109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–478 

FANNIE LOU HAMER, ROSA PARKS, AND CORETTA SCOTT 

KING VOTING RIGHTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION AND 

AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006 

MAY 22, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 9] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 9) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965, having considered 

the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 4 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 5 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 85 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 85 

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 85 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 88 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 88 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 88 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 90 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 90 

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 90 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 95 

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 104 

THE AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
2 

SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta 

Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006’’. 

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AND FINDINGS. 

(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the right of all citizens 

to vote, including the right to register to vote and cast meaningful votes, is preserved and protected as guaranteed by the Constitution. 

(b) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following: 

(1) Significant progress has been made in eliminating first generation barriers experienced by minority voters, including increased numbers of registered 

minority voters, minority voter turnout, and minority representation in Congress, State legislatures, and local elected offices. This progress is the direct result of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

(2) However, vestiges of discrimination in voting continue to exist as demonstrated by second generation barriers constructed to prevent minority voters 

from fully participating in the electoral process. 

(3) The continued evidence of racially polarized voting in each of the jurisdictions covered by the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 

demonstrates that racial and language minorities remain politically vulnerable, 

warranting the continued protection of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

(4) Evidence of continued discrimination includes—

(A) the hundreds of objections interposed, requests for more information submitted followed by voting changes withdrawn from consideration by 

jurisdictions covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and section 5 enforcement actions undertaken by the Department of Justice in covered jurisdictions since 1982 that prevented election practices, such as annexation, 

at-large voting, and the use of multi-member districts, from being enacted 

to dilute minority voting strength; 

(B) the number of requests for declaratory judgments denied by the 

United States District Court for the District of Columbia; 

(C) the continued filing of section 2 cases that originated in covered jurisdictions; and 

(D) the litigation pursued by the Department of Justice since 1982 to 

enforce sections 4(e), 4(f)(4), and 203 of such Act to ensure that all language 

minority citizens have full access to the political process. 

(5) The evidence clearly shows the continued need for Federal oversight in 

jurisdictions covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 since 1982, as demonstrated in the counties certified by the Attorney General for Federal examiner 

and observer coverage and the tens of thousands of Federal observers that have 

been dispatched to observe elections in covered jurisdictions. 

(6) The effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been significantly 

weakened by the United States Supreme Court decisions in Reno v. Bossier 

Parish II and Georgia v. Ashcroft, which have misconstrued Congress’ original 

intent in enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and narrowed the protections 

afforded by section 5 of such Act. 

(7) Despite the progress made by minorities under the Voting Rights Act 

of 1965, the evidence before Congress reveals that 40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 

100 years of disregard for the dictates of the 15th amendment and to ensure 

that the right of all citizens to vote is protected as guaranteed by the Constitution. 

(8) Present day discrimination experienced by racial and language minority 

voters is contained in evidence, including the objections interposed by the Department of Justice in covered jurisdictions; the section 2 litigation filed to prevent dilutive techniques from adversely affecting minority voters; the enforcement actions filed to protect language minorities; and the tens of thousands of 

Federal observers dispatched to monitor polls in jurisdictions covered by the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

(9) The record compiled by Congress demonstrates that, without the continuation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protections, racial and language minority citizens will be deprived of the opportunity to exercise their right to vote, 

or will have their votes diluted, undermining the significant gains made by minorities in the last 40 years. 

SEC. 3. CHANGES RELATING TO USE OF EXAMINERS AND OBSERVERS. 

(a) USE OF OBSERVERS.—Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 

1973f) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 8. (a) Whenever—


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
3 

‘‘(1) a court has authorized the appointment of observers under section 3(a) 

for a political subdivision; or 

‘‘(2) the Attorney General certifies with respect to any political subdivision 

named in, or included within the scope of, determinations made under section 

4(b), unless a declaratory judgment has been rendered under section 4(a), 

that—

‘‘(A) the Attorney General has received written meritorious complaints 

from residents, elected officials, or civic participation organizations that efforts to deny or abridge the right to vote under the color of law on account 

of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 

4(f)(2) are likely to occur; or 

‘‘(B) in the Attorney General’s judgment (considering, among other factors, whether the ratio of nonwhite persons to white persons registered to 

vote within such subdivision appears to the Attorney General to be reasonably attributable to violations of the 14th or 15th amendment or whether 

substantial evidence exists that bona fide efforts are being made within 

such subdivision to comply with the 14th or 15th amendment), the assignment of observers is otherwise necessary to enforce the guarantees of the 

14th or 15th amendment; 

the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall assign as many observers for such subdivision as the Director may deem appropriate. 

‘‘(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), such observers shall be assigned, compensated, and separated without regard to the provisions of any statute administered by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and their service 

under this Act shall not be considered employment for the purposes of any statute 

administered by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, except the provisions of section 7324 of title 5, United States Code, prohibiting partisan political 

activity. 

‘‘(c) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to, after 

consulting the head of the appropriate department or agency, designate suitable 

persons in the official service of the United States, with their consent, to serve in 

these positions. 

‘‘(d) Observers shall be authorized to—

‘‘(1) enter and attend at any place for holding an election in such subdivision for the purpose of observing whether persons who are entitled to vote are 

being permitted to vote; and 

‘‘(2) enter and attend at any place for tabulating the votes cast at any election held in such subdivision for the purpose of observing whether votes cast 

by persons entitled to vote are being properly tabulated. 

‘‘(e) Observers shall investigate and report to the Attorney General, and if the 

appointment of observers has been authorized pursuant to section 3(a), to the 

court.’’. 

(b) MODIFICATION OF SECTION 13.—Section 13 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 

(42 U.S.C. 1973k) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 13. (a) The assignment of observers shall terminate in any political subdivision of any State—

‘‘(1) with respect to observers appointed pursuant to section 8 or with respect to examiners certified under this Act before the date of the enactment of 

the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act 

Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, whenever the Attorney General 

notifies the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, or whenever the 

District Court for the District of Columbia determines in an action for declaratory judgment brought by any political subdivision described in subsection (b), 

that there is no longer reasonable cause to believe that persons will be deprived 

of or denied the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention 

of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) in such subdivision; and 

‘‘(2) with respect to observers appointed pursuant to section 3(a), upon order 

of the authorizing court. 

‘‘(b) A political subdivision referred to in subsection (a)(1) is one with respect 

to which the Director of the Census has determined that more than 50 per centum 

of the nonwhite persons of voting age residing therein are registered to vote. 

‘‘(c) A political subdivision may petition the Attorney General for a termination 

under subsection (a)(1).’’. 

(c) REPEAL OF SECTIONS RELATING TO EXAMINERS.—Sections 6, 7, and 9 of the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973d, 1973e and 1973g) are repealed. 

(d) SUBSTITUTION OF REFERENCES TO ‘‘OBSERVERS’’ FOR REFERENCES TO ‘‘EXAMINERS’’.—


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
4 

(1) Section 3(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973a(a)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘examiners’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘observ- ers’’. 

(2) Section 4(a)(1)(C) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 

1973b(a)(1)(C)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or observers’’ after ‘‘examiners’’. (3) Section 12(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973j(b)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘an examiner has been appointed’’ and inserting ‘‘an observer has been assigned’’. (4) Section 12(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973j(e)) is 

amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘examiners’’ and inserting ‘‘observers’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘examiner’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘ob- server’’. (e) CONFORMING CHANGES RELATING TO SECTION REFERENCES.— (1) Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973b(b)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘section 6’’ and inserting ‘‘section 8’’. (2) Subsections (a) and (c) of section 12 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 

(42 U.S.C. 1973j(a) and 1973j(c)) are each amended by striking ‘‘7,’’. (3) Section 14(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973l(b)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘or a court of appeals in any proceeding under section 9’’. 

SEC. 4. RECONSIDERATION OF SECTION 4 BY CONGRESS. 

Paragraphs (7) and (8) of section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 

U.S.C. 1973b(a)) are each amended by striking ‘‘Voting Rights Act Amendments of 

1982’’ and inserting ‘‘Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting 

Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006’’. 

SEC. 5. CRITERIA FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. 

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973c) is amended— (1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘Whenever’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘does not have the purpose and will not have the effect’’ and 

inserting ‘‘neither has the purpose nor will have the effect’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(b) Any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or 

procedure with respect to voting that has the purpose of or will have the effect of 

diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States on account of race or 

color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), to elect their 

preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right to vote within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section. ‘‘(c) The term ‘purpose’ in subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall include 

any discriminatory purpose. ‘‘(d) The purpose of subsection (b) of this section is to protect the ability of such 

citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice.’’. 

SEC. 6. EXPERT FEES AND OTHER REASONABLE COSTS OF LITIGATION. 

Section 14(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973l(e)) is amended 

by inserting ‘‘, reasonable expert fees, and other reasonable litigation expenses’’ after ‘‘reasonable attorney’s fee’’. 

SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS. 

Section 203(b)(1) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa–1a(b)(1)) 

is amended by striking ‘‘2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2032’’. 

SEC. 8. USE OF AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY CENSUS DATA. 

Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa– 1a(b)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘census data’’ and inserting ‘‘the 2010 American 

Community Survey census data and subsequent American Community Survey data 

in 5-year increments, or comparable census data’’. 

SEC. 9. STUDY AND REPORT. 

The Comptroller General shall study the implementation, effectiveness, and efficiency of the current section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and alternatives 

to the current implementation consistent with that section. The Comptroller General shall report the results of that study to Congress not later than 1 year after 

the date of the enactment of this Act. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 9 is to: (1) extend Section 4(a)(8) and Section 

203(b)(1), the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 

currently set to expire on August 6, 2007, for another 25 years; and 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
5 

(2) amend Section 3(a), Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, 

Section 8, Section 9, Section 14, and Section 203. These changes 

are necessary to update certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act 

of 1965 (the ‘‘VRA’’) to reflect the current voting environment and 

to restore the original intent of Congress in enacting the temporary 

provisions of the VRA. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 9 results from the development of one of the most extensive 

legislative records in the Committee on the Judiciary’s history. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF H.R. 9

Oversight Hearings 

Prior to introducing H.R. 9, the House Committee on the Judiciary held ten oversight hearings before the Subcommittee on the 

Constitution examining the effectiveness of the temporary provisions of the VRA over the last 25 years. During these oversight 

hearings, the Subcommittee heard oral testimony from 39 witnesses, including State and local elected officials, scholars, attorneys, and other representatives from the voting and civil rights 

community. The Committee also received additional written testimony from the Department of Justice, other interested governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private 

citizens. In all, the Committee assembled over 12,000 pages of testimony, documentary evidence and appendices from over 60 groups 

and individuals, including several Members of Congress. 

In addition to the oral and written testimony, the Committee requested, received, and incorporated into its hearing record two 

comprehensive reports that have been compiled by NGOs that have 

expertise in voting rights litigation and extensively documented: (1) 

the extent to which discrimination against minorities in voting has 

and continues to occur; and (2) the continued need for the expiring 

provisions of the VRA. The Committee also requested, received, 

and incorporated into its record 11 separate reports that document 

the extent to which discrimination occurred in 11 of the 16 States 

covered in whole or in part under Section 4(b) over the last 25 

years. Those reports also describe the impact that the VRA has had 

on protecting racial and language minority citizens from discriminatory voting techniques in those jurisdictions. 

Legislative Hearings 

In addition to ten oversight hearings, the Subcommittee on the 

Constitution held two legislative hearings on May 4, 2006, to examine H.R. 9. During these hearings, the Committee received oral and 

written testimony from seven additional witnesses concerning: (1) 

the impact that H.R. 9 will have on continuing the progress that 

minority groups have made in the last forty years and on protecting racial and language minority voters over the next 25 years; 

and (2) the need for H.R. 9 to update the VRA’s temporary provisions, and to restore the VRA to its original intent so that it can 

continue to be an effective remedy in addressing the history and 

continuing vestiges of racial discrimination. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
6 

1 Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). 2See Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966) and Gaston County v. United States, 395 U.S. 

285 (1969) (finding that the ability to vote cannot be denied because of lack of knowledge of 

the English language). 3 Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969); Reynolds, and H.R. Rep. 94–196 

(1975), H.R. Rep. 97–227 (1982)to accompany H.R. 6219 (Pub. L. No. 94–73) and H.R. 3112 (Pub. 

L. No. 97–205). 4See Reynolds (citing racially based gerrymandering); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 

(1960), (regarding the conduct of white primaries); and Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927); 

Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944); Terry v. Adams, 

345 U.S. 461 (1953) (as activities that unconstitutionally result in denying some citizens their 

ability to vote). 5 Ratified in 1865. 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND

THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965

The right to vote is the most fundamental right in our democratic system of government because its effective exercise is preservative of all others.1 Prior to the enactment of the VRA, parts 

of the United States condoned the unequal treatment of certain 

citizens, including denying the most fundamental right of citizenship—the right to vote. The vestiges of such discrimination continue today. In enacting the VRA in 1965, Congress sought to protect the Nation’s most vulnerable citizens’ right to vote. In renewing and extending the VRA, Congress sought to ensure that even 

greater numbers of our citizens were protected, including citizens 

whose primary language is not English,2 and to ensure that all aspects of the right to vote are protected, including the right to cast 

a meaningful ballot.3

Substantial progress has been made over the last 40 years. Racial and language minority citizens register to vote, cast ballots, 

and elect candidates of their choice at levels that well exceed those 

in 1965 and 1982. The success of the VRA is also reflected in the 

diversity of our Nation’s local, State, and Federal Governments. 

