcommittee of the House 
Judiciary Committee had probably the most extensive legislative record 
in the history of this Congress compiled, 12,000 pages on this side of 
the Capitol, numerous hearings, numerous witnesses, including those who 
were opposed to section 5, and even those who were opposed to the 
entire concept of the Voting Rights Act. So every viewpoint was heard; 
and the mountain of testimony, I don't think, can be equaled by any 
other issue that Congress has discussed, in my memory, and maybe in the 
history of the Republic.
  I want to make two points. The first point is that all of that 
testimony very clearly shows that, even in the years immediately prior 
to 2006, there were attempts at discrimination made, mainly by local 
governments, to attempt to disenfranchise minority voters. And, in 
fact, over 700 requests for pre-clearance were denied, I believe, in 
the 10-year period prior to the hearings being held. So there still are 
attempts being made to disenfranchise minority voters, and the Congress 
found that; and that legislative record should be enough to persuade 
the Court that those of us who are elected representatives of the 
people had ample evidence to make a considered judgment on this issue.
  The second point that needs to be made is that, right from the 
beginning of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, there was a procedure that 
would allow a covered jurisdiction to bail out of section 5 coverage, 
and that can be done by showing that there are no attempts to 
disenfranchise minority voters to the satisfaction of the Justice 
Department. A few jurisdictions have availed themselves of the bailout 
provision and have succeeded and thus are no longer under section 5.
  What the plaintiffs in the Shelby County case want to do is, rather 
than going and presenting evidence that they are not discriminating 
anymore and saying that they qualify for the bailout, they want to go 
to court to throw the whole of section 5 out. It is like dealing with 
this issue with a blunderbuss rather than with a rifle shot or a 
surgical strike.
  Now, if any of the plaintiffs in this case are clean, I believe that 
they ought to tell the Court why they're going to court, rather than 
using the provisions that have been in the law for close to 50 years to 
bail out, because they are clean.
  When I was in law school, I was always taught that when you wanted to 
get equity, you ought to come in with clean hands. Well, if you have 
clean hands, the bailout is made for you. And if you don't have clean 
hands, then the Supreme Court should tell you to go wash up.
  The Court should uphold the Voting Rights Act, should uphold section 
5, as extensively considered by Congress and reauthorized, and rule in 
favor of the government.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his 
observations and his continuing support of this

[[Page 1686]]

very important act from the beginning. He was there when it started, 
and he's still with it. I congratulate you, sir.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased now to yield as much time 
as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Bobby 
Scott, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I'm proud to join the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from 
Michigan, who were leaders in the reauthorization of the Voting Rights 
Act in 2006. They were there and have been fighting the battle for 
voting rights for a long time. The leadership in reauthorization was 
obviously the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Michigan 
and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. Speaker, a right to vote is the very foundation of our democracy. 
The Supreme Court noted in Wesberry v. Sanders in 1964 that no right is 
more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the 
election of those who make laws under which, as good citizens, we must 
live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to 
vote is undermined.
  From its initial passage of the Voting Rights Act, Congress has 
relied on an extensive record of discrimination in voting to justify 
the continued need for remedies imposed by the expiring provisions. In 
the original enactment of the Voting Rights Act and its subsequent 
reauthorization, Congress has made sure that voting rights remedies are 
proportionate to the problems Congress sought to secure.
  In the reauthorization process in 2006, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
and the gentleman from Michigan made sure that we listened to each and 
every witness. They had long hearings and heard all kinds of different 
schemes to undermine the right to vote; and in the end, we reauthorized 
the Voting Rights Act.
  As a result of the Voting Rights Act, since 1964--it was passed in 
1965, but since 1964, the number of Black elected officials has 
increased from a nationwide total of 300 in 1964 to over 9,000 today. 
The Congressional Black Caucus grew from three prior to the Voting 
Rights Act to 43 today.
  In the Commonwealth of Virginia, my home State, there were no African 
Americans in the General Assembly in 1965. Now there are 18 members of 
the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus. Clearly, these numbers show that 
many of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act have made a difference.
  Section 5 is one of the Voting Rights Act's most important 
provisions. It requires covered jurisdictions to submit planned changes 
in their election laws to Federal officials for prior approval. They 
have to show that the change does not have a discriminatory effect or 
intent.
  The jurisdictions covered by section 5 were selected the old 
fashioned way: they earned it, by implementing poll taxes, literacy 
tests, gerrymandered election districts and other schemes.
  Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to section 5. In 
Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge will be to try to eliminate the 
requirement for covered jurisdictions to secure that pre-clearance from 
the Department of Justice or a Federal Court in Washington, D.C. They 
are arguing that the current evidence of racial discriminatory 
practices in covered jurisdictions is inadequate to support section 5; 
but the record of section 5-based objections has shown that section 5 
is needed.
  Since 2006, when we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, more than 750 
objections have been lodged by the Department of Justice to changes in 
election procedures through the pre-clearance provision in section 5, 
finding that those 750 changes violated the Voting Rights Act. Those 
are changes in election laws that the jurisdictions knew they had to 
submit to Justice.
  Now, just exactly what kind of changes would they have enacted if 
they hadn't been required to pre-clear their new laws?
  Their bipartisan congressional report in 1982 warned that without 
this section discrimination would reappear overnight. That's because 
without this section there would be no effective deterrent in passing 
discriminatory laws.
  Section 5 offers a type of relief that is not available in any other 
provision of the act. Without section 5's relief, jurisdictions with a 
history of discrimination could pass discriminatory changes in their 
election laws, and then the victim of the discrimination would bear the 
costs of litigation and bear the burden of proof to overturn the law.

