VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTION 203—

BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS

(PART I)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 8, 2005

Serial No. 109–83

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTION 203—BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS

(PART I)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–503 PDF 2006

VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTION 203—

BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS

(PART I)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 8, 2005

Serial No. 109–83

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

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 

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. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

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 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Professional Staff Member 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 8, 2005

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution ............................ 1

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ....... 2

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution .......................... 3

The Honorable Melvin L. Watt, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution .............. 4

The Honorable Michael M. Honda, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 6

WITNESSES 

Mr. Bradley J. Schlozman, acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

Ms. Margaret Fung, Executive Director, Asian American Legal Defense and 

Education Fund 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15

Ms. Linda Chavez, President, One Nation Indivisible 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 22

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 24

The Honorable Rebecca Vigil-Giron, Secretary of State, State of New Mexico 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 34

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ........................................................................................................................ 62

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 65

Appendix to the Statement of Bradley J. Schlozman: Copies of Complaints, 

Consent Decrees, and Orders in Enforcement Actions filed by the United 

States under the Language Minority Provisions of the Voting Rights Act 

(Sections 4(e), 4(f)(4), and 203) ........................................................................... 69

Appendix to the Statement of Bradley J. Schlozman: Counties and States 

Covered by Section 203 ........................................................................................ 1304

Appendix to the Statement of Bradley J. Schlozman: Jurisdictions Covered 

Under Section 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as Amended .............. 1305

Appendix to the Statement of Margaret Fung: Lowering the Numerical Trigger to Improve the Effectiveness of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act ...... 1306

Page

IV

Appendix to the Statement of Margaret Fung: Language Access to the Vote 

for Asian Americans: Renew and Expand Section 203 of the Voting Rights 

Act ......................................................................................................................... 1309

Appendix to the Statement of Margaret Fung: The Asian American Vote—

A Report on the AALDEF Multilingual Exit Poll in the 2004 Presidential 

Election ................................................................................................................. 1314

Appendix to the Statement of Margaret Fung: Statement of Margaret Fung, 

Executive Director, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 

before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, June 14, 2005 .... 1334

Submitted for the Record by Mr. Chabot on November 17, 2005: 

Prepared Statement of Jim Boulet, Jr., Executive Director, English First . 1339

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Judy Chu, California Legislature 

Assembly Member ......................................................................................... 1342

Prepared Statement of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California: Submission of Materials for Oversight Hearings ............. 1346

Prepared Statement of Angela M. Arboleda, Civil Rights Policy Analyst, 

National Council of La Raza ........................................................................ 1372

Prepared Statement of the Asian American Justice Center: Submissions 

of Materials for Oversight Hearings ............................................................ 1378

National Congress of American Indians, Resolution #TUL-05-090: Support Reauthorization of Provisions Set to Expire in the Voting Rights 

Act .................................................................................................................. 1403

Prepared Statement of Rogene Gee Calvert before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, April 7, 2005 .............................................. 1406

Prepared Statement of John Lewis, Executive Director, Inter Tribal 

Council of Arizona, before the National Commission on the Voting 

Rights Act, April 7, 2005 .............................................................................. 1414

Prepared Statement of Nadine Cohen, Lawyer’s Committee for Civil 

Rights Under Law of the Boston Bar Association, before the National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, June 14, 2005 ............................... 1420

Prepared Statement of Martin Perez, President, Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey, before the National Commission on the Voting 

Rights Act, June 14, 2005 ............................................................................ 1425

Prepared Statement of Colombina Santiago, Member, New Jersey 

ACORN, before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, 

June 14, 2005 ................................................................................................ 1430

Prepared Statement of EunSook Lee, Executive Director, National Korean American Service and Educational Consortium, before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, September 27, 2005 .......... 1431

Prepared Statement of Conny McCormack, Registrar-Recorder/County 

Clerk, Los Angeles County, before the National Commission on the 

Voting Rights Act, September 27, 2005 ...................................................... 1434

Prepared Statement of Eugene Lee, Staff Attorney, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, before the National Commission on the Voting 

Rights Act, September 27, 2005 ................................................................... 1438

(1)

VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTION 203—

BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS 

(Part I) 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 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. 

This is the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary 

Committee. I would like to welcome everyone for being here today. 

This is the sixth in a series of hearings that the Committee is holding examining the impact and effectiveness of the Voting Rights 

Act over the past 40 years. 

Today and again tomorrow, this Committee will focus on section 

203, the provision authorizing bilingual language assistance to 

American citizens who are members of covered language minority 

groups and who have limited English proficiency. 

Section 203 has not been revisited by Congress since 1992 and, 

like the sections that we have discussed in previous hearings, is set 

to expire in 2007, unless reauthorized. 

I’d like to take a moment again to thank my colleagues for the 

time that they’ve devoted to this issue. I also would like to thank 

our witnesses for being here today. We have another expert panel. 

We’ve been very fortunate thus far in these hearings that we have 

had such experts, and we appreciate you all being here today. 

The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 in response to a history of racial discrimination against some of our Nation’s citizens. 

In 1975, Congress expanded the Voting Rights Act to include section 203 and its companion, section 4(f). 

Section 203 requires certain jurisdictions to provide bilingual 

election assistance—including notices, instructions, information, 

and ballots—to citizens who are members of a designated language 

minority group and who have limited English proficiency. 

As cited in the 1975 House Report, section 203 was added in response to ‘‘an extensive evidentiary record demonstrating the prevalence of voting discrimination and high illiteracy rates among language minorities.’’ This record revealed that similar discrimination 

patterns and practices that had been used to prevent AfricanAmericans from voting were being administered against AsianVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:22 Apr 11, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\110805\24503.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24503
2

Americans, American Indians, Native Alaskans, and citizens of 

Hispanic origin. These citizens are more than likely to live in environments in which the dominant language is other than English. 

Section 203 breaks down these barriers by providing citizens in 

a language minority group with the assistance necessary to participate in the political process. 

Section 203 has enabled an increased number of minority citizens 

to register and cast ballots, as revealed in the last Census and latest election records. Section 203 has also been instrumental in increasing the number of Federal, State, and local elected officials 

who are of Asian-American, Hispanic, Native American, or Native 

Alaskan descent. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the impact that section 203 has had 

on all citizens and on the electoral process, as well as examining 

the continued need for section 203 in the future. We look forward 

to hearing from our witnesses on this topic this afternoon. And I 

now yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, the Ranking Member, for the purpose of making an opening statement. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me 

begin by welcoming our witnesses today, especially my constituent 

and neighbor, Margaret Fung, of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, who has really been in the forefront of 

ensuring that all Americans are able to exercise the franchise. 

Language barriers have long hindered the ability of American 

citizens who are duly qualified to vote to exercise their franchise. 

I hope we are beyond the point where anyone would seriously suggest that any American citizen who is legally entitled to vote 

should be denied that fundamental right. 

There was a time when literacy tests were touted as a necessary 

prerequisite for voting. No one today would try to defend that disgraceful practice. 

I believe that in the future, language barriers that serve only to 

exclude eligible voters from meaningful participation in our democracy will be viewed retroactively in the same way as disgraceful 

memories. 

We are a nation of immigrants. Every group in its time was 

abused and excluded because of different customs, because they 

spoke different languages. And today, as in the past, those intent 

on discrimination would explain that past generations of immigrants are somehow different and better than today’s immigrant 

generation. That hasn’t changed. 

Part of becoming an American is getting involved in our democratic system. It is the common values of freedom and democracy 

that bind this nation together; not facility with the English language. I defy anyone to tell me that my Russian constituents, or 

my Chinese constituents, or my Latin American constituents aren’t 

just as American as those of us whose families arrived here in earlier generations and as our grandparents were. 

These new Americans, if anything, may value the right to vote 

more than some of those who were born here and could be tempted 

to take this right for granted. We are strengthened as a nation by 

doing all we can to help them participate fully in the life of our nation. 

3

There are also native-born Americans who need protection under 

section 203. Native Americans have a perhaps greater claim to 

being American than anyone else in this country; yet their rights 

at the polls have historically been abused. 

The Puerto Rican voters in my city are native-born Americans, 

but the common language of the Commonwealth is Spanish. The 

Puerto Ricans, members of our society, serve in our military and 

our Government and in business. They are no less American than 

anyone else in this room. 

Section 203 is an enforcement mechanism. I hope that our panel 

will help enlighten us as to how the needs have changed over the 

years, and how we can do more to ensure that all Americans can 

exercise their vote in a meaningful manner. 

I thank you, and I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. Would the gentleman from 

Alabama, Mr. Bachus, like to make an opening statement? 

Mr. BACHUS. I have no statement. I will just say that the right 

to vote is actually the right to participate in our democracy. If you 

take away the right to vote—and really, not only the vote, but to 

have your vote counted—and you basically take away the ability to 

participate in electing your Government and in policy decisions and 

whatever. So I can’t think of anything more fundamental to a democracy than the right to vote is. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the 40 years since its passage, the Voting Rights Act has 

guaranteed millions of minority voters the chance to have their 

voices heard and their votes counted. The number of Black elected 

officials has increased from just 300 nationwide in 1964 to over 

9,100 today. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and other discriminatory barriers that once closed the ballot box to Blacks and other minorities 

have been dismantled. 

The process also opened the political process for nearly 6,000 

Latinos who now hold public office, including more than 250 who 

serve at the State or Federal level. 

Section 203 was added to the Voting Rights Act in 1975, and requires certain jurisdictions to make language assistance available 

at polling locations for citizens with limited English proficiency. 

These provisions apply to four language groups. The community 

with one of those language groups will qualify for language assistance if more than 5 percent of the voting-age citizens in a jurisdiction belong to a single language minority community and have limited English proficiency, or LEP, or more than 10,000 voting-age 

citizens in a jurisdiction belong to a single language minority community and are LEP, and the illiteracy rate of the citizens in the 

language minority is higher than the national illiteracy rate. 

Registration and voting materials in all jurisdictions in all elections must be provided in the minority language, as well as in 

English. All translation during all phases of the voting process, 

from voter registration to voting, is also required. Jurisdictions are 

permitted to target their language assistance to specific voting precincts or areas. 

4

It is crucial that everyone in our democracy have the right to 

vote. Yet having the right legally is meaningless if certain groups 

of people are unable to accurately cast their ballots at the poll. 

Voters may be well informed about the issues and candidates, 

but to make sure their vote is accurately counted, language assistance is necessary in certain jurisdictions with concentrated populations of limited English-proficient voters. 

Even though new citizens are required to speak English, they 

still may not be sufficiently fluent to participate fully in the voting 

process without this much needed assistance. Before the language 

assistance provisions were added to the Voting Rights Act in 1975, 

many Spanish-speaking American citizens did not register to vote 

because they could not read the election materials or could not 

communicate with poll workers. Language assistance has encouraged these and other citizens of different language minority groups 

to register and vote and participate more fully in the election process. 

Language assistance is not costly. According to two separate 

GAO studies, as well as independent research conducted by academic scholars, when implemented properly, language assistance 

accounts for only a small fraction of total election costs. The most 

recent studies show that compliance with section 203 accounts for 

approximately 5 percent of total election costs. 

Section 203 and other expiring provisions are essential to ensure 

fairness in our election processes and equal opportunity for minorities in American politics. It’s important that we work together to 

strengthen this provision. 

And I look forward to the testimony that will create the record 

that we need to extend this provision. I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman very much. And the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green, is recognized, if he’d like to. 

Mr. GREEN. I have no opening statement. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Mr. Jenkins, are you interested in making an 

opening statement? 

Mr. JENKINS. Not at this time. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Watt, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll try not to take 5 minutes. I do want to thank the Chairman again for the series of hearings, and thank the Chairman of the full Committee again for his 

commitment to creating a record for reauthorization of the Voting 

Rights Act provisions that are expiring. 

One of those provisions is section 203, which imposes an obligation on certain States and political subdivisions to provide voting 

materials and assistance in languages other than English. This requirement applies to jurisdictions with significant language minority populations who are of limited English proficiency, or where the 

illiteracy rate of that language minority is higher than the national 

literacy average rate. 

I know that our witnesses today will address the origin, operation, and costs of complying with section 203, as well as present 

evidentiary materials to substantiate or refute the need for its continued use. However, I think it’s important to emphasize where 

5

section 203 fits into the Voting Rights Act and into our scheme of 

democracy. 

This is America. We are the most open country in the world, the 

most diverse country in the world. Our population is multicultural, 

consisting of people of various races, ethnicity, and national origin. 

And while I can understand concerns raised by some that this provision might lead to ‘‘Balkanization’’ of America, I do not share that 

view. 

To the contrary, I believe that providing meaningful access to the 

ballot for limited English proficient citizens can only enhance political participation and incentivize hundreds of thousands of Americans to engage more actively into the mainstream of society, while 

retaining their cultural identities. 

Without that access, scores of American citizens will continue to 

feel alienated in the country they call home. It would be ironic if 

during this time where we are pushing cultural tolerance and inclusion that we didn’t—if we didn’t extend this provision of the Voting Rights Act. Citizens of all language minority communities are 

required to pay taxes, abide by the law, cooperate with law enforcement; and many volunteer to serve in the military, notwithstanding their ability to speak English, or speak English well. 

Section 203 fosters civic responsibility by making the opportunity 

to be heard by Government officials at all levels available to all 

Americans, including those Americans who are distinguished only 

by their inability to speak fluent English; not by their contributions 

to, and sacrifices on behalf of, this country. 

Section 203 completes the purpose of the Voting Rights Act to ensure full participation in the electoral process by any American, 

without regard to race, ethnicity, or membership in a language minority group. It’s vital to our democracy that all our citizens who 

shoulder the burdens of citizenship also share in the benefits of 

citizenship on a non-discriminatory basis, and I believe that section 

203 makes this possible. 

I would just add, outside the framework of my prepared comments, Mr. Chairman, that one of the wonderful things that I still 

have posted in my home is the ballot that was used in the first 

elections in South Africa. It wasn’t in different languages, but the 

ballot had pictures of the people who were running for office and 

the party symbols, for people who couldn’t read at all. It was to 

give them the ability to be able to participate fully, as well as people who could read. 

And it just seems to me that this section 203 provision is of that 

same kind of philosophy, to encourage participation, enhance participation, allow people who may not have all of the conveniences 

or skills of speaking English to participate fully. They are American citizens, they are United States citizens, and they should be 

allowed to vote just like anybody else is. 

So I encourage—appreciate the witnesses being here, and thank 

the Chairman for this hearing, and yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Feeney, I understand you do not need to make an opening statement; is that correct? 

Mr. FEENEY. Yes. 

6

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you. I would note the presence on the 

panel here of three other distinguished Members of the House, although the three are not Members of this particular Committee: 

Mr. Honda from California, Ms. Sa ́nchez from California, and Mr. 

Scott from Georgia. 

We’ve extended the privilege of giving each of these Members 5 

minutes, which they can use for making an opening statement or 

asking questions. It’s my understanding that Mr. Honda would 

make an opening statement, and Ms. Sa ́nchez and Mr. Scott would 

use that time for questions. Is that correct? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. [Nods affirmatively.] 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Yes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. So Mr. Honda, you are recognized for the 

purpose of making an opening statement. Better make it a good 

one. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate this opportunity. Chairman, Ranking Member Nadler, and Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to make this opening 

statement at this important hearing on the Voting Rights Act. 

Earlier this year, I had the honor of being with our distinguished 

colleague, Congressman John Lewis, and others in Alabama, to 

commemorate the 40th anniversary of ‘‘Bloody Sunday.’’ On that 

day in March 1965, on a bridge outside of Selma, Alabama, the 

civil rights movement continued its unwavering steps forward. 

Civil rights activists, led by Dr. King, took to the streets in a 

peaceful protest for voting rights for African-Americans. They were 

met with clubs and violence. The terrible event helped the Nation, 

however, to understand what was at stake. 

What were these non-violent activists seeking? We all know that 

the cornerstone of our Government is based on the right to vote. 

Voting is the most basic and vital tool Americans have to shape our 

Government’s policies. 

I’m here to underscore the point that the right to vote is keenly 

felt by the Asian- and Pacific-American community. Chinese-Americans could not vote until the Chinese Exclusion Acts of 1882 and 

1892 were repealed in 1943. First-generation Japanese-Americans 

could not vote until 1952, because of the racial restrictions contained in a 1790 naturalization law. 

We are here today reviewing section 203 of the Act, which has 

been vital to the APIA community’s ability to participate in the 

electoral process. Language-minority citizens were often denied 

needed assistance at the polls. In the 1975 amendments to the Voting Rights Act, such an assistance became required in certain situations. 