These successes are the direct result of the extraordinary steps 

that Congress took in 1965 to enact the VRA and in reauthorizing 

the temporary provisions in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1992. 

Despite these successes, the Committee finds that the temporary 

provisions of the VRA are still needed. Discrimination today is 

more subtle than the visible methods used in 1965. However, the 

effect and results are the same, namely a diminishing of the minority community’s ability to fully participate in the electoral process 

and to elect their preferred candidates of choice. 

Forty years ago, Congress passed the VRA to help ensure that 

the rights of citizenship were extended to all its citizens.4 Despite 

the substantial progress that has been made, the evidence before 

the Committee resembles the evidence before Congress in 1965 and 

the evidence that was present again in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1992. 

In 2006, the Committee finds abundant evidentiary support for reauthorization of VRA’s temporary provisions. 

NEED FOR THE ORIGINAL VRA AND SUBSEQUENT REAUTHORIZATIONS

Initial Need—Voting Rights Act of 1965 

In 1965, Congress was presented with a record revealing more 

than 95 years of pervasive racial discrimination in certain areas of 

the country. The record was replete with evidence demonstrating 

that, despite the 13th amendment signaling the end of the Civil 

War 5 and the ratification of the 14th and 15th amendments recogVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
7 

6 Ratified in 1868 and 1870, respectively. 

7See H.R. Rep. No. 89–439, at 7 (1965) (‘‘Prevalence of Voting Discrimination Through the 

Use of Devices’’) and S. Rep. No. 89–162, at 32 (1965) (describing State legislation establishing 

voting requirements). 8Prior to the VRA, registration statistics in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia were 19.3, 27.4, 31.6, 6.7, 46.8, 37.3, and 38.3 percent, 

respectively. See H.R. Rep 94–196, at 6 (1975)(compiling voting registration statistics). 9 Collectively known as the ‘‘Civil War Amendments.’’ 10See S. Rep. No. 89–162 (1965) (stating that three times within the past 8 years Congress 

has attempted to secure the constitutional right to vote free from racial discrimination, and that 

those attempts have not been fully successful). 11 Id. at 35 (describing history of litigation against Dallas County, Alabama). 

nizing the government’s commitment to equal treatment and protection under the law,6 certain State and local government entities 

continued to defy mandates under the Constitution and Federal 

law. Congress was presented with evidence demonstrating that racial discrimination was most pronounced in the electoral process 

where minorities were openly denied the right to participate in the 

political process by State and local officials. 

Testimony presented to Congress revealed that the primary 

method of keeping minorities from participating in the election 

process was through the administration of State constitutional 

amendments and statutorily-authorized tests and devices, such as 

literacy tests, moral character requirements, and interpretation 

tests, which required African-Americans to interpret certain passages of various documents during the voting registration process. 

In particular, Congress was presented with evidence, beginning in 

the 1900’s, that showed States, such as Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, Georgia, and Louisiana administered reading or writing requirements prior to allowing its citizens the right 

to register to vote. Mississippi, Virginia, South Carolina, and Louisiana authorized the administration of tests allegedly gauging proficiency in the U.S. Constitution. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, 

and Louisiana authorized and administered tests of moral character.7 These schemes and devices successfully kept minorities 

from participating in the most fundamental aspects of the political 

process, and ultimately denied them any type of representation in 

local, State, and Federal Governmental affairs.8 This lack of representation left African-Americans without a voice in the decision 

making process as it related to education, housing, employment, 

transportation, and other areas of important interest to AfricanAmerican constituents. 

Congress was also presented with the reality that the civil rights 

laws enacted in 1957, 1960, and 1964, pursuant to its authority 

under the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments 9 proved to be insufficient in addressing and remedying ongoing discrimination in voting.10 The examples of cases that had been pursued to enforce the 

prohibitions on voting discrimination revealed that a ‘‘case by case’’

approach was ineffective in protecting the rights of minority citizens and had become too time-consuming, costly, and cumbersome, 

in some cases taking more than several years to resolve.11 More 

importantly, Congress was presented with direct evidence that despite decisions of the Federal courts striking down the use of certain tests and devices as unconstitutional, and the efforts of the 

Federal Government to enforce the civil rights statutes and governing decisions, State and local officials defied these Federal efVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
8 

12 Id. at 33. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966). 16See 383 U.S. 301 (1966). 17 Id. at 325 (citing Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. at 347). 18 Id. at 328. 19 Id. at 334 (emphasis added). 

forts by simply administering new and novel discriminatory 

schemes and devices.12

Voting Rights Act 

In passing the VRA, including the temporary provisions set forth 

in Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, Congress sought to provide swift 

relief to those citizens who had been victims of discriminatory voting tactics for far too long. The temporary provisions brought certain jurisdictions under the scrutiny of Federal law, pursuant to 

Section 4 (trigger formula), Section 5 (preclearance), and Sections 

6 through 8 (Federal examiner and observer programs) and were 

recognized as necessary remedies to address the widespread injury 

caused by discriminatory practices that had been employed by certain States and political subdivisions. Congress, in justifying its 

oversight of traditional State functions, observed ‘‘when State 

power is abused, it is subject to Federal action by Congress . . . 

under the 15th amendment.’’13 In particular, Congress found ‘‘there 

is little basis for supposing that without action, the States and subdivisions affected will themselves remedy the present situation in 

view of the history of the adoption and administration of the several tests and devices reached by the bill.’’ 14 Thus, to keep minorities from continuing to be victimized by States and political subdivisions’ actions, Congress sought, through the temporary provisions, to ‘‘shift the benefit of time and inertia from the perpetrators 

of evil to the victim.’’ 15

Upholding the constitutionality of the temporary provisions of 

the VRA, the Supreme Court, in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, recognized Congress’s broad authority to remedy the history of discrimination in voting.16 Reiterating that States ‘‘have broad powers 

to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may 

be exercised,’’ the Court held ‘‘such insulation is not carried over 

when State power is used as an instrument for circumventing a 

Federally protected right.’’ 17 Citing the enforcement powers granted to Congress under the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, the 

Court upheld the temporary provisions as a ‘‘legitimate response to 

the problem for which there is ample precedent.’’ 18 The Court further acknowledged the ‘‘uncommon exercise of congressional 

power,’’ but emphasized that ‘‘exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.’’ 19

The Continued Need for the Temporary Provisions Reauthorization 

of the Voting Rights Act in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006 

In reauthorizing the VRA on four separate occasions, Congress 

determined that the ‘‘exceptional conditions’’ cited in Katzenbach 

continued to exist in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1992 such that Congress appropriately found that the temporary provisions were still 

needed. On each occasion, Congress examined the extent to which 

minority citizens were able to fully participate in the electoral procVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
9 

20The VRA withstood two additional constitutional challenges in 1970 and 1980. In 1970, in 

Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on literacy tests citing ‘‘the long history of the discriminatory use of literacy tests to disenfranchise 

voters on account of race. And, as to the Nation as a whole, Congress had before it statistics 

which demonstrate that voter registration and voter participation are consistently greater in 

States without literacy tests.’’ In 1980, the VRA withstood a third constitutional challenge in 

City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156,180 (1980). Although recognizing broad improvements in minority voting registration since the implementation of the VRA in 1965, the Supreme Court again deferred to Congress’s record that ‘‘significant disparity persisted between 

percentages of whites and Negroes registered in at least several of the covered jurisdictions’’ in 

upholding the constitutionality of the VRA. Citing Congress’s consideration of the relatively ‘‘minor positions’’ held by African-Americans and none having held ‘‘statewide office and their 

number in the State legislatures fell far short of being representative of the number of Negroes 

residing in the covered jurisdictions,’’ as evidence of the continued need for the VRA, the Court 

reiterated that ‘‘Congress gave careful consideration to the propriety of readopting Section 5’s pre-clearance requirement.’’ Id. at 181. 21 H.R. Rep. No. 91–397, at 4 (1970). 22 H.R. Rep. No. 94–196, at 7 (1975). 23 Id. 

ess and weighed the record against the continued need for the temporary provisions. On each occasion, Congress found it necessary to 

continue the temporary provisions to ensure that minority voters 

continued to be protected in exercising their right to electoral franchise.20

1970 Amendments and Extension 

In 1970, Congress reviewed the progress that had been made by 

minorities over the preceding 5 years and extended Section 4’s covered jurisdiction status and Section 5’s pre-clearance requirement 

for an additional 5 years. In extending the temporary provisions, 

Congress determined that there had been a lack of enforcement by 

the Department of Justice. A ‘‘5 year cooling off period imposed by 

the bill . . . is both reasonable and necessary to permit the dissipation of the long established political atmosphere and tradition of 

discrimination in voting because of color in those States and subdivisions in which literacy tests and low registration have gone 

hand in hand.’’ 21

1975 Amendments and Extension 

In 1975, Congress determined that there was a continued need 

for the temporary provisions and extended the protections for an 

additional 7 years. In extending Section 4 and Section 5 for another 

7 years, Congress found that ‘‘while minority political progress 

[that] has been made under the Voting Rights Act is undeniable 

. . . the nature of that progress has been limited. It has been modest and spotty insofar as there are continuing and significant deficiencies yet existing in minority registration and political participation.’’ 22

In addition, Congress was presented with substantial evidence 

demonstrating the necessity of broadening the protections afforded 

by the VRA to include minority citizens who did not speak English. 

By expanding the temporary provisions to include Sections 4(f) and 

203 under its 14th amendment enforcement power, Congress 

sought to remedy the voting inequities resulting from the disparate 

treatment experienced by language minority citizens in educational 

opportunities. In doing so, Congress ‘‘documented 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,’’ 23 and ‘‘[b]ased on the extensive eviVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
10 

24 Id. at 16. 25 H.R. Rep. No. 97–227, at 14 (1982). 26 Id. 27 Id. at 18. 28 Eleven political subdivisions (counties in these cases) in Virginia have successfully terminated ‘‘covered’’ status. Virginia remains a covered State. 29See S. Rep. No. 97–417, at 60 (1982). 30Section 2 was amended in response to the Supreme Court decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Prior to the 1982 amendments, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 

2 to require that a plaintiff prove both a discriminatory purpose and a discriminatory result to 

prevail on a vote dilution claim. 

dentiary record demonstrating the prevalence of voting discrimination and high illiteracy rates among language minorities, the [relevant] Subcommittee acted to broaden its special coverage to new 

geographic areas in order to ensure protection of the voting rights 

of language minority citizens.’’ 24

1982 Amendments 

In 1982, Congress extended the temporary provisions of the VRA 

for an additional 25 years. Congress found that ‘‘despite the gains 

in increased minority registration and voting and in the number of 

minority elected officials . . . continued manipulation of registration procedures and the electoral process, which effectively exclude 

minority participation from all stages of the political process’’ continued to occur.25 Moreover, in extending the temporary provisions 

for an additional 25 years, Congress reiterated its intent ‘‘that protection of the franchise extend[] beyond mere prohibition of official 

actions designed to keep voters away from the polls . . . [and] 

include[] prohibition of State actions which so manipulate the elections process as to render the vote meaningless,’’ 26 including ‘‘atlarge elections, high fees and bonding requirements, shifts from 

elective to appointive offices, majority vote run-off requirements, 

residency requirements, annexations, incorporations, malapportionment, and racial gerrymandering.’’ 27 Congress acknowledged that 

the length of time under which certain States and political subdivisions would continue to remain covered was a source of concern. To 

address these concerns, Congress liberalized the bailout process, 

enabling qualified jurisdictions to terminate coverage beginning in 

1984. In addition, the bailout process was amended to allow a political subdivision to terminate coverage independent of a covered 

State.28 The Committee notes that in amending the bailout process 

in 1982, it was the expectation of Congress that a majority of covered jurisdictions would utilize the liberalized bailout procedures 

set forth in Section 4(a), such that few jurisdictions would remain 

covered 25 years later.29 For reasons that will be more fully discussed, the Committee finds that covered jurisdictions have not utilized the bailout process, with all but 11 counties from the State 

of Virginia remaining covered. 

