SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
24–033 PDF
2006
TO EXAMINE THE IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
OCTOBER 18, 2005
Serial No. 109–70
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
TO EXAMINE THE IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
24–033 PDF
2006
TO EXAMINE THE IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
OCTOBER 18, 2005
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Serial No. 109–70
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
RIC KELLER, Florida
DARRELL ISSA, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ, California
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on the Constitution
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel
E. STEWART JEFFRIES, Counsel
HILARY FUNK, Counsel
KIMBERLY BETZ, Full Committee Counsel
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
OCTOBER 18, 2005
OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution
WITNESSES
The Honorable Jack Kemp, former Member of Congress, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Founder and Chairman of Kemp Partners
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
The Honorable Marc Morial, President and CEO, National Urban League
Oral Testimony
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared Statement
Ms. Ann Marie Tallman, President and General Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. Joe Rogers, former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Melvin L. Watt, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Linda T. Sánchez, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Prepared Statement of the Rainbow Push Coalition on Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, submitted by Mr. Chabot during the hearing, at the request of Mr. Conyers
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Inserted into the record by Chairman Chabot on October 20, 2005:
Prepared Statement of Hazel Dukes, President, New York State Conference of NAACP Branches, before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, June 14, 2005
Prepared Statement of Joseph D. Rich before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, June 14, 2005
Prepared Statement of Dolores Watson, Member, Long Island ACORN, before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, June 14, 2005
Prepared Statement of Carlos Zayas before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, June 14, 2005
Prepared Statement of the Honorable William Lacy Clay, Member of Congress, submitted to the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, July 20, 2005
Prepared Statement of Gwen Carr before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005
Prepared Statement of Carol Juneau before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005
Prepared Statement of Stephen Laudig, Attorney, submitted to the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Gwen Moore, Member of Congress, before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Barack Obama, Senator, submitted to the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005
Prepared Statement of Mark Ritchie, President, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005
Prepared Statement of Elona Street-Stewart, Chair, St. Paul Board of Education, before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005
Prepared Statement of Alice Tregay before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005
Prepared Statement of Ihsan Ali Alkhatib, Board President, Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005
Prepared Statement of Bradford Brown before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, August 4, 2005
Prepared Statement of Marlon Primes before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, August 4, 2005
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Inserted into the record by Mr. Scott (as requested during the hearing):
National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of Southern Regional Hearing, March 11, 2005
National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of Southwest Regional Hearing, April 7, 2005
National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of Northeast Regional Hearing, June 14, 2005
National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of Midwest Regional Hearing, July 22, 2005
National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of South Georgia Hearing, August 2, 2005
National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of Florida Hearing, August 4, 2005
National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of South Dakota Hearing, September 9, 2005
National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of Western Regional Hearing, September 27, 2005
National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Mid-Atlantic Regional Hearing, October 14, 2005
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Mississippi Hearing, October 29, 2005
Inserted into the record by Chairman Chabot on October 20, 2005:
Ellen Katz—Documenting Discrimination in Voting: Judicial Findings Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Since 1982. Final Report of the Voting Rights Initiative University of Michigan Law School
Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act, 1965–1990. (Chandler Davidson & Bernard Grofman, eds., 1994)
Race and Redistricting in the 1990s (Bernard Grofman, ed., 1998)
Text of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended
TO EXAMINE THE IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve Chabot (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. CHABOT. The Committee will come to order.
We would like to thank everyone for being here today. This is the Subcommittee on the Constitution. I am Steve Chabot, the Chairman of the Committee. We are going to be having a series of hearings over the next 2 weeks. This is the first of eight and will be probably be followed up by additional hearings before this Committee on the Voting Rights Act after that.
This is the first of a series of hearings that the Subcommittee will hold examining the Voting Rights Act, also known as the VRA. It has been 25 years since Congress last extended the number of the temporary provisions of the VRA. Six provisions will expire in 2007, including sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 203.
These hearings will examine the impact of the Voting Rights Act over the last several decades and its continued role in protecting minority voting rights.
I would also like to add that as Chairman, I will make sure that these hearings are as thorough and as exhaustive as they have been in the past. I make that commitment because there is no right more fundamental than the right to participate in our democratic form of Government.
The ability of our citizens to cast a ballot for their preferred candidate ensures that every voice is heard, most importantly, the right to vote safeguards our freedoms and all other rights enshrined in the Constitution. The sacredness of the right to vote is reflected in the protection afforded by the 15th amendment which States ''the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.''
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For too many of our fellow citizens in our history, this has not always been the case. Our country has had a troubled history of invidious and disparate treatment in the most fundamental process of a democracy, namely voting.
The VRA pushed back against this history and challenged racial discrimination from a number of different angles. These hearings have taken on even greater importance in light of the impact that past proceedings of have had on judicial review of the Voting Rights Act. Beginning with the Supreme Court's decision in South Carolina v. Katzenbach in 1966, Oregon v. Mitchell in 1970, and later in the City of Rome v. the United States in the 1980's, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act based on the record established by Congress.
Acknowledging the broad power of Congress to remedy racial discrimination under section 2 of the 15th amendment and the appropriateness of the Voting Rights Act in remedying that discrimination, the Supreme Court in Katzenbach held that ''as against the reserve power of the States, Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination.'' This was clearly a legitimate response to the problem for which there is ample precedent under other constitutional provisions.
In the Oregon case, the Supreme Court held that ''in enacting the literacy ban, Congress had before it a long history of the discriminatory use of literacy tests to disenfranchise voters on account of race and statistics which demonstrate that voter registration and voter participation are consistently greater in States without literacy tests.''
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally in the City of Rome case, the Supreme Court upheld the continued use of the Voting Rights Act's temporary provisions finding that ''in considering the 1975 extension, Congress gave careful consideration to the propriety of readopting section 5's preclearance requirement.''
The VRA has become one of the most visible symbols of our Nation's progress toward becoming an integrated democracy. Its success is reflected in record numbers of African Americans, Asian American, Hispanics, Native Americans and Native Alaskans registering and turning out to vote and in the diversity of our local, State and Federal governments. In his March 15, 1965 address to Congress, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated ''the Constitution says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or color. We have all sworn an oath before God to support and defend the Constitution. We must now act in obedience to that oath.''
We, as elected officials, must continue to uphold that duty and ensure that the protections guaranteed in the Constitution are afforded to all citizens.
We look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel this afternoon.
And before I yield to the gentleman from New York, we generally would have all the witnesses testify and then we would question them. We are going to go a little bit outside that today because one of our distinguished panel, former Secretary Kemp has a plane to catch a little later and Mayor Morial is also still en route. So we are going to try to accommodate both of those gentlemen. And at this time, I will yield to Mr. Nadler for the purpose of making an opening statement.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I want to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses and also thank you and Chairman Sensenbrenner for beginning the process of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. Although the sections requiring reauthorization do not sunset until 2007, it is not too early to begin consideration.
The right to vote, the right to have a meaningful vote is fundamental to our system of Government and to our freedoms. Sadly, for much of this Nation's history that principle was honored in the breach. Indeed, much of the history of our country can be seen as successive efforts to extend to all Americans the promise of the principles on which our Nation was founded and we did not really begin to approach that until the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 and began to be implemented a year or so later.
In that long march to freedom, the Voting Rights Act has played a central role. No one can deny that the act and its amendments has been instrumental in protecting and expanding the right to vote. As we consider reauthorization, we will need to examine not whether the act is still needed, but what, if any, modifications might be appropriate.
That is why these hearings are so important.
The Supreme Court has made clear that Congress, in enacting legislation, needs to make a clear record supporting its actions.
I must add at this point, since the Supreme Court has constituted itself and these questions a super legislature especially when it comes to protecting individual rights against the actions of the States. We have all been elected to public office and so we are all intimately familiar with the workings of the electoral process. I represent parts of two counties covered by section 5's preclearance requirements, Manhattan and Brooklyn; that is, New York and Kings Counties. Our city is also home to main language minorities who also need the protections of the act. As the home to many new Americans, our board of elections must work with multiple language minorities who need assistance to be able to exercise their right to vote.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My experience has shown that the act is still needed and that to the extent that the right to vote is safer now than it was 40 years ago, it is because the act is on the books and is working. I look forward to hearing from those who have been on the front lines from around the country to hear their stories and their analyses of the Nation's current needs.
The Voting Rights Act is not simply a benefit to the disenfranchised, although they are its primary beneficiaries, but to all of society. We are all better off when every citizen has the real right to participate freely in the democratic process. As we try allegedly to bring democracy to Iraq, I hope we can all work together to ensure that our precious liberty is protected and enhanced at home. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. I yield back.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much and all Members will have the opportunity to offer an opening statement if they chose to do so, but we will wait until we have heard from Secretary Kemp. And it is the practice of this Committee, Secretary Kemp, to swear all the witnesses. So if you wouldn't mind rising. We will wait for the mayor to come for you all to be sworn in as well.
And if you would please right your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. CHABOT. Witness notes in the affirmative. And we welcome you here this afternoon. And you will be our first witness. And if I could give you a very brief introduction. Secretary Kemp has had a very distinguished career, first as a professional athlete; later as a Member of Congress, and also member of the cabinet; and now in the private sector where he currently serves on a number of Boards and lectures extensively on economic growth, free markets, free trade and tax simplification. From 1993 through 2004, Secretary Kemp served as co-director of the public policy institute, Empower America.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prior to his work in the private sector, Secretary Kemp served in both the executive and legislative branches of Government. From 1971 until 1989, he represented the Buffalo and Western New York district in the House of Representatives. Subsequently, he was Secretary under President, former President Bush, as Secretary for Housing and Urban Development. That was from 1989 to 1993. In 1996, he was nominated to be the Republican Party's candidate for vice-president of the United States.
Secretary Kemp also finds time to time on various charities and boards, including serving as the vice chair of the NFL charities. Secretary Kemp, we are very honored to have you here today and your recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JACK KEMP, FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FORMER SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN OF KEMP PARTNERS
Mr. KEMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, to all my old friends and colleagues, it is a pleasure to be back. I want to start where I finished my testimony. You all have a copy of it.
I said if we are to be American, America, that is, to be that shining city on the hill as an example to the world of liberal democracy and equality of opportunity, let us start by recommitting ourselves to forging bipartisan solutions to the Nation's continuing civil rights challenges and problems, including this which we are talking about today, reauthorizing the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. I want to be on the side of history, I wasn't there, Jerry, if you don't mind me saying that, on the front lines of the civil rights movement. I was playing professional football. But I am here today to testify on behalf of this important legislation and those sections which guarantee social justice and equality of opportunity.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me say, it is a particular pleasure to be with Ann Marie Tallman, the President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, my old friend Joe Rogers, former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado, and, of course, Marc Morial, the new Chair and President of the Urban League, with whom I have been working on a Committee of Dennis Hastert, Speaker Hastert's called Saving America's Cities with Richard Daley, Anthony Williams, Marc Morial among others.
The most fundamental right, as you said, Mr. Chairman, of our democratic system of Government, is the right of people to participate in the political process. As you mentioned, the 15th amendment ensures the right of every American citizen, regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude as it was enumerated in the 15th amendment, to vote and participate in the electoral process.
As we have seen in previous elections, some local governments have actively, and in some cases, very aggressively, attempted to disenfranchise African American and people of color and other minority voters. To quote Chairman Sensenbrenner,'' while we have made progress and curtailed injustices, thanks to the Voting Rights Act, our work is not yet complete. ''We cannot let,'' he said, ''the discriminatory practices of the past resurface to threaten future gains. The Voting Rights Act must exist'' and exist, and I agree with his statement, Mr. Chairman, ''in its current form.''
Of all the civil rights legislation that the Nation has enacted over the past 4 decades, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is arguably the most important, other than maybe the Emancipation Proclamation. Yes, every major piece of civil rights legislation has helped eliminate injustices such as discrimination in education, employment, and what I faced at HUD in housing.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As Chief Justice Roberts recently said in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, the right to vote is fundamental because it is protective of every other right we have as citizens.
That is why, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is important that the Congress renew all three provisions that are set to expire as mentioned by Congressman Nadler: Section 5, which requires Federal preapproval for proposed changes in voting and election procedures in areas with a history of discrimination, section 203 which requires some jurisdictions to provide assistance in other languages to voters who are not literate or fluent in English and the portion of section 6 and 9 of the act which authorized the Federal Government to send Federal election examiners and observers to certain jurisdictions covered by section 5, where there is evidence of attempts to intimidate people of color and other minority voters.
In my opinion, Mr. Chair, if section 5 is not extended, I am pleased to be here with Wade Henderson of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, an old friend of mine from my congressional days and days at HUD, Wade has been a champion of making sure that this is done in a bipartisan basis. And he and his staff have made it very clear to me that if section 5 is not extended, if covered jurisdictions will not have to submit their voting changes to the Department of Justice, thereby the loss of Federal authority to control voting procedures could enable local governments to easily discriminate against minorities voters.
For example, some areas have challenged minority black districts which changed elected positions to appointed and then transformed district elections to at-large elections. These measures are proven to weaken, in my opinion, the strength of minorities and are the main cause for our joint concern.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Just close with this thought, Mr. Chairman, it was a Republican President, U.S. Grant, who sent Federal troops to enforce the Voting Rights Act of the 15th amendment in the early years of his Administration. It was President Eisenhower who sent Federal troops to enforce educational opportunity, Brown v. School Board, and I believe Lyndon Johnson deserved tremendous credit for his—not only his putting Voting Rights Act up in 1965, but to those Americans who did stand on the front lines, walked across Edmund Pettis Bridge, suffered dogs biting at them, snarling dogs, billyclubs and the violence that occurred over the Edmund Pettis Bridge on that first March led by our dear friend John Lewis.