I’m looking forward to hearing from our distinguished panel 

today. I am especially looking forward to the important testimony 

from Margaret Fung, Executive Director of the Asian American 

Legal Defense and Education Fund. The work of Ms. Fung and 

AALDEF has been instrumental in increasing civic participation 

among APIAs. The record of evidence established by AALDEF will 

clearly show the importance of section 203 and related provisions. 

And Mr. Chairman, since I don’t think I took 5 minutes yet, very 

quickly, as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara 

County, we had the critical number of folks needed to have a ChiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:22 Apr 11, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\110805\24503.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24503
7

nese ballot. And the young people used to complain that they had 

to explain things to their parents for them to be able to vote with 

some comprehension. 

After we passed the bilingual ballot for Chinese in our county, 

the participation of Chinese went up 11 percent. And the complaints of the young people went up, also; because they said that 

their parents didn’t need them any more for translation. And this 

just depicts the importance of what I call inclusion; an inclusion 

that allows all people with different language backgrounds who 

want to participate as citizens in this country to perform—to have 

a more perfect union; participate. 

And so comprehension and knowledge are essential for an informed decision. Whether you speak English fluently or not, if 

you’re citizens, you should not be denied the ability to cast your 

ballot with comprehension, with knowledge. I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. 

I’d like to introduce the panel at this time. Before I do that, I 

would make note that, without objection, all Members will have 5 

legislative days to submit additional materials for the record. 

As I say, we have a very distinguished panel this afternoon. Our 

first witness will be the Honorable Bradley J. Schlozman, the Acting Attorney General for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Justice. As the Acting Attorney General, Mr. Schlozman is 

responsible for enforcing all Federal civil rights statutes, including 

those that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion, and nation of origin, in education, housing, credit, 

public accommodation, voting, and certain federally funded and 

conducted programs. 

Prior to assuming his duties as Acting Attorney General, Mr. 

Schlozman served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General, directing 

supervising the Criminal, Voting, Employment, and Special Litigation Sections of the Civil Rights Division. 

Mr. Schlozman is a former law clerk to Judge G. Thomas Van 

Bebber, Chief U.S. District Judge for the District of Kansas; and 

U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit. 

We welcome you back this afternoon, Mr. Schlozman. 

Our second witness will be Ms. Margaret Fung. Ms. Fung currently serves as the Executive Director of the Asian American 

Legal Defense and Education Fund, AALDEF. In her work with 

AALDEF, Ms. Fung has successfully defended the civil rights of 

members of the Asian-American community nationwide in areas 

such as housing, voting, and economic justice for workers. 

In 1986, in Chinese Staff and Workers Association v. City of New 

York, Ms. Fung successfully argued that the impact of new development on low-income tenants and small businesses must be considered under State environmental laws. 

In 1988, Ms. Fung organized AALDEF’s first exit poll of AsianAmerican voters in New York City; and in 1992, testified before the 

full House Judiciary Committee on the need to continue section 

203. 

8

Ms. Fung also testified before the New York State Legislative 

Taskforce for Demographic Research and Reapportionment in 2001, 

presenting information on the dilutive impact that previous redistricting plans had on language-minority voters. 

Ms. Fung serves on the board of directors of the National Asian 

Pacific American Legal Consortium, the National Association of 

Public Interest Law, the National Committee on Responsive Philanthropy, and as an advisor in the rebuilding of the World Trade 

Center. I welcome back Ms. Fung. 

And our third witness will be Ms. Linda Chavez, President of 

One Nation Indivisible. In addition to her work with One Nation 

Indivisible, Ms. Chavez serves as President of the Center for Equal 

Opportunity, is a Fox News political analyst, and hosts a nationally-syndicated daily radio show on Liberty Broadcasting. 

Ms. Chavez previously held a number of political appointments, 

including Chairwoman of the National Commission on Migrant 

Education, from 1988 to ’92; White House Director of Public Liaison, in 1985; staff director for the United States Commission on 

Civil Rights, from 1983 to 1985; and was a member of the Administrative Conference of the United States, from 1984 to 1986. 

Ms. Chavez is the author of a number of award-winning publications, including ‘‘Out of the Barrio: Toward a New Politics of Hispanic Assimilation,’’ and her memoir ‘‘An Unlikely Conservative: 

The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal.’’ We welcome you here, Ms. 

Chavez. 

Our fourth and final witness will be Ms. Rebecca Vigil-Giron. Ms. 

Vigil-Giron currently serves as the Secretary of State for the State 

of New Mexico, the State’s Chief Election Officer; and is an ex officio member of the New Mexico Public Employees Retirement 

Board. As Secretary of State and chief elections officer, she is the 

highest-ranking elected Hispanic woman State official to currently 

serve in the United States. 

In addition, Ms. Vigil-Giron serves as President of the National 

Association of Secretaries of State, where she has been a leader in 

election reform. 

Ms. Vigil-Giron played an instrumental role in the development 

and enactment of the Help America Vote Act, HAVA; and is a 

member of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Standards 

Board, and Board of Advisors, and EAC’s Working Group for Statewide Data-Based Voter Registration Systems. 

Ms. Vigil-Giron is the recipient of many honors and awards for 

her work in Government. We welcome you here this afternoon, Ms. 

Vigil-Giron. 

And for those who may not have testified before the Committee, 

we have what’s called the 5-minute rule. Each of you will have 5 

minutes to testify. We have a lighting system: the green light will 

be on for 4 minutes; the yellow light comes on, lets you know you 

have 1 minute to wrap up; the red light comes on, and we’d appreciate it if you’d wrap up your testimony about that time, if at all 

possible. I won’t gavel you down immediately. We’ll give you a little 

leeway, but we hope you’ll stay within the 5 minutes as much as 

possible. 

9

It’s also the practice of this Committee to swear in all witnesses 

appearing before it. So if you would, please rise and raise your 

right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. CHABOT. All witnesses have indicated in the affirmative. 

And we again welcome you here this afternoon. Mr. Schlozman, 

we’ll begin with you. You’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF BRADLEY J. SCHLOZMAN, ACTING ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. SCHLOZMAN. Chairman Chabot, Ranking Member Nadler, 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for 

the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Let me say at the beginning that, as I underscored in my testimony a couple of weeks ago, the President has directed the full 

power and might of the Justice Department to enforcing the Voting 

Rights Act and to preserving the integrity of our voting process. 

The Administration continues to look forward to working with Congress on the reauthorization of this important legislation. 

It’s my privilege this morning to provide you with an overview 

of the Justice Department’s enforcement of the language minority 

provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The language minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which have been in effect since 

1975, are found in sections 203 and 4(f)(4) of the Act. 

These provisions mandate that covered jurisdictions which provide any registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or information relating to the electoral 

process, including ballots, must provide such information and materials in the language of the applicable minority group, as well as 

in the English language. 

Now, the determination of which States or political subdivisions 

are subject to the dictates of the Voting Rights Act minority language requirements is based on a formula that the Census Bureau 

data invokes regarding ethnicity figures, English proficiency rates, 

and literacy rates. 

The only language minority groups that are covered under these 

provisions are American Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaskan Natives, and citizens of Spanish heritage. Currently, there are a total 

of 496 jurisdictions that are subject to the requirements of either 

section 203 or section 4(f)(4). 

And I’ve put together some charts here on the placards, and I believe each of the Members was given a copy. And if you haven’t 

been, then we can make that available to you, as well. 

Under the Bush Administration, the Justice Department’s Civil 

Rights Division has undertaken the most extensive section 203 and 

4(f)(4) enforcement activity in history. The initiative began immediately following the Census Bureau’s July 2002 determinations as 

to which jurisdictions were covered under section 203. 

The Civil Rights Division not only mailed formal notice and detailed information on section 203 compliance to each of the 296 covered jurisdictions across the country, but it also initiated face-toface meetings with State and local election officials and minority 

community members in the 80 newly covered jurisdictions, to exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:22 Apr 11, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\110805\24503.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24503
10

plain the law, answer questions, and work to foster the implementation of effective legal compliance programs. 

I’ve undergone many of these outreach activities myself, and 

traveled a good distance to encourage individuals and communities 

to comply vigorously with the law. 

In addition, the division’s Voting Section has been systematically 

requesting voter registration lists and bilingual poll official assignment data from all covered jurisdictions, beginning with the largest 

in terms of population. The lists are then reviewed to identify polling places with a large number of minority-language voters, and to 

ascertain whether the polling places are served by a sufficient 

number of bilingual poll officials who can provide the assistance to 

new voters. 

Not surprisingly, the extraordinary efforts of our division have 

borne substantial fruit. Since 2001, this Administration has filed 

more minority language cases under sections 4 and 203 than in the 

previous 26 years in which these provisions have been applicable. 

Each and every case has been successfully resolved, with comprehensive relief for affected voters. 

And the pace is accelerating, with more cases filed in 2005 than 

in any previous year. We’ve already broken the previous record 

that was set in 2004. The lawsuits filed in 2004 alone provided 

comprehensive minority language programs to more citizens than 

all previous section 203 and 4(f)(4) suits combined. 

We’ve had suits in Florida, California, Massachusetts, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. And among these cases 

were the first suits ever filed under section 203 to protect Filipino 

and Vietnamese voters. 

The lawsuits discussed have significantly narrowed gaps in electoral participation. In Yakima County, Washington, for example, 

Hispanic voter registration is up over 24 percent since the division’s section 203 lawsuit. In San Diego County, Spanish and Filipino registrations are up over 21 percent, and Vietnamese registration is up over 37 percent since the division’s enforcement action. 

These language enforcement efforts have made a tremendous difference in enhancing minority representation in politically elected 

ranks. The Civil Rights Division is extraordinarily proud of its accomplishments, and we look forward to continuous vigorous enforcement of these provisions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schlozman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRADLEY J. SCHLOZMAN

Chairman Chabot, Ranking Member Nadler, distinguished members of the Subcommittee: 

I am Brad Schlozman, the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights 

Division at the Department of Justice. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you again today. As I underscored in my prior testimony two weeks ago, the 

President has directed the full power and might of the Justice Department to enforce the Voting Rights Act and to preserve the integrity of our voting process. This 

Administration looks forward to working with Congress on the reauthorization of 

this important legislation. 

It is my privilege this morning to provide you with an overview of the Justice Department’s enforcement of the language minority sections of the Voting Rights Act. 

As you know, these provisions, like Section 5, are due to expire in August 2007. 

The minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which have been in 

effect since 1975, are found in Sections 203 and 4(f)(4) of the Act. These provisions 

mandate that any covered jurisdiction which ‘‘provides any registration or voting noVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:22 Apr 11, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CONST\110805\24503.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24503
11

1Section 203(c), 42 U.S.C. 1973aa–1a(c). 

2Section 203(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 1973aa–1a(b)(2)(A). 

3Section 4(f)(3–4), 42 U.S.C. 1973c(3–4). Essentially, Section 4(f)(4) applies the 1972 Section 

5 coverage trigger to language translation obligations. 4Section 203(e), 42 U.S.C. 1973aa–1a(e). 

5There are 296 jurisdictions throughout the United States covered by Section 203. There are 

approximately 298 jurisdictions covered by Section 4(f)(4). Some coverage overlaps, which explains the 496 figure in the text above. 6Fourteen of the 27 minority language cases filed by the Department of Justice since the 

adoption of Sections 203 and 4(f)(4) have been commenced since 2001. 

tices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or information relating to 

the electoral process, including ballots’’ must provide such materials and information ‘‘in the language of the applicable minority group as well as in the English language.’’ 1

The determination of which States or political subdivisions are subject to the dictates of the Voting Rights Act’s minority language requirements is based on a formula that utilizes Census Bureau data regarding ethnicity figures, English proficiency rates, and literacy rates. Section 203, for example, is triggered if, in a particular jurisdiction: (i) more than 5% of the citizen voting age population, or 10,000 

citizens of voting age, are members of a single language minority, and (ii) the illiteracy rate of the citizens in the language minority group is higher than the national 

illiteracy rate. 2 With respect to Section 4(f)(4), a jurisdiction is subject to the translation obligations if: (i) less than 50% of the citizen voting age population was either 

registered to vote, or actually voted, in the November 1972 presidential election, (ii) 

the jurisdiction provided certain specified election materials exclusively in English 

in November 1972, and (iii) more than 5% of the citizen voting age population in 

November 1972, as determined by the then-latest available Census Bureau figures, 

were members of a single language minority. 3 The only language minority groups 

covered under Sections 4(f)(4) and 203 are American Indians, Asian Americans, 

Alaskan Natives, and citizens of Spanish heritage. 4 Currently, there are a total of 

496 jurisdictions that are subject to the requirements of either Section 203 or Section 4(f)(4). 5

Under the Bush Administration, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division 

has undertaken the most extensive Section 203 and Section 4(f)(4) enforcement activity in its history. The initiative began immediately following the Census Bureau’s 

July 2002 determinations (using 2000 Census data) as to which jurisdictions were 

covered under Section 203. The Civil Rights Division not only mailed formal notice 

and detailed information on Section 203 compliance to each of the 296 covered jurisdictions across the United States, but it also initiated face-to-face meetings with 

State and local election officials and minority community members in the 80 newly 

covered jurisdictions to explain the law, answer questions, and work to foster the 

implementation of effective legal compliance programs. 

In addition, the Division’s Voting Section has been systematically requesting voter 

registration lists and bilingual poll official assignment data from all covered jurisdictions, beginning with the largest in terms of population. These lists are then reviewed in order to identify polling places with a large number of minority language 

voters, and to ascertain whether the polling places are served by a sufficient number 

of bilingual poll officials who can provide assistance to voters. 

The Division also is systematically looking at the full range of information provided by covered jurisdictions to voters in English—not just the ballot and election 

pamphlets themselves, but also newspaper notices required by State law, web site 

information, and other election materials—and determining whether: (i) the same 

information is being made available to each minority language community, and (ii) 

the translated materials are actually provided in polling places. 

In August 2004, the Assistant Attorney General mailed letters to the 496 jurisdictions covered by Sections 203 and/or 4(f)(4) reminding them of their obligations to 

provide minority language assistance in the November 2004 general election, and 

offering them guidance on how to achieve compliance. Ironically, the 2004 mailing 

to the Section 4(f)(4) counties was the first blanket mailing to these political subdivisions since shortly after their original designations as covered jurisdictions in 1975. 

Not surprisingly, the extraordinary efforts undertaken by the Civil Rights Division in this area have borne abundant fruit. Indeed, since 2001, this Administration 

has filed more minority language cases under Sections 4 and 203 than in the entire 

previous 26 years in which these provisions have been applicable. 6 Each and every 

case has been successfully resolved with comprehensive relief for affected voters. 

And the pace is accelerating, with more cases filed and resolved in 2005 than in 

any previous year, breaking the previous record set in 2004. The lawsuits filed in 

12

2004 alone provided comprehensive minority language programs to more citizens 

than all previous Section 203 and 4(f)(4) suits combined. 

The enforcement actions include cases in Florida, California, Massachusetts, New 

York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. Among these cases were the first suits 

ever filed under Section 203 to protect Filipino and Vietnamese voters. 

The Civil Rights Division recognizes of course that States and municipalities do 

not have unlimited budgets, and we have thus designed our enforcement strategy 

to minimize unnecessary costs for local election officials. For example, the Division 

urges covered jurisdictions to avoid costly and unhelpful expenditures such as publishing Spanish language notices in English language newspapers that are not read 

by those who rely on the Spanish language. Election officials are instead encouraged 

to identify the most effective and efficient channels of communication that are used 

by private enterprise, service providers, tribal governments, and the like to get information effectively to the language minority community at low cost. In a similar 

vein, the Division encourages the use of fax and e-mail ‘‘information trees,’’ whereby 

bilingual election notices are sent at no cost to a wide array of businesses, unions, 

social and fraternal organizations, service providers, churches and other organizations with a request that these entities make announcements or otherwise disseminate the information to their membership’s language minority voters. And the Division has incorporated ‘‘best practices’’ from around the country to help jurisdictions 

recruit sufficient numbers of bilingual poll workers. 

I might add at this point that the Civil Rights Division’s protection of minority 

language voters has not been limited to those individuals residing in jurisdictions 

covered under Sections 203 and 4(f)(4). The Division has also used Sections 2 and 

208 of the Voting Rights Act to protect the rights of Hispanic, Chinese, Vietnamese, 

and Haitian voters from disparate treatment, and we have aggressively monitored 

and obtained additional relief to protect Arab American and Native American voters. In fact, from the time the Bush Administration began in 2001, the Civil Rights 

Division has filed three of the only four Section 208 cases brought in the history 

of the Voting Act, and the Division initiated first-ever Section 2 case to protect Vietnamese voters in Boston, Massachusetts. 