                              {time}  1630

  If overturned, finally, then they could do another scheme and the 
process would start all over. If those impacted negatively by the 
discriminatory laws could not raise the money, then they're just stuck 
with the discriminatory plan.
  Now, a lot of these plans are inflicted on small counties where 
people just do not have the resources to launch expensive, complex 
litigation. And so it is unfair to impose on them the burden of 
protecting their voting rights when you know from history that the 
covered jurisdictions have a history of discrimination.
  Now, one of the problems with the elimination of section 5 is that 
once the small counties raise all the money, get to litigation, finally 
get a final judgment, and overturn it, the perpetrators of the scheme 
already would have achieved their goal. They got elected. They were 
able to represent the area and cast all the votes. And then in the end, 
when they're finally caught discriminating, they get to run as 
incumbents, with all the advantages of incumbency. The magic of section 
5 is that the illegal scheme never goes into effect to begin with.
  Now, there is a provision, as the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed 
out, for covered jurisdictions to bail out if they feel they have 
stopped discriminating. But all they have to do to bail out is first 
prove that they haven't gotten caught discriminating in 10 years.
  Now, the process is simple. For those who have attempted to bail out, 
they've been able to bail out. There is no barrier, essentially no 
barrier, to bailing out from under the provisions of section 5, other 
than the fact that you couldn't have been caught discriminating in the 
previous 10 years.
  Striking section 5 will essentially turn our country to a pre-1965 
election system. Mr. Speaker, at a time when America has staked so much 
of its international reputation on the need to spread democracy around 
the world, we must ensure its vitality here at home and preserve 
section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
  I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and for all of his 
leadership in voting rights and civil rights over the years.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his very astute 
and precise evaluation of the continuing importance of section 5 to the 
Voting Rights Act.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 37 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. I would now be pleased to yield to the gentlelady from 
Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, as much time as she may consume.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman very much, and thank him 
for convening this historic special order. It's historic because it is 
led by the Honorable John Conyers, who has actually walked the historic 
steps that generated the actual passing of the Voting Rights Act of 
1965.
  I think it is appropriate to put on the record again, as we've done 
often, that Mr. Conyers is the only elected official, certainly Member 
of the United States Congress, that can claim that they were endorsed 
by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I know that the Honorable Bobby Scott 
and myself admire that and have benefited from the deep knowledge that 
John Conyers has on these important issues.
  And I would offer, in my brief commentary this afternoon, to try to 
track the vitality of the Voting Rights Act in its series of 
reauthorizations so that