So renewing the Voting Rights Act is a way for us to renew our vows, to make what you said is America's promise, that every American will have confidence that his or her vote not only can occur, but actually counts. Thank you.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kemp follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JACK KEMP
Just forty years ago, on a bridge outside Selma, Alabama, civil rights leaders and activists, led by Hosea Williams of SCLC, Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, Ruby Sales and others, took to the streets in a peaceful protest for Voting Rights for African Americans. As they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the way to Montgomery, they were met with clubs, snarling dogs and violence. They were beaten and many severely injured, including a young SNCC activist named John Lewis, now Congressman Lewis of Atlanta, GA. But the activists did not march in vain.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Five days later, President Johnson announced to a joint session of Congress that he would bring them an effective voting rights bill. Echoing the spiritual anthem of the civil rights movement, Johnson told the chamber that ''We Shall Overcome.'' A few months later, working with a bi-partisan group of members of Congress, Johnson made good on his promise and on August 6, 1965 signed into law the Voting Rights Act, hailed by many as perhaps the most effective and important civil rights law ever enacted since the Emancipation Proclamation.
The most fundamental right of our democratic system of government is the right of citizens to participate in the political process. The Fifteenth amendment ensures the right of every American citizen, regardless of race, color, or ''previous condition of servitude'' to vote and participate in the electoral process. However, as we have seen in previous elections, some local governments have actively and in some cases aggressively attempted to disenfranchise African American and minority voters.
To quote Chairman Sensenbrenner, ''while we have made progress and curtailed injustices thanks to the Voting Rights Act, our work is not complete. We cannot let discriminatory practices of the past resurface to threaten future gains. The Voting Rights Act must exist—and exist in its current form.''
This year, all who care about social justice and equal opportunity in America share one over riding goal: that Congress needs to renew the provisions of the Voting Rights Act which are coming up for reauthorization next year and which ensure that our nation's government reflects the views, the values, and, most importantly, the votes of the people it serves.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Of all the civil rights legislation that the nation has enacted over the past four decades, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is arguably the most important. Yes, every major piece of civil rights legislation has helped to eliminate injustices such as discrimination in education, employment, and housing. But it is the Voting Rights Act that empowers Americans to take action against injustices by electing those who pledge to eliminate it and removing those who perpetuate it. As Chief Justice Roberts said in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, the right to vote is fundamental, because it is protective of every other right we have as citizens.
African Americans in the South were prevented from voting by a battery of tactics—poll taxes, literacy tests that were for blacks only, and the crudest forms of intimidation. From the Southwest to some urban areas in the Northeast and Midwest, Latinos were discouraged from voting by subtler but also effective techniques that exploited the vulnerabilities of low-income newcomers, for whom English was a second language. Both groups were also the targets of districting designed to dilute their ability to elect officials of their own choosing—a fundamental freedom that all too many Americans take for granted.
That is why it is so important that the Congress renew all three provisions that are set to expire: Section 5, which requires a federal approval for proposed changes in voting or election procedures in areas with a history of discrimination; Section 203, which requires some jurisdictions to provide assistance in other languages to voters who are not literate or fluent in English; and the portions of Sections 6–9 of the Act which authorize the federal government to send federal election examiners and observers to certain jurisdictions covered by Section 5, where there is evidence of attempts to intimidate minority voters at the polls.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Voting Rights Act was reauthorized in 1970 and 1975. In both of these reauthorizations Congress heard extensive testimony concerning the ways in which voting electorates were manipulated through gerrymandering, annexations, adoption of at-large elections and other structural changes to prevent newly-registered black voters from effectively using the ballot. Congress also heard extensive testimony about voting discrimination that had been suffered by Hispanic, Asian and Native American citizens and the 1975 amendments added protections from voting discrimination for minority-language citizens.
In 1982, in an effort shepherded by Chairman Sensenbrenner, the act was amended and section 5 was reauthorized through 2007. Congress also adopted a new standard, which went into effect in 1985, providing how jurisdictions could terminate (or ''bail out'' from) coverage under the special provisions of Section 4. Furthermore, after extensive hearings, Congress decided that Section 2 should be amended to prohibit vote dilution without a requirement of proof of discriminatory purpose.
If Section 5 is not extended, the covered jurisdictions will not have to submit voting changes to the Department of Justice. Thereby, the loss of federal authority to control voting procedures could enable local governments to more easily discriminate against minority voters. For example, some areas challenge majority-black districts, change elected positions to appointive and transform district elections to at-large elections. These measures have proven to weaken the strength of minorities and are the main cause for concern.
Even now, forty years after the Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress, there are communities across the country where these provisions are still necessary. For example, the Department of Justice recently objected to a proposed annexation by the Town of North in Orangeburg County, South Carolina, because they concluded that the town did not provide equal access to the annexation process for white and black persons. In its September 16, 2003, objection letter, the Department stated that ''race appears to be an overriding factor in how the town responds to annexation requests.''
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In August 2002, DOJ objected to a proposal by the City of Freeport in Brazoria County, Texas, to return to using an at-large system of electing members to its city council, after Hispanic voters succeeded in electing their candidates of choice utilizing a court-ordered single member district system. A return to at-large council elections, DOJ concluded, ''would result in a retrogression of the ability of minorities to exercise the electoral franchise that they enjoy currently.''
And despite requirements under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, no bilingual assistance was made available to Vietnamese voters in Harris County, Texas, until the Department of Justice and local activists intervened.
Renew the Voting Rights Act and these problems won't disappear. But more Americans will have confidence that their votes really do count.
If we are to be that ''shining city on a hill,'' as an example of liberal democracy and equality of opportunity let us start by recommitting ourselves to forging bipartisan solutions to the nation's continuing civil rights problems—including reauthorizing the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Let's carry on the historically important work that remains to become a ''more perfect union'' with equal justice and a government of, by and for the people.
Mr. KEMP. That may be the first time I have ever been on time in my congressional career.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHABOT. We are impressed. And normally we would take the testimony here, but again we are going to question Mr. Secretary at this time. And I recognize for myself for 5 minutes for that purpose. Secretary Kemp, what has been the direct and indirect impact of the Voting Rights Act on minority voting rights over the last 40 years, both in covered jurisdictions and in noncovered jurisdictions in your opinion?
Mr. KEMP. Well, I am sure that Marc Morial and Ann Marie Tallman, and of course, my old friend Joe Rogers can better address that issue. But for instance, the town of North in Orangeburg County, South Carolina, concluded that the town did not provide equal access to the annexation process for both white and black voters. So in September 16th, 2003, in an objection letter, the Department of Justice had to state that race has appeared to be an overriding factor in how the town was responding to annexation requests.
There are instances where section 5 would be applicable to problems and challenges like that. So in my opinion, that speaks volumes to the necessity—I am not blaming everything on Orangeburg, South Carolina, or picking on the south.
There are many places in the North where there are problems, or in the West.
So in my opinion, unless we can come up with a better way of doing it, I think section 5 should be extended.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Now some individuals have suggested that the Voting Rights Act has outlived its usefulness. And is it—we have only seen it for 40 years thus far, and obviously there were hundreds of years of discrimination that has taken place in this country.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What is your view relative to those that do—their point of view is, that as it has outlived its usefulness, it clearly served a useful purpose during that time, people have voted in fairly significant numbers that weren't voting before, it shouldn't be reauthorized. What is your opinion relative to that?
Mr. KEMP. Well, I think the testimony you will hear today will strongly object to that predisposition, number one.
Number 2, I would suggest—and again, I will mention the South and there has been tremendous progress. And I know there are States and cities and areas of the country that are as bad as some of the problems that occurred. But I would ask them to go with John Lewis and the Republican co-chair of the annual pilgrimage to Selma, Alabama and Montgomery and Birmingham, and find out from the people who were on the front lines what it was like then 40 years ago and what it is like today, and without prejudging anyone or anybody's motives, I can't imagine us saying that 40 years is enough, we have created nirvana, at least democratically speaking, and we don't need it. I think we do need it.
I am glad that Joe Rogers, a Republican, and Jack Kemp, a Republican, are here with distinguished men and women of color and minority status to say, emphatically and emotionally, actually, that all of my background, all of my life has been but a preparation for coming before this Committee and suggesting we have got to right these wrongs and make sure that this democracy truly can provide an example to the Middle East, to Africa, to Latin America, to Asia and the rest of the world. So, I think this is a wonderful attempt to, if it need be, modify it, tweak it, but don't ever lose this Voting Rights Act and its importance to the American people.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, and in the interests of time constraints here, I am going to yield back the balance of my time recognize the gentleman from New York for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, a couple questions. Number one, it has been observed that the United States is pretty unique among democratic countries—or many of our States pretty unique among democratic countries—restrict some of them for life the right to vote for former felons, and that this is a greatly racially disparate impact and, in fact, large segments in some areas of the black population and some other populations are denied the franchise. Do you think that the Federal Government, through modification of the Voting Rights Act, should control this or view this as a improper restriction of the franchise and should clamp down on it?
Mr. KEMP. My answer is unambiguously yes. It is a restriction. It needs to be modified. My wife is on the Board of Prison Fellowship, has been on there for 15 years. This weekend we are going to a retreat with prison fellowship Democrats, Republicans, black, white, brown. There are many people behind bars who have been incarcerated who have served their time and——
Mr. NADLER. They are not behind bars anymore.
Mr. KEMP. Should, I think, be given a chance to vote in our democratic process. Obviously, there have to be restrictions, but this panel has been convened for that exact purpose to find out what are the modifications that could be made that would bring social justice to the justice system. So I would say yes. They should be able to vote under proper restrictions.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NADLER. I certainly agree with you. Some of our States, New York, for instance says that if you're sentenced to 5 to 10 years, you are released 6 years, you are on probation for 4, when the total sentence is over then you get your vote back.
Some States bar you from voting for life.
Mr. KEMP. Yes, life.
Mr. NADLER. I agree with you. I think that is wholly undemocratic and we ought to deal with that in this bill.
My second question is, the preclearance provisions of section 5, they extend to jurisdictions mostly but not entirely in the South. Well, I am told you have to catch a plane right now, so I will ask somebody else the question.
Mr. KEMP. There are jurisdictions I think outside of the South.
Mr. NADLER. Yes, outside the South. My own district, Manhattan and Brooklyn. The question I wanted to say is where it is based on a history prior to 1965 of either actively restricting the right to vote or a combination of illiteracy tests—of having literacy tests, and under 50 percent of eligibles being enrolled at that time and therefore the presumption that you were using a literacy test.
Now, do you think that we are to look at either restricting where the act is applied or perhaps broadening it, should a test be more modern than 40 years old? Are there perhaps districts that ought to be subject to preclearance today that aren't?
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KEMP. If you're asking me, my answer would be, Congressman, that would be one of the purposes of these hearings, to find out whether it should be ubiquitous, should it be part of the whole country? Or should it be restricted to those——
Mr. NADLER. That has been suggested. But the objection to that is it would so dilute the effect of the Justice Department oversight that it wouldn't be effective.
Mr. KEMP. Yes. Well, when I went to the Civil Rights museum in Selma, Alabama there is a display of what type of questions Alabamans were asked prior to the Voting Rights Act. How many bubbles in a bar of soap? I mean, things were used, and are still being used to a certain degree, in other jurisdictions.
Mr. NADLER. I am sure we still need this. My question is, should we look at perhaps modifying where it is to add or subtract that, and if so, on what basis?
Mr. KEMP. That is up to the wisdom of some other Committee. I don't have the answer to that. It may be that it should be more broadly applied.
Mr. NADLER. It may be. My next question I will ask Ms. Tallman. There was an article in the New Republic a couple weeks ago, I forget by whom, in which they said essentially—I just want your reaction to the essential recommendation of that article—and that article said that the preclearance as a practical matter, because in the areas where you need preclearance—even moving a voting booth across the Street has to be precleared.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a practical matter, the only act when they say—they get a list of 600 voting booths being moved, and they send it to out to the local civil rights organizations and they say any problem? And they only really look into it if someone says, yeah, there is a problem. Otherwise it is trivial and they only give automatic exemption. I don't know whether that is true. But my question is, would it be a good idea or a bad idea to say that if preclearances, should have automatic preclearance except where someone making a complaint, that everything that is changed should be sent out to everybody, and if the Justice Department—if anybody says, hey, wait a minute, there may be a problem, then you should have a preclearance requirement, otherwise, after a certain period of time, it should go into effect automatically so as to remove trivia from the burden here, so they can concentrate on real abuses.
What do you think of that suggestion?
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman's time has expired, but you can answer.
Ms. TALLMAN. Actually, the polling place changes is pretty significant—can be very significant to voters that have been voting for 40 years in the same location. So what appears on its face—potentially on its face—to be perceived as a small change and ought to have automatic preclearance, would actually defeat the purpose of section 5.
Section 5 requires that jurisdiction——
Mr. NADLER. You have to understand my question. Could I have an additional minute?
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHABOT. Yes, the Chair, however, would encourage the Members to direct the questions to Mr. Kemp because those folks haven't——
Mr. NADLER. I fully recognize that these can be extremely—a voting booth change can be extremely important or it can be trivial, either one. I mean the question is since many of these things can be trivial, and since you want the Justice Department to spend its resources where they are not, where there is a possibility, does it make sense not to have automatic clearance, that wasn't the suggestion. The suggestion was that if no one either sua sponte the Justice Department by itself or somebody, some civil rights organization says that one we ought to look at, that that would go through, or is that a bad idea for some reason?