The 1982 amendments to the VRA also clarified Congress’s intent with respect to Section 2. Addressing the recent Supreme 

Court decision City of Mobile v. Bolden, Congress amended Section 

2 to require that plaintiffs bringing lawsuits under the section 

show only that an act resulted in a denial or abridgment in the 

right to vote, rather than require a plaintiff prove both purpose 

and effect.30 During the Committee’s review, it received testimony 

revealing the impact that Section 2 has had over the last 25 years 

in eliminating many of the barriers that continued to exist despite 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
11 

31S. Rep. No. 102–315, at 4 (1992). 32 H.R. Rep. No. 102–655, at 4 (1992)(citing ‘‘because many Native American communities are 

divided into two or more counties or States, the concentration of Native American populations 

is frequently diluted by the balance of the county population.’’). To account for the ‘‘unique history and demography of Native Americans,’’ Congress made the 5 percent trigger applicable to 

entire reservations without regard to whether they crossed current jurisdictional boundaries. Id. 33See Pub. L. No. 102–344. 

the passage of the VRA. Section 2 has been instrumental in paving 

the way for minority voters to more fully participate in the political 

process across the country. Together with Section 5, Section 2 has 

been a driving force in achieving the gains made by minorities over 

the last several decades in the covered jurisdictions. 

1992 Amendments 

In 1992, Congress extended Section 203 for an additional 15 

years through 2007, at which time, if not renewed, would expire 

along with the remaining temporary provisions. In extending and 

amending Section 203, Congress found that ‘‘the four language minority groups covered by Section 203—Hispanics, Asian-Americans, 

American Indians, and Alaskan Natives—continue to experience 

educational inequities, high illiteracy rates, and as a result low voting participation.’’ 31 In reauthorizing Section 203, Congress sought 

to expand coverage in order to reach segments of the language minority populations that remained unaided by the VRA. First, finding that a significant number of language minority citizens located 

in large cities were not covered under the original formula, Congress established a numerical coverage threshold of 10,000 to ensure that language minority citizens in large cities would be protected even if they did not meet the 5 percent threshold. In addition, Congress expressly reaffirmed its commitment to assist Native Americans, particularly those who live on reservations, as intended beneficiaries of the language assistance provisions.32 Furthermore, Congress clarified that jurisdictions covered under Section 203 were required to provide language minorities with not only 

bilingual election materials but also bilingual election assistance, 

including oral assistance and other written election and voting assistance, such as instructions, guides, forms, notices, and ballots, in 

response to the needs demonstrated by limited English speaking 

citizens.33

COMMITTEE FINDINGS—PROGRESS

2006 

The Committee’s review of the temporary provisions was no less 

extensive in 2006 than in prior years. Forty-six total witnesses representing a spectrum of interests appeared before the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution during the Committee’s 

review of the temporary provisions. In addition, the Committee received numerous reports and written documentation describing personal experiences with regard to voting discrimination and the effectiveness of the temporary provisions in protecting voters from 

such conduct over the last 25 years. The number of witnesses appearing before the Committee is consistent with the number of witnesses who appeared before Congress during previous reauthorizaVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
12 

34See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966) (‘‘Before enacting the measure, 

Congress explored with great care the problem of racial discrimination in voting. The House and 

Senate Committees on the Judiciary each held hearings for 9 days and received testimony from 

a total of 67 witnesses.’’) 

tions of the VRA.34 The Committee hearing record reflects the 

breadth of interests represented during the hearings and provides 

the Committee with insight into the voting experiences of minority 

citizens over the last 25 years. The direct testimony provided by 

the witnesses, together with the investigative reports submitted, 

support the Committee’s conclusion that the gains made under the 

VRA are the direct result of the VRA’s temporary provisions, and 

that reauthorization of these provisions is both justified and necessary. 

Increased Numbers of Citizens Who Are Registered and Turn Out 

to Vote 

The record reveals that many of the first generation barriers to 

minority voter registration and voter turnout that were in place 

prior to the VRA have been eliminated. The Committee finds that 

the number of African-Americans who are registered and who turn 

out to cast ballots has increased significantly over the last 40 

years, particularly since 1982. In some circumstances, minorities 

register to vote and cast ballots at levels that surpass those of 

white voters. 

A chart compiled by the Department of Justice reveals that the 

disparities between African-American and white citizens who are 

registered to vote have narrowed considerably in six southern 

States covered by the temporary provisions (Alabama, Georgia, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia) and in the 40 

counties covered in the State of North Carolina. For example, the 

disparity between the percentage of African-American citizens and 

the percentage of white citizens who were registered to vote in Mississippi narrowed significantly to 6.3 percent in November 1988, 

from the 63.2 percent gap experienced by African-Americans in 

March 1965. 

Chart A: Voter Registration Rates (1965 v. 1988) 

March 1965 November 1988 

Black White Gap Black White Gap 

Alabama 19.3 69.2 49.9 68.4 75.0 6.6 

Georgia 27.4 62.2 35.2 56.8 63.9 7.1 

Louisiana 31.6 80.5 48.9 77.1 75.1 –2.0 

Mississippi 6.7 69.9 63.2 74.2 80.5 6.3 

North Carolina 46.8 96.8 50.0 58.2 65.6 7.4 

South Carolina 37.3 75.7 38.4 56.7 61.8 5.1 

Virginia 38.3 61.1 22.8 63.8 68.5 4.7 

The number of African-Americans who registered to vote and 

who turned out to cast ballots has continued to increase since 1982. 

For example, in Texas, 68.4 percent of African-Americans were registered to vote in 2004 compared to 61.5 percent of white citizens. 

Moreover, 55.8 percent of African-Americans turned out to vote in 

2004 compared to 50.6 percent of white voters. In Georgia, 64.2 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
13 

percent of African-Americans were registered to vote in 2004 compared to 63.5 percent of white citizens, with 54.4 percent of African-Americans turning out to vote compared to 53.6 percent of 

white voters. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
14 

Chart B1: Reported Registration by Race in Texas and Outside the South 

1980–2004 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 

TEXAS 

Black 56.4 56.6 65.3 66.6 64.2 60.0 63.5 58.5 63.2 62.1 69.5 65.1 68.4 White 61.4 59.4 66.0 58.2 66.5 61.1 66.1 59.7 62.7 59.7 61.8 57.7 61.5 Latino 39.3 43.2 45.2 43.1 45.5 40.0 42.9 39.2 42.7 39.7 43.2 39.1 41.5 

NON–SOUTH 

Black 60.6 61.7 67.2 63.1 65.9 58.4 63.0 58.3 62.0 58.5 61.7 57.0 NAWhite 69.3 66.7 70.5 66.2 68.5 64.4 70.9 65.6 68.1 63.9 65.9 63.0 NALatino 35.5 33.9 39.0 33.2 32.4 30.4 32.9 29.1 33.8 31.9 32.7 30.6 NA

Source: Various post-election reports by the U.S. Bureau of the Census 

Chart B2: Reported Turnout by Race in Texas and Outside the South 

1980–2004 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 

TEXAS 

Black 40.7 37.8 51.2 39.8 47.0 38.7 50.1 33.1 47.1 35.5 57.5 44.3 55.8 White 52.7 40.6 55.5 37.5 55.2 42.5 57.2 39.4 46.7 33.5 48.1 35.0 50.6 Latino 29.7 26.8 32.7 23.6 33.2 22.5 33.1 18.9 27.9 15.3 29.5 19.1 29.3 

NON–SOUTH 

Black 52.8 48.5 58.9 44.2 55.6 38.4 53.8 40.2 51.4 40.4 53.1 39.3 NAWhite 62.4 53.1 63.0 48.7 60.4 48.2 64.9 49.3 57.4 44.7 57.5 44.7 NALatino 29.8 25.8 32.8 23.8 26.8 20.5 27.4 20.8 26.3 21.4 26.8 18.2 NA

Source: Various post-election reports by the U.S. Bureau of the Census 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
15 

Chart C1: Reported Registration by Race in Georgia and Outside the South 

1980–2004 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 

GEORGIA 

Black 59.8 51.9 58.0 55.3 56.8 57.0 53.9 57.6 64.6 64.1 66.3 61.6 64.2 White 67.0 59.7 65.7 60.4 63.9 58.1 67.3 55.0 67.8 62.0 59.3 62.7 63.5 

NON–SOUTH 

Black 60.6 61.7 67.2 63.1 65.9 58.4 63.0 58.3 62.0 58.5 61.7 57.0 NAWhite 69.3 66.7 70.5 66.2 68.5 64.4 70.9 65.6 68.1 63.9 65.9 63.0 NA

Chart C2: Reported Turnout by Race in Georgia and Outside the South 

1980–2004 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 

GEORGIA 

Black 43.7 32.5 45.9 37.3 42.4 42.3 47.1 30.9 45.6 40.2 51.6 38.5 54.4 White 56.0 40.7 55.3 40.5 53.2 42.6 58.7 38.3 52.3 36.8 48.3 44.8 53.6 

NON–SOUTH 

Black 52.8 48.5 58.9 44.2 55.6 38.4 53.8 40.2 51.4 40.4 53.1 39.3 NAWhite 62.4 53.1 63.0 48.7 60.4 48.2 64.9 49.3 57.4 45.4 57.5 44.7 NA

Source: Various post-election reports by the U.S. Bureau of the Census 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
16 

In other covered States, such as Louisiana, the gap between the 

number of African-American and white citizens who registered to 

vote and turned out to cast ballots has narrowed, with 71.1 percent 

of African-Americans registering to vote in 2004 compared to 75.1 

percent of whites. Voter turnout among African-Americans also increased between 1980 and 2004, with 62.1 percent of African-Americans turning out to cast ballots in 2004, compared to the 60.1 percent of African-Americans who turned out in 1980. In addition, the 

disparity between the number of African-Americans and whites 

who turned out to vote in Louisiana in 2004 narrowed to less than 

2 percent. (64 percent of whites compared to 62.1 percent of African-Americans). 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
17 

Chart D1: Reported Registration by Race in Louisiana and Outside the South 

1980–2004 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 

LOUISIANA

Black 69.0 68.5 74.8 71.9 77.1 72.0 82.3 65.7 71.9 69.5 73.5 73.5 71.1 White 74.5 67.5 73.2 71.4 75.1 74.1 76.2 72.7 74.5 75.2 77.5 74.2 75.1 

NON-SOUTH 

Black 60.6 61.7 67.2 63.1 65.9 58.4 63.0 58.3 62.0 58.5 61.7 57.0 NAWhite 69.3 66.7 70.5 66.2 68.5 64.4 70.9 65.6 68.1 63.9 65.9 63.0 NA

Source: Various post-election reports by the U.S. Bureau of the Census 

Chart D2: Reported Turnout by Race in Louisiana and Outside the South 

1980–2004 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 

LOUISIANA

Black 60.1 32.0 66.4 55.8 61.5 55.9 71.5 30.9 60.9 46.0 63.2 46.9 62.1 White 65.6 23.6 64.7 57.5 67.5 50.2 68.3 35.6 62.6 35.7 66.4 51.0 64.0 

NON-SOUTH 

Black 52.8 48.5 58.9 44.2 55.6 38.4 53.8 40.2 51.4 40.4 53.1 39.3 NAWhite 62.4 53.1 63.0 48.7 60.4 48.2 64.9 49.3 57.4 45.4 57.5 44.7 NA

Source: Various post-election reports by the U.S. Bureau of the Census 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
18 

Increased Number of African-American Elected Officials 

The Committee finds that the increased number of African-American citizens who are registered to vote and who have cast ballots, 

together with the protections afforded by the temporary provisions 

against dilutive techniques (discussed infra), have resulted in significant increases in the number of African-Americans serving in 

elected offices. As of 2000, more than 9,000 African-Americans have 

been elected to office, an increase from the 1,469 officials who held 

office in 1970. As of 2004, 43 African-Americans currently serve in 

the United States Congress, with 42 individuals serving in the 

United States House of Representatives, and one serving in the 

United States Senate. At the State level, more than 482 AfricanAmericans serve in State legislatures, with thousands more African-Americans serving in county, township, and other locally elected positions. 

In testimony presented to the Committee, the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act reported that the number of AfricanAmerican elected officials serving in the original six States covered 

by the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Louisiana, 

Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and Alabama) increased by approximately 1000 percent since 1965, increasing from 

345 to 3700. For example, the Committee received testimony revealing that citizens in the State of Louisiana, which as late as the 

1960’s maintained all-white assemblies, had elected 705 AfricanAmericans to office as of 2001. Such elected officials include: one 

Member of the United States House of Representatives; nine State 

Senators; and 22 State Representatives. In addition, 131 AfricanAmericans had been elected to positions on county bodies; 33 African-Americans had been elected mayor; 219 African-Americans had 

been elected to municipal governing bodies; and one African-American had been elected to Justice of the State Supreme Court. Statistics from South Carolina reveal similar results: one Member of 

the United States House of Representatives has been elected, eight 

African-Americans have been elected to the State Senate; 23 African-Americans have been elected to the State Legislature; 99 African-Americans have been elected to county councils; and 164 have 

been elected to positions on local school boards. 

The progress made by African-Americans in States, such as Louisiana and South Carolina, is representative of the progress made 

in other covered States and jurisdictions and demonstrates the effectiveness of the temporary provisions in fostering and protecting 

minority participation in the electoral process, with the most visible progress occurring at the county and local level. 

