![](media/image1.png){width="6.538194444444445in"
height="0.9555555555555556in"}

For immediate release

Oct. 27, 2005

Related story below

Westmoreland: Let section of Voting Rights Act expire

U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) announced today that he will push
his colleagues to drop Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as Congress
undertakes renewal of the landmark legislation.

"Several generations of Georgians, white and black, have worked together
for 40 years to correct our state's history of discrimination and
inequality," Westmoreland said. "We've made tremendous progress in
Georgia and there's no reason in 2005 to single out my state for special
scrutiny when the facts show that we've surpassed many states not
covered by Section 5 in the advancement of political civil rights.

"There is no fact-based argument that Section 5 should apply to Georgia
in the 21^st^ century but not to some other state. None. If Section 5 is
not applied across the board to every state, it should not and must not
apply to Georgia. My state boasts an exemplary record of black
representation in elected office, black voter registration and black
participation in the political process. I challenge anyone to find a
racially diverse state whose representation in elected offices, from
city halls all the way to Congress, better reflects the population than
Georgia."

To illustrate his case, Westmoreland cites these data compiled by
University of Georgia political scientist Charles Bullock and University
of Oklahoma political scientist Keith Gaddie presented to the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution this week :

> In recent presidential elections, black voter registration and
> election participation rates in Georgia exceeded those of whites.
> Black registration and voting in Georgia also exceeds that of blacks
> in states outside the South.
>
> At ever increasing rates, blacks are being elected to public office in
> the state. Between 1973 and 2005, 29 congressional races were won by
> blacks, 13 of them in majority-white districts. Four out of 13 members
> of the state's U.S. House delegation are black -- a uniquely high
> number in proportion to the state's population. Nine of 34 statewide
> office holders in Georgia are black, just short of proportional racial
> representation.
>
> Estimates of racial voting patterns in Georgia congressional races
> held during the 1990s show black candidates polling 30 or more percent
> of the white vote.
>
> White support for black candidates in Georgia today is higher than
> black support for white office-seekers.

"Georgia has come a long way in 40 years and the Voting Rights Act
played a major role in that positive evolution. I support the aims and
achievements of the VRA and will lend my vote to renewal if Section 5 is
allowed to expire or, at the very least, Georgia is taken out of its
jurisdiction."

![](media/image2.png){width="4.166666666666667in" height="0.78125in"}

**Clearing Up 'Pre-Clearance?'**

October 27, 2005\
*By Lauren W. Whittington,\
Roll Call Staff*

**Westmoreland Wants Section 5 of the VRA Eliminated or Applied to All
50 States**

With Congress set to take up renewal of the Voting Rights Act at the
beginning of next year, a quiet battle could be brewing in at least one
Southern delegation over a provision that requires U.S. Justice
Department approval of changes to voting practices in certain states.

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) said Wednesday that he believes Section 5
--- which mandates that states with a documented history of
discrimination have to "pre-clear" any changes to electoral practices
--- should either be struck from the legislation or applied uniformly to
all states.

Either way, the freshman lawmaker believes there is enough tangible
evidence of Georgia's advancement over the past 40 years that the state
no longer merits coverage by the provision.

But that belief is squarely at odds with Democrats in the Peach State
delegation --- including Rep. John Lewis (D), a civil rights movement
icon --- who say it is clear that the state still needs Section 5.

Westmoreland said he plans to begin lobbying his colleagues about the
provision, which currently applies to Georgia and seven other states,
along with portions of six others.

"In 1965, there may have been a need for the Voting Rights Act. I'm sure
there probably was," Westmoreland said, recalling that he was 15 at the
time. "What I do know is that in the last 40 years, Georgia has made
great progress. We've got one of the highest registered black
populations. We have some of the highest black voter turnout of any
state in the union --- those that are under the Voting Rights Act and
those that are not under" it.

Shortly after the VRA was approved, the Supreme Court ruled that Section
5 was constitutional because it was crafted as a temporary measure.

The House Judiciary Committee has already begun oversight hearings on
renewing the VRA, provisions of which do not expire until 2007. A
subcommittee hearing devoted entirely to Section 5 and its "history,
scope and purpose" was held Tuesday.

In making his case for why the section is no longer valid, Westmoreland
argued that there are no set criteria for which states should be covered
and why.

"You look at the states that are under the Voting Rights Act, Arizona is
but New Mexico isn't," he said.

He also believes the measure puts an undue burden on localities, who
have to get Justice Department approval for changing a precinct line or
moving a polling place across the street.

"If it's so good, why not do it for every state?" he said. "Why should
just certain states have to spend the time and money and the energy to
go through pre-clearance for just moving a voter precinct or changing a
precinct line? Why do that?"

Westmoreland, a first-term Congressman and former state legislative
leader, spearheaded the GOP effort to redraw the state's Congressional
boundaries earlier this year. A new map has since been approved by
Justice and will be used for the 2006 elections.

Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.), another freshman, said he would support
expanding Section 5 coverage to other states, but not if it meant
diminished support for the provision overall.

"It's very clear that expanding it could cost some support for
preserving it," Barrow said. "And while I'm not opposed to expanding it,
I am opposed to expanding it if it will cost us the support we need to
preserve it."

Democrats such as Lewis believe that broadening the scope of the
provision would weaken the VRA overall and open it up to constitutional
challenges.

"That would be the death of that section," Lewis said in a recent
interview. "In the final analysis, there will be a consensus that we
should not tamper with the real essence of the act. It's been very, very
effective for the past 40 years. We needed it in '65, and we still need
it in '05."

Barrow pointed to an ongoing legal battle in Georgia as evidence of why
the state still needs Section 5. Earlier this year the Georgia
Legislature passed a law requiring voters to show photo identification
when they go to the polls. The provision was approved by the Justice
Department but recently was struck down in court.

"Our most recent experience shows how important it is that we review
changes to the voting rules to make sure that they're not having adverse
impact on folks, based on where they live or how old they are or how
they've been able to exercise the right to vote for 25 or 30 years,"
Barrow said.\
\
![](media/image3.png){width="0.20833333333333334in"
height="0.15625in"}Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.