[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 4095-4097]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  ON THE 49TH ANNIVERSARY OF ``BLOODY SUNDAY'' AND THE IMPORTANCE AND 
           CONTINUING NEED FOR AN EFFECTIVE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, March 10, 2014

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the 49th anniversary 
of ``Bloody Sunday.'' On Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil 
rights demonstrators, including our beloved colleague, Congressman John 
Lewis of Georgia, were brutally attacked by state and local police at 
the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in 
support of the right to vote.
  ``Bloody Sunday'' was a watershed moment in the history of Civil 
Rights Movement and of our country. It crystallized for the nation the 
necessity of enacting a strong and effective federal law protecting the 
right to vote of every American.
  Nearly a half century later, I rise today to address the House on the 
continuing need for an effective Voting Rights Act. As a senior member 
of the House Judiciary Committee, I strongly supported and worked for 
the successful reauthorization in 2006 of the Voting Rights Act of 
1965, which proudly bears the name: Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, 
Coretta Scott King, Cesar E. Chavez, Barbara C. Jordan, William C. 
Velasquez, and Dr. Hector P. Garcia Voting Rights Act Reauthorization 
and Amendments Act of 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, in signing the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965, 
President Lyndon Johnson said:

       The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by 
     man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible 
     walls which imprison men because they are different from 
     other men.

  In answering the call of history and justice, great legislator-
statesmen strongly supported the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and worked 
across the aisle and with President Johnson to ensure its passage. Men 
like Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-Montana), Senate Minority 
Leader Everett McKinley Dirksen (R-Illinois), Speaker John McCormack 
(D-Massachusetts), House Majority Leader Hale Boggs (D-Louisiana), 
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Emanuel Celler (D-New York), and 
House Minority Leader and former President Gerald Ford (R-Michigan).
  Mr. Speaker, since its passage in 1965, and through four 
reauthorizations signed by Republican presidents (1970, 1975, 1982, 
2006), more Americans, especially those in the communities we 
represent, have been empowered by the Voting Rights Act than any other 
single piece of legislation.
  Section 5 of the Act requires covered jurisdictions to submit 
proposed changes to any voting law or procedure to the Department of 
Justice or the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC for pre-approval, 
hence the term ``pre-clearance.'' Under Section 5, the submitting 
jurisdiction has the burden of proving that the proposed change(s) are 
not retrogressive, i.e. that they do not have the purpose and will not 
have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of 
race or color.
  In announcing his support for the 1982 extension of the Voting Rights 
Act, President Reagan said, ``the right to vote is the crown jewel of 
American liberties.'' And Section 5 is the ``crown jewel'' of the 
Voting Rights Act.
  But a terrible blow was dealt to the Voting Rights Act on June 25, 
2013, when the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Shelby County 
v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b), the 
provision of the law determining which jurisdictions would be subject 
to Section 5 ``pre-clearance.''
  In 2006, the City of Calera, Alabama, which lies within Shelby 
County, enacted a discriminatory redistricting plan without complying 
with Section 5, leading to the loss of the city's sole African-American 
councilman, Ernest Montgomery. In compliance with Section 5, however, 
Calera was required to draw a nondiscriminatory redistricting plan and 
conduct another election in which Mr. Montgomery regained his seat.
  According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down 
Section 4(b) was that ``times have changed.'' Now, the Court was right; 
times have changed. But what the Court did not fully appreciate is that 
the positive changes it cited are due almost entirely to the existence 
and vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. And that is why the 
Voting Rights Act is still needed.
  Let me put it this way: in the same way that the vaccine invented by 
Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 eradicated the crippling effects but did not 
eliminate the cause of polio, the Voting Rights Act succeeded in 
stymying the practices that resulted in the wholesale 
disenfranchisement of African Americans and language minorities. But it 
did not eliminate them entirely. The Voting Rights Act is needed as 
much today to prevent another epidemic of voting disenfranchisement as 
Dr. Salk's vaccine is still needed to prevent another polio epidemic.
  Many of us remember what it was like before the Voting Rights Act but 
for those too young to have lived through it, let us take a stroll down 
memory lane. Before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, the right 
to vote did not exist in practice for most African Americans. And until 
1975, most American

[[Page 4096]]