Ms. TALLMAN. A section 5 jurisdiction has had a history of discrimination. A section 5 jurisdiction has not used the bailout provision under the Voting Rights Act. A section 5 jurisdiction is a jurisdiction who ought to be scrutinized with regard to any changes in voting patterns or practices. So I would argue that section 5 is pretty clear.
Mr. NADLER. That is a bad idea. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman's time has expired. Gentleman from Michigan is recognized for a short period of time to make a statement.
Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I couldn't let this opportunity to go by. Here we are at this historic hearing, beginning again to re-examine the importance of extending the Voting Rights Act and improving it where necessary. And our first witness is the former Member of Congress from New York, Jack Kemp, with whom I may be the only one here that has served with him during his period in the Congress. And I am very proud of the statement that he has made today.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As usual, he is leading Republicans and Americans alike to join in with us at this extremely auspicious beginning of a series of hearings of how we continue moving America forward on its most important document, the provision for voting, for everybody, to have it counted, and to have it be encouraged.
Mr. KEMP. Thank you.
Mr. CONYERS. It is good to see you again, Secretary Kemp, and I am glad that you started us off in the way that you have.
Mr. KEMP. Thank you.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks, is recognized for 5 minutes. And again, we would encourage for the Members on both sides to direct questions to Secretary Kemp.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Mr. Secretary, for being here. A lot of us feel like we are standing on your shoulders. That is not to suggest that you're old or anything like that.
Mr. KEMP. 70.
Mr. FRANKS. We should all like to carry 70 as well as you do, sir.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KEMP. Thank you.
Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Secretary, 40 years ago, some of the barriers that prevented minorities from participating in the political process were things like literacy tests and white primaries and poll taxes, and I know some of the things have changed to some degree, but what do you think are the primary and most egregious mechanisms that prevent minorities from actually participating today?
Mr. KEMP. Well, one thing that I wanted to mention after the support that I have alluded to for section 5 is section 203, which requires jurisdictions to provide assistance in other languages to voters who are not literate or fluent in English. Let's face it, you can go to Los Angeles County where I grew up and there is probably 60 to 75 different languages spoken from Vietnamese to Korean to Chinese to Russian to Persian, and clearly, people do not need Federal assistance if the jurisdiction is not providing them with access to voting lists and the information that they deserve as American citizens.
Probably very controversial because you know we are somewhat xenophobic about people from outside our borders. It is too bad because there are a lot of people that need help. And I think it should be given. That is one of the biggest barriers to making this democratic experiment work—for all people, that is.
Mr. FRANKS. I think it goes without saying that a lot of people who are citizens of this country still have not mastered the language in every way so you make a good point.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary Kemp, you wrote an opinion, an op ed piece that was published last August. And it recognized the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act and you described the impact that it has had in those 40 years. And of course, you advocated for the renewal of the act.
And what could we do to improve or make better the act for the next 25 years if you were writing it yourself?
Mr. KEMP. Oh, wow, I am no longer a legislator.
I appreciate my friend John Conyers's comments about the friendship that we developed many years ago, even though we differed on some issues, he was the one that came to me and said, Jack, Dr. King's ''I Have a Dream'' speech is right down your alley and Dan Lungren and Jack Kemp were basically the cosponsors in the Republican party of the King holiday. I felt very proud about that, John, then, and I do so today.
I think really think the hearings, Congressmen, are going to bring out areas that could be changed or reformed or modified or made progress on.
I think—I personally believe that someone who has been incarcerated—and let's face it, that does impact people of color a lot more than anyone else, unfortunately and tragically. I think they should be allowed to vote if they perform and meet the standards that we would hold them to as New York does, as Jerry Nadler pointed out.
My hope would be that that would be an area that could be improved upon. Perhaps section 5 can be improved upon by a careful—I use the word tweaking, reforming, and I will leave it to my expert friend Marc Morial and Ann Marie Tallman and Joe Rogers to take it further.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would also suggest that you listen to Wade Henderson and his leadership conference because I think Wade, probably as far as I am concerned, is the expert. I hope I am not putting too much pressure on him. But he understands the need for bipartisanship and that was—I think, John, that is what we really need today more than anything else. This may be a place where we can rise above color and race and ethnicity and political divisions in our country and make a statement that would bring hope to the American people that we can work together for the greater good.
Mr. FRANKS. Well, Mr. Secretary, you were one of the few former Members that were here the last time this was reenacted, and I think this says a great deal for your commitment to human freedom and the American ideal, and I appreciate all that you have done.
Mr. KEMP. I like what the Chairman said, and I like what Chairman Sensenbrenner said to the NAACP convention a few weeks ago. It was really a powerful statement. If it's all right with you, Mr. Chairman, I have to catch a plane. I apologize.
Mr. CHABOT. Do any other Members have a very quick question they would like to ask? Are you okay?
Quick question for Secretary Kemp? Anybody on this side that has something pressing?
Yes, Mr. Scott. If you could make it relatively quick.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT. This will be fairly quick, and thank you, Mr. Secretary and thank you Mr. Chairman.
One of the problems with eliminating the preclearance provision is people get an advantage by cheating because by the time you remedy it, you have had the opportunity to serve, and if you ever remedied it, you would be running as an incumbent. Now you have run for public office as an incumbent and against incumbents.
What are the advantages in running as an incumbent?
Mr. KEMP. That is a good question.
To be brutally honest, Congressman Scott, I never even thought about it when I was running. I didn't. It really impacted me emotionally and intellectually when I went to HUD and began to see the problems of urban America from a firsthand existential experience. And then the trip I took with John Lewis down to Selma, Montgomery and Birmingham for the first time several years ago on the civil rights pilgrimage. And I remember vowing at that time I was going to be a voice for some who are voiceless. And so I don't have a great answer to your question.
Mr. SCOTT. My question, though, is just the politics of running for election. It is a lot easier to run if you're the incumbent.
Mr. KEMP. Absolutely.
Mr. SCOTT. Could you say a little bit about that? Because we are trying to establish a record. If you run as an incumbent, you have an advantage.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KEMP. Mmh hmm.
Mr. SCOTT. And if you have cheated and jury-rigged the election in a discriminatory fashion and got elected and then they finally fixed it, and after they fixed it, you get to run for re-election as an incumbent, an advantage you should have not have been able to get. And if there was preclearance, you never would have gotten. And just to set the record straight, we don't want people to have the advantage not only of serving illegally, but when we finally fix it, if the plaintiffs can afford the lawsuit to get it right, we don't want people who have cheated to benefit from their cheating by having the advantage of running then subsequentlyas an incumbent. So can you say a word about whether or not there are advantages in running as an incumbent?
Mr. KEMP. I totally agree with your statement. I was in the Congress from New York's 41st district. It ended up New York's 36th district after lost population. And I was redistricted several times, mostly by Democratic legislatures.
And, frankly, they just decided they weren't going to beat me so they gave me a very Republican district. I started out in a Democratic district. And I must admit I did everything I could to make sure I could run again. But I do understand what you're saying. I agree with it unambiguously, and I applaud your concern for that issue of the advantage incumbency gets. But every one of us knows deep in our hearts that we love the advantage. We love the advantage.
We use it to every benefit of our own, but I agree with your statement and I appreciate it.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am going to jump, Mr. Chairman, if you don't have any questions.
Mr. CHABOT. One more minute. Mr. Feeney. I thought you had a question.
Mr. FEENEY. Well, I don't, but the Secretary is a good friend, and we are very grateful for your presence here. We want to make sure you catch your plane.
Mr. KEMP. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Secretary Kemp, we appreciate your time here this afternoon. And I would like to at this time introduce the rest of the panel.
Our next witness will be the very honorable Marc H. Morial, current President and CEO of the National Urban League. Prior to joining the National Urban League in May 2003, Mr. Morial served from 1994 until 2002 as Mayor of New Orleans.
He also served as President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, where he developed and advocated a national urban policy, his area of expertise.
Mayor Morial, I know that my colleagues join me in keeping in our thoughts and in our prayers the folks in New Orleans right now, and I know it hits you particularly hard, having represented that city for such a long time. So, we appreciate you being here this afternoon.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And our third witness will be Ann Marie Tallman, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Prior to joining the group, Ms. Tallman specialized in the area of public finance law for the Denver law firm of—help me with the pronunciation——
Ms. TALLMAN. Kutak Rock.
Mr. CHABOT. In 1993, Ms. Tallman was appointed as Deputy Director of Planning and Community Development Agency in the city and county of Denver. In this capacity, Ms. Tallman was responsible for advising the Mayor on housing and community development matters. And we welcome you here this afternoon, Ms. Tallman.
Our fourth and final witness is the former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado, the Honorable Joe Rogers.
Lieutenant Governor Rogers currently serves as Commissioner on the National Voting Rights Commission, a bipartisan panel of academics, civil rights leaders and governmental and policy officials charged with examining the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act in the past 25 years.
Since early this year, the National Voting Rights commission has held a series of hearings nationwide examining the prevalence of discrimination in voting since 1982. The Commission anticipates releasing their report in January 2006. Prior to serving on the Commission, Lieutenant Governor Rogers served as Colorado's Lieutenant Governor and had the distinction of being the youngest serving lieutenant in our Nation's history, and only the fourth African American in the country to be elected as a State's number 2 elected official.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to his work on the Commission, Lieutenant Governor Rogers spends his time lecturing and engaging in motivational speaking. We welcome you here this afternoon, Lieutenant Governor Rogers.
And for those who have not testified before the Committee, before, you probably know that we have a 5-minute rule where each of you gets to testify for 5 minutes, and we are able to ask questions for 5 minutes. And we have a lighting system there which you probably have seen. The yellow light will come on when you have 1 minute to wrap up. When the red light comes on if you could conclude at about that time or shortly thereafter if at all possible.
And we also—it is the practice of the Committee to swear in all witnesses and we had already sworn in Secretary Kemp, so if the 3 of you would mind raising your right hand and please stand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. CHABOT. All the witnesses have indicated in the affirmative, and we welcome all three again this afternoon and we will begin with you, Mayor Morial.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARC MORIAL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE
Mr. MORIAL. Thank you very much, Chairman Chabot—in Louisiana, we would say Chabot—and Representative Nadler and Members of the Subcommittee. Let me thank you as I begin for the support of the Congress in appropriating money to assist with the recovery in New Orleans. I appreciate it. And certainly urge your continued support.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today, I have the opportunity to share with you my thoughts on the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the enormously positive impact it has had on this Nation. I am gratified to know of your strong support for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and appreciate your leadership on this very important subject. The importance of the Voting Rights Act and its necessity cannot be overemphasized.
We have learned through experience what a difference the vote make to us. In 1964, the year before President Johnson signed the act into law, there were only 300 African American elected officials in this Nation. Today, there are more than 9,100 black elected officials in this Nation, including a record for the Republic of 43 serving in both Houses of the Congress of the United States this term.
As you know, before I took the helm of the National Urban League, I was an elected official in Louisiana, proudly serving in its State Senate and later serving two terms as Mayor of the City of New Orleans. I followed in the foot steps of my late father, Ernest ''Dutch'' Morial who served as the first African American mayor of New Orleans.
Importantly, he served when he was elected in 1967 as the first African American elected official in Louisiana in 1967 since at that time the days of reconstruction. So Louisiana went almost 100 years despite having almost a one third African American population with zero elected officials until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
It is unlikely that either he nor I nor many of the Members who serve in this Congress or the many African Americans who serve in State legislatures, particularly in the south, but across the Nation, would have been able to serve their cities, their States and this Nation without the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me be clear. Expanding the opportunity to vote in America goes far beyond simply ensuring that minority voters have a voice or that African American politicians get elected. The Voting Rights Act, I believe, has enhanced the lives of all Americans, not just black Americans, not just Americans of color.
By opening up the political process, the Voting Rights Act has made available a broader pool of political talent, greatly improving the quality of representation for all Americans and all voters.
Just as important, the Voting Rights Act has been instrumental in moving America closer to its true promise, and thus has significantly benefited every single American regardless of race, color, economic status, national origin or political party.
I have heard it suggested that the Voting Rights Act, or certain key provisions, need not be reauthorized because its very success has rendered it obsolete. Indeed, not only is this a fallacy, but the opposite is true. I urge you in the strongest possible terms not to fall for that. The Voting Rights Act must be reauthorized because it is an important piece of legislation that works.
The great strides that we have taken in the last 40 years have been possible precisely and only because the Voting Rights Act has been in place.
Unfortunately, while this Nation has made great progress in the last 40 years in this area, we certainly aren't where we need to be or where we want to be.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Across this Nation, African Americans and other minorities continue to face obstacles to exercising their full voting rights. That is why Congress must reauthorize the act and its special provisions including the section 5 preclearance requirement.
I have a special interest in and history with preclearance provisions because of the long, tragic and documented history of discriminatory voting practices in my home State, Louisiana. It is one of those States required by section 5 to obtain preclearance for any proposed change in our election laws or procedures.
This provision, section 5, has been critical in the curtailment of voting rights abuses over the past 40 years. In fact, a bipartisan congressional report in 1982 warned that without this section, discrimination would appear overnight. And I believe that this is still true today.