The lawsuits discussed above have significantly narrowed gaps in electoral participation. In Yakima County, Washington, for example, Hispanic voter registration 

is up over 24% since the Division’s Section 203 lawsuit. In San Diego County, California, Spanish and Filipino registration are up over 21%, and Vietnamese registration is up over 37% since the Division’s enforcement action. 

The Division’s minority language enforcement efforts likewise have made a tremendous difference in enhancing minority representation in the politically elected 

ranks. A Section 203 lawsuit in Passaic, New Jersey, was so successful for Hispanic 

voters that a Section 2 challenge to the at-large election system was subsequently 

withdrawn. A Memorandum of Agreement in Harris County, Texas, helped double 

Vietnamese voter turnout, and the first Vietnamese candidate in history was elected 

to the Texas legislature—defeating the incumbent chair of the appropriations Committee by 16 votes out of over 40,000 cast. 

I would be remiss if I did not state for the record that none of these accomplishments would have been possible without both the tremendous emphasis placed on 

this issue by President Bush, and the extraordinary enforcement program developed 

by the chief of the Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section, John Tanner. Mr. Tanner 

has logged hundreds of thousands of miles and spent countless hours away from his 

family developing, implementing, and refining our Section 203 program. We all owe 

him a debt of gratitude for his work. 

Let me say in conclusion that the Civil Rights Division made the vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act’s language minority requirements one of its primary 

missions. I think everyone would agree that we have been enormously successful in 

this task. Naturally, the real beneficiaries of our work have been the millions of 

American citizens who desire to be full participants in our electoral process despite 

their lack of English proficiency. 

At this point, I would be happy to answer any additional questions from the Committee.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Fung, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MARGARET FUNG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ASIAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND 

Ms. FUNG. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Margaret Fung, and I am Executive DiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:22 Apr 11, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\110805\24503.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24503
13

rector of the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund. 

AALDEF is a 31-year-old organization based in New York City that 

promotes the civil rights of Asian-Americans through litigation, advocacy, and community education. 

For over a decade, we’ve monitored elections on a regular basis 

for compliance with section 203 of the Federal Voting Rights, and 

we’ve seen that section 203 is a success story. Our most recent election monitoring efforts, in 2004, were conducted in eight States, in 

which we polled 11,000 Asian-American voters and found that they 

were using bilingual ballots and assistance. 

I’m glad to speak today about the significance of section 203 because 13 years ago, when I came before the Subcommittee on Civil 

and Constitutional Rights, there was no numerical trigger of 10,000 

or more language minority citizens. I argued for the establishment 

of this alternative numerical trigger because large concentrations 

of Asian-Americans in urban areas, such as New York City and Los 

Angeles, would otherwise not have been covered under the existing 

5 percent threshold. 

And at that time, in New York, no Asian-American had ever 

been elected to Congress, to the New York State Legislature, or to 

the New York City Council—after 100 years of residing in New 

York City. 

We found in our exit polls that four out of five voters in AsianAmerican neighborhoods—in New York City, Manhattan, and in 

Flushing, Queens—that four out of five did not speak or read much 

English; and that they would vote more often if bilingual assistance 

were provided. 

Well, there was wide bipartisan support in Congress in 1992 to 

expand section 203 to include an alternative numerical benchmark 

of 10,000. And as a result, over 200,000 Asian-Americans nationwide, in ten counties in California, Hawaii, and New York became 

eligible to receive language assistance under section 203. 

After the Census 2000, expanding language assistance now 

reaches over 672,000 Asian-Americans, residing in 16 counties, in 

seven States, with some jurisdictions providing more than one 

Asian language. 

The Asian population remains one of the fastest-growing communities of color in the United States. Asian citizens of voting age 

numbered 3.9 million in 1996; they are now 6.7 million in 2004. 

Asian-American voter turnout has also been steadily increasing, 

from 1.7 million in 1996, to nearly 3 million in 2004. 

In New York City, we’ve also seen some important gains in 

Asian-American electoral representation. New York City now has 

its first Asian-American City Council member, John Liu, and it has 

its first Asian-American member of the New York State Assembly, 

who was elected only in 2004. They were both elected in Queens 

County, one of the three covered jurisdictions in New York City 

covered under section 203. 

In California, the State with the largest Asian-American population, there were no Asian-Americans serving on the State legislature in 1990; now there are nine. In Houston, Texas, the first Vietnamese-American, Hubert Vo, was elected to the State legislature 

in 2004, within years after Vietnamese was required under section 

203 for Harris County, Texas. 

14

Unfortunately, voter discrimination still does exist against AsianAmericans. We monitored poll sites, and in one Queens neighborhood in Jackson Heights, New York, in 2004, we heard one poll inspector say, ‘‘You Oriental guys are taking too long to vote.’’ He 

told one of our monitors, ‘‘Why don’t you tell your people to hurry 

up?’’

At that poll site, there was also a Chinese-American voter who 

asked for language assistance, and he was directed to a Korean interpreter, who obviously couldn’t help. 

In Annandale, Virginia, Poe Middle School, a poll worker told a 

Laotian-American voter, ‘‘Your name is the longest I’ve ever seen.’’ 

That voter felt so uncomfortable, he reported it to one of our monitors. 

And in Edison, New Jersey, where the Justice Department has 

today sent observers and attorneys, we complained about the treatment of Asian-American voters. There was a Korean-American candidate who was running for mayor of Edison. He was the subject 

of a lot of anti-Asian remarks by talk radio hosts. And the Justice 

Department observers found that some Gujarati- and Hindi-speaking voters appeared, and they were told by poll workers, ‘‘Go to the 

nearest gas station.’’

So there’s still much more to be done. One way in which section 

203 could be improved would be to lower the trigger, the numerical 

trigger, to at least 7,500. That would pick up a large sector of the 

Asian-American population that is currently excluded, the Southeast Asian community, which includes Americans from Vietnam, 

Cambodia, and Laos. This is the group that continues to have high 

levels of limited English proficiency and low levels of educational 

attainment; which are the very characteristics that the citizens of 

Congress—characteristics of citizens that Congress intended to protect under section 203. 

The Voting Rights Act has been called one of the most effective 

pieces of civil rights legislation in American history. For AsianAmericans, section 203 is the provision that most directly removes 

barriers to voting. 

It enables the Asian-American community to participate effectively in the electoral process. And at a time when the Voting 

Rights Act is beginning to have real significance for our community, we hope that section 203 will be reauthorized, and also expanded. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fung follows:]

15

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARGARET FUNG


Fung0001.eps
16


Fung0002.eps
17


Fung0003.eps
18


Fung0004.eps
19


Fung0005.eps
20


Fung0006.eps
21


Fung0007.eps
22

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Chavez, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF LINDA CHAVEZ, PRESIDENT,

ONE NATION INDIVISIBLE 

Ms. CHAVEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nadler, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am Linda Chavez. I am 

President of One Nation Indivisible, and President of the Center 

for Equal Opportunity. 

First of all, let me just apologize in advance, that I will have to 

leave this meeting at 3:15. So I’m hoping to be here for your questions. If not, my General Counsel is here to address some of the 

issues I’m going to talk about. 

I’d also like to say that in that very long and generous introduction, Chairman Chabot, that you gave, only one item was missing. 

And I will mention it here because it is relevant to some of what 

I’m going to discuss. And that is that, from 1972 to 1974, I was a 

member of the Judiciary Committee staff, working on the House 

Constitutional and Civil Rights Subcommittee. 

And it is relevant because that was, in fact, the period in which 

section 203 was, in fact, being drafted and discussed. And so I will 

talk about that in just one moment. 

First of all, let me just say at the outset that the Voting Rights 

Act is the most important and the most successful civil rights law 

enacted in the United States. It has done an enormous world of 

good to enfranchise literally millions of Americans who had been 

disenfranchised for decades; indeed, with respect to African-Americans, from the passage of the 15th amendment forward. 

Nonetheless, I am going to sound a discordant note at the hearing today, and tell you that I am opposed to extension of section 

203. I have submitted written testimony which I hope will be included in the record in full. And in that testimony, I give four basic 

reasons why I believe section 203 should not be reauthorized. 

The first is that I believe it helps move the Nation toward ‘‘Balkanization’’ into separate ethnic groups. The second reason is that 

I believe it is both wasteful and expensive—wasteful in the sense 

that it is not widely used, even where it is available. Third, that 

it facilitates fraud. And fourth, and I believe most importantly, unconstitutional; and that is where I’m going to devote my remarks 

now. 

And this is why I bring up my history on this civil rights subcommission. At the beginning, Chairman Chabot, you mentioned 

that there had been an extensive evidentiary record for the establishment of the necessity for bilingual election requirements under 

the law. In fact, that is not the case. And a clear reading of the 

House Judiciary Committee proceedings in 1975 I think will demonstrate that. 

I have written about this extensively in my book, ‘‘Out of the 

Barrio’’; as has Abigail Thernstrom, the Vice Chairman of the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights, in her book, ‘‘Whose Votes Count?: Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights.’’

Now, I say that there was not an extensive evidentiary hearing 

on this issue because, in fact, MALDEF, which was the leading promoter of the bilingual ballot requirements, in fact, came and met 

23

with the Judiciary Committee and Judiciary Committee staff, as 

did the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and other groups. 

And I can tell you that while I was present and a member of this 

staff, the position of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the 

Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, the Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, was all opposed to inclusion of a bilingual voting mechanism in the extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1975. And that is clear in the evidentiary record. 

They were opposed to it because, in fact, discrimination against 

Hispanics, who were the primary beneficiaries of this legislation 

when passed—while there was scattered and sporadic discrimination, it was nothing comparable to the discrimination that Blacks 

faced in the Deep South in those covered jurisdictions that became 

part of the Act in 1965 in the temporary provisions. 

In fact, at the time that the provision was enacted, there were 

two sitting U.S. governors who are Hispanic: Governor Raul Castro 

of Arizona, and Jerry Apidacca of New Mexico. In addition, five 

Members of the Congress, whose districts became included under 

this provision under the assumption that there was a denial of the 

right to vote, were also elected at that time. 

There was also an opposition to this measure by the State legislature of the State of New Mexico, which noted that representation 

and voting in predominantly Hispanic districts in New Mexico was 

in fact the most extensive in the State. 

I believe that under the 14th and 15th amendments of the Constitution, one must show either a denial of equal opportunity, denial of due process, or one must show discriminatory practices; and 

that in the case of language minorities in 1975, that evidentiary 

record simply is lacking. Therefore, I believe that there is neither 

a legal basis nor an evidentiary record that would support extension of this Act. 

That is not to say that States could not, of their own accord, decide to provide language minorities ballots in their own languages; 

nor is it to say that those persons who are eligible to vote, who are 

citizens, and who lack proficiency in English, should not be provided assistance. 

The question is what form that assistance should take, and 

whose responsibility it is to provide that assistance; whether it 

should be congressionally mandated, or whether this should be a 

voluntary act; whether it should be the printing of ballots and 

other materials in other languages, or whether it should be 

through other methods, including oral assistance. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chavez follows:]

24

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA CHAVEZ


LC0001.eps
25


LC0002.eps
26


LC0003.eps
27


LC0004.eps
28


LC0005.eps
29


LC0006.eps
30


LC0007.eps
31


LC0008.eps
32


LC0009.eps
33


LC0010.eps
34

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Ms. Vigil-Giron. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE REBECCA VIGIL-GIRON, 

SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, distinguished 

Members of the Committee, thank you for your invitation to address you today. 

My name is Rebecca Vigil-Giron. I currently serve as Secretary 

of State for New Mexico, and Chief Elections Official, as well. I am 

Past President—just turned over the reins to the new President—

of the National Association of Secretaries of State. And I’m also a 

proud member of the National Association of Latino Elected and 

Appointed Officials, better known as NALEAO. 

I am here to express my strong support for the reauthorization 

of section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. New Mexico’s experience 

with section 203 is an enduring validation of the Act’s importance 

to voter participation. New Mexico has the distinction of being the 

only State in the Union to adopt two official languages in its State 

constitution: English and Spanish. 

New Mexico is home to half of the Navajo Nation, the largest Indian tribe and reservation in the United States. It is the dwelling 

place of the Jicarilla and Mescalero Apache Nations, and 19 Pueblo 

Indian tribes. 

On a per capita basis, New Mexico still has the largest Hispanic 

population in the United States, 42 percent. The Native-American 

population in New Mexico is 10 percent. 

The 19 Pueblo Indian nations in New Mexico speak five distinctly different languages. They are Tiwa, Tewa, Towa, Zuni, and 

Keres. 

Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act is the legal foundation of 

our ability to protect the voting rights of Native-Americans and 

Hispanic-Americans who speak another language besides English. 

In 1987, I established the first Native-American election information program in the secretary of State’s office. This division of my 

office is responsible for assisting all the Indian tribes in New Mexico with every aspect of our elections. Television and radio spots inform the public, in English, Spanish, and Navajo languages, on 

issues ranging from voter registration, rules, and deadlines, to 

early voting, absentee, and provisional voting. 

Total voter turnout in the 2004 presidential election increased by 

over 26 percent over the election of 2000. About 70 percent of all 

registered New Mexicans voted in the presidential election. San 

Ildefonso Pueblo voted 75 percent; Jemez Pueblo voted 78 percent; 

Sandia Pueblo voted 83 percent. This rate of success would not 

have been possible without the language provisions of the Voting 

Rights Act. 

Are we better off than we were 40 years ago? I know that the 

answer is ‘‘Yes.’’ However, it would be a serious mistake to underestimate the tenacious grip of racism that is always working 

against minorities in our country. 

On August the 6th, 1965, when the Voting Rights Act was signed 

into law by President Johnson, a new era of civil rights began in 

our country. I hope that our Congress today will continue that traVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:22 Apr 11, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\110805\24503.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24503
35

dition. It is a worthy goal for all of us, and one that we can be 

proud to fight for. 

At the end of this hearing, I will be more than happy to answer 

any of your questions. And this is not a complete testimony. I will 

be submitting more testimony for you all in the future, to be submitted within the 5-day period. 

Again, I want to thank you for your invitation to participate in 

this hearing, and thank you for your service to our country. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vigil-Giron follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE REBECCA VIGIL-GIRON

Good afternoon. 

Mr. Chairman; distinguished members of the committee; thank you for your invitation to address you today. 

My name is Rebecca Vigil-Giron. 

I currently serve as Secretary of State for New Mexico and I am Past President 

of the National Association of Secretaries of State. 

I am here to express my strong support for the re-authorization of Section 203 

of the Voting Rights Act. 

New Mexico’s experience with Section 203 is an enduring validation of the act’s 

importance to voter participation. 

New Mexico has the distinction of being the only state in the union to adopt two 

official languages in it’s state constitution, English and Spanish. 

New Mexico is home to half of the Navajo Nation, the largest Indian tribe and 

reservation in the United States. 

It is the dwelling place of the Jicarilla and Mescalero Apache Nations and 19 

Pueblo Indian tribes. 

On a per capita basis, New Mexico still has the largest Hispanic population in 

the United States; 42 percent. 

The Native American population in New Mexico is 10 percent. 

The 19 Pueblo Indian Nations in New Mexico speak 5 distinctly different languages. They are Tiwa, Tewa, Towa, Zuni and Keres. 

Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act is the legal foundation of our ability to protect the voting rights of Native Americans and Hispanic Americans who speak another language besides English. 

In 1987, I established the first Native American Election Information Program in 

the Secretary of States Office. 

This Division of my office is responsible for assisting all the Indian tribes in New 

Mexico with every aspect of our elections. 

Television and radio spots informed the public in English, Spanish and Navajo 

languages on issues ranging from voter registration rules and deadlines, to early 

voting, absentee and provisional voting. 

Total voter turnout in the 2004 presidential election increased by over 26 percent 

over the election of 2000. 

About 70 percent of all registered New Mexicans voted in the presidential election. 

San Ildefonso Pueblo voted 75 percent. Jemez Pueblo voted 78 percent. 

Sandia Pueblo voted 83 percent. 

This rate of success would not have been possible without the language provisions 

of the Voting Rights Act. 

Are we better off than we were 40 years ago? 

I think the answer is yes. 

However, it would be a serious mistake to underestimate the tenacious grip of racism that is always working against minorities in our country. 

On August 6, 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was signed into law by President 

Johnson, a new era of civil rights began in our country. 

I hope that our Congress today will continue that tradition. 

It is a worthy goal for all of us and one that we can be proud to fight for. 

Again, thank you for your invitation to participate in this hearing, and thank you 

for your service to our country.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank 

you, all of the witnesses. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

36

And Mr. Schlozman, I’ll start with you, if I can. How does the 

Justice Department monitor and enforce section 203? And why has 

the enforcement picked up so much over the last 3 years? 