Progress Made by Language Minority Citizens Under Sections 4(f) 

and 203 

The Committee also finds that Sections 4(f) and 203 have been 

instrumental in fostering progress among language minority citizens. Included in the VRA beginning in 1975, Sections 4(f) and 203 

were enacted in response to substantial evidence received by Congress documenting the discrimination and unequal educational opportunities experienced by Asian American, Native American, Hispanic, and Native Alaskans compared to white citizens. Since 1975 

and 1992 (when Section 203 was last reauthorized), the number of 

language minority citizens who have registered to vote, turned out 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
19 

35See Letter from Karen K. Narasaki, President and Executive Director, Asian American Justice Center to the Honorable Steve Chabot, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution (November 22, 2005) (describing the impact of Section 203 on Asian-American citizens.). 36 Id. 37 Id. 38See Oversight Hearing, the Voting Rights Act: Section 203—Bilingual Assistance (Part II), 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (November 

9, 2005) (statement of Juan Cartagena, General Counsel, Community Service Society). 39See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 74. 

to vote, and who are casting ballots for preferred candidates of 

their choice has increased. 

Asian American Citizens 

The Committee received testimony from representatives from the 

Asian American community describing the impact that Section 203 

has had on Asian American citizens. Evidence presented shows 

that ‘‘Section 203 has removed barriers to voting and opened up the 

political process to thousands of Asian Americans, many of them 

first time voters and new citizens.’’ 35 Since 1992, ‘‘there have been 

important gains in Asian American electoral representation.’’ 36 The 

Asian American Justice Center (AAJC) reported that as of 2004, 

346 Asian Americans have been elected to office, including six to 

Federal offices. This is an increase from the 120 such elected officials that served in 1978. The AAJC further reported that, as of 

2004, 260 Asian Americans serve at the local level, up from 52 in 

1978, with 75 percent of those elected Asian Americans representing jurisdictions covered by Section 203. Despite these gains, 

there continues to be widespread non-compliance with Section 203 

in jurisdictions with substantial Asian populations. In jurisdictions 

that are brought into compliance with Section 203, there can be an 

immediate impact. A recent Memorandum of Agreement between 

the Department of Justice and Harris County, Texas helped double 

Vietnamese voter turnout, allowing the first Vietnamese candidate 

in history to be elected to the Texas legislature—defeating the incumbent chair of the Appropriations Committee by 16 votes out of 

40,000 cast.37

Citizens of Hispanic Origin 

The Committee received similar testimony from the Latino and 

Hispanic community indicating ‘‘the number of registered Latino 

voters grew from 7.6 million in 2000 to 9 million in 2004.’’ 38 As of 

2000, more than 5,200 Latinos had been elected to office, including 

25 to the United States House of Representatives and two to the 

United States Senate. Consistent with the findings reported by the 

Asian American community, a link was also established between 

the assistance provided to citizens under Section 203 and the increased participation of Hispanic citizens. For example, the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act directed the Committee to ‘‘a causal link between effective language assistance and 

voter turnout. In particular . . . the importance Latino citizens attach to having election materials, especially registration cards in 

Spanish.’’ 39 This causal link was also confirmed in reports presented to the Committee by voting experts residing in jurisdictions 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
20 

40See Juan Cartagena, Final Report on the State of Voting Rights in New York City, Including the Impact of Section 5 and Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act on Minority Empowerment, 

February 27, 2006. 41See Oversight Hearing, the Voting Rights Act: Section 203—Bilingual Assistance (Part I), 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (November 

8, 2005) (statement of the Honorable Bradley J.Schlozman, Acting Assistant Attorney General, 

Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice). 42See Oversight Hearing, the Voting Rights Act: Section 203—Bilingual Assistance (Part II), 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (November 

9, 2005) (joint statement of the National Congress of American Indians and the Native American 

Rights Fund). 43 Id. 44 Id. 45See Oversight Hearing, the Voting Rights Act: Section 203—Bilingual Assistance (Part I), 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (November 

8, 2005) (statement of the Honorable Bradley J. Schlozman, Acting Assistant Attorney General, 

Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice). 

covered by Sections 4(f) and 203, such as in New York City.40 It 

is likewise consistent with the impact of enforcement actions 

brought by the Department of Justice, such as in Yakima County, 

Washington, where Hispanic voter registration was up over 24 percent 1 year after the Department sued the County.41

Native Americans and Native Alaskans 

Positive results were also reported by witnesses for the Native 

American and Native Alaskan communities who confirmed that 

‘‘while turnout by Native Americans has traditionally been among 

the lowest of all communities in the U.S., dramatic changes have 

occurred recently such that, in some places, Native and non-Native 

participation rates are closer than ever.’’ 42 In certain cases, the increase in Native American voter turnout has increased by more 

than ‘‘50 to 150 percent.’’ 43 Representatives from the Native community also described to the Committee the impact that Section 

203 has had on grass roots participation. The Committee received 

evidence that the number of Native American voter registration 

drives has increased substantially such that a ‘‘direct correlation 

between focused localized commitments to increasing participation 

rates in Native communities and the actual increases that result 

. . . [M]any Native communities have seen steady, even significant, increases in registration. . . . In recent years, there has been 

a steady increase in the number of Native American candidates 

who are being elected to local school boards, county commissions 

and State legislatures,’’ including the election of seven new Alaskan Natives to the Alaska State legislature.44

This evidence demonstrates that the increases in language minority citizen registration and turnout rates are most significant in 

jurisdictions that are in compliance with Section 203’s election assistance requirements. Indeed, the Department of Justice reported 

to the Committee that enforcement of Section 203 has resulted in 

‘‘significantly narrowed gaps in electoral participation. In San 

Diego County, California, Spanish and Filipino registration are up 

over 21 percent and Vietnamese registration is up 37 percent.’’ 45

The Committee believes that these examples reflect the gains that 

Congress intended language minority citizens to make under Sections 4(f) and 203, and concludes that all American citizens should 

have the opportunity to participate in the political process. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
21 

46See United States v. Beer, 425 U.S.130 (1976). 47See Oversight Hearing, the Voting Rights Act: Section 5—History, Scope, and Purpose, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (October 25, 2005) 

(statement of the Honorable Bradley J.Schlozman, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil 

Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice). 48See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 54. 

EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISIONS

Section 5 

The Committee finds that increased participation levels are directly attributable to the effectiveness of the VRA’s temporary provisions. These provisions have protected minority voters, especially 

over the last 25 years and have helped minority citizens to: (1) register to vote unchallenged; (2) cast ballots unhindered; and (3) cast 

meaningful votes. The Committee finds this to be a significant 

achievement for citizens who historically have been prevented from 

effectively exercising the right to vote. 

In particular, the Committee finds that Sections 5 and 8 have 

been vital prophylactic tools, protecting minority voters from devices and schemes that continue to be employed by covered States 

and jurisdictions. Section 5, which requires jurisdictions covered by 

the temporary provisions to preclear all voting changes before they 

may be enforced, ensures that such voting changes do not discriminate against minority voters,46 and has been an effective shield 

against new efforts employed by covered jurisdictions. The Department of Justice reported that roughly between 4,000 and 6,000 submissions have been received annually from jurisdictions covered by 

the VRA.47 Since 1982, the Department objected to more than 700 

voting changes that have been determined to be discriminatory, 

preventing such changes from being enforced by covered jurisdictions. The Committee received testimony revealing that more Section 5 objections were lodged between 1982 and 2004 than were 

interposed between 1965 and 1982 and that such objections did not 

encompass minor inadvertent changes.48 The changes sought by 

covered jurisdictions were calculated decisions to keep minority voters from fully participating in the political process. This increased 

activity shows that attempts to discriminate persist and evolve, 

such that Section 5 is still needed to protect minority voters in the 

future. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
22 

Chart E: Administrative Review of Voting Changes 

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF VOTING CHANGES 

1965–2005 (By Calendar Year) 

Year 

ALL SUBMISSIONS REDISTRICTING PLANS 

Number Objections Number Objections 

1965 1 0 0 0 

1966 2 0 2 0 

1967 6 0 4 0 

1968 6 6 0 0 

1969 15 5 12 0 

1970 60* 4 25 1 

1971 331* 66 201 32 

1972 362 30 97 11 

1973 345 32 47 6 

1974 414* 76 55 5 

1975 1046* 79 53 11 

1976 2685* 124 335 11 

1977 1817* 42 79 3 

1978 1946* 74 48 12 

1979 1914* 54 53 2 

1980 2226 32 85 9 

1981 2240 24 387 8 

1982 2848 66 452 47 

1983 3203 52 386 40 

1984 3975 49 274 16 

1985 3847 37 235 10 

1986 4807 41 256 14 

1987 4478 29 258 8 

1988 5155 39 322 9 

1989 3920 30 180 8 

1990 4809 37 164 6 

1991 4592 75 916 66 

1992 5307 77 974 67 

1993 4421 69 512 40 

1994 4661 61 325 10 

1995 3999 19 213 7 

1996 4729 7 116 3 

1997 4047 8 105 2 

1998 4021 8 65 3 

1999 4012 5 67 1 

2000 4638 4 49 1 

2001 4222 7 985 4 

2002 5910 21 1138 19 

2003 4628 8 400 5 

2004 5211 3 241 1 

2005 3703 1 88 1 

Notes: 

*Indicates fiscal year totals 

One submission may contain more than one change. 

This list does not reflect withdrawals of objections 

See Complete Listing of Objections as of July 11, 2005 

Section 5’s effectiveness in addressing efforts to discriminate was 

reflected in the various experiences that were reported to the Committee. For example, in the case of Dillard v. City of Foley, Alabama, Section 5 was instrumental on two separate occasions (in 

1989 and 1993) in preventing the City of Foley from annexing 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
23 

49See Laughlin McDonald, The Case For Extending and Amending the Voting Rights Act: Voting Rights Litigation, 1982–2006: A Report of the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil 

Liberties Union (March 2006) at 51–53 (citing Dillard v. City of Foley, AL, Civ. No. 87–T–1213 

N (M.D. Ala); 926 F.Supp. 1053 (M.D. Ala.); letter from James P. Turner, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. DoJ, to Fred Mott, November 6, 1989; letter from 

James P. Turner, to A. Perry Willbourne, August 30, 1993; and letter from Deval L. Patrick, 

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. DoJ, to A. Perry Willbourne, July 1, 

1996.). 50See Debo Adegbile, Voting Rights in Louisiana: 1982–2006, February 2006, at 20 (citing letter from John R. Dunne, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. DOJ to Cynthia 

Young Rougeou, Assistant Attorney General, State of Louisiana (Oct. 23, 1990)). 51 Id. at 21 (citing letter from John R. Dunne, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. DOJ, to Robbie Shirley, Secretary-Treasurer, Concordia Parish Police Jury (Dec. 23, 

1991)). 52See John C. Ruoff and Herbert E. Buhl III, Section 5 and the Voting Rights Act in South 

Carolina Since 1982, February 2006, at 20 (citing letter Wm. Bradford Reynolds to C. Havird 

Jones, Jr., Esq., April 27, 1984 (84–3398)). 

white areas around the City to the detriment of primarily AfricanAmerican areas, such as Mills Quarter and Beulah Heights, which 

were also seeking annexation by the City. As part of its effort to 

enforce Section 5’s requirements, the ACLU compelled the City to 

adopt a non-discriminatory annexation policy, which resulted in annexation of Mills Quarter and Beulah Heights, in compliance with 

Section 5.49

Other examples were reported to the Committee. In 1990, the 

City of Monroe, Louisiana attempted to annex white suburban 

wards to its city court jurisdiction. The Department of Justice 

noted in its objection to the City’s changes that the wards in question had been eligible for annexation since 1970, but there had 

been no interest in annexing them until just after the first-ever African-American candidate ran for a seat on the Monroe city court.50

In 1991, the Concordia Parish Police Jury announced that it would 

reduce its size from nine seats to seven, with the intended consequence of eliminating one African-American district. The parish 

made the pretextual claim that the reduction was a cost-saving 

measure, but the Department of Justice noted in its objection that 

the parish had seen no need to save money until an influx of African-American residents transformed the district in question—originally drawn as a majority-white district—into a majority-AfricanAmerican district.51

Additional examples were reported showing how Section 5 has 

been instrumental in preventing covered jurisdictions from intentionally reenacting and enforcing changes to which the Department 

of Justice had previously objected. In South Carolina, Section 5 was 

instrumental in preventing the Lancaster County School District 

from attempting to enforce at-large voting systems, to which objections had already been interposed. The General Assembly three 

times (through Act 1622 of 1972, Act R 700 of 1976, and Act 601 

of 1984) adopted staggered terms for the at-large county board of 

education and area school boards. In 1974, 1983, and 1984, the Department objected to the same device, explaining that ‘‘[a]s we indicated in our previous objections, the use of staggered terms in Lancaster County school board elections, where the at-large system is 

used and racial bloc voting seems to exist, limits the potential for 

black voters to participate effectively in the electoral process by reducing the ability of those voters to use single shot voting. . . . Finally, with Act 602 of 1984, staggered terms were taken off the 

books for Lancaster County school elections.’’ 52


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
24 

53See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 57. 54See Laughlin McDonald, The Case For Extending and Amending the Voting Rights Act: Voting Rights Litigation, 1982–2006: A Report of the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil 

Liberties Union, March 2006, at 15. 55See Oversight Hearing, The Voting Rights Act: Sections 6 and 8—The Federal Examiner and 

Observer Program, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 

1 (November 15, 2005) (statement of Nancy Randa, Deputy Associate Director for Talent Services, Human Resources, Products, and Services Division, Office of Personnel Management). 