For example—and I think this is important—since 1965, not one single Louisiana State House of Representatives redistricting plan as initially submitted to the Justice Department for review, has been precleared. Not a single one. In other words, in the last 40 years, every single State House redistricting plan adopted immediately after the census and submitted for preclearance in Louisiana has been found both by Republican and Democratic Attorneys General to abridge the right to vote on account of race or color or membership in language in a minority group.
In case after case, the efforts of the civil rights division of DOJ and minority voter advocates prompted Louisiana to withdraw its original plan and restore districts where African Americans had an opportunity to elect a candidate of choice.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are, indeed, many African Americans elected officials in Louisiana. It is clear that attempts to undermine minority voting power in Louisiana continue to show its face from time to time in the present day.
Without preclearance, these and other discriminatory voting plans would, without a doubt, be put into place not only in Louisiana, but throughout the country. And we as a Nation would take a giant step backward.
We have come far, as I have said, because of the Voting Rights Act and the enforcement of section 5. Five gives full transparency to voting procedures. It deters State officials from proposing discriminatory voting changes, and the preclearance process also educates State officials in what the Voting Rights Act requires and how to formulate nondiscriminatory policies and redistricting plans.
I am gratified at the degree of support on both sides of the aisle for reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. And I think this is a moment in history when true bipartisanship can be a beacon of hope and a beacon of light and a high point for this Nation. I urge you to recognize a continued need for preclearance and other provisions that are so necessary for the progress we must make as a Nation. And I thank you for your attention and I will take your questions.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mayor Morial. I appreciate your statement.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morial follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARC MORIAL
I appreciate having the opportunity to share with you my thoughts on the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the enormously positive impact it has had our nation. I am very gratified to know of your strong support for reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and appreciate your leadership on this important issue of our time.
The importance and necessity of the Voting Rights Act cannot be over-emphasized. We have learned through experience what a difference the vote makes to us. In 1964, the year before President Johnson signed the Act into law, there were only 300 African American elected officials in the entire country. Today, there are more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of Congress.
As you know, before I took the helm of the National Urban League, I was an elected official in Louisiana—first in the state legislature and then as a two-term mayor of New Orleans. I followed in the footsteps of my father, Ernest ''Dutch'' Morial, who was the first African American to serve as Mayor of New Orleans. I saw first-hand the tremendous impact that the 1965 Voting Rights Act on my state, for without it, it is unlikely that either one of us would have been able to serve the city and state we loved so much.
Let me be clear: expanding the opportunity to vote in America goes far beyond simply ensuring that minority voters have a voice or that African American politicians get elected. The Voting Rights Act has enhanced the lives of all Americans, not just black Americans, not just minorities. By opening up the political process, the Voting Rights Act has made available a broader pool of political talent, greatly improving the quality of representation for all voters. Just as important, the Voting Rights Act has been instrumental in moving America closer to its true promise and, thus, has significantly benefited every single American, regardless of their race, economic status, national origin or political party.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I've heard it suggested that the Voting Rights Act—or certain key provisions—need not be reauthorized because its very success has rendered it obsolete. This is a fallacy—and I urge you in the strongest possible terms not to fall for it. The Voting Rights Act must be reauthorized BECAUSE it works!
The great strides we've taken in the last 40 years have been possible precisely and only because the Voting Rights Act has been in place. Unfortunately, while our nation has made great progress in the last forty years in the area of voting rights, we're not yet where we need to be. Across the country, African Americans and other minorities continue to face obstacles to exercising their full voting rights. That is why it is Congress must reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and its special provisions, including the Section 5 pre-clearance requirement.
I have a special interest in and history with the pre-clearance provisions. Because of our long, tragic, and documented history of discriminatory voting practices, Louisiana is one of the states required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain pre-clearance for any proposed changes in our election laws or procedures. This Section 5 requirement has been critical in the curtailment of voting rights abuses in the last 40 years. In fact, a bipartisan Congressional report in 1982 warned that without this section, discrimination would reappear ''overnight.'' That is still true today.
For example, since 1965, not one Louisiana State House of Representatives redistricting plan as initially submitted to the Justice Department for review has been pre-cleared. In other words, in the last 40 years, every single State House redistricting plan adopted immediately after the Census and submitted for preclearance in Louisiana has been found, both by Republican and Democratic Attorneys General, to abridge the right to vote on account of race or color or membership in a language minority group.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In case after case, the efforts of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and minority voter advocates prompted Louisiana to withdraw its original plan and restore a district where African Americans had an opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. While there are indeed many African American elected officials in Louisiana, it is clear that attempts to undermine minority voting power in Louisiana continue to the present day.
Without the pre-clearance requirement, these and other blatantly discriminatory voting plans would—without a doubt—be put into place throughout the country and we would take a giant step backward.
We have come as far as we have precisely because of the existence and enforcement of Section 5. Section 5 gives full transparency to voting procedures that would otherwise be too complex, technical, or hidden for the public to discover. It also deters state officials from proposing some discriminatory voting changes in the first place. They now take extra care to involve minority communities in policy-making, under threat of Section 5 complaints. The Section 5 pre-clearance process also educates state officials in what the VRA requires and how to formulate non-discriminatory policies.
I am gratified at the degree of support—on both sides of the aisle—for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. I urge you to also recognize the continued need for pre-clearance and other special provisions that are so necessary for the continued progress we must make as a nation.
Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to take your questions.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHABOT. I also have a statement that I have been presented here, the Rainbow Push Coalition, it was because we only have four witnesses available on the panel, we can't accommodate another witness. But we would like to put the statement in the record and without objection that statement will be submitted for the record.
[The information referred to is printed in the Appendix.]
Ms. Tallman, you're recognized for 5 minutes at this time. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ANN MARIE TALLMAN, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
Ms. TALLMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify regarding the reauthorization of the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act. I am Ann Marie Tallman, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
We are a nonpartisan organization that protects the civil rights, including the voting rights, of over 40 million Latinos living in the United States.
America's leadership recognized at home and abroad is defined by our democracy. Our democracy is a Government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the citizenry through representative Government. Simply put, democracy and the right to vote are our country's competitive advantage.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our democracy works best when we have confidence that when we exercise our franchised rights, we will be free from harassment, unnecessary scrutiny, discrimination, or artificial barriers that may be placed in our way to dissuade us or to discourage us from exercising our most fundamental right that preserves all other rights.
In 1965, Congress passed, and President Johnson signed into law, the Voting Rights Act to bring us closer to freedom in the United States. Of course, the act, by itself, failed to eliminate persistent discriminatory voting schemes. It required vigorous enforcement not only by the United States Department of Justice, but by organizations like MALDEF to make the promise a reality.
The Voting Rights Act has done more for any other law to ensure that we, as a Nation, progress beyond the discriminatory election laws that have marred our democratic processes. Although important gains have been made, the VRA remains a necessary tool for protecting voting rights.
Two VRA components are especially important to the Latino community, section 5 and the language minority provisions. The impact of section 5 encountering discriminatory election laws cannot be overemphasized.
Section 5 has prevented voting discrimination against Latinos as well as African Americans and has fostered the unprecedented Latino political participation that we see today at all levels of American Government.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Section 5 prevents covered jurisdictions from changing the rules of the game to disadvantaged minority voters.
By invalidating discriminatory election laws before they are put into place, section 5 removes the need for minority voters to bring costly litigation to protect their voting rights.
A recent section 5 challenge bought by MALDEF in Texas demonstrates how section 5 preserves the voting rights of Latinos. In 2001 where Latinos had reached one-third of the State's total population, Texas proposed a redistricting plan for its State House of representatives that minimized Latino voters influence in State elections. Because the plan added only one new Latino majority district and eliminated 4 such districts, the United States Department of Justice concluded that it was retrogressive and blocked its implementation.
As a direct result of the DOJ's section 5 action, Texas kept the four Latino majority districts that has afforded Latino voters the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. Had section 5 not been in effect, these districts would not have likely existed.
MALDEF seeks the reauthorization of section 5 for the next 25 years with language clarification, regarding Congress's intent to prohibit intentionally discriminatory voting changes.
Currently, 4.3 million voting age citizens are limited English proficient. Section 203 allows that these citizens can cast informed and effective ballots and is implemented in a very cost-effective basis. If Congress does not reauthorize the language minority provisions of the VRA, Latino and limited English proficient Asian Americans and Native American citizens will be unable to vote.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A recent challenge brought by MALDEF in Illinois, demonstrates the continued need for the language minority provisions. In 2002, Cooke County purchased a voting system that did not adequately inform Spanish voters, Spanish speaking voters. MALDEF challenged the system, obtained a consent decree for more Spanish speaking poll workers, new training and monitoring.
This would not have been possible without section 203.
MALDEF seeks reauthorization of the language minority provisions with an adjustment to the coverage formula to section 203 to include jurisdictions between 7,500 and 10,000 language minority citizens.
We have worked for over 37 years to ensure that Latinos' voting rights are protected. On behalf of MALDEF and other civil rights organizations that work every day to protect the voting rights of minorities in this country, I urge Congress to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act to reflect the original intent of these critical provisions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tallman follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANN MARIE TALLMAN
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify regarding the reauthorization of the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). I am Ann Marie Tallman, President and General Counsel of MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. We are a nonpartisan organization that protects the civil rights of the over 40 million Latinos living in the United States.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since our founding in 1968, MALDEF has challenged voting laws that deny Latinos an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. In Garza v. Smith in 1970, MALDEF won a ruling that permitted illiterate persons, many of whom were Latino, to receive assistance in casting ballots. MALDEF also frequently sought the elimination of at-large elections that deprived Latino voters of their ability to elect their candidates of their choice. Our first successful single member district lawsuit, White v. Regester in 1973, resulted in the election of three Latinos and one African American to the Texas State Legislature and laid the legal groundwork for the present interpretation of Section 2 of the VRA.
In 1976, following the enactment of the language minority provisions of the VRA and the extension of Section 5 to the Southwest, MALDEF successfully challenged a Texas law that would have had a devastating effect on Latino voting power by requiring the annual re-registration of all voters. MALDEF also pressured the city of San Antonio to change from at-large to single member districts. In the next election, a record 29 Latino candidates filed and an unprecedented five Latinos were elected to the ten-member San Antonio City Council.
The Voting Rights Act is widely considered one of the most effective pieces of civil rights legislation in American history. It has helped to usher in an era in which Latinos and other minority groups are generally better able to register, vote, and elect their candidates of choice. Prior to 1965, many Latinos, especially in the Southwest, were excluded from full political participation by poll taxes, exclusionary primaries, intimidation by voting officials, and language barriers. Latino votes were also routinely diluted through the use of mechanisms like at-large voting and numbered place election systems. The Voting Rights Act has done more than any other piece of legislation to ensure that we as a nation progress beyond the discriminatory election laws that have marred our democratic processes. Despite these important gains, however, the VRA remains a necessary tool for effectively protecting the voting rights of Latinos and other minority groups.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The focus of my testimony today will be upon two areas of paramount concern to millions of Latino voters in the United States: Section 5 and the language minority provisions Section 203 and 4(f)(4).
The impact of Section 5 in countering discriminatory election laws cannot be overemphasized. This provision of the VRA, which affects almost as many Latinos as it does African Americans, has been essential in stimulating the unprecedented Latino political participation that we see today at all levels of American government. Section 5 prevents covered jurisdictions from 'changing the rules of game' to disadvantage minority voters before these voters can seek redress for the deprivation of their voting rights. Section 5's effectiveness in protecting minority voting rights lies in its shifting the burden of proof from the minority voters who have historically been subject to discriminatory practices to the covered jurisdictions seeking to change their election systems. By invalidating discriminatory election laws before they are put in place, Section 5 removes the need for minority voters to continually bring costly litigation to ensure that their voting rights are protected.
A recent case brought by MALDEF in Texas demonstrates how Section 5 works to preserve the voting rights of Latinos. In 2001, when Latinos had reached one-third of the State's total population, Texas proposed a redistricting plan for its House of Representatives that minimized Latino voters' impact in three districts and completely eliminated a fourth Latino-majority district. Because the plan added only one new Latino-majority district and eliminated four such districts, the U.S. Justice Department concluded that it was retrogressive and blocked its implementation under Section 5. As a direct result of DOJ's Section 5 intervention, the current Texas House redistricting plan maintains the four Latino-majority districts that were dismantled and contains a total of thirty-five districts that afford Latino voters the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. If Section 5 were not in effect, these districts would likely not exist.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MALDEF seeks reauthorization of Section 5 with language clarifying Congress's intent to prohibit intentionally discriminatory voting changes as well as to preserve 'ability to elect' as the touchstone of Section 5 review.
Also of great importance to Latino voters are the language minority provisions contained within Sections 203 and 4(f)(4). Currently, 4.3 million Latino voting age citizens are limited English proficient. If Congress does not reauthorize the language minority provisions of the VRA, these Latino citizens will be unable to effectively exercise the franchise.
A recent challenge brought by MALDEF in Illinois demonstrates the continuing need for the language minority provisions. In 2002, Cook County, Illinois purchased a voting system that used punch-cards with ''voter error notification'' capabilities that was incapable of notifying Spanish-speaking voters of problems with their ballots. This voting system, combined with the county's failure to provide Spanish-speaking poll workers, left many Latino voters unable to cast effective ballots. MALDEF challenged the county's voting system under the bilingual assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act and negotiated a consent decree on behalf of Latino voters in which the county agreed to increase the number of Spanish speaking poll workers and implement new training, monitoring, and hotline procedures. This protection of Latinos' ability to cast an effective ballot would not have been possible without Section 203 of the VRA.