Mr. SCHLOZMAN. Thank you for the question. We have placed tremendous emphasis on this area of the Voting Rights Act. In terms 

of how we enforce it, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we 

contact jurisdictions, not only to work with them on ensuring their 

own compliance, but we also are constantly trying to gather information to make sure that our own records are up to date, to understand whether any particular jurisdiction has crossed the threshold 

into coming under the purview of section 203. 

We do a massive amount of outreach. Both the Section Chief of 

our Voting Section, John Tanner, who has really been instrumental 

in bringing this program forward, and myself, we have traveled 

throughout the United States, advising jurisdictions. 

A lot of the problems that we see are really more attributable to 

a lack of familiarity with these requirements than they are any refusal to comply. We have that on occasion, of course, where there’s 

recalcitrant jurisdictions; but most of them simply don’t understand 

what the legal obligations are, and we work actively to educate 

them on those things. 

Mr. CHABOT. And to what do you attribute the increase over the 

last 3 years? 

Mr. SCHLOZMAN. This has been a major priority of Attorney General Ashcroft, of the President. We’ve put extra resources on this 

issue. And I think that both the increased emphasis and the real 

leadership that the Attorney General and the White House have 

shown on this issue have borne some real dividends, and we’re tremendously proud of those accomplishments. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Fung, let me turn to you 

next, if I can. You had mentioned the 10,000 threshold and the proposal or idea by some that it be decreased to 7,500. What would 

be the impact of this change on citizens and the electoral process, 

if that threshold was brought down to 7,500? 

Ms. FUNG. Well, it would open up the process and remove barriers for a large number of limited-English-proficient citizens. We 

have done some analysis of the figures, and we’ll be submitting additional information. But we believe that if the numerical trigger 

is lowered to 7,500, it would enable at least another 78,000 AsianAmericans who would be able to get access to language assistance. 

And it would include an increase of nine jurisdictions that would 

affect counties in California, Illinois, New York, and Washington. 

But all of these counties, with the exception of one, are already providing language assistance in at least one Asian language. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much. Ms Chavez, let me 

turn to you next. You had indicated clearly from the outset that 

you’re opposed to the reauthorization of section 203. If there was 

one point that you wanted to emphasize over and above all the 

other points, what would be your strongest argument against it? 

Ms. CHAVEZ. Well, my strongest argument is I think that Congress lacks the authority to, in fact, require States to print material in languages other than English, because it does not satisfy the 

requirements under either the 14th or the 15th amendment that 

37

gives Congress the authority to intervene into what would otherwise be State matters. 

I think you would have had to have established an evidentiary 

record that showed that an English-language ballot was in fact discriminatory and did not provide due process to voters. And that 

evidentiary record was not established in 1975. It has never been 

seriously established since. 

And I say that having, as I said, been a part of the process and 

very familiar with the negotiations that went on to include this 

provision, which, frankly, had very little to do with whether or not 

there were a large number of Latinos who were being denied the 

right to vote because they could not understand an English-language ballot. 

And I think that record not having been established in 1975 does 

not let this Committee off the hook to establish it today. And I’d 

love to see hearings that try to establish the necessary requirements to satisfy the constitutional intrusion into the right of States 

to determine their own election laws. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much. And before I run out 

of time, Ms. Vigil-Giron, let me turn to you. Could you discuss 

briefly the costs associated in your State, for example, New Mexico, 

with implementing section 203? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. Actually, the costs are really minimal. The printing of 

ballots, the hiring of translators to translate the issues—the bond 

issues, the constitutional amendment issues, the various offices 

that people are running for—in Spanish, for example—it’s a minimal cost to the State of New Mexico. 

We have done it since statehood, actually, since 1912. We have 

never had—that’s never been the issue, costs that would be associated with it. 

We have over 30—well, 37 States that the Justice Department 

identified, or the Census Bureau identified as having high language-minority populations. And so we’ve known this since the 

year 2000. 

The Justice Department did contact all of our States, and said, 

‘‘You must print, you must do all of these in the various languages 

in your States.’’ And most of those States—over 30 of them—asked 

for an extension period to not do that until 2007; knowing that the 

reauthorization was going to be taking place in 2007. So they have 

denied, they have refused—States have refused to go that extra 

step based on the high population of language-minority population 

within their State, to print in other languages. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. Thank you, all of the panel. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Sa ́nchez particularly would like to question Ms. Chavez. And since she’s going to 

have to leave in 15 minutes, would it be okay to have her go first, 

and I’ll come after that? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. Without objection, we’ll do that. At this time, 

Ms. Sa ́nchez, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. I want to thank all the panelists, first 

of all, for providing testimony. And I’ve had a chance to review 

38

some of the written testimony in addition to hearing the oral testimony today. 

And for the record, I just want to set one thing straight that I 

found in written testimony that was submitted by Ms. Chavez 

about the 1996 Dornan-Loretta Sa ́nchez congressional race. In that 

written testimony, she states that there were 300 ineligible voters 

that participated in that race. And in fact, that list of supposedly 

bad voters was never released; so there was never an ability to 

verify that there were in fact 300 voters who were ineligible that 

voted. And that is a myth that, quite frankly, is perpetuated, unfortunately, and pops up from time to time, and is not supported by 

fact. So I just want to make that clear for the record. 

Secondly, the premise to me that people who prefer election materials in a language other than English are somehow not citizens, 

or not eligible to vote, or even not worthy of voting, I find highly 

insulting. And I’m going to give a perfect example here. 

Both of my parents are citizens of this country, but both acquired 

English fluency later in life. My mother, who is an elementary 

school teacher to this day, and who has raised seven college graduates, is more comfortable oftentimes having her voting materials 

in Spanish, because she values the right to vote so highly that she 

doesn’t want to inadvertently make a mistake. So she prefers to 

have both English and Spanish ballot materials. 

And for some of us who grew up speaking English and English 

is our first—or for some people, English is their only language—

oftentimes, election materials can be confusing using double negatives. So why we would want to prevent people from getting election materials that will help them be informed voters is a mystery 

to me. 

Now, Ms. Chavez, you allege that non-English voting materials 

somehow facilitate or induce voter fraud. And you also insist that 

it can lead to all kinds of mischief in terms of people participating 

in elections when they are in fact not eligible to participate in elections. And you cited some articles and, of course, the 1996 congressional race. 

In that race, it is true that there were some voters—a small 

handful of voters—who believed, in fact, that they were eligible to 

vote because they were in the process of becoming citizens. They 

had received a letter from the INS stating, ‘‘Congratulations, you 

have passed your citizenship test,’’ so they honestly believed that 

they were eligible to vote. They didn’t realize that had they not 

been sworn—that they were ineligible to vote. And it was an honest mistake. 

So my question to you—I have two, but the first is, given that 

you’re advocating this position of providing the materials in 

English only, it would seem to me that that would increase the risk 

of ineligible voters voting; because if they don’t understand the 

election laws and don’t understand the eligibility requirements, 

they could in fact be in the position where they think that they are 

eligible to vote. 

So I’m wondering, you know, is it your testimony today that providing information in Spanish to voters who prefer Spanish-language materials in voting, that that will increase voter fraud? 

39

Ms. CHAVEZ. Well, first of all, let me clarify a couple of things. 

There are numerous instances cited of non-eligible persons voting 

and using Spanish-language materials. I also cite others, including 

a 1982 case in San Francisco, in my book. But let’s put that side 

for a moment. 

The question you ask is whether or not I—it sounds like you are 

implying that I oppose providing materials to non-English-speaking 

persons who are eligible to vote in languages other than English. 

I do not oppose——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Pardon me——

Ms. CHAVEZ. I do not oppose——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The question was, do you believe that providing 

materials in languages other than English increases voter fraud? 

That was the question. 

Ms. CHAVEZ. Okay. Having material provided in languages other 

than English, in my view, is permissible, so long as the person is 

eligible to vote; and might even be desirable. The question is 

whether or not Congress has the authority to mandate the provision of those materials under the Constitution, and therefore is section 203 in fact constitutional. 

It has not been challenged. I suggest that it may in the future 

be challenged, and that, based on my reading, it will be declared 

unconstitutional. 

I would also say, though, that nothing I have said suggests that 

there is anything wrong with providing materials to voters in languages other than English. I happen to head up a political action 

committee. We print up material in Spanish and do Spanish-language communication with potential voters. 

That is using private money for political purposes, and is quite 

different than the State mandating the printing of those election 

materials in languages other than English and Congress requiring 

the States to do that. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask for unanimous consent for just one additional minute——

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. —I have one other quick question that I’d like to 

ask Ms. Chavez. 

Native-Americans have lived in this country long before English 

was ever spoken on this continent. And for Native-Americans, language identity is very much a part of their cultural preservation 

and their survival. And sadly, this country has a history of killing 

off substantial numbers of Native-American populations, taking 

away their land, and decreasing their opportunities. 

So I just want clarification. Is it your testimony that NativeAmerican populations should not be given language assistance in 

voting, or oral assistance in voting? 

Ms. CHAVEZ. Again, I am not opposing giving language assistance to eligible voters who speak a language other than English. 

What I am objecting to is Congress mandating that materials be 

printed in languages other than English, because I think it is not 

within the purview of the Congress to require States to do that. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Well, if section 3 [sic] is not reauthorized, then 

how would they get those materials in the languages? 

40

Ms. CHAVEZ. Well, number one, States could on their own decide 

to provide those materials. Organizations such as Asian Legal Defense Fund, Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, or all of the 

various Native-American groups, could provide that——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. You don’t believe that it’s an important Federal interest to have those materials provided to voters who want to be 

informed voters, who vote in national elections? 

Ms. CHAVEZ. As I said, I do not believe that section 203 satisfies 

the requirement under the Constitution to show discrimination on 

the basis of an English-language ballot, or lack of due process. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. You’re welcome. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you 

for holding this hearing. And I want to thank all the witnesses for 

your testimony. It is a subject of great interest, I think, to everyone 

up here on this panel. 

And as I sit here and listen to this testimony, I’ll say the thing 

I have the most difficulty with: it’s hard for me to get down into 

the minutiae of this testimony, when I’m sitting back here realizing 

that there’s an English-language proficiency required with naturalization. And so therefore, if you’re proficient enough with 

English to be naturalized as a citizen, then it would be rational to 

think that the only way you could justify being an American citizen 

and not being proficient in English in order to vote would be if you 

were raised in an ethnic enclave where you weren’t exposed to the 

English, didn’t learn English, therefore would have that difficulty 

of getting informed and going to understand a ballot. 

But it seems to me like I’m hearing the voices of people who have 

been naturalized citizens, people who have plenty of access to 

English and have not, apparently, chosen to use it. 

So I’ll just tell you that fundamentally I think it’s wrong for us 

as the Federal Government to require English language proficiency 

for naturalization, but not have the same standard for voting. 

It also would seem to me that if you’re not proficient enough in 

English to pick up the information, then it’s hard to be qualified, 

hard to be educated, and we’re taking away that incentive. And 

how can you understand the American culture and American body 

politic, without understanding the English language? 

I think we’re going absolutely the wrong way with section 203. 

And that’s my little monologue, and it doesn’t really necessarily 

have a question with it. 

But I would pose my question then to the gentlelady from New 

Mexico. And I saw your returns here, up to 78 percent and 83 percent, I think, in the one area. And does New Mexico—do you have 

same-day registration there? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman, Member King, no, we do not. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Do you have a voter identification, a picture 

identification requirement? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman, Member King, no, we do not. 

Mr. KING. If you’re an election poll worker there and someone 

comes through and seeks to vote for an individual, can you chalVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:22 Apr 11, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\110805\24503.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24503
41

lenge them and ask for their identification if you happen to believe 

they are not the person that they presented themselves to be? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman, Member King, no, we do not. 

They are not challenged. They are basically presenting themselves. 

Now in New Mexico, we passed election laws where they must 

state their name, their address, the last four digits of their Social 

Security number, and their date of birth, in order to vote. 

Mr. KING. And if they get that number wrong, can they vote? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. If they get that number wrong, then they will 

be asked to provide some type of identification, whether it’s a Government document or a driver’s license; not necessarily a picture 

ID, but something that matches with the address on the roster. 

Mr. KING. But even you, as Secretary of State, or a poll worker, 

if you knew that person to not be the person they represented them 

to be, could you challenge them? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman, Member King, you can ask 

them for that type of identification that I’ve just mentioned. 

Mr. KING. The verbal identification. 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. The verbal——

Mr. KING. And if they memorize the last four digits of a Social 

Security number, and they get that data correct, then you can’t 

challenge them? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. That’s correct. 

Mr. KING. Okay. So they, in fact, can legally be an imposter and 

present themselves with that information and legally vote, and it’s 

prohibited to challenge them? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman, Member King, that is—that’s 

being discussed everywhere throughout the United States. And 

there have never been any cases or incidences in New Mexico that 

have come before me or the attorney general or the local district 

attorneys. 

Mr. KING. Yes, thank you. I wanted to get that clarified. 

And then, as I listened to Ms. Fung’s testimony, I had just—you 

saw me probably smile a little up here. And you have a nice presentation; you do the same. And that ‘‘Asians are taking too long to 

vote,’’ you know; and we have some of those remarks get made 

where I come from. We say that to different ethnic groups, and it’s 

done in a humorous way; and the same with the length of the 

names. And I don’t know if that’s what you’d call empirical data 

that would indicate that we ought to be investing Federal dollars 

in facilitating more language instruction to vote. 

But I’ll say another thing I bring to mind is, are you familiar 

with Proposition 209 that California passed in 1995? 

Ms. FUNG. Can you remind me what is in Proposition 209? 

Mr. KING. I can try: the State of California shall not discriminate 

against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group 

on the basis of race, creed, sex, religion, ethnicity, or national origin. 

Ms. FUNG. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And would you happen to—I will just tell you this. 

The Asian study body population in the University of California, 

Berkeley, under their ‘‘goals system,’’ was 12 percent in 1995. Five 

years later, it was 46 percent, because it was merit rather than, 

I’ll say, de facto quota. 

42

And I think that’s an astonishing accomplishment for the Asians, 

and I think it’s a tremendous thing. And I think it would be a very 

good thing if those kind of positives were emphasized here. But I’d 

ask you, can you further justify and answer for me the question 

of——

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, but I’ll give him 

unanimous consent for an additional minute, since we did it on this 

side; do it over here. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The justification for other than English-language ballots, when 

naturalized citizens have an English proficiency requirement, and 

American-born citizens have an access to free English education? 

Ms. FUNG. Yes. First of all, bilingual assistance is needed because, in order to exercise the right to vote effectively to certain 

limited-English-proficient citizens, it removes the barriers to voting. For naturalized citizens, I just want to remind you that, especially for senior citizens, there is an exemption, an English-language exemption for people over 55 who’ve resided here for 20 

years or more. 

Not everyone who is a naturalized citizen is fluent enough in 

English to cast an effective ballot, and that is the reason why language assistance is needed. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. First, before I begin questioning, I’d remind Mr. King that there is a large number of people in this country who are citizens of the United States, who come from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, where the language is Spanish. So you 

cannot say that they’ve taken an exam to become naturalized, and 

if they pass that exam in English, etcetera—what you said before. 

Because the original language of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

is Spanish, and people who come from Puerto Rico and reside in 

New York or California—or Iowa, even—are entitled to vote without any showing of proficiency in English. 

Let me ask any member of the panel quickly, does any member 

of the panel believe that literacy tests that used to be required 

helped people become literate? 

Ms. FUNG. No. 

Mr. NADLER. Nobody. I thought so. Thank you. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Schlozman, in your experience, does language assistance promote voter fraud, or impose excessive costs, as Ms. Chavez stated 

in her testimony? And what is the view of the Administration on 

this issue? 

Mr. SCHLOZMAN. We’ve been enforcing this statute very vigorously, as I discussed. I would have no idea if any of these translation requirements have had any impact on fraud, though. Certainly, we have not——

Mr. NADLER. You have not, in your very vigorous enforcement of 

this provision, you haven’t observed that it promoted voter fraud? 

Mr. SCHLOZMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. NADLER. Or imposed excessive costs? Has this been one of 

the more expensive Federal Government programs? 

43

Mr. SCHLOZMAN. Well, it is an unfunded mandate, to be sure. 

But on the other hand, we have been working with jurisdiction 

across the country to make this requirement as easy as possible to 

implement. 

Mr. NADLER. Would you call this one of our larger unfunded 

mandates? 

Mr. SCHLOZMAN. Congressman, I’m just not in a position to be 

able to comment on that. I wouldn’t have that——

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Fung, could you expand on 

your thoughts about updating the triggers? You mentioned from 

10,000 to 7,500. Do you have any research that you might be able 

to share with the Committee that would provide greater insight 

into the current needs, and how those needs may have changed in 

the last—what is it?—13 years? 