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 
suffered systematic exclusion from the political process.
  In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were 
approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just 
three in Congress. Few, if any, black elected officials were elected 
anywhere in the South. Because of the Voting Rights Act, there are now 
more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of 
Congress, the largest number ever.
  The Voting Rights Act 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. Native Americans, Asians and others who have 
historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation 
also have benefited greatly.
  Aided by Section 5, the Voting Rights Act was successful in 
preventing the states with the worst and most egregious records of 
voter suppression and intimidation from disenfranchising minority 
voters. So successful was the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court 
apparently saw no harm in invalidating the provision that subjected 
those states to the federal supervision responsible for the success it 
celebrated.
  Now to be sure, the Supreme Court did not invalidate the preclearance 
provisions of Section 5; it only invalidated Section 4(b). But that is 
like leaving the car undamaged but destroying the key that unlocks the 
doors and starts the engine.
  According to the Court, the coverage formula in Section 4(b) had to 
be struck down because the data upon which it was based--registration 
rates and turn-out gaps--was too old and outdated. Like many others, I 
disagreed. I thought the Court got it wrong and said so in an op-ed 
published in the Forward Times of Houston, in which I wrote:

       The Court majority confuses the symptom with the cause. 
     Congress' focus was not on voter registration or turnout 
     rates. Congress instead was focused on eliminating the causes 
     or at least eradicating the effects of racial discrimination 
     in voting in states that had a ``unique history of problems 
     with racial discrimination in voting.'' Shelby, 570 U.S. 193, 
     (Ginsburg, J., dissenting), slip op. at 19 (June 25, 2013).

  I believe Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was exactly right when she 
wrote in her dissent that the question in 2006 was not which states 
were to be covered by Section 4(b) and thus subject to pre-clearance as 
was the case in 1965. Rather the question before Congress in 2006:

       Was there still a sufficient basis to support continued 
     application of the preclearance remedy in each of those 
     already-identified places?

  There were many commentators, pundits, and opponents of the Voting 
Rights Act who viewed the Court's Shelby decision as the death knell of 
the Act.
  But they underestimated the resolve of men and women of good will 
across the country who revere the Voting Rights Act. They 
underestimated the determination of my colleagues in the House and 
Senate, on both sides of the aisle.
  They discounted the commitment of persons like: Republican James 
Sensenbrenner and Democrat John Conyers, each a former Chairman of the 
House Judiciary Committee; Congressman John Lewis, who shed his blood 
on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on ``Bloody Sunday''; 
Northern members of Congress like Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, 
Republicans Steve Chabot of Ohio and Sean Duffy of Wisconsin; and 
Southern members like Spencer Bachus of Alabama, Robert ``Bobby'' Scott 
of Virginia and Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas.
  These members, joined by several of their colleagues, refused to let 
the Voting Rights Act die. They recognized and understood that for all 
the progress this nation has made in becoming a more inclusive, 
equitable, and pluralistic society, it is the Voting Rights Act ``that 
has brought us thus far along the way.'' And so we went to work. You 
know the saying: ``Don't cry about it, be about it.'' And so we were.
  Led by Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, I was honored to be 
a member of the working group tasked with sharing ideas, making 
recommendations, and crafting and drafting the legislation that would 
repair the damage done to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court 
decision and capable of winning majorities in the House and Senate and 
the signature of the President. After months of hard work, 
consultation, negotiation, and collaboration, we were able to produce a 
bill, H.R. 3899, ``Voting Rights Amendments Act of 2014,'' that can 
achieve these goals.
  To be sure, this legislation is not perfect, no bill ever is. But--
and this is important--the bill represents an important step forward 
because it is responsive to the concern expressed by the Supreme Court 
and establishes a new coverage formula that is carefully tailored but 
sufficiently potent to protect the voting rights of all Americans.
  First, H.R. 3899 specifies a new coverage formula that is based on 
current problems in voting and therefore directly responds to the 
Court's concern that the previous formula was outdated. The importance 
of this feature is hard to overestimate. Legislators and litigators 
understand that the likelihood of the Court upholding an amended 
statute that fails to correct the provision previously found to be 
defective is very low indeed.
  H.R. 3899 replaces the old ``static'' coverage formula with a new 
dynamic coverage formula, or ``rolling trigger,'' which works as 
follows:
  1. for states, it requires at least one finding of discrimination at 
the state level and at least four adverse findings by its sub-
jurisdictions within the previous 15 years;
  2. for political subdivisions, it requires at least three adverse 
findings within the previous 15 years; but
  3. political subdivisions with ``persistent and extremely low 
minority voter turnout'' can also be covered if they have a single 
adverse finding of discrimination.
  The ``rolling trigger'' mechanism effectively gives the legislation 
nationwide reach because any state and any jurisdiction in any state 
potentially is subject to being covered if the requisite number of 
violations are found to have been committed.
  Prior to Shelby County v. Holder, the Voting Rights Act covered 16 
states in whole or in part, including most of the states in the Deep 
South. Those states originally covered in whole were:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Original States Covered          Applicable Date         Fed. Register                   Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................  Nov. 1, 1964.........  30 FR 9897...........  Aug. 7, 1965
Georgia...........................  Nov. 1, 1964.........  30 FR 9897...........  Aug. 7, 1965
Louisiana.........................  Nov. 1, 1964.........  30 FR 9897...........  Aug. 7, 1965
Mississippi.......................  Nov. 1, 1964.........  30 FR 9897...........  Aug. 7, 1965
South Carolina....................  Nov. 1, 1964.........  30 FR 9897...........  Aug. 7, 1965
Virginia..........................  Nov. 1, 1964.........  30 FR 9897...........  Aug. 7, 1965
Arizona...........................  Nov. 1, 1972.........  40 FR 43746..........  Sept. 23, 1975
Texas.............................  Nov. 1, 1972.........  40 FR 43746..........  Sept. 23, 1975
Alaska............................  Nov. 1, 1972.........  40 FR 49422..........  Oct. 22, 1975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The rolling trigger contained in H.R. 3899, however, does not cover 
all of these states. To compensate for the fact that fewer 
jurisdictions are covered, the bill also includes several key 
provisions that are consistent with the needs created by a narrower 
Section 5 trigger.
  For example, H.R. 3899:
  1. Expands judicial ``bail-in'' authority under Section 3 so that it 
applies to voting changes that result in discrimination (not just 
intentional discrimination);
  2. Requires nationwide transparency of ``late breaking'' voting 
changes; allocation of poll place resources; and changes within the 
boundaries of voting districts;
  3. Clarifies and expands the ability of plaintiffs to seek a 
preliminary injunction against voting discrimination; and
  4. Clarifies and expands the Attorney General's authority to send 
election observers to protect against voting discrimination.
  The right to vote, free from discrimination, is the capstone of full 
citizenship conferred by the Civil War Amendments. And it is a source 
of eternal pride to me that in pursuit of extending the full measure of 
citizenship to all Americans that in 1975, Congresswoman Barbara 
Jordan, who also represented the historic 18th