MALDEF seeks reauthorization of the language minority provisions with an adjustment to the coverage formula of Section 203 to include jurisdictions containing between 7,500 and 10,000 language minority citizens.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MALDEF has worked for 37 years to ensure that Latinos' voting rights are protected. Section 5 and the language minority provisions of the VRA have been and continue to be our greatest tools. On behalf of MALDEF and other organizations that work to protect minority voting rights, I urge Congress reauthorize the Voting Rights Act to reflect the original intent of its crucial provisions.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony this afternoon.
And Lieutenant Governor Rogers, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOE ROGERS, FORMER LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF COLORADO
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be with you. We are delighted to join you as Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you kindly for having us here today.
It was good to see Congressman Watt in particular at our hearing that just took place this past week, as a matter of fact, so it is a delight to join you. We're honored to join you in particular in my capacity as the former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado, and I'm pleased to serve on the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act.
It is an honor to be before this distinguished Subcommittee as it conducts its first hearing related to reauthorization of this seminal piece of legislation. Indeed, major provisions of which are due to expire in 2007.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am here to discuss the work of the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act. The Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law indeed created the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act on behalf of the civil rights community creating indeed this nonpartisan national commission.
The National Commission is comprised of eight leaders whose represent our Nation's diversity. The Honorable Charles Mathias, former United States Senator from Maryland, is the Honorary Chair. And Bill Lann Lee, the former Assistant Attorney General for civil rights, indeed serves as Chairman of our commission. The other commissioners are the Honorable John Buchanan, former United States Congressman from Alabama; Chandler Davidson, the scholar and editor of one of the seminal works on voting rights in the United States; indeed Delores Huerta, cofounder of the United Farm Workers of America; Elsie Meeks, the first Native American Member of the United States Congress; and Charles Ogletree, the Harvard Law School professor and noted civil rights advocate; and yours truly.
In January of 2006, the National Commission will release its formal report detailing indeed the existence of discrimination in voting since 1982, the last time there was a comprehensive reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. To date, the National Commission has held nine of ten planned field hearings throughout the United States. We have heard from approximately 100 elected officials, election officials, voting rights attorneys, experts in voting cases, community leaders and concerned citizens who indeed have testified regarding their experiences relating to voting discrimination.
The commission's report will contain information from the hearings as well as include extensive research culled from many sources, including findings, reports, testimony from court cases and enforcement records of the Department of Justice. The report will not advocate any particular legislative action. Instead, the purpose of the report is to detail the facts that will inform your debate and the debate throughout the United States regarding reauthorization.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because the commission's research is continuing, it would be premature for me to detail the commission's findings. Nonetheless, I would like to identify a few trends that have emerged from our hearings which are discussed in greater detail in my formal written statement which you all have.
First, the problem of discrimination in voting appears to be significant, and it affects virtually every region of the country. In stating this, it is important for me to note that compared to 1965, Mr. Chairman, there has been significant progress in our great Nation regarding race and voting, and indeed a decrease in blatantly racist or bigoted activity as it relates to voting in the United States. Nonetheless, whether the impetus is bigotry or simply plain old power or the idea of enhancing power at the expense in particular of minority voters—this sometimes occurs—official discrimination in voting remains a problem in the United States.
Second, in many areas of the country, voting continues to be racially polarized. By that we simply mean, it is a circumstance where white voters will simply only vote for white candidates and, frankly, in circumstances where minority voters will only vote for minority candidates. One consequence of racially polarized voting is that minority voters cannot elect candidates of choice or preference perhaps if it is by race or ethnicity. That simply may not be an option unless there is a majority or near majority of the electorate. Moreover, when racially polarized voting exists, a desired electoral result can be obtained by simply changing the voting procedure or practice that harms minority voters.
Third, application of the minority language provisions frequently result in increased participation of minority language voters and an increased ability of such voters to elect candidates of their choice.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fourth, the Federal mandate of section 203 enables election administrators throughout the country to provide needed minority language assistance without political interference. In a soon-to-be-released comprehensive survey of section 203, indeed, it is noted that 71 percent of election administrators throughout the country support reauthorization of section 203.
Fifth, the existence of section 2 does not obviate the need for section 5 as some have suggested. Section 5 prevents discriminatory procedures from being implemented at little or no cost to minority voters and civil rights advocates. In contrast to section 2, litigation is complicated, often time consuming and frankly plain resource intensive.
When the commission's report is complete, this commission indeed is ready, willing and perfectly able to provide the report to this Judiciary Committee and frankly to discuss its contents fully with you. And we would welcome the opportunity to come back before this commission with the formal findings indeed.
Thank you so much for this chance today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE ROGERS
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Lieutenant Governor Rogers.
And now the Committee Members will have 5 minutes to ask questions, and I yield myself 5 minutes for that purpose.
Okay. I'll ask each of the witnesses this question, and you can answer it any way you see fit.
What has been the direct and indirect impact in your view of the Voting Rights Act on minority voting rights over the last 40 years? And if you could, if you could answer that with respect to both covered and noncovered jurisdictions if you so choose.
So we will begin with you, Mayor Morial.
Mr. MORIAL. I stated in my testimony the increase in the number of African-American elected officials. But maybe because everyone on the panel is an elected official, frankly, before 1965, even though there was a small number of African-American voters in New Orleans and in Louisiana, very few candidates for public office even bothered to campaign in black communities, show up in black communities, pay attention to the very existence of African-American communities. And therefore, it was very visible, you could ride through neighborhoods and look at public improvements, the conditions of playgrounds, the conditions of streets and the great disparities that existed.
The Voting Rights Act, which gave a greater voice to African-American communities in the south, forced, quite frankly, even in cases where white candidates were running against each other, it made the African-American voter a very significant player in the electoral process. And so it isn't just a case of African-Americans getting elected to public office, although I think that is a highlight. It is also the way in which majority candidates have responded to the African-American community, realizing that because they are full and complete participants in the democratic process, you have to campaign to them, you have to pay attention to them. And that's a real sort of on-the-ground effect.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It also translates into in the process of governing, to those communities being paid attention to when public benefits, public improvements are, in fact, doled out by a city council, by a State legislature, by a mayor or by a governor. So those are some real, I think, impacts beyond—you know, the existence of African-American elected officials is important. But, really, the true impact is the power of the voter to have his issues heard, his voice represented in the deliberative process and in the law-making process and in the executive process in our cities, States and at the national level.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much.
Ms. Tallman, did you want to respond?
Ms. TALLMAN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There have been significant improvements in the political participation of Latinos as a result of the Voting Rights Act. In 1982, for example, there were nine Hispanic Members of Congress. Today, there are 25. There are also two Latino U.S. senators. There are also approximately 5,000 Latino elected officials at the State and local level.
We believe that those strides would not have been made had the voting rights section 5, section 203 been in existence. We have made good strides in language provisions where the 5 percent of the voting population in a jurisdiction that has special language requirements, where voting materials are provided to those individuals so that they understand the ballot and are able to exercise their right to vote. I think that those strides have been very good in enhancing and improving our democracy and ensuring that every single individual who is a citizen can actually exercise their right to vote.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I think the Voting Rights Act has had profound implications for not only us being a better representative form of Government as a country with the increased number of Latinos, African-Americans and people of color in jurisdictions at the State and local level and at the national level, but I also think that it has done a great thing in opening the dialogue on issues that impact all communities, which is very important and critical in our country.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
And Lieutenant Governor Rogers?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, when you were asking the question, the first thought that came to mind, frankly I was 1 year old, I had just turned one when this act was passed in 1965. I am 41 years old today. I think about the circumstances in terms of the life of my own family, sir. I know that you have worked hard to run for office, and you have done good things for many years. My grandfather ran for public office in 1960 in Omaha, Nebraska. In 1960, the sum total of African-Americans elected in the United States was right around 200 or so elected officials in America. When my grandfather ran for office, he ran for the school board in Omaha, Nebraska. It would have made him the highest elected official in the State of Nebraska.
When my grandfather ran in that election, his campaign theme was: Democracy is for everyone. I have never forgotten that, and I have kept his campaign card throughout the years as, frankly, a source of personal inspiration in terms of my own life.
I remember that, and I remember his life. He lost that election in 1960. Ten years later, in 1970, he was elected to serve the school board in Omaha, Nebraska. Change took place in America as a result of the sea of change that occurred right here in this body.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I know that you all deal with multiple pieces of legislation. You all deal with multiple issues, and you all know as well as I do, your staffs will be tugging on you to deal with 500 things throughout the course of this day and so many things to come. But this act, over the course of the last 40 years, as your statement indicated, has been seminal in its impact and remarkable in its scope. It shifted us as a country. It opened up new possibilities for people. Because what it simply said is, this fundamental right, this right to vote, to cast your ballot for the person who you hope will represent your interest in whatever capacity—whether they are the local city council person or a State legislature or in any capacity, perhaps in this august body of Congress—that frankly individual votes count and make a difference.
So when I look at the provisions of this act, it is real, and it is substantive. When I look at the provisions regarding preclearance in section 203, it is clear that the Federal Government just didn't say, you have the right to vote. That was arguably implicit in the 15th amendment. It was implicit in the 14th amendment. But what the Congress of the United States said was, we will enforce this right to vote, and preclearance gives you the ability to help enforce the provisions of the act. And certainly with section 203, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely clear in terms of the data that we have received throughout the country that it has led to a remarkable increase in terms of the number of language minorities that participate in this process.
Many of you all campaign in bilingual languages. You campaign in Spanish. Some of you all might send out something. If you were in Louisiana, you might send out something in the French language or otherwise. We are all seeking to appeal to voters, and why not appeal to them in the language where they are? This has enabled that to happen.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much.
My time has expired.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me start by asking the witnesses the first question I asked Secretary Kemp. It has been observed that a number of States in the union greatly restrict the right to vote of former felons. Some of them, some States—Florida, for example, is one that comes to mind—for life. This has a racially disparate impact. Starting with Mayor Morial and Ms. Tallman.
Mr. FEENEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. Yes.
Mr. FEENEY. In fairness to Florida, there is a process——
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time. I know, a process that never works. Except for Chuck Colson.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Do you believe that it would be useful in terms of fairness in voting for the Voting Rights Act as we extend it to be amended to put some sort of control on this to say that ex-felons, once they have served their turn or X number of years after they served their term, must have their right to vote restored?
Mr. MORIAL. Congressman Nadler, I'm glad you raised that. The answer without question is, yes. Let me see if I can state the principle here. The idea here is that a person who has in fact served their time, paid their dues, ought not be permanently restricted. They should not have a lifetime sentence, in effect, or a long sentence in terms of removing their constitutional rights.
If you put it on another level, would we ever think of restricting a person's right to speak, right to exercise their religion, any other of the enumerated constitutional rights for life because they were convicted of a felony? My view would be, and I think it is our position at the National Urban League, that a national standard which provides an opportunity for those who have paid their dues to society—let's emphasize that for the record—completed their prison term, completed their period of parole, ought to have the right to vote again. It is important, certainly, to giving them a chance to reintegrate back into society and to feel that they are going to be a full part of society.
Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I would add, it is important, if we're going to call ourselves a democracy, that everybody have the right to vote.
Ms. Tallman?
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. TALLMAN. Representative, we applaud Congress' leadership role in ensuring the right to vote for minorities in the United States. It has been a very important leadership role that Congress has filled, and as a result, there are millions of people in this country whose lives are better for it.
One of the issues that still remains to be addressed is allowing those that have served their time, as Marc Morial has stated, to be able to fully reenter into society and to be able to exercise the right to vote. By voting, and participating in the voting process, people are more likely to engage in other civic endeavors. And so there are real benefits to voting and to having ex-felons vote. So we believe that it is certainly something that Congress could demonstrate.
Mr. NADLER. Thank you.
Lieutenant Governor Rogers.
Mr. ROGERS. Congressman Nadler, I can't take a position on behalf of the commission. We have not——
Mr. NADLER. On behalf of yourself. What do you think of it?
Mr. ROGERS. I differ, frankly, from my colleagues to some extent on this issue. And I think in terms of States, individual States have policies that, you know, have varied in terms of what happens to felons and the right to vote. And the Supreme Court has upheld the ability of individual States to deal with this issue. And I can only tell you, in having governed a State, I believe that determination should be left in many respects to Colorado.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NADLER. Do you think a State should have a right to say to someone who is 17 when they committed a felony, has served 3 or 4 years in jail, when they are 77 should not be allowed to vote? Or is that a fundamental right—such a fundamental violation of civil rights that Congress should say to a State that you can't do that.
Mr. ROGERS. The Supreme Court has held that it is not——
Mr. NADLER. No, no, Supreme Court has said it is a matter of constitutional law. We don't have to have the Voting Rights Act at all as a matter of constitutional law. The question is, we have chosen to have the Voting Rights Act. Should we choose to say to a State that you're State's right does not extend to depriving a person of the franchise for life because he committed a crime 30 years ago?
Mr. ROGERS. I tend to think in this area, to some extent, a State should have the ability to decide this issue and certainly when your dealing with people who obviously committed these crimes and otherwise, that that policy in many respects should be left up to the individual States to handle. You are talking about, obviously, there are a number of complexities that are involved to some extent in this issue, and it has varied by State in terms of how it is applied. And I am an advocate of the ability and the right of the States in their own sovereignty.
Mr. NADLER. Could I have one additional minute?
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman is recognized for 1 additional minute.