Ms. FUNG. Yes. We can provide some charts which would show 

the impact of lowering the trigger to 7,500 and why it’s important 

because it would help to pick up several Southeast Asian populations. In fact, if you lowered the numerical trigger to 5,000, you 

would also pick up certain South Asian populations that are in 

need of language assistance, as well. And while it would increase 

the number of jurisdictions required to provide Spanish, that number is still relatively small. So we will be glad to provide you that 

information. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Ms. Fung, Ms. Chavez said in her testimony that, ‘‘nearly half of the jurisdictions that provided estimates 

said no one, not a single person, used oral minority language assistance, and more than half likewise said no one used their written minority language assistance.’’

I know that’s certainly not our experience in New York. Are you 

aware of other jurisdictions where that is the experience? 

Ms. FUNG. I’m not aware of any jurisdictions where no one is 

using the language—the translated materials provided. Obviously, 

jurisdictions have the option to target. They are not required to 

translate every piece of voting information, if they can demonstrate 

that it’s not needed. 

There are certain—for example, in Queens County in New York, 

there are large Asian-American populations, Latino populations. 

There are also many neighborhoods where there are not that many 

language minority citizens. The New York City Board of Elections 

has been able to target and decide where language assistance is 

needed, and that flexibility is actually what makes it a workable 

program. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. One more question for Ms. Fung, and 

then I have a question for Ms. Chavez. Ms. Fung, you mentioned 

in your testimony that the Board of Elections of New York had argued that information in Chinese would not fit onto our old, 

clunky, mechanical voting machines in New York. Were they ultimately able to find a way to deal with that problem? 

Ms. FUNG. Yes, indeed. When pressed with respect to that matter—actually, New York City is one of the—three of the counties 

in New York City are also covered under section 5. And I just want 

to point out that it was very important that section 5 was available 

after the 1992 amendments came into place. 

44

When there was a Chinese language program, we thought that 

the board ought to be translating the ballots in the machines. 

These are the old, 40-year-old, mechanical voting machines. They 

said it wasn’t possible. But we approached the Justice Department 

and said, ‘‘You should not preclear this program, because it’s clear 

that the language——’’

Mr. NADLER. So in other words, they found it possible, when they 

had to. 

Ms. FUNG. Absolutely. 

Mr. NADLER. I have often observed that, when dealing with the 

transit agencies in New York, that when the politics changes, so 

does the physics. And apparently, that’s true of the Board of Elections, too. 

Ms. Chavez, you’ve argued in testimony that I quoted a moment 

ago that very few people use this in certain instances—I won’t 

quote the testimony again—and it’s also very expensive. So even 

though it’s not used, it’s very expensive; which seems to be a slight 

contradiction. 

But in light of this—in light of this—you have your reasoning 

here as to why you think it’s unconstitutional. But it’s been in effect since 1975. That’s 30 years. No one has, I think you said—I 

was going to ask you if anyone had challenged this. You said no 

one had challenged this, had brought a constitutional challenge to 

the courts in 30 years. 

Doesn’t that argue that, if no one has brought a constitutional 

challenge, that in fact nobody is finding it so terribly burdensome 

as to look for legal recourse? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, but you can answer the question. 

Ms. CHAVEZ. If I can quickly answer, first of all, the testimony 

which you cited was not my testimony. This was taken directly 

from the General Accounting Office study of the implementation of 

the Voting Rights Act. The General Accounting Office, last time I 

checked, was an arm of Congress; so this was a congressionally 

mandated and funded study that provided that information. And 

there is also substantial information of the two GAO studies done 

of the bilingual balance that show the costs. 

Those costs are expensive. In 1992, I believe—I’m sorry, 2002, 

Los Angeles County alone spent more than $3 million. When you 

say it’s inconsistent to say it is both costly and not used, in fact, 

that is why it is wasteful. Because the printing up of the materials 

and the providing of the materials in multiple languages is expensive, and then in some jurisdictions these materials are not used. 

And this, again, is not my word. This is the word of the General 

Accounting Office. 

Mr. NADLER. But the question I asked you was if it’s so—why 

has nobody challenged this, if it’s so burdensome and expensive? 

No one has challenged this for 30 years. 

Ms. CHAVEZ. Well, Mr. Nadler, maybe it’s because I’ve been busy 

for the last 20 years. 

Mr. NADLER. So you’re the only one who finds it burdensome? 

Ms. CHAVEZ. No, it may be that there simply has not been someone who has been aggressively interested in challenging it. And I 

45

would suggest that it will, in fact, probably be challenged if it is 

reauthorized. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. I know Ms. Chavez indicated she has to leave. I’d ask unanimous consent that 

Roger Clegg, who is the General Counsel for the Center for Equal 

Opportunity, be able to take her place at the dais. He was already 

sworn in, and was one of our witnesses at a previous Voting Rights 

Act hearing. 

So thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Chavez. If 

there’s no objection, Mr. Clegg, you’re welcome to come forward. I 

don’t know if there will be any questions, but it’s probably helpful 

to have a similar viewpoint espoused at the table, in case members 

want to ask questions. 

[Mr. Roger Clegg, being previously sworn, took a seat at the witness table.] 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, thank you. And actually, I wanted to ask a 

question. I’m glad Mr. Clegg stepped in, because I didn’t feel like 

I got a complete, direct answer last time. So, same question. 

[Laughter.] 

Fortuitous timing. Ms. Chavez did a great case, making a number of arguments. And she thought her most important argument 

was the constitutionality case. 

And I asked last time with respect to the power of Congress to 

legislate in a different part of the Voting Rights Act, whether or 

not at least with respect to congressional elections, article I, section 

4, which says that the times, place, and manners are subject to legislation from the State legislatures, but that Congress may at any 

time, by law, make or alter such regulations. 

Presuming that a State could, if it wanted to, decide to print ballots in two languages, for example—and I don’t think you would 

quarrel that a State could, if it wanted to—well, at least with respect to congressional elections, under article I, section 4, couldn’t 

Congress regulate, aside from the equal protection language, 

wouldn’t we have potentially the power under article I, section 4, 

to regulate the language in ballots with respect to congressional 

elections? 

Mr. CLEGG. Potentially. But let me elaborate on that. First of all, 

I think you’re acknowledging quite correctly that this would give 

Congress power only to apply something like section 203 to congressional elections. And of course, the vast majority of elections——

Mr. NADLER. Would the gentleman yield on that specific point for 

half a second? 

Mr. FEENEY. I will. 

Mr. NADLER. Yes. There were a number of cases in the early ’70’s 

after Congress legislated the 18-year-old vote, before the 18-yearold vote amendment, in which the courts held that that provision 

means congressional elections or cases affecting congressional elections; which implicates a lot of other things. Like members of the 

Democratic or Republican county committee could have a role in 

who the nominee may be. So I’m just bringing that to your attention. 

46

Mr. CLEGG. Most elections that State and local governments hold 

are not Federal elections; and therefore, would not be covered by 

article I, section 4. 

I think that even with respect to congressional elections, there 

would be an issue—and I’m not an expert on this particular issue, 

and I don’t know if you’ve got—I anticipated your question, Mr. 

Feeney, because I know that, as you say, this was something that 

you asked about last time I was up. 

When I read article I, section 4, this morning, it seemed to me 

that it’s not crystal clear that legislation as broad as section 203 

would be within article I, section 4. 

Mr. FEENEY. There’s not a lot of law on this section. 

Mr. CLEGG. Right. 

Mr. FEENEY. I would grant you that. But the language to me 

seems pretty clear. 

I wanted to ask—by the way, I’m guarding congressional prerogatives here; which is different from saying we ought to exercise 

those prerogatives. But I do believe we have some powers under article I, section 4, that may not have been used regularly. That 

doesn’t mean we don’t still have those powers. 

You know, Ms. Fung, on the issue of assimilation, is it your experience—number one, I want to suggest that you said that California has a lot more Asian-American representatives at the State 

legislative and State senatorial level than they did pre—you know, 

pre-section 203 enactment. But you did have a pretty famous Senator. Senator Hiyakawa was an Asian-American; was he not? He 

was elected Statewide long before 203. And by the way, he was an 

English professor, and pretty darn fluent in at least two languages, 

maybe a lot more. 

Assimilation is something that I’m very interested in. What does 

203 do? Does it adversely or positively affect assimilation? I mean, 

we watched, you know, in Ottawa just a half decade ago, literally, 

a peaceful civil war, virtually, break out. By 1 percent, they could 

have changed their language. We’re watching the French Muslim 

ghettos. 

And one of the things that we’ve been proud of is that, whether 

you came from Eastern Europe or Italy or Germany, that one of the 

ways we assimilated you was not just through the public education 

system, but through participating in voting. 

And having four or 104—in Dade County, we have 150 different 

primary languages spoken in our K-12 schools. And if you’re going 

to argue that if there are 10,000 voters in a district that have a 

primary language other than English, they’re being denied the 

right to effectively cast their vote, it does seem to me—you know, 

we give individual rights in America—at least, I believe—not group 

rights. It seems to me like everybody whose primary language is 

something other than English in the country—including 150 different languages in Miami—may have an argument. 

What do you believe is happening to the goal of assimilating people as a consequence of section 203, I guess is my question. 

Ms. FUNG. Well, I think section 203 actually helps to promote inclusion. If anything, you want people who are limited-English-proficient to be able to participate in the political process. And they 

can, through the assistance of language assistance at the polls. 

47

I think that’s—the reason that it’s important is that, as a group, 

Asian-Americans, Latinos, have faced a history of discrimination, 

and some of it has stemmed from the fact that they are not proficient in English. And so I think that’s what makes it slightly different; there is a documented history of discrimination, especially 

for Asian-Americans. We were not even able to vote until 1943. 

So to your question, I think it actually promotes inclusion when 

you have more people participating in the political process and feeling welcome to do so. 

I mean, I think we’ve had so much experience going to various 

polling places. And what we’ve seen is, if you’re not fully proficient 

in English, you don’t necessarily know where to go if you’re at the 

wrong polling site. You don’t know exactly how to use the machine. 

And think about HAVA, which now requires new voting machines 

that will meet certain standards. How are people who are not fully 

proficient in English going to be using—changing over from a mechanical voting machine to an electronic voting machine? 

I think all of—language assistance is supplemental to what, 

hopefully, will happen; which is that everyone will learn English. 

And I think that is certainly our experience, is that people want 

to learn English. Hopefully, there will be more funding for English 

programs. 

But until the time that people are fully proficient in English, and 

as long as there are citizens who are limited-English-proficient, but 

want to vote, section 203 fills that need very well. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you. Madame Secretary, there are 

two theories of voter registration, from an official capacity. Some 

just sit back and wait for people to show up, and others do outreach. Is it anything wrong with outreach, in terms of voter registration? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman, Member Scott, of course not. 

We have so many third-party registration groups out there that 

pounced on all of our States during this last presidential election, 

and we saw large numbers of voter registrations within our States. 

And they brought in a lot of good voter registrations. 

The fact that we were funded with the Help America Vote Act—

I think $3.9 billion distributed throughout the States to assist in 

voter education—was also a major factor in bringing up those numbers and teaching people how to register and vote. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. What if the outreach could mean using 

material printed in different languages? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman, yes, Member Scott, that is true. 

And that’s what we do in New Mexico. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Okay. Mr. Clegg, if they can do this voluntarily, would a requirement to do that be subject to strict scrutiny under the Constitution? 

Mr. CLEGG. It would not be subject to strict scrutiny. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. It would not be subject to strict scrutiny? 

Mr. CLEGG. It would not be, but I——

48

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. If you’ve got a constitutional argument, 

what standard would you be using, if it’s not strict scrutiny? Rational basis? 

Mr. CLEGG. Well, no, I think that we’re not dealing with a suspect classification here. I think the framework that the Supreme 

Court has set out is whether that congressional law is congruent 

and proportional to preventing a violation of the 14th or 15th 

amendment, if I’m understanding your question correctly. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. So congruent and proportional would be 

the test? 

Mr. CLEGG. That’s correct. That’s from the City of Boerne case. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Why are not ballots in different languages congruent and proportional to the problem that people can’t 

understand English? 

Mr. CLEGG. They are congruent and proportional to that problem. But the point is, that problem is not a violation of the 14th 

or 15th amendment. What the Supreme Court has——

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. So? So what? 

Mr. CLEGG. The Supreme Court has said that in order for Congress to have authority to legislate under the enforcement clauses 

of the 14th and the 15th amendments——

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. How about the provision you all just 

were reading, article I, section 4? 

Mr. CLEGG. That would apply only—you know, arguably, would 

give Congress authority only to pass something like section 203 for 

congressional elections. It would not apply to State elections. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Well, wouldn’t it apply to—well——

Mr. CLEGG. It would not apply to State elections, because article 

I, section 4, has to do only with congressional——

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. So we could do it for congressional elections? There’s no question that we could do it for congressional 

elections? 

Mr. CLEGG. No, no, no, I think there is a question. That was the 

other point that Mr. Feeney and I were discussing, whether the—

and as Mr. Feeney says, and I think he’s right, there’s not a lot 

of case law on this—whether a law like section 203 is within article 

I, section 4. 

Because what article I, section 4 is, that Congress can regulate—

I think it’s the time, place, and manner, something like that, of 

elections, doesn’t really say whether—your argument would have to 

be that the manner of elections includes things like printing ballots 

in languages other than English. And I don’t know whether a court 

would uphold that assertion of congressional authority or not. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Schlozman, do you see any constitutional problem with requiring ballots to be printed in different languages? 

Mr. SCHLOZMAN. Congressman, I wouldn’t want to opine on the 

constitutional issues. I’m not qualified to do that. As a law enforcement agency, we would enforce any law that Congress passes. And 

as long as the Supreme Court says that it’s constitutional, we’ll 

continue to enforce it. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Well, has anybody brought any fraud—

people have alleged—we had a suggestion that there’s all this fraud 

49

going on. Have you investigated any of these fraud allegations and 

come up with any convictions? 

Mr. SCHLOZMAN. Well, the fraud issues are dealt with at the Department of Justice by the Criminal Division, not by the Civil 

Rights Division. There have been a significant number of fraud 

convictions over the last few years, and I think the Department actually even issued a press release. But that’s outside of our bailiwick. That belongs to the Criminal Division. 

Mr. CLEGG. Mr. Scott, if I may, that report that Mr. Schlozman 

refers to is cited in Ms. Chavez’s testimony on page 4. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you. And before my time ends, 

Ms. Fung, could you talk about the expense in complying with the 

bilingual sections of the Voting Rights Act? 

Ms. FUNG. Actually, I don’t have that information. I’m only 

aware of the GAO report. But I know that other reports—other 

surveys have been taken of various registrars. I don’t have information about that. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Ms. Secretary, could you answer the 

question? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, but you go ahead 

and answer the question, if you can. 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Member Scott, the 

reason why we don’t know are States that are not doing it right 

now translating election materials into those various languages is 

because they asked for extension periods through 2007. They didn’t 

even want to attempt to put a pencil to paper to figure out how 

much they are going to have to spend for translators and for the 

printed materials themselves. 

And now that we have HAVA, that will require the one for polling place voting machines to translate into those languages, as 

well, so that they can hear the audio version of their ballot as 

they’re voting. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is this. I 

understand the basis for section 203 was unequal educational opportunities for certain citizens. Since its passage, have those opportunities grown? Is there still a disparity? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman, Member Bachus, as I mentioned, since 2000 election and the Census, other States besides 

me—California, Florida, I believe, also, prints their election materials in other languages. New Mexico has always done this. 

But the other States that have been identified as having high minority language populated States, we don’t know—we don’t know 

what kind of an impact; other than those minority populations are 

not voting. They’re not registering to vote, and they’re not going 

out to vote, because they don’t want to vote on something that they 

don’t understand. I mean, Native-Americans, who have always 

been here—this is not just an immigrant population to be naturalized. 

Mr. BACHUS. Yes. I guess my question is, when it was first 

passed, we said that a lot of our citizens are simply not afforded 

50

the opportunity to learn English, I would suppose, because it was 

unequal educational opportunities. And are we addressing that? 

And I think what I’m talking about, are we teaching people 

English, or the predominant language? Or do you see it as that’s 

not a goal? Do you understand what I’m saying? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Of course. 

Mr. BACHUS. Like for instance, let’s say a population that’s been 

in our country for 25 years. Are they making progress toward 

learning English? You know, it was seen, I would think, when it 

was passed as, at least for some groups, until folks are assimilated. 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman, Member Bachus, I think that as 

elections officials we’re not there to teach people English. We’re 

there to give every citizen who is a citizen of the United States the 

right to vote. And giving them that information in the language of 

their choice is what we’re trying to achieve here. 

Mr. BACHUS. Okay. 