As important as the number of objections that have been interposed to protect minority voters against discriminatory changes, is 

the number of voting changes that have never gone forward as a 

result of Section 5. The Committee finds that the existence of Section 5 deterred covered jurisdictions from even attempting to enact 

discriminatory voting changes. The National Commission on the 

Voting Rights Act reported that ‘‘the deterrent effect of Section 5 

is substantial. Once officials in covered jurisdictions become aware 

of the logic of preclearance, they tend to understand that submitting discriminatory changes is a waste of taxpayer time and money 

and interferes with their own timetables, because the chances are 

good that an objection will result.’’ 53 Additional testimony confirms 

Section 5’s strong deterrent effect: 

[a]side from blocking the implementation of discriminatory voting changes, Section 5 has a strong deterrent effect. In 2005, 

the Georgia state legislature redrew its congressional districts, 

but before doing so it adopted resolutions providing that it 

must comply with the non-retrogression standard of Section 5. 

The plan it drew maintained the black voting age population 

in the two majority black districts (represented by John Lewis 

and Cynthia McKinney) at almost exactly their pre-existing 

levels, and it did the same for the other two districts (represented by Sanford Bishop and David Scott) that had elected 

black Members of Congress. There was no objection by the Department of Justice when the plan was submitted for 

preclearence. This does not mean, however, that Section 5 did 

play a critical role in the redistricting process. Rather, it 

means Section 5 encouraged the legislature to ensure that any 

voting changes would not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters, and that it would not become embroiled in the 

preclearance process.54

Section 8 

In addition to Section 5, the Committee finds that Section 8, the 

Federal observer provision, has played a critical role preventing 

and deterring discrimination inside polling locations over the last 

25 years. Section 8, together with Section 6, were designed to ensure that those who are eligible to register to vote and who want 

to cast ballots are able to do so. Section 8, in particular, was intended to allow the Federal Government access inside polling locations where minority voters were most vulnerable. The Office of 

Personnel Management reported to the Committee that it has 

worked with the Department of Justice to assign more than 26,000 

observers to 22 States, over the last 40 years, with the greatest 

number of Federal observers having been assigned to Mississippi.55

The National Commission on the Voting Rights Act further reported to the Committee that five of the six States originally covVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
25 

56See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 61. 57See Oversight Hearing, The Voting Rights Act: Sections 6 and 8—The Federal Examiner and 

Observer Program, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 

1 (November 15, 2005). 

ered by the VRA (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, 

and Mississippi) accounted for approximately 66 percent of all the 

observer coverages since 1982.56 Observers have played a critical 

role preventing and deterring 14th and 15th amendment violations 

by communicating to the Department of Justice any allegedly discriminatory conduct for further investigation.57

Bailout 

The Committee also finds that the success and effectiveness of 

the VRA’s temporary provisions were also reflected by those jurisdictions that successfully terminated their covered status. Since 

1982, 11 counties from the covered State of Virginia have successfully bailed out from coverage under Section 4. In 1982, Congress 

amended the bailout provision to encourage jurisdictions to end 

their discriminatory practices and to integrate minority voters into 

the electoral process. The Committee was encouraged that the bailout requirements have been utilized by some jurisdictions, and believes that the success of those jurisdictions illustrates that: (1) 

covered status is neither permanent nor over-broad; and (2) covered 

status has been and continues to be within the control of the jurisdiction such that those jurisdictions that have a genuinely clean 

record and want to terminate coverage have the ability to do so. 

COMMITTEE FINDINGS—SUBSTANTIAL DISCRIMINATION CONTINUES

TO EXIST IN 2006

The progress made by minority voters and the covered jurisdictions that have terminated their coverage over the last 25 years reflects the effectiveness of the VRA’s temporary provisions. The 

Committee finds, however, that instances of discrimination and efforts to discriminate against minority voters continue, thus justifying reauthorization of the VRA’s temporary provisions. These efforts directly affect the ability of minority citizens to register to 

vote and cast meaningful ballots. 

Disparities in Minority Voter Registration and Voter Turnout 

The Committee received testimony demonstrating continued registration and turnout disparities between African-American and 

white citizens in Virginia and South Carolina. In Virginia, the percentage of African-Americans who were registered to vote in 2004 

was 57.4 percent compared to the 68.2 percent for whites. The disparity in voter turnout was even greater. Forty-nine percent of African-Americans turned out to vote in 2004 compared to 63 percent 

of whites. In South Carolina, the disparity between the percentage 

of African-Americans and whites was narrower than in Virginia, 

with 64.3 percent of African-Americans registered to vote in 1996 

compared to 69.7 percent of white citizens. However, white citizens 

in South Carolina had made substantially more progress in increasing the percentage of white citizens who were registered to 

vote (from 57.2 percent in 1980 to 69.7 percent in 1996) compared 

to the progress made by African-Americans whose registration 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
26 

rates increased by less than 3 percent (from 61.4 percent in 1980 

to 64.3 percent in 1996). 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
27 

Chart F1: Reported Registration by Race in Virginia and Outside the South 

1980–2004 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 

VIRGINIA 

Black 49.7 53.6 62.1 66.5 63.8 58.1 64.5 51.1 64.0 53.6 58.0 47.5 57.4 White 65.4 60.8 63.7 63.3 68.5 61.9 67.2 63.6 68.4 63.5 67.6 64.1 68.2 

NON–SOUTH 

Black 60.6 61.7 67.2 63.1 65.9 58.4 63.0 58.3 62.0 58.5 61.7 57.0 NAWhite 69.3 66.7 70.5 66.2 68.5 64.4 70.9 65.6 68.1 63.9 65.9 63.0 NA

Source: Various post-election reports by the U.S. Bureau of the Census 

Chart F2: Reported Turnout by Race in Virginia and Outside the South 

1980–2004 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 

VIRGINIA 

Black 42.9 44.3 55.0 42.5 47.7 32.0 59.0 33.8 53.3 23.8 52.7 27.2 49.6 White 58.3 46.2 57.8 36.8 61.1 39.6 63.4 50.4 58.5 32.4 60.4 37.8 63.0 

NON–SOUTH 

Black 52.8 48.5 58.9 44.2 55.6 38.4 53.8 40.2 51.4 40.4 53.1 39.3 NAWhite 62.4 53.1 63.0 48.7 60.4 48.2 64.9 49.3 57.4 44.7 57.5 44.7 NA

Source: Various post-election reports by the U.S. Bureau of the Census 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
28 

Chart G: Reported Registration by Race in South Carolina and Outside the South 

1980–2004 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Black 61.4 53.3 62.2 58.8 56.7 61.9 62.0 59.0 64.3 68.0 68.6 68.3 71.1 White 57.2 54.5 57.3 56.4 61.8 56.2 69.2 62.6 69.7 67.9 68.2 66.2 74.4 

NON-SOUTH 

Black 60.6 61.7 67.2 63.1 65.9 58.4 63.0 58.3 62.0 58.5 61.7 57.0 NAWhite 69.3 66.7 70.5 66.2 68.5 64.4 70.9 65.6 68.1 63.9 65.9 63.0 NA

Source: Various post-election reports by the U.S. Bureau of the Census 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
29 

With respect to language minority citizens, the disparities in registration and turnout rates compared to white citizens and voting 

were much greater. In Florida, 36.7 percent of Hispanic citizens 

were registered to vote in 1996 compared to 67.8 percent of white 

citizens. Turnout among Hispanics was also substantially lower in 

1996 with 29 percent of Hispanic voters turning out to cast ballots 

compared to 52.7 percent of white voters. In fact, statistics revealed 

that turnout among Hispanics decreased between the years 1980 

and 1996, with 29.3 percent of Hispanics turning out to vote in 

1980 compared to the 29 percent of Hispanics who turned out to 

vote in 1996. In the State of Texas, 41.5 percent of Hispanic citizens were registered to vote in 2004 compared to 61.5 percent of 

white citizens. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
30 

Chart H1: Reported Registration by Race in Florida and Outside the South 

1980–2004 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 

FLORIDA 

Black 58.2 50.3 57.3 61.3 57.7 53.3 54.7 47.2 64.4 50.4 52.7 47.9 53.1 White 64.1 60.8 64.1 59.9 64.3 59.5 64.5 5.6 67.8 61.1 62.5 60.7 64.8 Latino 33.7 25.3 33.2 35.5 37.7 32.3 35.0 22.7 36.7 35.8 37.1 39.1 38.2 

NON–SOUTH 

Black 60.6 61.7 67.2 63.1 65.9 58.4 63.0 58.3 62.0 58.5 61.7 57.0 NAWhite 69.3 66.7 70.5 66.2 68.5 64.4 70.9 65.6 68.1 63.9 65.9 63.0 NALatino 35.5 33.9 39.0 33.2 32.4 30.4 32.9 29.1 33.8 31.9 32.7 30.6 NA

Source: Various post-election reports by the U.S. Bureau of the Census 

Chart H2: Reported Turnout by Race in Florida and Outside the South 

1980–2004 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 

FLORIDA 

Black 50.3 30.4 43.2 42.4 40.8 37.4 46.3 30.0 40.5 33.4 42.3 33.0 44.9 White 56.5 43.1 55.5 47.5 57.1 44.9 57.9 46.2 52.7 40.6 53.8 44.8 58.6 Latino 29.3 18.6 29.1 28.0 34.1 22.8 30.5 20.1 29.0 22.9 31.4 27.4 34.0 

NON–SOUTH 

Black 52.8 48.5 58.9 44.2 55.6 38.4 53.8 40.2 51.4 40.4 53.1 39.3 NAWhite 62.4 53.1 63.0 48.7 60.4 48.2 64.9 49.3 57.4 44.7 57.5 44.7 NALatino 29.8 25.8 32.8 23.8 26.8 20.5 27.4 20.8 26.3 21.4 26.8 18.2 NA

Source: Various post-election reports by the U.S. Bureau of the Census 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
31 

Chart B1: Reported Registration by Race in Texas and Outside the South 

1980–2004 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 

TEXAS 

Black 56.4 56.6 65.3 66.6 64.2 60.0 63.5 58.5 63.2 62.1 69.5 65.1 68.4 White 61.4 59.4 66.0 58.2 66.5 61.1 66.1 59.7 62.7 59.7 61.8 57.7 61.5 Latino 39.3 43.2 45.2 43.1 45.5 40.0 42.9 39.2 42.7 39.7 43.2 39.1 41.5 

NON–SOUTH 

Black 60.6 61.7 67.2 63.1 65.9 58.4 63.0 58.3 62.0 58.5 61.7 57.0 NAWhite 69.3 66.7 70.5 66.2 68.5 64.4 70.9 65.6 68.1 63.9 65.9 63.0 NALatino 35.5 33.9 39.0 33.2 32.4 30.4 32.9 29.1 33.8 31.9 32.7 30.6 NA

Source: Various post-election reports by the U.S. Bureau of the Census 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
32 

58 City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 180–81 (1980) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). 

Continued Disparity Between the Number of White and AfricanAmerican Elected Officials in Covered Jurisdictions 

In addition to the continued disparities between the percentages 

of whites and African Americans registered to vote and casting ballots, the Committee finds that few African Americans have been 

elected to positions in State legislatures relative to the total African American population in certain areas. 

The Supreme Court has found the extension of the VRA warranted when there were disproportionately small numbers of African American State legislators and disproportionately small numbers of African Americans elected statewide in covered jurisdictions, especially when the disparities exist in combination with continuing enforcement efforts and evidence of new methods of discrimination. In upholding the 1975 extension of the VRA, the Supreme Court noted that: 

The appellants contend in the alternative that, even if the Act 

and its preclearance requirement were appropriate means of 

enforcing the 15th amendment in 1965, they had outlived their 

usefulness by 1975, when Congress extended the Act for another 7 years. We decline this invitation to overrule Congress’

judgment that the 1975 extension was warranted. In considering the 1975 extension, Congress acknowledged that largely 

as a result of the Act, Negro voter registration had improved 

dramatically since 1965. Congress determined, however, that 

‘‘a bleaker side of the picture yet exists’’. . . . [T]hough the 

number of Negro elected officials had increased since 1965, 

most held only relatively minor positions, none held Statewide 

office, and their number in the State legislatures fell far short 

of being representative of the number of Negroes residing in 

the covered jurisdictions . . . Congress gave careful consideration to the propriety of readopting § 5’s preclearance requirement. It first noted that ‘‘[i]n recent years the importance of 

this provision has become widely recognized as a means of promoting and preserving minority political gains in covered jurisdictions.’’ After examining information on the number and 

types of submissions made by covered jurisdictions and the 

number and nature of objections interposed by the Attorney 

General, Congress not only determined that § 5 should be extended for another 7 years, it gave that provision this ringing 

endorsement: ‘‘The recent objections entered by the Attorney 

General . . . to Section 5 submissions clearly bespeak the continuing need for this preclearance mechanism. As registration 

and voting of minority citizens increases [sic], other measures 

may be resorted to which would dilute increasing minority voting strength. . . . The Committee is convinced that it is largely Section 5 which has contributed to the gains thus far 

achieved in minority political participation, and it is likewise 

Section [sic] 5 which serves to insure that progress not be destroyed through new procedures and techniques. Now is not 

the time to remove those preclearance protections from such 

limited and fragile success.58


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
33 

59See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 38 (citing David Bostis, Black Elected 

Officials: A Statistical Summary 2000 (Washington, D.C.: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies 2002),21). 60See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 38. 61Mississippi elected its first African American United States Representative in 1986. 62See Debo Adegbile, Voting Rights in Louisiana: 1982–2006, February 2006, at 9. 63See John C. Ruoff and Herbert E. Buhl III, Section 5 and the Voting Rights Act in South 

Carolina Since 1982, February 2006, at 1. 64See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 37. 65See Oversight Hearing, The Voting Rights Act: Section 5—History, Scope, and Purpose, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (October 25, 2005) 

(supplement to statement of Anita Earls, Director of Advocacy, UNC Center for Civil Rights, 

submitted on November 3, 2005). 66 Id. 