[[Page 1687]]

people can actually see that this is not legislation of whiners, this 
is not a legislation that is not in love with America, does not believe 
in the freedom of America's values and choice and being able to vote 
unencumbered, or not view the integrity of State election officials 
throughout the country. But it really is, if you will, a testament to 
the fact that laws can make things better.
  In actuality, the Voting Rights Act is a codification of the 15th 
Amendment that no one shall be denied the right to vote on account of 
race or color. That was a necessary amendment and followed in the 
tradition of the 13th and 14th Amendments, which provide for due 
process and equal treatment under the law.
  Then, of course, the 15th Amendment, which says that the vote is 
precious. It's so precious, and sometimes we forget that it was 
actually embodied in the Bill of Rights or in the context of the 
Constitution, that the 15th Amendment was, in fact, protecting the 
right to vote.
  So the Voting Rights Act came as the leaders of this Nation watched 
the deterioration of the right to vote in certain parts of this Nation. 
And I would argue that that is true even today.
  We heard on the floor that there is a way to, in essence, move 
yourself out of the Voting Rights Act by showing 10 years of, might I 
say with all due respect, good behavior.
  But as we have watched over the last few years, let me recount for 
you, Mr. Speaker, that we have had incidences that impact school boards 
to governorships, if you will, or school boards to statehouses, and 
school boards to congressional seats, where there have been instances 
that have required the intervention of preclearance under the Voting 
Rights Act of section 5.
  I would venture to say that no one has been hurt by that, that it has 
only enhanced the opportunity to vote. In the State of Texas, for 
example, in the last 2 years, there was an issue of purging voters. It 
so happened that those who were being purged were predominantly 
Hispanic and African American. In the last election of 2012, the State 
of Florida was poised to purge some 1 million voters, and through 
oversight of the Department of Justice that was, in essence, stopped.
  In addition, we've had a series of what we've called voter ID laws, 
which came about and were born post, if you will, the election of 2010. 
Those voter ID laws were determined through preclearance to have a 
deteriorating effect on the vote of those who were needed to carry 
forth a vote.
  And so I would make the argument that the voter ID laws were, in 
essence, prevented from taking the vote away under the 15th Amendment, 
the Voting Rights Act, because we had section 5. And so the Texas voter 
ID law was declared to not meet the standards under section 5 
preclearance, that it would hamper people from voting. And, in essence, 
it hampered people from voting because it did not have the process to 
get your voter ID in all the counties in the State of Texas.
  So if you were in a county without a place to get your voter ID, if 
you didn't have the money, you clearly were prevented from voting. And 
that covered voters from all different races--voter ID laws that 
happened in Mississippi, voter ID laws that happened in Ohio. Some of 
them were undone through election processes, but the preclearance truly 
impacts real lives.
  I remember as a junior member of the Southern Christian Leadership 
Conference, which I work for, doing registration in the Deep South, as 
it was defined in those years, in South Carolina, going onto 
plantations where sharecroppers worked and the intimidation of the 
process of not only registering, but voting. We were there to register 
to vote.
  The reason why I know there was intimidation is because as I was 
approaching a voting station, which was a tattered area--when I say 
tattered, the voting booth was a tattered cloth from an old general 
store. My commentary is not to speak of that particular era of voting, 
but it was to say to you that I was promptly shot at for approaching. I 
was a stranger. And the next thing I knew we were running for cover. 
But all I was coming to do was to check the voting process out to 
ensure that the employees of that plantation, sharecroppers, were 
coming and could vote unencumbered.
  So the Voting Rights Act is about unencumbered voting. What person 
would want to deny that?
  Tomorrow, we will have a hearing before the United States Supreme 
Court in the Shelby case. And my argument--I'm not making the argument 
before the Supreme Court as we speak today--but my argument is that 
facts will speak for themselves. The courts will address the question 
of law, and they will listen to the proponents and the opponents.
  I hope and pray that the Justices will understand that the 
underpinnings of the argument are based upon fact. And in the last 
election of 2012, there was an enormous mountain of facts that showed 
that in the nooks and crannies of America there were voters who were 
denied the right to vote. In 2008, voters were denied the right to 
vote--issues such as moving various polling places that were in 
minority neighborhoods, the misrepresentation of the message going out 
about felons would be arrested at the polls, as if the felons who could 
not vote would be showing up at the polls, or others being determined 
to be a felon and not be a felon, the misidentification of voters, 
sending them away.