Ms. FUNG. And if I could just add, I’m, of course, very proud of 

the fact that many Asian-Americans succeed in the educational 

process and are graduate students and are achieving all kind of 

success. But that, unfortunately, is not true for all Asian-American 

groups; and specifically, for Southeast Asians. There’s very low 

educational attainment. 

For example, 26 percent of Cambodians have never had any formal schooling. There are many such statistics which show the disparities. And so even though we have made progress over the last 

25 years, we still do not have educational equality. And that’s why 

there’s still a need for bilingual assistance. 

Mr. BACHUS. Okay. 

Mr. CLEGG. Mr Bachus, I think you’ve put your finger on what 

Ms. Chavez points out in her testimony is the fundamental problem with the constitutionality of section 203. Section 203 does not 

even talk about voter intimidation or anything like that. It hinges 

entirely on a claim that educational disparities have created these 

hurdles to voting. 

And I think that that means that what Congress apparently is 

asserting—and has to remake the record for, since it’s reauthorizing this statute—is that State discrimination, official State discrimination is, A, the cause of disparities in voter turnout and 

things like that, and that, B, this law is a congruent and proportional response to the educational discrimination that still exists. 

I think that you’re right. I think anybody would have to agree 

that there is much less State-sponsored discrimination in 2005 

than there was in 1965. And I think that that’s one of the things 

that this Subcommittee has to come to grips with, if it’s thinking 

about reauthorizing section 203. 

Mr. BACHUS. Would anyone else like to comment? 

[No response.] 

Mr. BACHUS. When this was first passed, there was not an opportunity, say, for a certain group of our citizens who spoke a different 

language to—if programs for them to learn English weren’t available, then obviously there may have been a need for this. But if 

those programs are available—I mean, Ms. Vigil-Giron and—if 

those programs are available in a community, and are readily accessible, does that satisfy section 203? 

51

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, but go ahead 

and answer the question. 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. —Member Bachus, thank you. You’ve got a 

very, very large population of people. And of course, you know, the 

Latino population is the fastest growing minority right now in the 

country. And what you’re having is a lot of older citizens who only 

want to speak in their native language, who only want to read in 

their native language, who only want to watch television in their 

native languages. 

What is wrong with extending that extra effort within our 

States? Because our States are not taking responsibility to translate into those various languages. We’re not volunteering. As I 

mentioned, New Mexico has always had that in place. We didn’t 

cross the border; the border crossed us in New Mexico. And so 

we’ve got a lot of older American citizens, Hispanic-Americans, who 

would much rather vote in their Spanish language than in English 

language, and understand it much better if it’s explained. 

So this is just an opportunity for us to keep going in that direction, as the United States of America, to provide more information—and education—in whatever language we need to provide it 

in. But we have to do it. 

Mr. CLEGG. See, this is the problem. If the reason that these individuals do not speak English has nothing to do with discrimination, then I don’t see—I mean, that’s not what section 203 says. 

And I don’t know where Congress’ enforcement authority under the 

14th amendment and the 15th amendment comes from, then. 

Mr. BACHUS. Yes, you know, 203 says they hadn’t had the opportunity to learn English, so we’re going to supply them a ballot in 

their native tongue. It doesn’t say that because they don’t want to 

learn English, we’re going to supply them a ballot in their own—

as I understand it. 

I’m not saying that we don’t decide that the basis is going to be 

something else. But I’m just saying that the law as it now exists, 

203, the basis is that they don’t have an opportunity to learn 

English. Am I wrong about that? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. Does anybody 

think he’s wrong in that? 

Ms. FUNG. I do believe you’re wrong. 

Mr. BACHUS. Okay. 

Mr. CHABOT. Does anybody think he’s right in that? 

Mr. CLEGG. I think he’s right. I mean, just read section 203. It 

says, among other factors, the denial of the right to vote of such 

minority citizens is ordinarily directly related to the unequal educational opportunities afforded them. 

Mr. BACHUS. That’s what it says, the basis is unequal educational opportunities. 

Mr. CLEGG. And I think it’s even clearer in section 4(f). 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Can I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Fung have 

a minute to finish answering that question? 

52

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, without objection. I want to get to Mr. Watt 

down there, though. I don’t want to be unfair to him and drag this 

out too long. So Ms. Fung, if you’d like to respond there? 

Ms. FUNG. I just think you need to look at the Census data, 

which shows that there is a very large proportion of limitedEnglish-proficient individuals. There is a high degree of linguistic 

isolation. 

Mr. BACHUS. Oh, no, I understand all that. I understand there 

are a lot of people that can’t speak English, that would have difficulty voting, if not that. But what I’m saying is, when you look 

at the law itself, it just says that the reason we’re supplying these 

ballots in their tongue is because they have not had an opportunity 

to learn English. But maybe we’d even disagree over what the law 

says. 

Ms. FUNG. I think we would disagree that everyone has equal opportunity to learn English. But beyond that, I think that the purpose of section 203 is to enable citizens who may not speak English 

very well to be able to effectively cast a ballot. 

And I think there’s no question that, first of all, people use language assistance—bilingual materials and oral assistance; and in 

fact, more people are voting. I think that’s a laudable goal that 

Congress should be promoting. 

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. Let me just say on this 

issue I think we may be focusing on the past, rather than looking 

at what we’re trying to do here. 

And for that purpose, I want to try to focus this in a different 

direction; not that I accept that we have to create a legislative 

record of prior discrimination and intimidation, but let’s suppose 

for the moment that we do, as a basis for section 203 or as a basis 

for renewing section 203. We don’t have to do it to justify section 

203 in the past, because nobody has contested it in the courts. And 

unless somebody contests it between now and 2007, it will become 

a moot point. 

But let’s pick up right here. And I’m sorry Mr. King left because—and I don’t want to leave the impression that I’m picking 

on him, but I think we need to clean up the record on the one thing 

that he said that was offensive to some of us; probably not offensive to him, not even intended to be offensive on his part. 

But I don’t want the record to go unchallenged there. The fact 

that some people engage in joking references, ethnic references, racial references, may be funny to some people; but for this purpose, 

Ms. Fung, I want to be clear about you and the Secretary’s impression about whether that also creates a discriminatory and intimidating environment that discourages people from voting. 

Has it historically, does it now, will it, in your estimation, in the 

future? And if you can give me an example or two. I thought you 

gave some good examples in your testimony, Ms. Fung. 

This not about slamming Mr. King and his jocular references. It’s 

about building the record about what impact that funny thing to 

him has on racial and ethnic minorities. Ms. Fung, and then the 

Secretary. 

53

Ms. FUNG. Thank you. Well, actually, I do regret that he’s not 

here, as well, because ‘‘Oriental’’—the use of the term ‘‘Oriental’’ is 

considered a racist term. And the fact that people feel unwelcome 

at the polling place means that they’re less likely to vote. And that, 

to me, constitutes discrimination. 

And this happens very frequently. This is not a matter of long 

ago. I only cited a few examples because they were from the 2004 

election, but there are many other such examples that could be 

cited. And I will provide that information to you. It creates an unwelcome atmosphere, where people don’t feel that they should go 

back to vote. 

Mr. WATT. I would appreciate your providing those [sic] additional information, because we need to build the record on that. If 

this is about proving the impact of discrimination, or what impact 

it has on voting patterns, then we need to document that. Then 

let’s document it. 

Madame Secretary? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman and Member Watt, you know, 

even in New Mexico, where we have a large minority population—

we’re more than 52 percent minority population—you know, to 

have poll workers—and I think that’s at the very, very root, where 

we have poll workers mistreating individuals who come and 

present themselves to vote. 

Mr. WATT. And I presume that’s State action; is it not? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. That’s correct. That’s correct. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Go ahead. 

Mr. WATT. And so, poll worker training etiquette is extremely, 

extremely important for all of our States to take advantage of. You 

all gave us the money to do it. And so, when you reauthorize section 203, that will give States—you’re empowering the States to 

move in that direction, to be more sensitive to minority populations. 

Even in the 2004 election—I’m not talking about 2000 or the 

election before that. But at every Federal election, it’s crucial that 

we get people out to vote and we’re inclusive of all people. 

Mr. WATT. Now, let me take this one—if I might, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m out of time. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, but would he 

like an additional minute? 

Mr. WATT. Yes, let me have an additional minute. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection. 

Mr. WATT. Because I think we’re onto something here: the point 

that the Secretary made about the Government crossing New Mexico—the United States came to New Mexico; the point that we 

made, that was made in the testimony earlier, about Native-Americans being there first. 

Now, the whole notion that we have taken over this thing—New 

Mexico and Native-Americans—and then requiring them to cast 

ballots in English, is that in and of itself an intimidating factor 

that suggests to those people an element of discrimination and intent to exclude them from voting? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman, Member Watt, as a matter of 

fact, you know, before New Mexico became part of the United 

States in 1911, when they were discussing it behind closed doors, 

54

they were saying things like, ‘‘Well, they don’t look like us, they 

don’t talk like us, they speak other languages in that State.’’ And 

then, on the floor of Congress, they were saying to us, to our face, 

‘‘You don’t have the population to become part of the United 

States.’’

And we adopted our motto, ‘‘E pluribus unum: We will grow as 

it goes.’’ And we have. We have a population of over 1.9 million 

people, bigger than the State of Vermont, bigger than the States 

of North Dakota, South Dakota, in population. 

And so, in terms of crossing the border, they thought that we 

were all coming from Mexico. They think that we are Mexicans. I 

would be proud to call myself Mexican, but I’m not. I’m a New 

Mexican. And I’ve been a New Mexican, and my family, for over 

300 years in New Mexico. 

Mr. WATT. Would it be fair to say the bottom line on this is that 

the discrimination, if we had to build a record, against NativeAmericans, limited-English-proficient people, would probably—

would be; not probably—would be just as dramatic as the historical 

discrimination against African-Americans? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, but you can answer the question. 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Thank you very much. Member Watt, as a matter of fact, yes, I have to answer ‘‘Yes.’’ Because our Native-American population out there—we have a lot of elderly Navajos. They 

can’t—they will not have a photo ID taken of them. So they can’t 

even present a photo ID, should we impose that photo ID requirement in the State of New Mexico. 

It is—we have to reauthorize section 203 because—I welcome the 

Justice Department, by the way, coming into my State, setting up 

observers, watching those poll workers, making sure that there are 

translators at those various polling places. And it’s every year, 

every Federal election, every 2 years, or whatever it is—that they 

come and they make sure that our Native-American citizens do and 

are treated in the right manner. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Georgia, who we want to again welcome to 

this Committee and thank him for his studiousness in attendance. 

And he’s been, even though not a Member of this Committee, a 

very welcome addition to it. So he’s recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for your kindness, and this Committee 

for being so generous. And I also want to say, Mr. Chairman, how 

much I enjoyed traveling with you to Detroit to attend Ms. Rosa 

Parks’ funeral, enjoyed being there with you. 

And it’s within that spirit that I want to direct a question, because I really think, again, the issue here is: what is constitutional, 

and what is not constitutional? And I think to get at that, I believe 

we need to revisit what this intent was, and is, in this effort. 

And that is, it clearly states in the 15th and 14th amendment 

a very essential passage. The words are ‘‘to ensure,’’ ‘‘to ensure that 

the right to vote is not denied or abridged by the United States or 

by any State.’’ That in and of itself, the words ‘‘to ensure,’’ means 

to make sure; means to, in effect, give Congress that authority. 

55

Now, in the effort to do that, clearly, this section 203 states, 

‘‘Documenting a systematic pattern of voting discrimination and exclusion against minority group citizens who are from environments 

in which the dominant language is other than English, and based 

on the extensive evidentiary record demonstrating the prevalence 

of voting discrimination and high illiteracy rates among language 

minorities, Congress acted to broaden its special coverage of new 

geographic areas, in order to ensure protection of the voting rights 

of language minority citizens.’’ I think that’s important. 

Because I think that that gets off the table this issue: is it constitutional, is it not constitutional? Because the operative words 

here are action, ‘‘to ensure.’’ That is why this has been done. 

And I just call, for historical reference, that back in the turn of 

the century, there was a case that evolved from an effort on the 

part of two groups in New York City the Tammany Hall had put 

together to increase the vote. At that time at the turn of the century, there was huge migration—immigration in this country, between two distinct groups. One was Jewish, from Eastern Europe, 

that were coming into this country in great numbers. And the other 

were Italians. 

And there was one group, called ‘‘The Five Pointers,’’ down in 

Lower Manhattan that Tammany Hall used, as well as another 

group by a fellow by the name of ‘‘Monk Eastman.’’ And in order 

to communicate and get that vote out for Tammany Hall, they had 

to print those instructions and those ballots in the respective languages of those people. And when the case was brought again, it 

was used in the Constitution, section 14, 15, of ‘‘to ensure.’’

And so, Mr. Clegg, I come to you and to the others on the panel 

to state, particularly in view of the fact if it was good then, and 

if it was good 30 years ago in 1975, my God, now we have increased our immigration and the flow of people from other countries into this country over 2,000 percent. 

So it builds a case not only that it’s constitutional, but that there 

is even a greater need to make sure that we ensure that the right 

for these individuals to vote is not abridged on the point of race, 

color, or minority language status. 

Don’t you agree with that now, Mr. Clegg? 

Mr. CLEGG. No. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Did we not take that off the table? 

Mr. CLEGG. No, no, I do not agree. You’ve just amended the 15th 

amendment. You have added the term ‘‘language minority’’ to the 

words of the 15th amendment. The 15th amendment doesn’t say 

anything about language minorities. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. No, I did not——

Mr. CLEGG. Yes, you did. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. The words I’d add to the amendment 

were ‘‘to ensure,’’ and the fact of the matter is——

Mr. CLEGG. Race, color, and then you added ‘‘language minority,’’ 

which is not in the 15th amendment. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. But it was put into it as a result of the 

amendment for 203. 

Mr. CLEGG. That’s my point. Congress does not have authority to 

change the meaning of the 15th amendment through a statute. You 

have to——

56

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. But it does have the authority to ensure. 

Mr. CLEGG. Right, but my point is that what you all need to do, 

if you want to reenact section 203, and if you don’t want it to be 

struck down as unconstitutional, is connect the dots between the 

denial or abridgement of voting rights on the basis of race or color, 

and having ballots printed in languages other than English. I don’t 

think that you can connect those dots. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. Does he seek an 

additional minute? It looks like he hasn’t got a finish there. If you’d 

like? 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Yes. I wanted to make sure that the 

other witnesses at the table have given ample evidence of how this 

has worked in a discriminatory manner. And I’d like to give just 

a final minute to see if any of them would like to counter and put 

forward those examples at this time to Mr. Clegg’s point. 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman, Member Scott, it’s kind of hard 

to convince someone that—extending the opportunity for other language minority populations the right to vote in their own languages. So it’s almost—it’s beating a dead horse with them; so, you 

know, to try to convince them of it being constitutional or not. 

We’re citizens of the United States. Those of us that are citizens 

take great pride in being citizens of the United States. And if we 

want to do that in another language other than English, exercising 

our right to vote, then we should. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from New York? 

Mr. NADLER. Can I have unanimous consent to ask Mr. Clegg a 

question? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, without objection. And then the gentleman 

from Alabama. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I just want to comment and question 

on your last comment about joining the dots between language minority and race, color—or previous condition of servitude, or race, 

or color. Make two points. Number one, with respect certainly to 

Asians, the connection is direct, because you’re talking about a different—about people who, if you discriminated against them on the 

basis of language, you would be discriminating against an identifiable racial group. So that would seem to me direct. 

And I would also observe and ask you to comment on both that 

and the following. That certainly in the 19th century, when the 

15th amendment was written, the word ‘‘race’’ had a slightly different meaning that it does today. And people spoke all the time—

and you can look at the newspapers of the time—about the ‘‘American race,’’ the ‘‘German race,’’ the ‘‘French race;’’ which we 

wouldn’t do today. Today we talk about Blacks and Hispanics, you 

know, and different racial groups. We don’t talk about nationalities 

as races, but they did in the 19th century. 

And so that the language discrimination, if there is language discrimination, would simply be—would certainly be racial in the 

sense of the common understanding of the time—in the common 

understanding of this time, with respect, let’s say, to Asians; or the 

common understanding at the time the amendment was written, 

with respect to any language group. Why am I wrong on that? 

57

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, but go ahead 

and answer. 

Mr. CLEGG. Well, I agree with the first point you make, that the 

term ‘‘race’’ in the 1860’s certainly had a broader meaning than it 

does now. And in fact, there’s Supreme Court cases on that; that, 

for instance, Jews were considered a race; and that therefore, in 

terms of the coverage of some of the Reconstruction era amendments that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, that antiSemitic violence is something that’s within the language of the Reconstruction Acts. 