Mr. NADLER. I would pose the following question, first to Lieutenant Governor Rogers, in this order.
Mr. CHABOT. As long as they can answer.
Mr. NADLER. Wait a minute. Doing it as quickly as possible. Don't you think that the fact is, as we have observed, that perhaps one of the largest ways, one of the easiest—not easiest, one of the major ways of disenfranchising disproportionate numbers of people of color, et cetera, is by lifetime prohibitions on the right to vote for ex-felons? Isn't that the way it is used today in certain States?
Mr. ROGERS. Please forgive me, but I would not agree with that, Congressman. Let me tell you why, if I may. The assumption that you are making is that you have such a substantial number of minorities, for example African-Americans or Latinos, that are engaged in felonious conduct——
Mr. NADLER. Or that are arrested and convicted in a disproportionate number.
Mr. ROGERS. The assumption—please forgive me—is that it is such a significant number that it has a dramatic impact on the people as a whole, when we find in reality is that it is not that. You don't have African-Americans that are overwhelmingly in prison. You don't have Latinos that are overwhelmingly in prison. You are still talking about a significant minority within our peoples as a whole.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. TALLMAN. There are many flaws in the criminal justice system as it relates to racial discrimination and racial profiling. As a result, oftentimes there are individuals that are convicted of crimes that are innocent, and there are individuals that are convicted of crimes and sentenced to tougher standards because of their race or ethnicity.
We believe that disenfranchising permanently individuals who have served their time is bad for democracy, and as a result, we would suggest that Congress look at the issue.
Mr. MORIAL. I would offer this. I think if you looked at the practices and laws of all 50 States, you would find the most restrictive provisions for the most part with respect to the voting rights of those who have been convicted of a felony in the very same States that are covered by section 5 and the very same States that have large minority populations.
On the other hand, you would see the least restrictive provisions in those States with small minority populations and in States that are not covered by the section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for the most part.
The second point I would make, if you looked at the genesis of many of these provisions that restrict the right of convicted felons to vote, they have their genesis in the post-Reconstruction backlash which occurred in the South. So if you look at facts, the facts are going to paint a picture in terms of what the—some suggest what maybe the motivation of some of these provisions have been, they were disenfranchisement provisions.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I applaud you for raising this issue, but I think it is so important to keep the perspective that we are talking about people who have already served their time. It could be for something such as theft of an automobile. It could be a felony of a white collar nature.
Mr. NADLER. Or smoking marijuana.
Mr. MORIAL. It could be smoking marijuana. It could be something that is treated as a felony and therefore restrictive. I appreciate your raising it.
Mr. CHABOT. The Chair would note that the gentleman's 1 minute expired 3 minutes and 6 seconds ago.
Mr. NADLER. Appreciate the forbearance of the Chair.
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions at this time.
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Just so that Mr. Rogers will sleep more comfortably in his bed at night, the bill that we have introduced which deals with ex-felon voting deals only with voting in Federal elections. So they don't try to tell the States what to do, and obviously, the States can't interfere. And that's the way we get around the discussion that has been raised here.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. David Scott of Georgia has joined us and obviously not a Member of the Committee, but his interest is overriding in this matter. And I just wanted you to know that he was present and that he is very welcome to the Committee.
Mr. CHABOT. I share your sentiments, and Mr. Scott is a very distinguished Member of the House. And we welcome him with open arms at our meeting, and we appreciate his caring enough to be here today.
Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Scott.
Mr. CONYERS. Now, the witnesses have been significantly in agreement today, which argues well for the first hearing and what we have got to go through to get this measure through as quickly as we can. Even though it is 2007, we still need to get this measure out before this 109th session expires. And so that is why there are a number of hearings that have been set up, some two, sometimes three in a week, to get us moving along.
We have talked a lot about the South, but as has been pointed out, New York has areas that are covered by the Voter Rights Act of 1965. In Michigan, I have two townships in two different counties that are covered by the Voter Rights Act. And so wherever there are problems existing, that's where we go to deal with them. And it is very clear that this problem is not over, as every witness has testified to.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I think is that is very important. I wanted to raise the question that seems important to me, that even over and above the protection of this cornerstone of democracy, the right to vote and have your vote counted, are there other benefits that derive to the American system of democracy by having a Voter Rights Act extended, by having it strengthened wherever necessary, by having the expired provisions covered again? And I'd like to throw that open for the examination of anybody that would like to talk with me about it.
Ms. TALLMAN. Thank you so much, Representative, I applaud your leadership in the voting rights arena and the civil rights arena, sir. You're very well regarded, not only in the African-American community among civil rights advocates but the Latino community applauds all the work that you have done, so thank you very much for your leadership.
I think that one of the most important aspects of the Voting Rights Act is providing voters the confidence in voting. A democracy works when people, when they go to the voting booth, they will be free from harassment. They will not be targeted. They will not be discriminated against. They will be able to bring a relative or friend with them if they have limited English proficiency, if they are disabled, if they need assistance in the voting booth.
We are willing to protect freedoms in new democracies that are emerging around the world. We need to protect our democracy at home. And giving people the confidence in voting that they must have to know that democracy works has been a critical component of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. CONYERS. Thank you.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MORIAL. I think I would just add on a general basis, and I think we have enumerated specifics, but I think one of the key things is for our practices to reflect our principles, for the idea that democracy and the universality of suffrage is made real by that. The nation today has been involved in efforts to, quote, promote democracy abroad. Some of those efforts have been efforts to ensure that ethnic or religious minorities in countries a long way away from here have the right to freely participate without intimidation in the franchise.
We have to be consistent, and being consistent means ensuring that the same practices and the same principles are followed here in the United States.
Mr. ROGERS. Absolutely. And Congressman, I echo those sentiments as expressed frankly by Marc. Clearly, the Voting Rights Act sets a standard. It sets a standard for the United States in terms of our ability to participate in this notion of democracy, this remarkable gift of democracy. And it helps to clearly espouse that in many respects throughout the world as we seek to do so throughout the world.
So is it seminal it its scope? Is it broad in its range? Is it key to the fundamental element of who we are? I think clearly, as we have indeed received testimony across the United States, the answer to that question seems to be overwhelmingly yes.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank all of you because we have uncovered, particularly in this Committee, innumerable instances in voting in which people have been discouraged, misdirected, given improper information, sometimes from the electoral system locally itself. And as you said, you cannot believe in democracy if you are not being encouraged to choose who is going to govern.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so I thank all the witnesses, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. Before recognizing the gentleman from Florida for his 5 minutes, the gentleman from Arizona who had yielded back his time I think wants to take a minute to make a statement. So I recognize him at this time.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And in all respect to the panelists and the Members here, we have talked almost to the extent that we have redirected the focus of the hearing today on some of the ex-felon disenfranchisement. And the Voting Rights Act doesn't really address that at all. And I am hoping that the panel will address some of the issues that affect those law-abiding citizens who are indeed being disenfranchised in their voting, and I think that is something to maintain our focus upon.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that the gentleman from Arizona's comments are right. I hate to get totally sidetracked on voting rights issues on the question of whether or not the problem with American democracy is too few convicted felons are determining the outcome of elections.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I will tell you that, with respect to the constitutional issues here, remember, Katzenbach was very narrowly decided, and its determination was, this is an extraordinary exercise of the congressional power, dictating to the States based on the 15th amendment, which mentions race, color or former condition of servitude. Unless there is a direct tie to race, color or former condition of servitude, there may no longer be a foundation for Congress to overwhelm and dictate to the States.
And I would say that, in fairness to Florida, my friend from New York said that the application never works. Well, that is just not true. We have streamlined the process. And it is true we don't have automatic restoration when your sentence is over, but among other things, we ask for restitution, evidence of rehabilitation. The notion that a violent rapist ought to have his rights fully restored while his victim still has medical bills unpaid offends some Floridians, and that, I think, is something that policymakers in the State can decide.
I was really interested, Mr. Rogers, in some of the findings that your commission has found. And I'm sorry that a lot of the questioning hasn't been directed to that, because, remember, in the Gingles test, in order to legitimately make a section 2 claim—we haven't asked questions, but you did a good job going over it—there has to be some findings. We have to find that we have compact and significant numbers of minorities in an area that are underrepresented when it comes to redistricting or opportunities to select candidates of their choice. We also have to find that there are cohesive voting patterns among the minorities if they had an opportunity. And finally, the third prong of that test is that there is significant cohesion among the traditional voting patterns of the majority, where minorities are denied their opportunity.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And that, I think, is the most important thing that has been said all day in terms of the importance of the current rationale for any Voting Rights Act whatsoever. And I would ask you to elaborate on that and, to the extent that there is time, the other two panelists. But I think that is the most important thing has been said, and I would ask you, as you make that case that the Voting Rights Act is still relevant and apparently you have heard testimony that we have not heard yet, because this is our first hearing—this is wonderful stuff, and this is what we ought to be focusing on. We have got at least two Supreme Court justices that, based on the equal protection amendment, you have Thomas and Scalia saying that race-based district drawing is always inappropriate. That was a fair and reasonable rational position. We need to counteract that if we are going to have a fair and reasonable rationale for continuing or extending the Voting Rights Act. We have at least two justices that think that it is inappropriate.
Sandra Day O'Conner, who tends to be a swing vote on all these issues—we have had a court of one until it is redone on things like the Voting Rights Act and redistricting, and O'Connor is the court. She decides, as the swing vote, virtually every meaningful case that has been decided in the last 15 years. And O'Connor said in a separate issue, but related issue—remember the Michigan law school preferences case—she said she wants to get to a color-blind society and has condemned the Balkanization of America. And she has said perhaps in 25 years we can get rid of race-based districts.
So the debate is between, on the one hand, people who think we ought to have permanent race-based voting processes and districts; on the other hand, people like Scalia and Thomas and Abigail Thernstrom, who said we should never do it; and people like O'Connor and the rest of us who think we need to remedy problems when they occur.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I hope we will get the details of the evidence that you have collected because that is what we need to be focused on in my view here. Let's get back to section 2 and section 5. I wish I had an hour to go into the rationale and the basis and the meaning of that. But Mr. Rogers, if you would address that question.
Mr. ROGERS. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman, for your thoughts on the same. It is absolutely clear. You are dealing with reauthorization as it relates to two provisions, section 5 and section 203. And those are the provisions that come up for reauthorization this coming year. The Supreme Court has made it very clear—and when I think about the standard I'm reflecting on the City of Boerne v. Flores opinion, in which the court essentially cited Congress and Congress' example of finding a factual basis for essentially invoking legislation as being key to its constitutionality.
And in this case here, your establishment of the factual record, looking at the patterns or practices as they exist or you might find they do not exist throughout the United States is frankly the most important determination following this legislative body. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will deal with the management of these cases. What we have clearly seen throughout the United States is, with respect to section 5, which comes up for reauthorization, since 1982, literally the Department of Justice has had over 600 submissions that have been objected to involving some 2,000 individual objections. And that's just simply since 1982 as it relates to congressional districts throughout United States as a whole. Not to mention the private cases, for example, that have been filed throughout the United States dealing with the provisions of section 2, section 5, section 203, for example, by the Department of Justice.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The factual record in and of itself over the course of the last 23 years and what we are finding in terms of our determinations—and again, I don't want to be too premature—indicates that there are still remaining significant problems. The most fascinating thing about this, Congressman, is the nature of the problem in and of itself is being articulated. It is kind of different in the way it is being articulated today. As you well know, Congressman Conyers, in that era, the movement the country was in a different mode. There were different ways that people talked about issues and problems in our society. That was a different language at the time.
Even though the language may have changed here in the year 2005, the reality is that we are still seeing, unfortunately, practices being engaged. So it is done under a different name. It's done under a different label with, for example, what it is, is a movement from district-based elections to at-large elections on whims. It's the elimination wholeheartedly of elected positions saying that we are not going to have the elected office anymore. This often takes place at the local level in principal part as we are finding around the country, and it varies.
For example, testimony that we heard, what was going on in Chicago, for example, or what we heard that was taking place in California in Los Angeles, those are not classically southern cities. Frankly, what we heard, Mr. Nadler, about New York and heard about issues related to problems related to voting or the testimony that we received there, all of those issues were of deep concern.
The factual basis—and we're delighted to provide this information to the Committee—we believe will give you some information upon which you can say we ought to move forward on reauthorization or we ought not to move forward, but at the very least you will have the facts upon which to make a decision.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you.
The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our witnesses. They have contributed a great deal to our proceedings. And I wanted to start my questioning by asking Ms. Tallman, focusing on the preclearance provision, some have suggested that since section 2 is sitting up there, why do you need section 5? Can you—if the legislature passes an illegal plan, what are the costs involved in a section 5 denial of preclearance compared to a lawsuit under section 2?
Ms. TALLMAN. The costs by minority voters to hire a private attorney under section 2, which is the permanent section that allows for a private right of action when there has been discrimination in voting, the costs associated with hiring private attorneys can run in the millions of dollars. There are very significant fact-based findings, facts that need to be gathered as opposed to section 5 preclearance in jurisdictions where there has been traditional discrimination or a history of discrimination, where there have been ongoing suits, litigation brought within those jurisdictions because of changes in voting practices that have been viewed, have been discriminatory; where nonprofit organizations, civil rights organizations can work on behalf of minority voters who, having identified discriminatory practices, raise those practices, it can be brought then under consideration by the Department of Justice, which I think provides a very good basis in which those that have suffered discrimination have a course of action.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Well, you mentioned the cost of gathering all of these facts. If you don't know whether a plan is discriminatory or not until you have gotten all the facts, who has the burden of proof under section 5? Who has the burden of proof under section 2?