                              {time}  1640

  I would just make the argument that this is a factual basis for which 
we need this. The fact that we have had these kinds of incidences shows 
the value of the Voting Rights Act section 5 preclearance. We show the 
value through 15,000 pages of documentation in the 2006 
reauthorization, which was led by this Judiciary Committee, of which 
those of us on the floor today are members, led by John Conyers and, of 
course, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
  So let me conclude by thanking the chairman for his very kind 
yielding. I'll indicate that we can speak about the four corners of 
section 5, Supreme Court case that has reaffirmed it, but this is a 
question of fact. Until we eliminate the facts across America that 
people are denied the right to vote on the basis of their color and/or 
their race, then we have a reason for section 5 preclearance.
  With that, I yield back in the name of freedom, in the name of 
justice, and in the name of those who lost their lives fighting for 
such and fighting for America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the need to protect 
democracy, to protect the voice of the American people, and to ensure 
the right to vote continues to be treated as a right under the 
Constitution rather than being treated as though it is privilege.
  If you are a Constitutional Scholar this is an exciting time because 
the United States Supreme Court has a very active docket this term, 
deciding on matters which have great import to every American.
  And pursuant to that, in less than two days the Supreme Court will 
hear the case of Shelby County Alabama v. Holder. The issue in this 
case is whether Congress' decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of 
the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of 
Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the 
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth 
Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.
  The challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 in this case was 
brought by Shelby County, Ala., which is a majority white suburb of 
Birmingham.
  In rejecting the County's arguments Judge Bates agreed with an 
earlier unanimous decision, by a three-judge panel of the D.C. District 
Court, which likewise upheld the constitutionality of Section 5, in a 
case brought by a local Texas utility district, which is my home state.
  That earlier decision, however, was vacated in 2009 when the Supreme 
Court decided that the utility district could pursue a statutory 
``bailout'' from Section 5 coverage.
  Unlike the Texas utility district, Shelby County freely admitted that 
it has a recent history of voting discrimination that disqualified it 
from ``bailing out.''
  I am joined by my colleagues here today to call on all Americans to 
reject and denounce tactics and measures that have absolutely no place 
in our democracy. I call on African-Americans, Hispanic and Latino 
Americans, as

[[Page 1688]]

well as Asian-American voters to band together to fight for their right 
to vote and to work together to understand their voting rights which 
are granted to citizens of our nation by our laws and our Constitution.
  I call on these citizens to stand against harassment and 
intimidation, to vote in the face of such adversity. The most effective 
way to curb tactics of intimidation and harassment is to vote. Is to 
stand together to fight against any measures that would have the effect 
of preventing every eligible citizen from being able to vote. Voting 
ensures active participation in democracy.
  As a Member of this body and of the House Judiciary Committee which 
has primary jurisdiction over voting matters, I firmly believe that we 
must protect the rights of all eligible citizens to vote. Over the past 
few decades, minorities in this country have witnessed a pattern of 
efforts to intimidate and harass minority voters through so-called 
``Voter Id'' requirements. I am sad to report that as we head into the 
21st century, these efforts continue.
  Never in the history of our nation, has the effect of one person, one 
vote, been more important. A great Spanish Philosopher, George 
Santayana once said ``Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to 
repeat it.'' Our history has taught us that denying the right to vote 
based on race, gender or class is a stain on the democratic principles 
that we all value. The Voting Rights Act was a reaction to the actions 
of our passed and a way to pave the road to a new future.
  The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was adopted in 1965 and was extended in 
1970, 1975, and 1982. This legislation is considered the most 
successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United 
States Congress. Contrary to the prevailing rumor that the Act is due 
to expire, leaving minorities with no rights, the Act is actually due 
for reauthorization in the 2nd session of the 108th Congress--there is 
no doubt about whether it will continue to protect our rights in the 
future.
  The VRA codifies and effectuates the 15th Amendment's permanent 
guarantee that, throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the 
right to vote on account of race or color. Adopted at a time when 
African Americans were substantially disfranchised in many Southern 
states, the Act employed measures to restore the right to vote to 
citizens of all U.S. states.
  By 1965, proponents of disenfranchisement made violent attempts to 
thwart the efforts of civil rights activists. The murder of voting-
rights activists in Philadelphia and Mississippi gained national 
attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism.
  Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on 
peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, 
en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President 
and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective 
voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong 
voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that 
would become the Voting Rights Act.
  Congress adopted this far-reaching statute in response to a rash of 
instances of interference with attempts by African American citizens to 
exercise their right to vote--a rash that appears to be manifesting 
itself again in this nation. Perhaps a legislative measure is needed to 
respond in a way that the VRA did.
  The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the VRA in 1966 in 
a landmark decision--South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-
28:

       Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was 
     inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination 
     in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and 
     energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics 
     invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring 
     nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth 
     Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage 
     of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its 
     victims.