But I think that, Mr. Nadler, you’re making a leap from Germans and Asians and so forth perhaps being considered a race, and 

it being racial discrimination to print ballots in English and not to 

print ballots in languages other than English. 

I think then maybe the problem that you’re running into is 

you’re making kind of a disparate impact type argument, that, you 

know, the failure to print—or the decision to print a ballot only in 

the English language has a disparate impact on certain racial 

groups; and therefore, that makes it racial discrimination. The Supreme Court has rejected that kind of disparate impact approach. 

Also, if I can add, I mean, you’re assuming that all Asians, for 

instance—and I know this may be not fair, but you’re assuming 

that all Asians have problems with being discriminated——

Mr. NADLER. No, obviously not. 

Mr. CLEGG. Obviously, you’re not suggesting that. But one point 

I wanted to make——

Mr. NADLER. Let me just clarify the question, the thing you were 

just saying, when you said the Supreme Court has rejected the disparate impact, that disparate impact approach. 

Mr. CLEGG. Right. 

Mr. NADLER. The Supreme Court rejected disparate impact approach as a constitutional argument requiring something, or as giving power to Congress to enact something? 

Mr. CLEGG. Both. The Washington v. Davis and the Arlington 

Heights case, and a number of other cases, have confirmed that the 

14th amendment bans only disparate treatment; it does not ban 

disparate impact. And a plurality of the Court said the same thing 

with respect to the 15th amendment, in the City of Mobile case. 

And then, the City of Boerne case struck down a statute of Congress that——

Mr. NADLER. Which I helped write. I’m very well aware of that. 

Mr. CLEGG. Well, I’m sorry to bring up painful memories, but you 

recall that basically what Congress was doing there, the Supreme 

Court had said in the Oregon v. Smith case that the free exercise 

clause covered disparate treatment, but not disparate impact. And 

you all tried to change that through statute, and the Supreme 

Court said, ‘‘No, you can’t do that.’’

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I’d ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Alabama be 

given a minute. And in fact, since this ended up being 3 minutes, 

we’ll make it 2 minutes. But let’s keep it within that, if we can. 

The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. BACHUS. Actually, Mr. Nadler’s series of questions was what 

I was——

58

Mr. CHABOT. It was already brought up? 

Mr. BACHUS. I would basically ask the same question. I’d just say 

this. Mr. Scott read the 15th amendment, and then I read over it 

again. And it does seem to say on account of race you can’t abridge 

someone’s voting right. And I never thought of it in that regard, 

but you could—I guess ‘‘race,’’ ‘‘ethnicity,’’ are those pretty interchangeable, or are they not? 

Mr. CLEGG. I think that was Mr. Nadler’s point just now, that 

race in the 1860’s had a broader meaning than it does now. 

Mr. BACHUS. Sort of like ‘‘ethnicity’’? 

Mr. CLEGG. Yes. So I think ‘‘ethnicity’’ generally probably would 

be—although I mean that’s——

Mr. BACHUS. And if you take, you know, your ethnic background, 

obviously, certain ethnic backgrounds wouldn’t have English proficiency, or might not have the same level of English proficiency. 

So if you did offer a ballot just in English to Hispanic citizens, say, 

or newly arrived Asian citizens or something, couldn’t that fall 

under the 15th amendment? 

Mr. CLEGG. Well, I think that, you know, let’s suppose that, you 

know, the State of New Mexico——

Mr. BACHUS. I mean, obviously it is because of their ethnicity, 

their ethic background, that they don’t speak English, I mean, they 

speak another language and they’re not proficient in English. So by 

offering a ballot just in English, it would appear that you’re denying them a right to vote, or you’re certainly limiting their ability. 

Mr. CLEGG. I think that whether it’s disparate treatment or disparate impact in that case is going to hinge on intent. 

And in the case of New Mexico, for instance, suppose that for 

years and years New Mexico had made ballots available in Spanish; and you could show in the record that the State legislature got 

together, part of the State legislature, and said, ‘‘You know, we 

need to keep Mexican-Americans from voting; and the way we’re 

going to do that is we are no longer going to provide ballots in 

Spanish any more.’’ That might be a violation of the 15th amendment. 

But the decision, without regard to race or ethnicity, to print ballots in English and not in foreign languages, if there was no such 

showing of intent, would not be a violation of the 14th or 15th 

amendment. 

Mr. BACHUS. Yes, let me come at it a different way. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BACHUS. Could I have an additional 1 minute? 

Mr. CHABOT. If you’ll stay within the 1 minute, I won’t object. 

Mr. BACHUS. We’ve been arguing about constitutional basis for 

saying you’ve got to provide ballots in Spanish or in Vietnamese. 

Wouldn’t this be a basis, the fact that Congress—I mean, the right 

of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of the 

ethic background. 

Mr. CLEGG. Well, I don’t think that it——

Mr. BACHUS. Couldn’t you say because of that, the 15th amendment because of that statement, that it would naturally flow that 

you would provide ballots in other——

Mr. CLEGG. I don’t think so. 

Mr. BACHUS. You don’t? 

59

Mr. CLEGG. I don’t think so. 

Mr. BACHUS. Okay. 

Mr. CHABOT. Ms. Vigil-Giron? 

Ms. VIGIL-GIRON. Mr. Chairman, Member Bachus, I think you’re 

going to the right place, okay? That definitely, if you do not take 

that extra step—and Congress is the only one, by the way, who will 

do it. The States are not going to do it. 

State legislators are moving in another direction, and they don’t 

want to move in this direction here. Because we might go out and 

vote, and we might vote them out of office, or whatever the case 

might be. 

But we will go out and vote if it’s provided to us in other than 

English languages out there, and advertised in other than English 

that there’s an election going on, and proclamations in other languages. We may just go out and vote. 

That’s what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to be represented. 

We’re trying to exercise our right to vote in other than English languages. So we have to have you all and your power to reauthorize 

section 203. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. All time has expired. And I want to thank the panel for their very helpful testimony here this afternoon. 

We’re not finished yet. We’re finished for today, but we have two 

more hearings tomorrow—I believe, at 2 and 4. So anybody who is 

here today is welcome back; and anybody who is not here is welcome back, as well. 

But if there’s no further business to come before the Committee, 

we’re adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(61)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

62

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION


24503.001
63


24503.002
64


24503.003
65

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


24503.004
66


24503.005
67


24503.006
68


24503.007
69

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF BRADLEY J. SCHLOZMAN: COPIES OF COMPLAINTS, 

CONSENT DECREES, AND ORDERS IN ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS FILED BY THE UNITED

STATES UNDER THE LANGUAGE MINORITY PROVISIONS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

(SECTIONS 4(E), 4(F)(4), AND 203)