[[Page 4097]]

Congressional District of Texas, introduced, and the Congress adopted, 
what are now Sections 4(f)(3) and 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, 
which extended the protections of Section 4
  (a) and Section 5 to language minorities. Language minorities in 
emerging communities have distinct and particular interests that ought 
to be considered.
  ``Emerging communities'' are those located in states such as Alabama, 
Arkansas, Tennessee, and South Carolina that historically were not home 
to large numbers of Hispanics or Asian-Pacific Americans but have in 
recent years experienced tremendous population growth which is expected 
to accelerate. The concern is that as these Hispanic and Asian-Pacific 
voters in these areas become more numerous in these states and capable 
of having a tangible influence on electoral outcomes, some communities 
may respond by adopting measures that violate principles of fair and 
equal treatment.
  Such measures may include:
  1. Changes from single-member to at-large election districts;
  2. Changes to jurisdictional boundaries through annexation; or
  3. Changes to multilingual voting materials requirements.
  I think we can all agree that language minorities and those residing 
in emerging communities deserve protection from any such retaliatory 
election changes. The question is how this can best be achieved 
consistent with the overriding goal of bringing to the floor a bill 
that can pass both houses of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is no ordinary piece of 
legislation. For millions of Americans, and many of us in Congress, the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965 is sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and 
toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it 
was possible to accomplish extraordinary things. In 2006, during the 
floor debate on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, I said:

       With our vote today on H.R. 9, each of us will earn a place 
     in history.
       Therefore, the question before the House is whether our 
     vote on the Voting Rights Act will mark this moment in 
     history as a ``day of infamy,'' in FDR's immortal words, or 
     will commend us to and through future generations as the 
     great defenders of the right to vote, the most precious of 
     rights because it is preservative of all other rights.
       For my part, I stand with Fannie Lou Hamer and Rosa Parks 
     and Coretta Scott King, great Americans who gave all and 
     risked all to help America live up to the promise of its 
     creed.
       I will vote to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act for the 
     next 25 years.

  I am as committed to the preservation of the Voting Rights Act today 
as I was then and will not rest until the job is done. As I stated 
during the historic 2006 debate:

       I stand today an heir of the Civil Rights Movement, a 
     beneficiary of the Voting Rights Act. I would be breaking 
     faith with those who risked all and gave all to secure for my 
     generation the right to vote if I did not do all I can to 
     strengthen the Voting Rights Act so that it will forever keep 
     open doors that shut out so many for so long.

  This is why I intend to work with my colleagues and others as H.R. 
3899 works its way forward and to do all I can to protect the voting 
rights of all Americans.

                          ____________________