  It seems that the ``obstructionist tactics'' that threatened the 
aggrieved parties in Katzenbach have returned. The advantages of ``time 
and inertia'' that were shifted from bigoted bureaucrats to minority 
victims are slowly shifting back against their favor when educators, 
government leaders, and agencies are allowed to contravene the policy 
and legal conclusions given by the highest court in the country.
  Several factors influenced the initiation of this civil rights 
legislation. The first was a large shift in the number of African 
Americans away from the Republican Party. Second, many Democrats felt 
that it was a mistake of its Southern members to oppose civil rights 
legislation because they could lose more of the African American and 
liberal votes.
  No right is more fundamental than the right to vote. It is protected 
by more constitutional amendments--the 1st, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 
26th--than any other right we enjoy as Americans. Broad political 
participation ensures the preservation of all our other rights and 
freedoms. Third, State laws that impose new restrictions on voting, 
however, undermine our strong democracy by impeding access to the polls 
and reducing the number of Americans who vote and whose votes are 
counted.


                          VOTER IDENTIFICATION

  There have been several restrictive voting bills considered and 
approved by states in the past several years. The most commonly 
advanced initiatives are laws that require voters to present photo 
identification when voting in person. Additionally, states have 
proposed or passed laws to require proof of citizenship when 
registering to vote; to eliminate the right to register to vote and to 
submit a change of address within the same state on Election Day; to 
shorten the time allowed for early voting; to make it more difficult 
for third-party organizations to conduct voter registration; and even 
to eliminate a mandate on poll workers to direct voters who go to the 
wrong precinct.
  These recent changes are on top of the disfranchisement laws in 48 
states that deprive an estimated 5.3 million people with criminal 
convictions--disproportionately African Americans and Latinos--of their 
political voice.
  Voter ID laws are becoming increasingly common across the country. 
Today, 31 states have laws requiring voters to present some form of 
identification to vote in federal, state and local elections, although 
some laws or initiatives passed in 2011 have not yet gone into effect. 
Some must also be pre-cleared under the Voting Rights Act prior to 
implementation. In 16 of those 31 States, voters must (or will soon be 
required to) present a photo ID--that in many states must be 
government-issued--in order to cast a ballot.
  Voter ID laws deny the right to vote to thousands of registered 
voters who do not have, and, in many instances, cannot obtain the 
limited identification states accept for voting. Many of these 
Americans cannot afford to pay for the required documents needed to 
secure a government issued photo ID. As such, these laws impede access 
to the polls and are at odds with the fundamental right to vote.
  In total, more than 21 million Americans of voting age lack 
documentation that would satisfy photo ID laws, and a disproportionate 
number of these Americans are low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, 
and elderly. As many as 25% of African Americans of voting age lack 
government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of their white 
counterparts. Eighteen percent of Americans over the age of 65 do not 
have government-issued photo ID.
  Laws requiring photo identification to vote are a ``solution'' in 
search of a problem. There is no credible evidence that in-person 
impersonation voter fraud--the only type of fraud that photo IDs could 
prevent--is even a minor problem. Multiple studies have found that 
almost all cases of alleged in-person impersonation voter ``fraud'' are 
actually the result of a voter making an inadvertent mistake about 
their eligibility to vote, and that even these mistakes are extremely 
infrequent.
  It is important, instead, to focus on both expanding the franchise 
and ending practices which actually threaten the integrity of the 
elections, such as improper purges of voters, voter harassment, and 
distribution of false information about when and where to vote. None of 
these issues, however, are addressed or can be resolved with a photo ID 
requirement.
  Furthermore, requiring voters to pay for an ID, as well as the 
background documents necessary to obtain an ID in order to vote, is 
tantamount to a poll tax. Although some states issue IDs for free, the 
birth certificates, passports, or other documents required to secure a 
government-issued ID cost money, and many Americans simply cannot 
afford to pay for them. In addition, obtaining a government-issued 
photo ID is not an easy task for all members of the electorate. Low-
income individuals who lack the funds to pay for documentation, people 
with disabilities with limited access to transportation, and elderly.
  Americans who never had a birth certificate and cannot obtain 
alternate proof of their birth in the U.S., are among those who face 
significant or insurmountable obstacles to getting the photo ID needed 
to exercise their right to vote. For example, because of Texas' 
recently passed voter ID law, an estimated 36,000 people in West 
Texas's District 19 are 137 miles from the nearest full service 
Department of Public Safety office, where those without IDs must travel 
to preserve their right to vote under the state's new law.
  In addition, women who have changed their names due to marriage or 
divorce often experience difficulties with identity documentation,