As in 1982, the number of African Americans elected to State 

legislatures failed to reflect the number of African Americans in 

the general population. For example, in States such as Alabama, 

Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and North Carolina, where African Americans make up 35 percent of the population, African Americans made up only 20.7 percent of the total 

number of State legislators. 

As of 2000, only 35 African Americans held a statewide elected 

office.59 In certain circumstances, these officials were not elected to 

their position but were appointed. The National Commission on the 

Voting Rights Act confirmed that ‘‘often it is only after blacks have 

been first appointed to a vacancy that they are able to win statewide office as incumbents. Moreover, in order for a black to win 

statewide election, a prior appointment to fill a vacancy is not always sufficient.’’ 60

In certain covered States, such as Mississippi, Louisiana, and 

South Carolina, African Americans have yet to be elected to any 

Statewide office.61 For example, in Louisiana, an African American 

has yet to be elected Governor and the likelihood that African 

American voters in the State would be able to elect African Americans to such Statewide positions in the near future was found to 

be minimal.62 The Committee received evidence, from South Carolina, indicating that the Governor conveyed his belief, as recently 

as 2005, that he ‘‘did not expect to see such an election in the foreseeable future.’’ 63 Similar concerns were expressed about the inability of African Americans to be elected to positions within Mississippi. The Committee received testimony that ‘‘for Statewide 

races, the higher up you go up the ballot, there’s no integration.’’ 64

Evidence shows that the experiences and concerns of African 

Americans in Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina are not 

isolated. It was reported that in North Carolina, as of 1989, ‘‘no 

candidate who was the choice of the black community had ever won 

election to a statewide non-judicial office since 1900.’’ 65 And, 

‘‘[e]very statewide election since 1988 where voters were presented 

with a biracial field of candidates has been marked by racially polarized voting.’’ 66

Lack of Support for Latino, Asian American, Native American, and 

Alaska Native Elected Officials 

The Committee also finds that the number of language minority 

officials elected to office has failed to keep pace with population 

growth among the minority communities. Latinos occupied a mere 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
34 

67See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 43; see also Natalie Landreth and 

Moira Smith, Voting Rights Act Reauthorization 2007: Alaska Report, March 2006. 68See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 95 (citing David Bositis, ‘‘Impact of 

the ‘Core’ Voting Rights Act on Voting and Officeholding,’’ in Richard M. Valelly (ed.), The Voting Rights Act: Securing the Ballot [Washington DC: CQ Press, 2006], 119.). 69See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 38. 70 Id. at 43–46. 

0.9 percent of the total number of elected offices in the country, despite being the largest minority group in the country with approximately more than 15 million citizens of Hispanic origin residing in 

the United States. The number of Asian American elected officials 

also has not kept pace with the population growth experienced by 

the Asian American community. For example, the number of Asian 

American elected officials has increased from 120 in 1978 to 346 in 

2004. However, as of 2004, there were twelve million Asian Americans residing in the United States compared to the 1.2 million 

Asian Americans who resided in 1970. The candidacies of Asian 

Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and Native Alaskans have 

rarely garnered the support of white voters, resulting in a disparity 

between the number of white elected officials and the number of 

language minority officials elected to office, including statewide offices.67

Racial and Language Minority Voters and Racially Polarized Voting 

The Committee finds it significant that the ability of racial and 

language minority citizens to elect their candidates of choice is affected by racially polarized voting. Racially polarized voting occurs 

when voting blocs within the minority and white communities cast 

ballots along racial lines and is the clearest and strongest evidence 

the Committee has before it of the continued resistence within covered jurisdictions to fully accept minority citizens and their preferred candidates into the electoral process. Testimony presented 

indicated that ‘‘the degree of racially polarized voting in the South 

is increasing, not decreasing . . . [and is] in certain ways re-creating the segregated system of the Old South, albeit a de facto system with minimal violence rather than the de jure system of 

late.’’ 68 Reports presented by national and State organizations further document that racially polarized voting shapes electoral competition in the covered jurisdictions. For minority voters, there is 

effectively an election ceiling. In elections characterized by racially 

polarized voting, minority voters alone are powerless to elect their 

candidates. Moreover, it is rare that white voters will cross over to 

elect minority preferred candidates. For example, in 2000, only 8 

percent of African Americans were elected from majority white districts.69 Language minority citizens fared much worse. As of 2000, 

neither Hispanics nor Native Americans candidates have been 

elected to office from a majority white district.70 The only chance 

minority candidates have to be successful are in districts in which 

minority voters control the elections. The breadth of racially polarized voting and its impact on minority voters represent a serious 

concern to the Committee. Federal courts have recognized the scope 

of this problem, as highlighted by the following examples. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
35 

71 Id. at 96 (citing DeGrandy v. Wetherell, 794 F.Supp. 1076 (N.D.Fla 1992), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom. Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1079 (1994)). 72 Id. at 96 (citing Colleton County Council, 201 F. Supp. 2d at 641). 73 Id. at 96 (citing Major v. Treen, 574 F. Supp. 325, 351–52 (E.D. La. (1983)). 74 Id. at 96 (citing Session v. Perry, 298 F. Supp. 2d 451, 492(E.D.Tex. 2004), vacated and remanded on other grounds, Jackson v. Perry, 125 S. Ct. 351 (2004)). 75 Id. at 96 (citing Bone Shirt v. Hazletine, 336 F. Supp. 2d 976, 1036 (D.S.D. 2004)). 

Florida 

‘‘The parties agree that racially polarized voting exists throughout Florida to varying degrees. The results of Florida’s legislative 

elections over the past 10 years established the presence of racially 

polarized voting.’’ 71

South Carolina 

‘‘In this case the parties have presented substantial evidence that 

this disturbing fact has seen little change in the last decade. Voting 

in South Carolina continues to be racially polarized to a very high 

degree, in all regions of the State and in both primary elections 

and general elections. Statewide, black citizens generally are a 

highly politically cohesive group and whites engage in significant 

white-bloc voting. Indeed, this fact is not seriously in dispute.’’ 72

Louisiana 

‘‘A consistently high degree of electoral polarization in Orleans 

Parish is proven through both statistical and anecdotal evidence. 

Particularly as enhanced by Louisiana’s majority vote requirement, . . . racial bloc voting substantially impairs the ability of 

black voters in this parish to become fully involved in the democratic process.’’ 73

Texas 

‘‘This court recognizes that Plaintiffs have established racially 

polarized voting and a political, social, and economic legacy of past 

discrimination.’’ 74

South Dakota 

‘‘The court concludes that substantial evidence, both statistical 

and lay, demonstrates that voting in South Dakota is racially polarized among whites and Indians in Districts 26 and 27.’’ 75

Impact of Racially Polarized Voting 

These examples confirm that the presence of racially polarized 

voting occurs with frequency and has a direct bearing upon the outcome of elections. The potential for discrimination in environments 

characterized by racially polarized voting is great, as demonstrated 

by the increased use of Section 5, the increased need for Federal 

observers, and the increased need for Section 2 litigation. The continued need and increased use of the temporary provisions demonstrate that efforts to discriminate are as real today as they were 

in 1965 and 1982. 

Evidence of Discriminatory Conduct—Section 5 

Congress designed Section 5 in such a way as to allow the Federal Government and courts to stay one step ahead of jurisdictions 

with a documented history of discrimination against its minority 

voters. Section 5 has accomplished this objective over the last 40 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
36 

76 446 U.S. 156, 180–181 (1980)(emphasis added) (citations omitted). 77See Complete Listing of Objections Pursuant to Sections 3(c) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 

Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, July 11, 2005, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/ 

crt/voting/sec—5/obj—activ.htm. 

years by requiring covered jurisdictions to ‘‘preclear’’ all voting 

changes with the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia or the Department of Justice. In submitting voting 

changes, covered jurisdictions have the burden of proving that the 

voting changes are not discriminatory in purpose or effect. Voting 

changes that do not meet the non-discriminatory criteria cannot be 

precleared nor can they be enforced by covered jurisdictions. 

Section 5’s reach in preventing discrimination is broad. Its 

strength lies not only in the number of discriminatory voting 

changes it has thwarted, but can also be measured by the submissions that have been withdrawn from consideration, the submissions that have been altered by jurisdictions in order to comply 

with the VRA, or in the discriminatory voting changes that have 

never materialized. Indeed, the Supreme Court in the City of Rome 

v. United States found that ‘‘the recent objections entered by the 

Attorney General . . . to Section 5 submissions clearly bespeak the 

continuing need for this preclearance mechanism. As registration 

and voting of minority voting increases [sic], other measures may 

be resorted to which would dilute increasing minority voting 

strength . . . The Committee is convinced that it is largely Section 

5 which has contributed to the gains thus far that achieved in minority political participation, and it is likewise Secton 5 [sic] which 

serves to insure that that progress not be destroyed through new 

procedures and techniques.’’ 76 The increased number of objections, 

revised submissions, and withdrawals over the last 25 years are 

strong indices of continued efforts to discriminate. 

Section 5 Objections 

Since 1982, the Department of Justice received thousands of proposed voting changes annually from covered jurisdictions. Of the 

submissions, the Department found more than 700 to be discriminatory against minority voters. The Committee finds that voting 

changes devised by covered jurisdictions resemble those techniques 

and methods used in 1965, 1970, 1975, and 1982 including: enacting discriminatory redistricting plans; switching offices from elected to appointed positions; relocating polling places; enacting discriminatory annexations and deannexations; setting numbered 

posts; and changing elections from single member districts to atlarge voting and implementing majority vote requirements. The 

Committee received testimony indicating that these changes were 

intentionally developed to keep minority voters and candidates 

from succeeding in the political process.77 For example, in 

Kilmichael, Mississippi, 

[D]uring the local elections of 2001, an unprecedented number 

of African Americans [sic] candidates were running for office. 

Three weeks before the election, however, the town’s mayor 

and the all white five-member Board of Alderman canceled the 

election. In objecting to this change under Section 5, the Justice Department found that the cancellation occurred after 

Census data revealed that African Americans had become a 

majority in the town. The town did not reschedule the election, 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
37 

78See Caroline Fredrickson and Deborah J. Vagins, Promises to Keep: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act, March 2006, at 12 (citing Melany Eversley, For a Mississippi Town, Voting 

Rights Act Made A Change, USA Today (Aug. 5, 2005) and Stuart Comstock-Gay, Executive Director, National Voting Rights Institute, Ballot Box Equality (Aug. 5, 2005), available at http:// 

www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/08/05/ballot—box—equality.php. 79See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 54. 80 Id. at 53. 81 Id. at 54. 

and DOJ forced it to hold one in 2003 where upon Kilmichael 

elected its first African American mayor, along with three African American aldermen.78

A breakdown of the objections to Statewide plans issued by the 

Department of Justice pursuant to Section 5 reveals that most objections, between 1982 and 2005, occurred specifically in ‘‘the Black 

Belt of most southern states, including majority-minority counties.’’ 79 In its report, the National Commission on the Voting 

Rights Act noted that ‘‘in nine of the sixteen Section 5-covered 

states, more objections were interposed after 1982 than before.’’ 80

The report emphasized that ‘‘all but two of the sixteen states covered entirely or partially by Section 5 are states with a large nonwhite population—Latino, black and others. . . . The close link between large non-white populations and objections is also strikingly 

visible within individual States....’’ 81 (See Appendices A-J). 

Testimony received by the Committee showed an increase in the 

number of objections issued by the Department of Justice since 

1982, with most objections continuing to occur in areas heavily populated by minority voters. The Committee received testimony highlighting the necessity of Section 5 objections to protect minority 

voters from actions undertaken by local governments. For example, 

the Department of Justice has interposed 112 objections in Mississippi since 1982, with most occurring in county and local governments. Sixty-eight of the 91 objections interposed in Georgia since 

1982 were to changes made at the county or municipal levels. Section 5’s protections have been vital to ensuring that covered jurisdictions, including the localities, were not successful in their efforts 

to disenfranchise minority voters or dilute the weight of their vote. 