Ms. TALLMAN. Under section 5, the burden of proof is with the jurisdiction. So the jurisdiction that is engaged, under section 5, where they are a section 5 jurisdiction who is trying to change voting patterns and practices has that burden.
Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. And the cost of getting all the facts to prove the case is therefore on the jurisdiction?
Ms. TALLMAN. No, Congressman, there is a significant cost that also takes place with regard to a section 5 preclearance action that is brought by civil rights organizations on behalf of voters to the Department of Justice or by voters who hire a private attorney to the Department of Justice. There are still significant costs.
Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. But that cost, compared to a section 2 cost—can you compare the cost of getting a plan thrown out under section 5 by a civil rights organization protecting the rights of the minorities compared to the costs of defeating the plan under section 2?
Ms. TALLMAN. We will be happy to submit, as the testimony continues over the next several months, in working with other civil rights organizations, to be able to provide a comparative analysis for the Members of the Committee so that they can determine the differential and the costs.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. If you are under section 2, is the plan generally implemented and the perpetrators of the fraud, do they get to enjoy the fruits of their fraud while the case is going on if you are under section 2?
Ms. TALLMAN. Under section 2, there is a claim that has been brought by the Attorney General or of a State or there is a private right of action——
Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. If there is a change, if there is a change and you are trying to defeat it under section 2.
Ms. TALLMAN. Right.
Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. The plan has been implemented.
Ms. TALLMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. And the people who have perpetrated the fraud get to enjoy the fruits of their fraud while the litigation goes on, as opposed to section 5 where you never get to enjoy the fruits of your fraud to begin with because you can't get it precleared.
Ms. TALLMAN. Yes, sir. There is a difference between 2 and 5 where, in 5, if there is discrimination, it doesn't—there is no opportunity for it to be put into place. Yes, that is correct, sir.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Mayor Morial, you have run for public office. You have run as an incumbent and not as an incumbent. Can you state some of the advantages that there are running as an incumbent?
Mr. MORIAL. Obviously, there are many advantages that an incumbent has. One is the ability to raise money. Two is already established name recognition. Three is a network of relationships. The fourth one can be something that cuts both ways, and that is, you have a record.
Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. But the fact, the idea——
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman's time has expired, but we will give the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you. The idea is, if you were under section 2 and someone is enjoying all of these benefits even if you win under section 2, you are now facing an incumbent.
Mr. MORIAL. I think your point is so instructive and so incisive that section 5 prevents in effect the discriminator from continuing—from being able to benefit. Because you're right. And there are probably a number of instances where people had to run in a newly created district, but because they were running as an incumbent and they had money and they had name recognition and they had relationships, even in a district that they could not have been elected in originally, they have a significant advantage.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I think anyone who has run for public office knows what I'm talking about. And I think it could be clearly documented and demonstrated by eminent political scientists, pollsters and others who you might invite before this Committee.
Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may not take 5 minutes. But let me start by asking unanimous consent to submit an opening statement that I had prepared for the record. And by asking unanimous consent to submit Representative Linda Sánchez's opening statement record.
Mr. CHABOT. I'm sorry, I was otherwise engaged there. Would the gentleman repeat his request?
Mr. WATT. I was asking unanimous consent to submit my opening statement and Representative Linda Sánchez's opening statement.
Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. I apologize to the gentleman for not listening intently when he was speaking, as I usually do.
Mr. WATT. Listen intently, because I wanted to associate myself with some of the remarks that Mr. Feeney made, which is so unusual in this Committee.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And the Members on my side may have some dismay about this. But I agree with Mr. Feeney that we should try to restrict ourselves to the provisions that we ought to be trying to reauthorize or put into the Voting Rights Act. And, while I am a very strong supporter and cosponsor of the felon disenfranchisement legislation that has been introduced by Mr. Conyers, my support of that does not lead me to conclude that we should try to put it into the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT. Yes.
Mr. CONYERS. I merely wanted to associate myself with that, which is why we introduced it in separate legislation.
Mr. WATT. Right. I just want to be clear to the Members of the Committee that what we are engaged in here is so important as a basic constitutional proposition that we should limit ourselves to what we are here to try to deal with. I, in another context, will be as strong a supporter of legislation to set a national standard, to the extent that we can constitutionally, for felon re-enfranchisement as anybody on this Committee, but I think that is a subject for a different day.
Having said that, I would like to spend the rest of my time not on the substance of the Voting Rights Act, but to basically lay a foundation that, if it has not already been laid, for the introduction at some point of the entire record that the Voting Rights Act commission is developing and of the Voting Rights Act commission's findings into our record.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think this is so important that, despite the fact that I am elated that Chairman Sensenbrenner has agreed to hold 8, 10, 12, hearings, that the more hearings are being conducted by the more different sources all over the country and the more exhaustive we can make the record for support of the Voting Rights Act, the more likely it is that we will meet the constitutional standard that the Supreme Court has articulated that Mr. Feeney has made reference to.
So I would like to ask Lieutenant Governor Rogers just to give us a description of where and how often and how methodical the commission is being in its process of developing a record. Because at some point, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I should say up front that it will be my intention to try to put the entire record that they are developing into our legislative record and make it a part of what we are doing.
So if you could just give us as exhaustive—I've run out of time, but they will let you answer the question as long as you want to answer the question. Give us as exhaustive a description of what you are doing and how your commission is doing it as you can so that we get a full appreciation of what the Voting Rights Act commission is doing.
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman was not going to use his complete 5 minutes and has skillfully acquired additional time for the witness to answer the question.
Mr. WATT. It takes a lot of time for me to agree with Mr. Feeney. Sometimes that is not as easy. I have to couch it and so make sure that everybody understands exactly what I am saying.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHABOT. Duly noted.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Watt, so much. I wanted to make sure, if I could, to detail with you exactly what has happened. Over the course of the past years, there essentially have been a series of what are ten hearings that have been held throughout the United States. They were all public hearings. Of the ten hearings, seven of them are individual State hearings that have been held. The seven individual hearings outside of the three—excuse me, I don't want to be confusing. Ten total hearings. Of the ten, three are State hearings. Seven of them have been regional hearings throughout the entire country where we literally brought in States from—representatives from each individual State have either submitted direct testimony that they provided personally or they provided written testimony or they agreed to provide documents, for example, to the commission.
The commission will be responsible for formally writing its report based upon its assessment of all of the information received. The information we're taking into account in terms of the factual record here include the Department of Justice's objections, DOJ enforcement actions, DOJ observer coverage, DOJ settlement agreements, court opinions and litigation under the Voting Rights Act that includes both State and Federal cases, expert reports on litigation under the Voting Rights Act, studies and reports by civil rights organizations throughout the United States, testimony at hearings by voting rights practitioners and social scientists throughout the country, settlement agreements from cases brought regarding voting rights practitioners throughout the United States as a whole.
So we are making some effort to be as broad as possible to cover every range of thought as it relates to voting rights but not just the thought but the facts. What are the facts as they establish conduct as it has occurred throughout the United States? In particular, our reference point has been since 1982. We did not want you to simply have to dwell on the past or just to dwell 40 years in context but to really look at the substance of what has happened from 1982 forward.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We would hope that we would be able to note, Mr. Watt, significant progress that has occurred in the country. Because there is no doubt, as we have been throughout the United States, there have been as I mentioned earlier great progress that has occurred in the country. But at the same time, the facts do indicate significant problems that remain.
And so, in detail, forgive me for being too much in detail, I didn't mean to do that. We're making every effort to be as exhaustive as possible and would like to provide that full report to the Committee along with all supporting documentation.
Mr. WATT. Can I ask one elaborating question?
Mr. CHABOT. Without objection.
Mr. WATT. Just to be clear about whether you are stacking the deck or not stacking the deck. Are you also at each——
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Watt before you go on, I think——
Mr. MORIAL. I've got to run.
Mr. CHABOT. We would like to thank you, Mayor Morial.
If he could be excused.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We want to thank you.
Mr. WATT. He has covered every base that I anticipated that he would cover, and I appreciate it.
Mr. MORIAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all, thank you. See you.
Mr. CHABOT. We appreciate your testimony.
Mr. WATT. At every one of these hearings, are you providing a public opportunity for people, not the cast of witnesses who have been preselected, to express themselves also?
Mr. ROGERS. Please forgive me for not making that reference. That is probably the most important consideration. Forgive me for not referencing that. At every one of our hearings, we have a public testimony portion. At each one of these hearings, there have been press releases issued in each of the individual communities asking members of the public to come, whether you are, frankly, for this act, against the act. We haven't been focused on policy advocates necessarily. What we have asked for is people who provide facts, can you give us documented facts as they relate to either the existence or nonexistence of discrimination as it relates to voting?
And to some extent, this begs—if I could open up a little bit of a can as it relates to Mr. Nadler's remarks regarding whether or not some jurisdictions, for example, ought to be able to opt out of or block or be taken out of the provisions of section 5, for example. There is no doubt that there is some debate in the United States about whether or not all jurisdictions should still remain under the provisions thereof, and that may well be the subject of your consideration.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But at the very least, what we will seek to do is to provide you with the facts upon which you can make those determinations, and public testimony is critical in that regard.
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. WATT. Could I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. David Scott to ask at least some questions? He is not a Member of our Committee.
Mr. CHABOT. We generally don't do that. I will make an exception in this case since Mr. Scott has been here this whole afternoon. I would also like to recognize the presence a little while ago of Congresswoman Maxine Waters from California who was also here.
Generally, we don't unless somebody yields that. We will make an exception and yield to the gentleman for 3 minutes. But we don't want to make this, set a precedent of doing this on either side. We don't like to break the rules.
Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your graciousness and kindness in granting me the opportunity, having not been on the Committee. I really, really appreciate that, and I certainly appreciate the Ranking Member, Congressman Conyers, for inviting me and allowing me to participate in this. Thank you very much, and I realize that it is an effort and want you to know how much I appreciate it.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And thank you, Chairman Watt, for your generosity as well.
I believe that this is a very, very tricky, tricky time for the participation, particularly of African-Americans, in the political process. And there is no greater example of that than what is happening in my State right now. We have a glaring example of two things: one, why it is tricky; two, why we desperately need the Voting Rights Act reauthorized in all of its parts. And that is, this law that was recently passed in Georgia requiring a government-sponsored, sanctioned and approved voter ID before one can vote. And it only applies if you go to the polls. It doesn't matter if you are absentee; you don't need that.
If there ever was a glaring impediment to those who are elderly, those who are poor, those who have a habit—and it is very important to make this a part of the record, because within the African-American community, it is sacrosanct to go and exercise your vote because it took us so much and had to go through such a struggle to get it, that many will still go and will vote and not use the absentee.
With that in mind, I also want to say, the other side that makes this so tricky is that it went through preclearance and was precleared, but I am very happy to announce today that just a few hours ago, a Federal judge did institute a preliminary injunction blocking the application of this very, very significant deterrent to voting.
And therein lies the trickiness of what I am talking about and why we need it and why we need every recourse. I wanted to get your all's opinion on that and plus the point that there are six sections that will be up for renewal, plus section 203. Much has been said here on basically section 5. I want to get your opinions, do you not conclude that all of each of these sections needs to be reauthorized? If not, why?
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And what are your thoughts on this requirement of the voter ID?
Ms. TALLMAN. Congressman, MALDEF was very actively involved in Georgia with the Black Caucus of the State in trying to oppose the legislation in Georgia. We are actually also involved in the preclearance efforts. So we are very aware of the potential chilling effect on voting that that particular piece of legislation has.
Regarding section 203, the language provisions of the Voting Rights Act are very important to the Latino community, to the Asian American community as well as the Native American community. And in the Latino community alone, there are 4.3 million voting-age citizens that are limited English proficient. Without section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, those individuals would be unlikely to vote. So we believe that, to Congressman Watt's point and the Congress from Florida, that there is much to focus on with regard to voting rights reauthorization; that we should not dilute the voting rights reauthorization debate on these very critical and important sections, section 5, section 203 and other language provisions, with a discussion around felony re-enfranchisement. But that is something of consideration when looking at the area of voting that certainly Congress is taking a lead on, and we applaud that lead.
But we do believe very firmly that 203 does need to be reauthorized because it would have very limited—it would have huge impacts on limited English proficient citizens necessary this country.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Scott. The provisions you may be referencing are, sections 6, 8, 9 and 13, have essentially to do with the ability of the Department of Justice to send observers in or otherwise engage the mechanism of enforcement related to section 5 or to section 203. Those provisions are important, and I know they are not as—they won't be talked about on the same level of significance, but they represent part of the substantive tools in terms of the ability to really move forward in terms of section 5 as well as section 203.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. The only point—and I will conclude with this—that is the point I am saying, that everybody here is saying, that it will be reauthorized. But if we don't take those other sections and just dwell on 5 and we happen to not authorize those others, it will have a diluting and weakening effect as well.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Scott, that point is well made. There is no doubt, in terms of the legislation, if you looked at the key to the Voting Rights Act in substance, again what it effectively does is takes the 14th amendment and 15th amendment, and it makes it real. Congress essentially said, these provisions have been in place for years, but we're going to enact legislation that will help make the substance of the 14th and the 15th amendment a reality for people in the United States. And you gave it the teeth, if you will, the teeth of the provisions are in section 5 and certainly section 203 to the extent that it allows language minority voters access to the polls in new ways.
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman's time has expired.