[[Page 1689]]

as did Andrea, who recently moved from Massachusetts to South Carolina 
and who, in the span of a month, spent more than 17 hours online and in 
person trying without success to get a South Carolina driver's license.
  Voter ID laws send not-so-subtle messages about who is and is not 
encouraged to vote. As states approve laws requiring photo ID to vote, 
each formulates its own list of acceptable forms of documentation. 
Another common thread emerging from disparate state approaches is a 
bias against robust student electoral participation.
  Henceforth, students at Wisconsin colleges and universities will not 
be able to vote using their student ID cards, unless those cards have 
issuance dates, expiration dates, and signatures.
  Currently, only a handful of Wisconsin colleges and universities are 
issuing compliant IDs. Nor will South Carolina, Texas, or Tennessee 
accept student identification at the polls.
  Policies that limit students' electoral participation are 
particularly suspect, appearing on the heels of unprecedented youth 
turnout in the 2008 election.
  Four states with new voter identification mandates, including my home 
state of Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama, are required 
under the Voting Rights Act to have these voting changes pre-cleared by 
either the Department of Justice (DOJ) or a panel of federal judges. 
Before they may be implemented, DOJ must certify that these laws do not 
have the purpose or effect of restricting voting by racial or language 
minority groups.
  Thus far, South Carolina and Texas both have submitted applications 
to DOJ that have been formally opposed in written submissions. DOJ has 
requested further information from both states, and the applications 
are on hold. Alabama's ID requirements do not take effect until 2014, 
so the state has not yet applied to DOJ for preclearance. Mississippi's 
voter ID requirement was approved by voters on November 8, 2011, so a 
preclearance request has not yet been submitted.
  In countries scattered across this earth, citizens are denied the 
right to speak their hearts and minds. In this country, only a few 
decades ago, the right to vote was limited by race, sex, or the 
financial ability to own land. When a vote is not cast, it is a 
referendum on all those who fought so hard and tirelessly for our 
rights. When a vote is cast, it is cast not only for you and the future 
but also for all those who never had the chance to pull a lever.
  We are still working to make Martin Luther King's dream a reality, a 
reality in which our government's decisions are made out in the open 
not behind cigar filled closed doors.
  The time to take back the country is at hand, and we are the ones 
with the power to do just that. To do so we must allow all citizens who 
are eligible to vote, with the right to excise this decision without 
tricks or tactics to dilute their right to vote.
  Instances of voter intimidation are not long ago and far away. Just 
last year I sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to draw 
his attention to several disturbing instances of voter intimidation 
that had taken place in Houston. In a single week there were at least 
15 report of abuse of voter rights throughout the city of Houston.
  As a Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I called for an 
immediate investigation of these instances. Many of these incidents of 
voter intimidation were occurring in predominately minority 
neighborhoods and have been directed at African-Americans and Latinos. 
It is unconscionable to think that anyone would deliberately employ the 
use of such forceful and intimidating tactics to undermine the 
fundamental, Constitutional right to vote. However, such conduct has 
regrettably occurred in Houston, and I urge you to take appropriate 
action to ensure that it does not recur.
  I am here today in the name of freedom, patriotism, and democracy. I 
am here to demand that the long hard fought right to vote continues to 
be protected.
  A long, bitter, and bloody struggle was fought for the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965 so that all Americans could enjoy the right to vote, 
regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Americans died in 
that fight so that others could achieve what they had been forcefully 
deprived of for centuries--the ability to walk freely and without fear 
into the polling place and cast a voting ballot.
  Efforts to keep minorities from fully exercising that franchise, 
however, continue. Indeed, in the past thirty years, we have witnessed 
a pattern of efforts to intimidate and harass minority voters including 
efforts that were deemed ``Ballot Security'' programs that include the 
mailing of threatening notices to African-American voters, the carrying 
of video cameras to monitor polls, the systematic challenging of 
minority voters at the polls on unlawful grounds, and the hiring of 
guards and off-duty police officers to intimidate and frighten voters 
at the polls.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a particularly poor 
track record when it comes to documented acts of voter intimidation. In 
1982, a Federal Court in New Jersey provided a consent order that 
forbids the Republican National Committee from undertaking any ballot 
security activities in a polling place or election district where race 
or ethnic composition is a factor in the decision to conduct such 
activities and where a purpose or significant effect is to deter 
qualified voters from voting. These reprehensible practices continue to 
plague our Nation's minority voters.