Testimony from other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) 

revealed the impact that discriminatory tactics, such as the discriminatory redistricting plan administered in the City of Albany, 

Georgia, have had on minority voters and the necessity of Section 

5 to prevent enforcement: 

Following the 2000 census, the City of Albany, Georgia, adopted a new redistricting plan for its mayor and commission to replace an existing malapportioned plan, but it was rejected by 

the Department of Justice under Section 5. The department 

noted that while the Black population had steadily increased 

in Ward 4 over the past two decades, subsequent redistricting 

had decreased the Black population ‘‘in order to forestall the 

creation of a majority black district.’’ The letter of objection 

concluded it was ‘‘implicit’’ that ‘‘the proposed plan was designed with the purpose to limit and retrogress the increased 

black voting strength in Ward 4, as well as in the city as a 

whole.’’ A subsequent court ordered plan remedied the vote dilution in Ward 4. But, in the absence of Section 5, elections 

would have gone forward under a plan in which purposeful disVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
38 

82See Laughlin McDonald, The Case For Extending and Amending the Voting Rights Act: Voting Rights Litigation, 1982–2006: A Report of the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil 

Liberties Union, March 2006, at 5 (citing letter from J. Michael Wiggins, Acting Assistant Attorney General, to Al Greishaber, Jr., (September 23, 2002); Wright v. City of Albany, Alabama, 

306 F.Supp.2d 1228 (M.D.GA. 2003)). 83See Debo Adegbile, Voting Rights in Louisiana: 1982–2006, February 2006, at 21 (citing Letter from James P. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. DoJ, to Sherri 

Marcus Morris, Assistant Attorney General, State of Louisiana, and Jerald N. Jones, City of 

Shreveport (September 11, 1995)). 84See John C. Ruoff and Herbert E. Buhl III, Section 5 and the Voting Rights Act in South 

Carolina Since 1982, February 2006, at 21. 85See Anita Earls, Kara Millonzi, Oni Seliski, and Torrey Dixon, Voting Rights in Virginia, 

March 2006, at 11 (citing Letter from Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Civil 

crimination was ‘‘implicit,’’ and which could only have been 

challenged in time consuming vote dilution litigation under 

Section 2, in which minority plaintiffs would have borne the 

burden of proof and expense.82

Other examples of attempts to employ voting systems in a discriminatory manner were reported to the Committee, including: 

Louisiana 

‘‘After the Washington Parish School Board finally added a second majority-African American district in 1993 (bringing the total 

to 2 out of 8, representing an African American population of 32 

percent), it immediately created a new at-large seat to ensure that 

no white incumbent would lose his seat and to reduce the impact 

of the two African American members (to 2 out of 9). The DOJ objected.’’ 83

South Carolina 

‘‘In 1989, following a settlement of Section 2 claims in NAACP 

v. City of Lancaster (D.S.C. 1989), the city adopted a redistricting 

plan which changed a system of seven members, including the 

mayor, elected at large by plurality votes to a nine member council, 

six elected from single member districts and three, including the 

mayor, elected at large by plurality vote in staggered terms. In objecting to the two additional members, the Department noted that 

the additional districts appeared to have been added after it became clear that black citizens would have an opportunity to elect 

candidates of their choice in three of the six districts, creating a 

city council that mirrored the 41 percent African American population. Further, the Department observed that preserving seats for 

two white incumbents was a major consideration in the addition. 

In 2006, three African Americans serve on the seven member council.’’ 84

Virginia 

‘‘Pittsylvania County proposed a redistricting plan for its board 

of supervisors and school board members which would have reduced the African American population in the only majority-minority district in the county (Bannister district). The DOJ objected, 

finding the proposed reduction was retrogressive. In fact, according 

to the DOJ, even a minute reduction would have greatly impaired 

African American voters’ ability to elect candidates of choice. Furthermore, the existence of alternative plans that actually ameliorated minority voters’ ability to elect their choice candidates underscored the DOJ’s objection.’’ 85


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
39 

Rights Division, U.S. DoJ, to William Sleeper, County Administrator, and Fred M. Ingram, 

Chairperson, Board of Supervisors of Chatham, VA (Apr. 29, 2002)). 86See Robert McDuff, The Voting Rights in Mississippi: 1982–2006, April 2006; see also Oversight Hearing on the Voting Rights Act: Section 5—Preclearance Standards, Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (November 1, 2005)(statement of Brenda Wright, National Voting Rights Institute). 87See Laughlin McDonald, The Case For Extending and Amending the Voting Rights Act: Voting Rights Litigation, 1982–2006: A Report of the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil 

Liberties Union, p. 6 (March 2006)(citing United States v. Charleston County and Moultrie v. 

Charleston County Council, 316 F.Supp.2d 268 (D.S.C. 2003), aff’d 365 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. 

den’d, 125 S.Ct.606(2004)). 

Examples of repeated attempts by covered States, such as Mississippi, Virginia, and South Carolina, to preclear voting changes 

that have already been struck down as discriminatory or would 

have affected gains made by minority voters were also reported to 

the Committee. The deliberate repeated attempts demonstrate the 

continued importance of the VRA. For example: 

Mississippi 

In testimony presented to the Committee, the National Voting 

Rights Institute described its involvement, in 1995, in stopping 

Mississippi from resurrecting and enforcing its dual voter registration system, which was initially enacted in 1892 to disenfranchise 

Black voters. After being the last State in the country to maintain 

such a system, it was struck down in 1987 and the State ultimately 

administered a unitary registration system. However, under the 

guise of complying with the National Voter Registration Act of 

1993 (NVRA), the State of Mississippi revived its dual registration 

system. Under one system, the State enabled citizens to register for 

Federal elections in compliance with the NVRA. At the same time, 

the State continued to maintain, under a separate system, its preexisting registration process, enabling voters to register for all 

local, State, and Federal elections. Knowing that maintenance of 

two registration systems had previously been struck down as discriminatory, the State refused to submit the change for 

preclearance under Section 5. It was only in response to an enforcement action filed under Section 5 that Mississippi submitted the 

change in registration system to the Department of Justice for 

preclearance. Even more striking was the fact that even after the 

Department denied preclearance, Mississippi failed to enact legislation to integrate the NVRA as part of the State’s unitary registration system.86

South Carolina 

‘‘In 2003, South Carolina, enacted legislation adopting the identical method of elections for the board of trustees of the Charleston 

County School District that had earlier, in a case involving the 

county council, been found to dilute minority voting strength in violation of Section 2.87 Under the preexisting system, school board 

elections were non-partisan, multi-seat contests decided by plurality vote, which allowed minority voters the opportunity to bullet 

vote, or concentrate their votes on one or two candidates and elect 

them to office. That possibility would have been effectively eliminated under the proposed new partisan plan system. In denying 

preclearance to the county’s submission, DOJ concluded: 

‘[t]he proposed change would significantly impair the present 

ability of minority voters to elect candidates of choice to the 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
40 

88 Id.(citing R. Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General, to C. Havird Jones, Jr., February 26, 2004). 89See Anita Earls, Kara Millonzi, Oni Seliski, and Torrey Dixon, Voting Rights in Virginia 

(March 2006) at 11 (citing letter from Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Civil 

Rights Division, U.S. DoJ, to Bruce Jones, County Attorney for Northampton County, VA (Sept. 

28, 2001); letter from Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. 

DoJ, to Bruce Jones, County Attorney for Northampton County, VA (May 19, 2003); and letter 

from J. Michael Wiggins, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. DoJ, 

to Bruce Jones, County Attorney for Northampton County, VA (Oct. 21, 2003)). 90See Section 5. 91See 28 C.F.R.51.37 and 51.40. 

school board and to participate fully in the political process.’ The department further noted that: every black member of the 

Charleston County delegation voted against the proposed 

change, some specifically citing the retrogressive nature of the 

change. Our investigation also reveals that the retrogressive 

nature of this change is not only recognized by black members 

of the delegation, but is recognized by other citizens in 

Charleston County, both elected and unelected. Section 5 thus 

prevented the State from implementing a new and retrogressive voting practice, one which everyone understood was adopted to dilute black voting strength and insure white control of 

the school board.’’ 88

Virginia 

‘‘Northampton County proposed a change in the method of electing the board of supervisors by collapsing six districts into three 

larger districts in September 2001. The DOJ objected, finding that 

three of the six districts were majority-minority districts in which 

African American voters regularly elected their candidates of 

choice. The new plan would have diluted the minority-majorities 

and caused them to completely disappear in two of the three districts—clearly having retrogressive effects. Two years later, in 

2003, the county provided a new six-district plan, which had the 

same retrogressive effects of the three-district plan. The DOJ objected and provided a model non-retrogressive, six-district plan, 

which has yet to be followed by the county.’’ 89

Section 5—More Information Request Letters 

Efforts to discriminate over the past 25 years were not just demonstrated by objection letters issued under Section 5 but were also 

reflected by an administrative mechanism, known as a ‘‘more information request (MIR).’’ MIRs are used by the Department of Justice when insufficient information is submitted with a proposed 

voting change to enable the Department of Justice to make a determination whether a voting change has the ‘‘purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote.’’ 90 The use of MIRs force covered jurisdictions to take action when seeking to preclear voting 

changes that may be discriminatory, including deciding whether to: 

(1) submit additional information to prove a change is non-discriminatory; (2) withdraw a proposed change from consideration because 

it is discriminatory; (3) submit a new or amended non-discriminatory voting plan; or (4) make no change.91 The actions taken by a 

jurisdiction are often illustrative of a jurisdiction’s motives. For example, testimony presented to the Committee revealed that MIRs 

affected more than 800 additional voting changes that were submitted for preclearance, compelling covered jurisdictions to either 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
41 

92See Juan Cartagena, Final Report on the State of Voting Rights in New York City, Including the Impact of Section 5 and Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act on Minority Empowerment, 

February 27, 2006, at 20–22. 93See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 58. 94 Id. 95See LeeAnne Quatrucci, Voting Rights Act in North Carolina 1982–2006, March 2006, at 

2. 96See Statement of Joaquin G. Avila, The Continued for Federal Oversight of California’s Electoral Process, to the Honorable Steve Chabot, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution 

(November 2005). 97See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 66. 

alter the proposal or withdraw it from consideration altogether.92

The National Voting Rights Committee confirmed that since 1982, 

over 205 voting changes have been withdrawn as a result of Section 5’s MIR tool.93 The location of the withdrawn voting changes 

parallels the pattern of objections interposed by the Department of 

Justice, occurring primarily within the ‘‘Black Belt’’ of the Southern 

States.94 For example, in North Carolina alone, it was reported 

that the State has withdrawn more than 10 submissions as a result 

of the MIRs since 1982, including five since 2000.95 (See Appendix 

K). 

The notable impact that Section 5 MIRs have had on protecting 

minority voters was presented to the Committee: 

In Monterey County, election officials decided to reduce the 

number of polling places for the special gubernatorial recall 

election held on October 7, 2003. According to county officials, 

the number of polling places utilized in the November 2002 

general election was reduced from 190 to 86 for the special recall election. The Department of Justice ultimately approved 

the voting precinct only after Monterey County withdrew from 

Section 5 consideration five precinct and polling place consolidations. Absent Section 5 coverage there would not have been 

a withdrawal of these particular polling place consolidations. 

The only alternative would have been to file a Section 2 case 

and seek a preliminary injunction enjoining the consolidation 

of these polling places.96

The example highlights the fact that despite efforts to enact discriminatory changes. Section 5 has been instrumental in ensuring 

that only voting changes that are non-discriminatory in purpose 

and effect are enforceable by a covered jurisdiction. 

Section 5—Enforcement and Non-Compliance 

In addition to the increased number of objections interposed 

under Section 5, the continued need for additional information related to Section 5 submissions, and the increased number of submissions withdrawn from consideration under Section 5, the Committee finds that covered jurisdictions continue to resist submitting 

voting changes for preclearance, as required by Section 5. In fact, 

the Committee received testimony from the National Commission 

on the Voting Rights Act that the Department of Justice has no 

‘‘systematic way to monitor all such jurisdictions to ensure that all 

changes are submitted for preclearance.’’ 97 As a result, many defiant covered jurisdictions and State and local officials continue to 

enact and enforce changes to voting procedures without the Federal 

Government’s knowledge. The Committee finds that Section 5’s enVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
42 

98 1977 S.D. Op. Atty. Gen.175: 1977 WL 36011 (S.D.AG.) 99See http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec—5/sd—obj2.htm. 100See http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec—5/sd—obj2.htm. 101See Laughlin McDonald, ‘‘The Need to Expand the Coverage of Section Five of the Voting 

Rights Act to Indian Country,’’ The Future of the Voting Rights Act (Russell Sage Foundation, 

2006) edited by Richard H. Pildes, Rodolfo de la Garza, David Epstein, and Sharyn O’Halloran 

at 27. 102 Id. at 31. 103See Statement of Joaquin G. Avila, The Continued for Federal Oversight of California’s Electoral Process, to the Honorable Steve Chabot, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution 

(November 2005). 104See Lopez v. Monterey County, 525 U.S. 266 (1999). 105 Id. at 273. 

forcement authority played a critical role, enabling the Department 

of Justice and private citizens to monitor covered jurisdictions to 

the fullest extent possible to ensure full compliance was achieved. 