24503.008
70


24503.009
71


24503.010
72


24503.011
73


24503.012
74


24503.013
75


24503.014
76


24503.015
77


24503.016
78


24503.017
79


24503.018
80


24503.019
81


24503.020
82


24503.021
83


24503.022
84


24503.023
85


24503.024
86


24503.025
87


24503.026
88


24503.027
89


24503.028
90


24503.029
91


24503.030
92


24503.031
93


24503.032
94


24503.033
95


24503.034
96


24503.035
97


24503.036
98


24503.037
99


24503.038
100


24503.039
101


24503.040
102


24503.041
103


24503.042
104


24503.043
105


24503.044
106


24503.045
107


24503.046
108


24503.047
109


24503.048
110


24503.049
111


24503.050
112


24503.051
113


24503.052
114


24503.053
115


24503.054
116


24503.055
117


24503.056
118


24503.057
119


24503.058
120


24503.059
121


24503.060
122


24503.061
123


24503.062
124


24503.063
125


24503.064
126


24503.065
127


24503.066
128


24503.067
129


24503.068
130


24503.069
131


24503.070
132


24503.071
133


24503.072
134


24503.073
135


24503.074
136


24503.075
137


24503.076
138


24503.077
139


24503.078
140


24503.079
141


24503.080
142


24503.081
143


24503.082
144


24503.083
145


24503.084
146


24503.085
147


24503.086
148


24503.087
149


24503.088
150


24503.089
151


24503.090
152


24503.091
153


24503.092
154


24503.093
155


24503.094
156


24503.095
157


24503.096
158


24503.097
159


24503.098
160


24503.099
161


24503.100
162


24503.101
163


24503.102
164


24503.103
165


24503.104
166


24503.105
167


24503.106
168


24503.107
169


24503.108
170


24503.109
171


24503.110
172


24503.111
173


24503.112
174


24503.113
175


24503.114
176


24503.115
177


24503.116
178


24503.117
179


24503.118
180


24503.119
181


24503.120
182


24503.121
183


24503.122
184


24503.123
185


24503.124
186


24503.125
187


24503.126
188


24503.127
189


24503.128
190


24503.129
191


24503.130
192


24503.131
193


24503.132
194


24503.133
195


24503.134
196


24503.135
197


24503.136
198


24503.137
199


24503.138
200


24503.139
201


24503.140
202


24503.141
203


24503.142
204


24503.143
205


24503.144
206


24503.145
207


24503.146
208


24503.147
209


24503.148
210


24503.149
211


24503.150
212


24503.151
213


24503.152
214


24503.153
215


24503.154
216


24503.155
217


24503.156
218


24503.157
219


24503.158
220


24503.159
221


24503.160
222


24503.161
223


24503.162
224


24503.163
225


24503.164
226


24503.165
227


24503.166
228


24503.167
229


24503.168
230


24503.169
231


24503.170
232


24503.171
233


24503.172
234


24503.173
235


24503.174
236


24503.175
237


24503.176
238


24503.177
239


24503.178
240


24503.179
241


24503.180
242


24503.181
243


24503.182
244


24503.183
245


24503.184
246


24503.185
247


24503.186
248


24503.187
249


24503.188
250


24503.189
251


24503.190
252


24503.191
253


24503.192
254


24503.193
255


24503.194
256


24503.195
257


24503.196
258


24503.197
259


24503.198
260


24503.199
261


24503.200
262


24503.201
263


24503.202
264


24503.203
265


24503.204
266


24503.205
267


24503.206
268


24503.207
269


24503.208
270


24503.209
271


24503.210
272


24503.211
273


24503.212
274


24503.213
275


24503.214
276


24503.215
277


24503.216
278


24503.217
279


24503.218
280


24503.219
281


24503.220
282


24503.221
283


24503.222
284


24503.223
285


24503.224
286


24503.225
287


24503.226
288


24503.227
289


24503.228
290


24503.229
291


24503.230
292


24503.231
293


24503.232
294


24503.233
295


24503.234
296


24503.235
297


24503.236
298


24503.237
299


24503.238
300


24503.239
301


24503.240
302


24503.241
303


24503.242
304


24503.243
305


24503.244
306


24503.245
307


24503.246
308


24503.247
309


24503.248
310


24503.249
311


24503.250
312


24503.251
313


24503.252
314


24503.253
315


24503.254
316


24503.255
317


24503.256
318


24503.257
319


24503.258
320


24503.259
321


24503.260
322


24503.261
323


24503.262
324


24503.263
325


24503.264
326


24503.265
327


24503.266
328


24503.267
329


24503.268
330


24503.269
331


24503.270
332


24503.271
333


24503.272
334


24503.273
335


24503.274
336


24503.275
337


24503.276
338


24503.277
339


24503.278
340


24503.279
341


24503.280
342


24503.281
343


24503.282
344


24503.283
345


24503.284
346


24503.285
347


24503.286
348


24503.287
349


24503.288
350


24503.289
351


24503.290
352


24503.291
353


24503.292
354


24503.293
355


24503.294
356


24503.295
357


24503.296
358


24503.297
359


24503.298
360


24503.299
361


24503.300
362


24503.301
363


24503.302
364


24503.303
365


24503.304
366


24503.305
367


24503.306
368


24503.307
369


24503.308
370


24503.309
371


24503.310
372


24503.311
373


24503.312
374


24503.313
375


24503.314
376


24503.315
377


24503.316
378


24503.317
379


24503.318
380


24503.319
381


24503.320
382


24503.321
383


24503.322
384


24503.323
385


24503.324
386


24503.325
387


24503.326
388


24503.327
389


24503.328
390


24503.329
391


24503.330
392


24503.331
393


24503.332
394


24503.333
395


24503.334
396


24503.335
397


24503.336
398


24503.337
399


24503.338
400


24503.339
401


24503.340
402


24503.341
403


24503.342
404


24503.343
405


24503.344
406


24503.345
407


24503.346
408


24503.347
409


24503.348
410


24503.349
411


24503.350
412


24503.351
413


24503.352
414


24503.353
415


24503.354
416


24503.355
417


24503.356
418


24503.357
419


24503.358
420


24503.359
421


24503.360
422


24503.361
423


24503.362
424


24503.363
425


24503.364
426


24503.365
427


24503.366
428


24503.367
429


24503.368
430


24503.369
431


24503.370
432


24503.371
433


24503.372
434


24503.373
435


24503.374
436


24503.375
437


24503.376
438


24503.377
439


24503.378
440


24503.379
441


24503.380
442


24503.381
443


24503.382
444


24503.383
445


24503.384
446


24503.385
447


24503.386
448


24503.387
449


24503.388
450


24503.389
451


24503.390
452


24503.391
453


24503.392
454


24503.393
455


24503.394
456


24503.395
457


24503.396
458


24503.397
459


24503.398
460


24503.399
461


24503.400
462


24503.401
463


24503.402
464


24503.403
465


24503.404
466


24503.405
467


24503.406
468


24503.407
469


24503.408
470


24503.409
471


24503.410
472


24503.411
473


24503.412
474


24503.413
475


24503.414
476


24503.415
477


24503.416
478


24503.417
479


24503.418
480


24503.419
481


24503.420
482


24503.421
483


24503.422
484


24503.423
485


24503.424
486


24503.425
487


24503.426
488


24503.427
489


24503.428
490


24503.429
491


24503.430
492


24503.431
493


24503.432
494


24503.433
495


24503.434
496


24503.435
497


24503.436
498


24503.437
499


24503.438
500


24503.439
501


24503.440
502


24503.441
503


24503.442
504


24503.443
505


24503.444
506


24503.445
507


24503.446
508


24503.447
509


24503.448
510


24503.449
511


24503.450
512


24503.451
513


24503.452
514


24503.453
515


24503.454
516


24503.455
517


24503.456
518


24503.457
519


24503.458
520


24503.459
521


24503.460
522


24503.461
523


24503.462
524


24503.463
525


24503.464
526


24503.465
527


24503.466
528


24503.467
529


24503.468
530


24503.469
531


24503.470
532


24503.471
533


24503.472
534


24503.473
535


24503.474
536


24503.475
537


24503.476
538


24503.477
539


24503.478
540


24503.479
541


24503.480
542


24503.481
543


24503.482
544


24503.483
545


24503.484
546


24503.485
547


24503.486
548


24503.487
549


24503.488
550


24503.489
551


24503.490
552


24503.491
553


24503.492
554


24503.493
555


24503.494
556


24503.495
557


24503.496
558


24503.497
559


24503.498
560


24503.499
561


24503.500
562


24503.501
563


24503.502
564


24503.503
565


24503.504
566


24503.505
567


24503.506
568


24503.507
569


24503.508
570


24503.509
571


24503.510
572


24503.511
573


24503.512
574


24503.513
575


24503.514
576


24503.515
577


24503.516
578


24503.517
579


24503.518
580


24503.519
581


24503.520
582


24503.521
583


24503.522
584


24503.523
585


24503.524
586


24503.525
587


24503.526
588


24503.527
589


24503.528
590


24503.529
591


24503.530
592


24503.531
593


24503.532
594


24503.533
595


24503.534
596


24503.535
597


24503.536
598


24503.537
599


24503.538
600


24503.539
601


24503.540
602


24503.541
603


24503.542
604


24503.543
605


24503.544
606


24503.545
607


24503.546
608


24503.547
609


24503.548
610


24503.549
611


24503.550
612


24503.551
613


24503.552
614


24503.553
615


24503.554
616


24503.555
617


24503.556
618


24503.557
619


24503.558
620


24503.559
621


24503.560
622


24503.561
623


24503.562
624


24503.563
625


24503.564
626


24503.565
627


24503.566
628


24503.567
629


24503.568
630


24503.569
631


24503.570
632


24503.571
633


24503.572
634


24503.573
635


24503.574
636


24503.575
637


24503.576
638


24503.577
639


24503.578
640


24503.579
641


24503.580
642


24503.581
643


24503.582
644


24503.583
645


24503.584
646


24503.585
647


24503.586
648


24503.587
649


24503.588
650


24503.589
651


24503.590
652


24503.591
653


24503.592
654


24503.593
655


24503.594
656


24503.595
657


24503.596
658


24503.597
659


24503.598
660


24503.599
661


24503.600
662


24503.601
663


24503.602
664


24503.603
665


24503.604
666


24503.605
667


24503.606
668


24503.607
669


24503.608
670


24503.609
671


24503.610
672


24503.611
673


24503.612
674


24503.613
675


24503.614
676


24503.615
677


24503.616
678


24503.617
679


24503.618
680


24503.619
681


24503.620
682


24503.621
683


24503.622
684


24503.623
685


24503.624
686


24503.625
687


24503.626
688


24503.627
689


24503.628
690


24503.629
691


24503.630
692


24503.631
693


24503.632
694


24503.633
695


24503.634
696


24503.635
697


24503.636
698


24503.637
699


24503.638
700


24503.639
701


24503.640
702


24503.641
703


24503.642
704


24503.643
705


24503.644
706


24503.645
707


24503.646
708


24503.647
709


24503.648
710


24503.649
711


24503.650
712


24503.651
713


24503.652
714


24503.653
715


24503.654
716


24503.655
717


24503.656
718


24503.657
719


24503.658
720


24503.659
721


24503.660
722


24503.661
723


24503.662
724


24503.663
725


24503.664
726


24503.665
727


24503.666
728


24503.667
729


24503.668
730


24503.669
731


24503.670
732


24503.671
733


24503.672
734


24503.673
735


24503.674
736


24503.675
737


24503.676
738


24503.677
739


24503.678
740


24503.679
741


24503.680
742


24503.681
743


24503.682
744


24503.683
745


24503.684
746


24503.685
747


24503.686
748


24503.687
749


24503.688
750


24503.689
751


24503.690
752


24503.691
753


24503.692
754


24503.693
755


24503.694
756


24503.695
757


24503.696
758


24503.697
759


24503.698
760


24503.699
761


24503.700
762


24503.701
763


24503.702
764


24503.703
765


24503.704
766


24503.705
767


24503.706
768


24503.707
769


24503.708
770


24503.709
771


24503.710
772


24503.711
773


24503.712
774


24503.713
775


24503.714
776


24503.715
777


24503.716
778


24503.717
779


24503.718
780


24503.719
781


24503.720
782


24503.721
783


24503.722
784


24503.723
785


24503.724
786


24503.725
787


24503.726
788


24503.727
789


24503.728
790


24503.729
791


24503.730
792


24503.731
793


24503.732
794


24503.733
795


24503.734
796


24503.735
797


24503.736
798


24503.737
799


24503.738
800


24503.739
801


24503.740
802


24503.741
803


24503.742
804


24503.743
805


24503.744
806


24503.745
807


24503.746
808


24503.747
809


24503.748
810


24503.749
811


24503.750
812


24503.751
813


24503.752
814


24503.753
815


24503.754
816


24503.755
817


24503.756
818


24503.757
819


24503.758
820


24503.759
821


24503.760
822


24503.761
823


24503.762
824


24503.763
825


24503.764
826


24503.765
827


24503.766
828


24503.767
829


24503.768
830


24503.769
831


24503.770
832


24503.771
833


24503.772
834


24503.773
835


24503.774
836


24503.775
837


24503.776
838


24503.777
839


24503.778
840


24503.779
841


24503.780
842


24503.781
843


24503.782
844


24503.783
845


24503.784
846


24503.785
847


24503.786
848


24503.787
849


24503.788
850


24503.789
851


24503.790
852


24503.791
853


24503.792
854


24503.793
855


24503.794
856


24503.795
857


24503.796
858


24503.797
859


24503.798
860


24503.799
861


24503.800
862


24503.801
863


24503.802
864


24503.803
865


24503.804
866


24503.805
867


24503.806
868


24503.807
869


24503.808
870


24503.809
871


24503.810
872


24503.811
873


24503.812
874


24503.813
875


24503.814
876


24503.815
877


24503.816
878


24503.817
879


24503.818
880


24503.819
881


24503.820
882


24503.821
883


24503.822
884


24503.823
885


24503.824
886


24503.825
887


24503.826
888


24503.827
889


24503.828
890


24503.829
891


24503.830
892


24503.831
893


24503.832
894


24503.833
895


24503.834
896


24503.835
897


24503.836
898


24503.837
899


24503.838
900


24503.839
901


24503.840
902


24503.841
903


24503.842
904


24503.843
905


24503.844
906


24503.845
907


24503.846
908


24503.847
909


24503.848
910


24503.849
911


24503.850
912


24503.851
913


24503.852
914


24503.853
915


24503.854
916


24503.855
917


24503.856
918


24503.857
919


24503.858
920


24503.859
921


24503.860
922


24503.861
923


24503.862
924


24503.863
925


24503.864
926


24503.865
927


24503.866
928


24503.867
929


24503.868
930


24503.869
931


24503.870
932


24503.871
933


24503.872
934


24503.873
935


24503.874
936


24503.875
937


24503.876
938


24503.877
939


24503.878
940


24503.879
941


24503.880
942


24503.881
943


24503.882
944


24503.883
945


24503.884
946


24503.885
947


24503.886
948


24503.887
949


24503.888
950


24503.889
951


24503.890
952


24503.891
953


24503.892
954


24503.893
955


24503.894
956


24503.895
957


24503.896
958


24503.897
959


24503.898
960


24503.899
961


24503.900
962


24503.901
963


24503.902
964


24503.903
965


24503.904
966


24503.905
967


24503.906
968


24503.907
969


24503.908
970


24503.909
971


24503.910
972


24503.911
973


24503.912
974


24503.913
975


24503.914
976


24503.915
977


24503.916
978


24503.917
979


24503.918
980


24503.919
981


24503.920
982


24503.921
983


24503.922
984


24503.923
985


24503.924
986


24503.925
987


24503.926
988


24503.927
989


24503.928
990


24503.929
991


24503.930
992


24503.931
993


24503.932
994


24503.933
995


24503.934
996


24503.935
997


24503.936
998


24503.937
999


24503.938
1000


24503.939
1001


24503.940
1002


24503.941
1003


24503.942
1004


24503.943
1005


24503.944
1006


24503.945
1007


24503.946
1008


24503.947
1009


24503.948
1010


24503.949
1011


24503.950
1012


24503.951
1013


24503.952
1014


24503.953
1015


24503.954
1016


24503.955
1017


24503.956
1018


24503.957
1019


24503.958
1020


24503.959
1021


24503.960
1022


24503.961
1023


24503.962
1024


24503.963
1025


24503.964
1026


24503.965
1027


24503.966
1028


24503.967
1029


24503.968
1030


24503.969
1031


24503.970
1032


24503.971
1033


24503.972
1034


24503.973
1035


24503.974
1036


24503.975
1037


24503.976
1038


24503.977
1039


24503.978
1040


24503.979
1041


24503.980
1042


24503.981
1043


24503.982
1044


24503.983
1045


24503.984
1046


24503.985
1047


24503.986
1048


24503.987
1049


24503.988
1050


24503.989
1051


24503.990
1052


24503.991
1053


24503.992
1054


24503.993
1055


24503.994
1056


24503.995
1057


24503.996
1058


24503.997
1059


24503.998
1060


24503.999
1061


245031.000
1062


245031.001
1063


245031.002
1064


245031.003
1065


245031.004
1066


245031.005
1067


245031.006
1068


245031.007
1069


245031.008
1070


245031.009
1071


245031.010
1072


245031.011
1073


245031.012
1074


245031.013
1075


245031.014
1076


245031.015
1077


245031.016
1078


245031.017
1079


245031.018
1080


245031.019
1081


245031.020
1082


245031.021
1083


245031.022
1084


245031.023
1085


245031.024
1086


245031.025
1087


245031.026
1088


245031.027
1089


245031.028
1090


245031.029
1091


245031.030
1092


245031.031
1093


245031.032
1094


245031.033
1095


245031.034
1096


245031.035
1097


245031.036
1098


245031.037
1099


245031.038
1100


245031.039
1101


245031.040
1102


245031.041
1103


245031.042
1104


245031.043
1105


245031.044
1106


245031.045
1107


245031.046
1108


245031.047
1109


245031.048
1110


245031.049
1111


245031.050
1112


245031.051
1113


245031.052
1114


245031.053
1115


245031.054
1116


245031.055
1117


245031.056
1118


245031.057
1119


245031.058
1120


245031.059
1121


245031.060
1122


245031.061
1123


245031.062
1124


245031.063
1125


245031.064
1126


245031.065
1127


245031.066
1128


245031.067
1129


245031.068
1130


245031.069
1131


245031.070
1132


245031.071
1133


245031.072
1134


245031.073
1135


245031.074
1136


245031.075
1137


245031.076
1138


245031.077
1139


245031.078
1140


245031.079
1141


245031.080
1142


245031.081
1143


245031.082
1144


245031.083
1145


245031.084
1146


245031.085
1147


245031.086
1148


245031.087
1149


245031.088
1150


245031.089
1151


245031.090
1152


245031.091
1153


245031.092
1154


245031.093
1155


245031.094
1156


245031.095
1157


245031.096
1158


245031.097
1159


245031.098
1160


245031.099
1161


245031.100
1162


245031.101
1163


245031.102
1164


245031.103
1165


245031.104
1166


245031.105
1167


245031.106
1168


245031.107
1169


245031.108
1170


245031.109
1171


245031.110
1172


245031.111
1173


245031.112
1174


245031.113
1175


245031.114
1176


245031.115
1177


245031.116
1178


245031.117
1179


245031.118
1180


245031.119
1181


245031.120
1182


245031.121
1183


245031.122
1184


245031.123
1185


245031.124
1186


245031.125
1187


245031.126
1188


245031.127
1189


245031.128
1190


245031.129
1191


245031.130
1192


245031.131
1193


245031.132
1194


245031.133
1195


245031.134
1196


245031.135
1197


245031.136
1198


245031.137
1199


245031.138
1200


245031.139
1201


245031.140
1202


245031.141
1203


245031.142
1204


245031.143
1205


245031.144
1206


245031.145
1207


245031.146
1208


245031.147
1209


245031.148
1210


245031.149
1211


245031.150
1212


245031.151
1213


245031.152
1214


245031.153
1215


245031.154
1216


245031.155
1217


245031.156
1218


245031.157
1219


245031.158
1220


245031.159
1221


245031.160
1222


245031.161
1223


245031.162
1224


245031.163
1225


245031.164
1226


245031.165
1227


245031.166
1228


245031.167
1229


245031.168
1230


245031.169
1231


245031.170
1232


245031.171
1233


245031.172
1234


245031.173
1235


245031.174
1236


245031.175
1237


245031.176
1238


245031.177
1239


245031.178
1240


245031.179
1241


245031.180
1242


245031.181
1243


245031.182
1244


245031.183
1245


245031.184
1246


245031.185
1247


245031.186
1248


245031.187
1249


245031.188
1250


245031.189
1251


245031.190
1252


245031.191
1253


245031.192
1254


245031.193
1255


245031.194
1256


245031.195
1257


245031.196
1258


245031.197
1259


245031.198
1260


245031.199
1261


245031.200
1262


245031.201
1263


245031.202
1264


245031.203
1265


245031.204
1266


245031.205
1267


245031.206
1268


245031.207
1269


245031.208
1270


245031.209
1271


245031.210
1272


245031.211
1273


245031.212
1274


245031.213
1275


245031.214
1276


245031.215
1277


245031.216
1278


245031.217
1279


245031.218
1280


245031.219
1281


245031.220
1282


245031.221
1283


245031.222
1284


245031.223
1285


245031.224
1286


245031.225
1287


245031.226
1288


245031.227
1289


245031.228
1290


245031.229
1291


245031.230
1292


245031.231
1293


245031.232
1294


245031.233
1295


245031.234
1296


245031.235
1297


245031.236
1298


245031.237
1299


245031.238
1300


245031.239
1301


245031.240
1302


245031.241
1303


245031.242
1304

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF BRADLEY J. SCHLOZMAN: COUNTIES AND STATES

COVERED BY SECTION 203


245031.243
1305

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF BRADLEY J. SCHLOZMAN: JURISDICTIONS COVERED

UNDER SECTION 4(F)(4) OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED


245031.244
1306

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF MARGARET FUNG: LOWERING THE NUMERICAL TRIGGER TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SECTION 203 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT


245031.245
1307


245031.246
1308


245031.247
1309

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF MARGARET FUNG: LANGUAGE ACCESS TO THE VOTE

FOR ASIAN AMERICANS: RENEW AND EXPAND SECTION 203 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS

ACT


245031.248
1310


245031.249
1311


245031.250
1312


245031.251
1313


245031.252
1314

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF MARGARET FUNG: THE ASIAN AMERICAN VOTE—A 

REPORT ON THE AALDEF MULTILINGUAL EXIT POLL IN THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL

ELECTION


245031.253
1315


245031.254
1316


245031.255
1317


245031.256
1318


245031.257
1319


245031.258
1320


245031.259
1321


245031.260
1322


245031.261
1323


245031.262
1324


245031.263
1325


245031.264
1326


245031.265
1327


245031.266
1328


245031.267
1329


245031.268
1330


245031.269
1331


245031.270
1332


245031.271
1333


245031.272
1334

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF MARGARET FUNG: STATEMENT OF MARGARET FUNG, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASIAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, 

BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JUNE 14, 2005


245031.273
1335


245031.274
1336


245031.275
1337


245031.276
1338


245031.277
1339

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM BOULET, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENGLISH FIRST


245031.278
1340


245031.279
1341


245031.280
1342

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JUDY CHU, CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

ASSEMBLY MEMBER


245031.281
1343


245031.282
1344


245031.283
1345


245031.284
1346

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER OF

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS FOR OVERSIGHT HEARINGS


245031.285
1347


245031.286
1348


245031.287
1349


245031.288
1350


245031.289
1351


245031.290
1352


245031.291
1353


245031.292
1354


245031.293
1355


245031.294
1356


245031.295
1357


245031.296
1358


245031.297
1359


245031.298
1360


245031.299
1361


245031.300
1362


245031.301
1363


245031.302
1364


245031.303
1365


245031.304
1366


245031.305
1367


245031.306
1368


245031.307
1369


245031.308
1370


245031.309
1371


245031.310
1372

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANGELA M. ARBOLEDA, CIVIL RIGHTS POLICY ANALYST, 

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA


245031.311
1373


245031.312
1374


245031.313
1375


245031.314
1376


245031.315
1377


245031.316
1378

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASIAN AMERICAN JUSTICE CENTER: SUBMISSIONS OF

MATERIALS FOR OVERSIGHT HEARINGS


245031.317
1379


245031.318
1380


245031.319
1381


245031.320
1382


245031.321
1383


245031.322
1384


245031.323
1385


245031.324
1386


245031.325
1387


245031.326
1388


245031.327
1389


245031.328
1390


245031.329
1391


245031.330
1392


245031.331
1393


245031.332
1394


245031.333
1395


245031.334
1396


245031.335
1397


245031.336
1398


245031.337
1399


245031.338
1400


245031.339
1401


245031.340
1402


245031.341
1403

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, RESOLUTION #TUL-05-090: SUPPORT

REAUTHORIZATION OF PROVISIONS SET TO EXPIRE IN THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT


245031.342
1404


245031.343
1405


245031.344
1406

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGENE GEE CALVERT BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION

ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, APRIL 7, 2005


245031.345
1407


245031.346
1408


245031.347
1409


245031.348
1410


245031.349
1411


245031.350
1412


245031.351
1413


245031.352
1414

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN LEWIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 

APRIL 7, 2005


245031.353
1415


245031.354
1416


245031.355
1417


245031.356
1418


245031.357
1419


245031.358
1420

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NADINE COHEN, LAWYER’S COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

UNDER LAW OF THE BOSTON BAR ASSOCIATION, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JUNE 14, 2005


245031.359
1421


245031.360
1422


245031.361
1423


245031.362
1424


245031.363
1425

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTIN PEREZ, PRESIDENT, LATINO LEADERSHIP ALLIANCE

OF NEW JERSEY, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 

JUNE 14, 2005


245031.364
1426


245031.365
1427


245031.366
1428


245031.367
1429


245031.368
1430

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLOMBINA SANTIAGO, MEMBER, NEW JERSEY ACORN, 

BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JUNE 14, 2005


245031.369
1431

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EUNSOOK LEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL KOREAN

AMERICAN SERVICE AND EDUCATIONAL CONSORTIUM, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005


245031.370
1432


245031.371
1433


245031.372
1434

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONNY MCCORMACK, REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY

CLERK, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005


245031.373
1435


245031.374
1436


245031.375
1437


245031.376
1438

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EUGENE LEE, STAFF ATTORNEY, ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN

LEGAL CENTER, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005


245031.377
1439


245031.378
1440


245031.379
1441


245031.380
1442


245031.381
1443


245031.382
1444


245031.383
1445


245031.384
1446

Æ


245031.385