                       VOTING RIGHTS ACT HISTORY

  August 6, 2011, marked the 46th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act.
  Most Americans take the right to vote for granted. We assume that we 
can register and vote if we are over 18 and are citizens. Most of us 
learned in school that discrimination based on race, creed or national 
origin has been barred by the Constitution since the end of the Civil 
War.
  Before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, however, the right to vote did not 
exist in practice for most African Americans. And, until 1975, most 
American citizens who were not proficient in English faced significant 
obstacles to voting, because they could not understand the ballot.
  Even though the Indian Citizenship Act gave Native Americans the 
right to vote in 1924, state law determined who could actually vote, 
which effectively excluded many Native Americans from political 
participation for decades.
  Asian Americans and Asian immigrants also have suffered systematic 
exclusion from the political process and it has taken a series of 
reforms, including repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943, and 
passage of amendments strengthening the Voting Rights Act three decades 
later, to fully extend the franchise to Asian Americans. It was with 
this history in mind that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to 
make the right to vote a reality for all Americans.
  And the Voting Rights Act has made giant strides toward that goal. 
Without exaggeration, it has been one of the most effective civil 
rights laws passed by Congress.
  In 1964, there were only approximately 300 African-Americans in 
public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, black 
elected officials were elected anywhere in the South. Today there are 
more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of 
Congress, the largest number ever. The act has opened the political 
process for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials 
that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including 263 at the 
state or federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. And Native 
Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh 
barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly.
  We must not forget the importance of protecting this hard earned 
right.


                                VOTER ID

  An election with integrity is one that is open to every eligible 
voter. Restrictive voter ID requirements degrade the integrity of our 
elections by systematically excluding large numbers of eligible 
Americans.
  I do not argue with the notion that we must prevent individuals from 
voting who are not allowed to vote. Yet a hidden argument in this bill 
is that immigrants may ``infiltrate'' our voting system. Legal 
immigrants who have successfully navigated the citizenship maze are 
unlikely to draw the attention of the authorities by attempting to 
register incorrectly. Similarly, undocumented immigrants are even less 
likely to risk deportation just to influence an election.
  If for no other reason than after a major disaster be it earthquakes, 
fires, floods or hurricanes, we must all understand how vulnerable our 
system is. Families fleeing the hurricanes and fires suffered loss of 
property that included lost documents. Compounding this was the 
devastation of the region, which virtually shut down civil services in 
the area. For example, New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina 
were scattered across 44 states. These uprooted citizens had difficulty 
registering and voting both with absentee ballots and at satellite 
voting stations. As a result, those elections took place fully 8 months 
after the disaster, and it required the efforts of non-profits, such as 
the NAACP, to ensure that voters had the access they are 
constitutionally guaranteed.
  We need to address the election fraud that we know occurring, such as 
voting machine integrity and poll volunteer training and competence. 
After every election that occurs in this country, we have solid 
documented evidence of voting inconsistencies and errors. In 2004, in 
New Mexico, malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly 
register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots. 1 million 
ballots nationwide were flawed

[[Page 1690]]

by faulty voting equipment--roughly one for every 100 cast.
  Those who face the most significant barriers are not only the poor, 
minorities, and rural populations. 1.5 million college students, whose 
addresses change often, and the elderly, will also have difficulty 
providing documentation.
  In fact, newly married individuals face significant barriers to 
completing a change in surname. For instance, it can take 6-8 weeks to 
receive the marriage certificate in the mail, another two weeks (and a 
full day waiting in line) to get the new Social Security card, and 
finally three-four weeks to get the new driver's license. There is a 
significant possibility that this bill will also prohibit newlyweds 
from voting if they are married within three months of Election Day.
  The right to vote is a critical and sacred constitutionally protected 
civil right. To challenge this is to erode our democracy, challenge 
justice, and mock our moral standing. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in dismissing this crippling legislation, and pursue effective 
solutions to the real problems of election fraud and error. We cannot 
let the rhetoric of an election year destroy a fundamental right upon 
which we have established liberty and freedom.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Scott, and Ms. Jackson Lee, for their contributions.
  We have no further requests for time. Under those circumstances, I 
yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________