I would note that Ms. Tallman nodded her head noting in the affirmative as well to the question.
I would also ask that, without objection, all Members have 5 legislative days to commit additional materials for the hearing record.
I would also note that we have another hearing on the Voting Rights Act coming up in 2 days, on Thursday. It is at 10 o'clock in the morning, and we have at least one or two more next week. And we will have eight all together through November 3, and there will in all likelihood be more to come.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If there is no further business to come before the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony this afternoon. And at this point, we're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
The importance of the Voting Rights Act is amply demonstrated by its historical bipartisan support in Congress. The commitment of Chairman Sensenbrenner, in particular, extends back to his support of reauthorization of the Act in 1982. He has evidenced his continuing commitment in speeches before the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus and, moreover, has agreed to a robust schedule of hearings to support our current reauthorization efforts. I whole heartedly salute his historical commitment to the Voting Rights Act and look forward to working with him on strengthening and reauthorizing the Act.
When the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, I was one of six (6) African-American, five (5) Latino, and four (4) Asian-American Members of Congress. The civil rights era was in full bloom, with sit-ins and marches across the South in response to the massive resistance to the call for equal rights. Brave Americans of different races, ethnicities, and religions risked their lives to stand up for political equality.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The pursuit of equal voting rights was most dramatically displayed on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965, a day that would come to be known as ''Bloody Sunday.'' On this day, nonviolent civil rights marchers, like John Lewis, were beaten, brutalized, and demeaned. The news media brought home to all Americans the horror and violence that propped the system of segregation, forcing us to a decision point about our nation's democratic ideals. Without sacrifice by countless individuals in Selma and across the South, the struggle for equality could never have been achieved, and this legislation would have failed in Congress.
Eight days after Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon B. Johnson called for a comprehensive and effective voting rights bill. He would sign that bill into law and the Voting Rights Act would come to stand as a tribute to the countless Americans who fought for voting rights for all Americans.
Today, as we commence the process of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, its importance to opening the political process to all Americans is beyond doubt or challenge.
As the Act has evolved over the last 40 years, it has been expanded and refined to protect language minority citizens through the 1975 amendments, and disabled Americans through the 1982 amendments. Where we had anemic voter registration and turnout in many Southern states, such as Mississippi, with just 6 % of African Americans registered to vote compared to 70% White voter registration; today, 62% of all African Americans and 69% of all Whites are registered to vote.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Where we had a handful of minority Members of Congress in 1965, today we can count 43 African-American, 29 Latino, 8 Asian-American, and 1 Native American in the U.S. House and Senate. And the federal government itself is merely the tip of the of the iceberg. Across the nation, the number of people of color elected to federal, state, and local offices has increased tremendously in the last forty years, opening the political process to every American. It is not an overstatement to call the Voting Rights Act the keystone of our nation's array of civil rights statutes.
While there is much to celebrate over the last 40 years, we have not yet reached the point where the special provisions of the Act should be allowed to lapse, as some might have you believe. Witnesses will bring us testimony over the next several weeks and months from around the country, detailing the continuing barriers to equal voting rights faced by people of color, language minorities, and the disabled.
It is these modern day challenges, along with the continuing historical barriers, that require us to ensure the continuing vitality of the Voting Rights Act. The reauthorization process is an opportunity to take stock of where we are and, if necessary, to make adjustments that will protect and strengthen the Act, just as we have done in the past.
I trust that, as a Committee, we will work collectively to protect the vitality of the Act. I am also pleased that we will be joined in this process by civil rights groups like the Lawyers' Committee, LCCR, NAACP, ACLU, the Legal Defense Fund, MALDEF, People For the American Way, the National Council of La Raza, the Native American Rights Fund, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, and many others who support our important work in this area.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Voting Rights Act is one of the nation's most important civil rights victories. It memorializes those who marched, struggled, and even died to secure the right to vote for all Americans. Through hearings and other dialogue, we will establish a detailed record supporting reauthorization. We owe a deliberative and thoughtful process to those who risked so much in the fight for equal rights. While we must applaud the substantial progress which has been made in the area of voting rights, we must also continue our efforts to protect the rights of every American voter.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MELVIN L. WATT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this first in a series of very important hearings on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Several months ago, the Chairman of the Full Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner and I began a discussion that continues to this day. Recognizing that several provisions of the Voting Rights Act were due to expire in 2007, the Chairman and I fully agreed that extensive hearings should be held to sustain any constitutional challenge that may come. On September 23, 2005, at my annual Congressional Black Caucus Voting Rights Braintrust, Chairman Sensenbrenner announced this series of hearings. He noted that, ''[t]his bipartisan effort should educate Members about the complex nuances of the Voting Rights Act and build a solid legislative record towards our goal of a long-term Voting Rights Act extension.''
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I share the goal of extending the Voting Rights Act and also believe that the Act should be strengthened to ensure that Congress's intent in protecting the voting rights of all Americans is fully realized. In the 40 years since its passage, the Voting Rights Act has come to be regarded as one of the most effective civil rights laws in our Nation's history. The Act has safeguarded the right of millions of minorities to have their votes counted and therefore, their voices heard. The gains in African American, Latino, Asian and Native American elected officials is but one indication of the success of the Act. Prior to passage of the Voting Rights Act, there were fewer than 300 African Americans in public office in all the southern states. This figure rose to 2,400 by 1980, and stands at more than 9,100 today.
The trends in increased voter registration may also be attributed to some degree to the existence of the Voting Rights Act. These gains are a testament to the effectiveness of the Act as well as to its continued necessity. But the success of the Voting Rights Act is not cause for its demise. When something works you run with it not away from it! Not to extend and strengthen the Voting Rights Act would be a blow to democracy.
Very briefly, let me just say that each of the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act serve a vitally important and unique purpose: Section 5 requires those jurisdictions with an ongoing record of discrimination to ''pre-clear'' any voting changes to ensure that those changes will not disenfranchise racial, ethnic, and language minority voters. Jurisdictions covered by Section 5 may ''bail-out'' from coverage by demonstrating compliance with the Voting Rights Act and that they facilitate equal opportunity at the ballot box.
Section 203 requires bilingual voting assistance for language minority communities in jurisdictions that have a significant population of language minority groups, evidence of severe language barriers, high rates of illiteracy, or depressed voter registration or turnout. Section 203 extends to American citizens with limited English proficiency who pay taxes, serve in the military and embrace all of the other obligations of citizenship, equal and meaningful access to the benefits of the ballot box.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act help ensure that voters are free from discrimination on election day. The federal examiner and observer provisions are key when effectively utilized by the Department of Justice. Examiners may prepare and maintain lists of eligible voters and receive complaints by phone, while observers are assigned to monitor elections in specific jurisdictions that are suspected of discriminatory activity. This federal presence also serves a deterrent effect discouraging those who might otherwise treat minority voters with hostility and intimidation.
Based upon a record of evidence demonstrating how gerrymandering, annexations, at-large election policies and other political machinations have been employed to disfranchise minority voters, Congress has voted three times to extend §5 coverage: in 1970 (for five years), 1975 (for seven years) and 1982 (for 25 years). Notwithstanding the considerable progress in minority voting rights and office holding in recent times, I expect that we will see a similar record compiled throughout these hearings substantiating the continuing need for the Voting Rights Act and its expiring provisions. Moreover, we must act to strengthen and expand the Voting Rights Act by addressing restrictive Supreme Court decisions and providing for adequate resources to litigate cases seeking compliance with the Act.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are conducting these hearings. I welcome and look forward to the testimony of our distinguished panel of witnesses, and yield back the balance of my time.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Thank you, Chairman Chabot and Ranking Member Nadler for convening this hearing, ''To Examine the Impact and Effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act.''
In my opinion and the opinion of many leaders in the civil rights community, the Voting Rights Act has had a tremendous impact on the voting rights of all minority groups, including Latinos.
The Voting Rights Act is one of the most successful and exercised civil rights laws in American history, and this landmark legislation has effectively given all Americans political power and voter enfranchisement.
For Latinos and other communities suffering from long histories of discrimination and disenfranchisement, the Voting Rights Act has been key to gaining equality and fairness in the electoral process.
Before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, literacy tests, poll taxes and intentionally discriminatory mechanisms were used to keep Latinos and other minorities from the polls.
Today, many of the advancements and achievement of Latinos in our democracy are a direct result of the Voting Rights Act.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Several current Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus would not be in the House of Representatives today without the Voting Rights Act.
Members such as Congressmen Ed Pastor of Arizona and José Serrano of New York have districts that were drawn as a direct result of the Voting Rights Act.
This vital statute also opened the door to empower individuals like Willie Velazquez, whose mission in life was to register Hispanic Americans.
Today, we all know that his slogan ''Su voto es su voz'' ('Your vote is your voice') continues to resonate in our community today.
The positive impact the Voting Rights Act has had on all Latinos is evident.
For instance, when the VRA was enacted in 1965, about two-and-a-half million Latinos were registered to vote. Today there are 9.3 million Latinos registered to vote.
In the past three decades, Latino registration has quadrupled, while our participation in elections has tripled.
In the 1976 presidential election, about 2 million ballots were cast by Hispanic Americans and in 2004 that number climbed to a record 7.5 million.
In 1974, there were about 1,200 Latino elected officials. Today there are 6,000.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am proud that my sister and I are two of those 6,000 Latino elected officials, the first sisters ever elected to the United States Congress.
While we have come a long way from the widespread use of such blatant tactics as literacy tests to deny Latinos of their voting rights, more subtle efforts persist.
For example, in 1988 the Orange County Republican Party hired uniformed security guards to be posted at polling places in heavily Latino precincts. The guards, wearing blue uniforms and badges, were removed from polling places after the chief deputy secretary of state said their presence was an ''unlawful intimidation of voters.'' The next year, the Orange County GOP paid $400,000 to settle a lawsuit stemming from their voter intimidation program.
Many communities still rely on the Voting Rights Act to maintain full participation in local, state, and federal elections.
I my home state of California in 2004, 26 out of 58 counties are covered by the language minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Within those 26 counties, there are 26 Hispanic communities, 6 Chinese communities, 3 Filipino and Vietnamese communities, and two American Indian communities where language minorities are covered by the Voting Rights Act.
These protections allow millions of voters to make their voices heard on Election Day.
California is also one of ten states with overlapping coverage under Section 203 and Section 5, two of the most important provisions of the Voting Rights Act for language minorities.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Section 5 has prevented jurisdictions from redrawing district lines or otherwise amending election procedures in a way that discriminates against Latino voters by requiring those jurisdictions to get pre-clearance of any changes in electoral practices from the Department of Justice.
Section 203 is vitally important to Latinos because it requires certain jurisdictions to provide bilingual assistance to language minority citizens at all stages of the voting process.
As the U.S. House of Representatives begins reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we must recognize that Section 5 and Section 203 are not mutually exclusive.
These two sections have worked together to protect Latinos and must be reauthorized together to permanently preserve voting rights for Latinos and all language minority groups.
As the Judiciary Committee, the House, and the Senate, work to reauthorize the VRA, we must ensure that Section 5, Section 203, and all of the expiring provisions are not only reauthorized, but strengthened to preserve and cultivate total participation in the voting process.
Voting is the one way that every American citizen is able to directly participate in our democracy. The Voting Rights Act is invaluable in preserving equal participation for all Americans in our government. This legislation must be reauthorized.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I look forward to the testimony of the Subcommittee's distinguished panel of witnesses. I am positive their testimony will begin the process of establishing a thorough Congressional record in support of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RAINBOW PUSH COALITION ON REAUTHORIZATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, SUBMITTED BY MR. CHABOT DURING THE HEARING, AT THE REQUEST OF MR. CONYERS
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HAZEL DUKES, PRESIDENT, NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JUNE 14, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH D. RICH BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JUNE 14, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOLORES WATSON, MEMBER, LONG ISLAND ACORN, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JUNE 14, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARLOS ZAYAS BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JUNE 14, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM LACY CLAY, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 20, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GWEN CARR BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL JUNEAU BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN LAUDIG, ATTORNEY, SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GWEN MOORE, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARACK OBAMA, SENATOR, SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK RITCHIE, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE AND TRADE POLICY, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELONA STREET-STEWART, CHAIR, ST. PAUL BOARD OF EDUCATION, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALICE TREGAY BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF IHSAN ALI ALKHATIB, BOARD PRESIDENT, ARAB-AMERICAN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRADFORD BROWN BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AUGUST 4, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARLON PRIMES BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AUGUST 4, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF SOUTHERN REGIONAL HEARING, MARCH 11, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF SOUTHWEST REGIONAL HEARING, APRIL 7, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF NORTHEAST REGIONAL HEARING, JUNE 14, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF MIDWEST REGIONAL HEARING, JULY 22, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF SOUTH GEORGIA HEARING, AUGUST 2, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF FLORIDA HEARING, AUGUST 4, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF SOUTH DAKOTA HEARING, SEPTEMBER 9, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF WESTERN REGIONAL HEARING, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL HEARING, OCTOBER 14, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, MISSISSIPPI HEARING, OCTOBER 29, 2005
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
ELLEN KATZ—DOCUMENTING DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING: JUDICIAL FINDINGS UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT SINCE 1982. FINAL REPORT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS INITIATIVE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
QUIET REVOLUTION IN THE SOUTH: THE IMPACT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 1965–1990. (Chandler Davidson & Bernard Grofman, eds., 1994)
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
RACE AND REDISTRICTING IN THE 1990S (Bernard Grofman, ed., 1998)
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TEXT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]