The Committee further finds that much of the burden of enforcing 

Section 5 over the years has fallen to private citizens whose assistance has been critical to ensuring that discriminatory changes are 

stopped before they negatively affect minority voters. 

South Dakota 

Perhaps the most egregious example of non-compliance received 

by the Committee occurred in South Dakota. Beginning in 1975, 

former South Dakota Attorney General William Janklow described 

the preclearance requirement as a ‘‘facial absurdity’’ and advised 

against compliance, stating ‘‘I see no need to proceed with undue 

speed to subject our State laws to a ‘one-man veto’ by the United 

States Attorney General.’’ 98 And, while the Department of Justice 

sued South Dakota in 1978 and 1979 to enforce Section 5’s requirements, compliance efforts in subsequent years fell short.99 As a result, between 1976 and 2002, South Dakota enacted more than 600 

statutes and voting changes, seeking preclearance in less than five 

cases.100

The lack of enforcement enabled South Dakota to defy Federal 

oversight requirements and to continue enforcing changes which 

negatively impacted Native American citizens and their ability to 

vote. Over the last several decades, the State enacted voting 

changes that ‘‘authoriz[ed] municipalities to adopt numbered seat 

requirements . . . requir[ed] a majority vote for nomination in primary elections for United States Senate, congressman, and governor . . . and [enforced] redistricting plans . . . [that] packed Indians into certain districts.’’ 101 In 2002, members of the ‘‘Oglala 

and Rosebud Sioux Tribes in Shannon and Todd counties sued the 

State of South Dakota, with the assistance of the ACLU, to enforce 

Section 5’s requirements. These efforts resulted in a consent decree 

under which the State agreed to fulfill its preclearance obligations 

over a 3-year period.’’ 102

Other examples of non-compliance were presented to the Committee. In California, it was reported that ‘‘there is a significant 

problem relating to the enforcement of the Section 5 preclearance 

provisions,’’ 103 the significance of which was noted by the Supreme 

Court in Lopez v. Monterey County.104 The Lopez Court highlighted 

the particular failure by Monterey County to comply with Section 

5, finding that ‘The County, although covered by Section 5 of the 

Act, failed to seek Federal preclearance for any of its six consolidation ordinances. Nor did the State preclear its 1979 law....’’ 105


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
43 

106See John C. Ruoff and Herbert E. Buhl III, Section 5 and the Voting Rights Act in South 

Carolina Since 1982, February 2006, at 27 (citing N.A.A.C.P. v. Lee County Council, C.A. No. 

3:94–01575–17 (D.S.C., 1994; United States v. Lee County, C.A. No. 3:94–01582–17 (D.S.C., 

1994)). 107 Id. 108See Debo Adegbile, Voting Rights in Louisiana: 1982–2006, February 2006, at 31. 109 Id. 110See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006,(Highlights of Hearings of the National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act (2006)). 

Testimony from many outside groups confirms the importance of 

Section 5’s enforcement mechanisms, especially in protecting smaller, more rural communities within covered States, where Federal 

oversight has been limited and non-compliance extensive. For example, testimony from South Carolina revealed that in Lee County, 

the ‘‘County revised its redistricting plan and the revised plan was 

precleared in 1993. The County set an expedited special election 

schedule even though the new plan included substantial changes 

from the previous plan. The county held a primary in 1994 even 

though the [new] plan had not been precleared. . . . Both the Department of Justice and the NAACP filed in the District Court to 

enjoin the special general elections and to vacate the special primary. The court issued a temporary restraining order.’’ 106 Later, a 

‘‘three judge panel granted summary judgment motions by the 

plaintiffs vacating the April 19, 1994 special primary and enjoining 

further implementation of the special election procedure.’’ 107

Additional testimony indicates that ‘‘Louisiana’s record of complying with Section 5 for local elections is even worse than its 

record for State elections, which is why Section 5 plays an important role in Louisiana in preventing voting discrimination for local 

offices.’’ 108 For example, ‘‘[T]he Western District Court for Louisiana has enjoined multiple elections in jurisdictions that failed to 

preclear voting changes. In 1991, it enjoined the City of Monroe 

from holding elections in Ward 1, 2, and 4 until obtaining 

preclearance for elections to the City Court. In 1994, the same District Court enjoined elections under the Vernon Parish School 

Board’s post 1990 reapportionment, since the School Board failed 

to submit its 1994 modified reapportionment resolution. The School 

Board’s reapportionment also violated the one-person one-vote 

standard.’’ 109

The Committee was also made aware that unofficial changes to 

voting practices are routinely made by local elections officials. 

Local election officials and poll workers often make arbitrary decisions in polling locations that effectively change voting procedures. 

In some cases, these changes have been in effect for years without 

preclearance and are now considered standard practice. For example, in Mississippi, the outcome for a race for Superintendent in 

Hinds County was affected by a decision whether to count affidavit 

ballots that did not contain signatures on the ballot. The decision 

to accept ballots only with signatures was made by a local election 

official and the issue, on which the outcome of the race for Superintendent depended, was litigated to the Supreme Court. Despite 

a ruling from the Court that affidavit ballots do not need signatures, the county continued to count only those ballots with signatures.110 Arbitrary decisions made in polling places out of the sight 

of Federal officials, and the impact that such changes have on miVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
44 

111See Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982–2005, The National 

Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006, at 61. 112See Oversight Hearing, The Voting Rights Act: Sections 6 and 8—The Federal Examiner 

and Observer Program, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th 

Cong. 1 (November 15, 2005) (statement of Barry J. Weinberg, former Deputy Chief and Acting 

Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice). 

nority voters with no protection other than the temporary provisions of the VRA is of significant concern to the Committee. 

Federal Examiners and Observers 

The Committee finds that indicia of discrimination are reflected 

in the continued need for Federal observers to monitor polling 

places located in covered jurisdictions. The assignment of Federal 

officials to these jurisdictions demonstrates that the discriminatory 

conduct experienced by minority voters is not solely limited to tactics to dilute the voting strength of minorities but continues to include tactics to disenfranchise, such as harassment and intimidation inside polling locations. Under Section 8, observers are assigned to a polling location only when there is a reasonable belief 

that minority citizens are at risk of being disenfranchised. While 

observers are not authorized to take action against the perpetrators 

of discriminatory conduct, the Committee finds that they have 

served a critical oversight function, monitoring and reporting on 

the actions of voters and poll workers inside the polling locations. 

Since 1965, more than 22,000 Federal observers have been assigned to protect minority voters in polling places. In the last 25 

years, between 300 and 600 observers have been assigned annually 

to covered jurisdictions to protect minority voters. In 2004 alone, 

more than 1,400 observers were sent to 105 jurisdictions in 29 

States to protect the rights of minority citizens. 

According to the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, ‘‘Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina— five of the six States originally covered by Section 5—accounted for 

66 percent of all the coverages since 1982. Mississippi alone, long 

considered the most resistant of all States to black voting rights, 

accounted for 40 percent [of the observers assigned since 1982].’’ 111

(See Appendix L.) In South Carolina, the Committee received testimony revealing that observers have been assigned 23 times since 

1982 to observe 37 separate elections to ensure the rights of African Americans were protected. In Georgia, observers were present 

in 28 counties monitoring 57 elections within the State since 1982. 

The Committee further finds that observers have played a critical role in law enforcement efforts to protect minority citizens. 

These observations often become the foundation of Department of 

Justice enforcement efforts. For example, the Committee received 

testimony demonstrating the importance of the observer report in 

United States v. Conecuh County, Alabama (Civil Action No. 83– 1201 (S.D. Ala. June 12, 1984)). The personal accounts of observers 

were instrumental in enabling Federal prosecutors to proceed 

against County officials for discriminatory conduct against African 

Americans in polling locations.112

The Committee also finds it significant that Federal observers 

have become increasingly necessary to ensure that language assistance within jurisdictions covered by Section 203 are fulfilled. The 

Committee received testimony revealing that more than 800 Federal observers were assigned to covered counties in New York City 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
45 

113See Juan Cartagena, Final Report on the State of Voting Rights in New York City, Including the Impact of Section 5 and Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act on Minority Empowerment, 

February 27, 2006, at 22–23. 114See Statement of Joaquin G. Avila, The Continued for Federal Oversight of California’s Electoral Process, to the Honorable Steve Chabot, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution 

(November 2005). 115See Robert Kengle, Voting Rights in Georgia: 1982–2006 (March 2006) at 33. 116See Letter from Karen K. Narasaki, President and Executive Director, Asian American 

Justice Center to the Honorable Steve Chabot, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution 

(November 22, 2005). 117See Oversight Hearing, The Voting Rights Act: Section 203—Bilingual Assistance (Part I), 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (November 

8, 2005) (statement of the Honorable Bradley J.Schlozman, Acting Assistant Attorney General, 

Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice). 

from 1985 through 2004 to protect Asian American and Latino voters’ full participation in the electoral process.113 These observers 

were necessary to ensure that polling place workers translated documents and procedures for language minority citizens as required 

by Section 203. In other locations, observers were able to identify 

and report back to the Department of Justice instances in which 

language minority voters fell victim to the harassment and intimidation of polling officials. For example, observers were recently assigned to covered jurisdictions, such as in Georgia, Alabama, and 

Texas, to protect Latino and Asian American voters. 

Language Minority Citizens and Sections 4(f) and 203 

The Committee finds that Latinos, Asian Americans, Alaskan 

Natives, and Native Americans continue to suffer from discrimination in voting. According to some in California, Latinos continue to 

be victims of discriminatory tactics employed at the local level, 

such as on school boards and county governments, where fragmenting and packing tactics continue to prevent Hispanics from 

electing candidates of their choice.114 The Committee received testimony disclosing efforts on the part of officials in the City of Seguin, 

Texas, to prevent Latinos from gaining a majority of seats on the 

city council by attempting to dismantle a fifth Latino district in its 

new redistricting plan. Similar testimony was received from language minority citizens in New York, Alaska, Arizona, California, 

Florida, and South Dakota, all of whom identified similar tactics 

used to keep Native Alaskans, Native Americans, Asian Americans 

and Latinos from registering and casting effective ballots. These 

tactics include providing ineffective language assistance and fragmenting and packing Hispanic and Asian Americans. 

The Committee also received testimony revealing efforts by officials in the covered States of Alabama and Georgia to discriminate 

against language minority citizens. For example, local Officials in 

Long County, Georgia attempted to disenfranchise Hispanic voters 

by challenging their citizenship status solely on the basis of surname.115 In Alabama, Asian American voters attempting to vote in 

an election with an Asian American candidate were harassed and 

threatened by supporters of an opposing candidate in polling locations in Bayou La Batre.116 It was only with the assistance of the 

Department of Justice that Asian American and Hispanic voters in 

these jurisdictions were able to cast ballots without barriers.117

Moreover, in jurisdictions covered by Section 203, the Committee 

received information that Asian Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Native Alaskans continue to experience hardships and 

barriers to voting and casting ballots because of their limited abiliVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
46 

118See Letter from Stewart Kohl, President and Executive Director, The Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, to The Honorable Steve Chabot, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution (November 16, 2005). 119 Id.; see also Juan Cartagena, Final Report on the State of Voting Rights in New York City, 

Including the Impact of Section 5 and Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act on Minority Empowerment, February 27, 2006. 120See Oversight Hearing, The Voting Rights Act: Section 203—Bilingual Assistance (Part II), 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1(November 

9, 2005) (joint statement of the National Congress of American Indians and the Native American 

Rights Fund). See also, The Native Languages Protection Act of 1990. 

ties to speak English and high illiteracy rates. In testimony presented to the Committee, it was reported that ‘‘40 percent of Asian 

Americans and Hispanics in California are limited English proficient, with more than a quarter living in linguistically isolated 

households.’’ 118 The Committee received testimony revealing that 

63 percent of Asian Americans in New York reside in limited 

English proficient homes. Hispanics are similarly situated, with 

more than 75 percent of Latinos nationwide reportedly speaking a 

language other than English in the home, and 23 percent of registered Latinos identifying Spanish as their primary language.119

In testimony presented by the National Congress of American Indians, it was reported that many Native people speak English only 

as a second language, with many Native Alaskans and Native 

Americans continuing to speak in their native tongue, particularly 

among the elders—‘‘many who speak English poorly’’—and many 

tribal businesses that continue to conduct business exclusively or 

primarily in Native languages.120

Chart I: California LEP and LIH Rates 

Group Percentage of Population that is 

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 

Percentage of Households That Are 

Linguistically Isolated (LIH) 

Vietnamese 62% 44% 

Cambodian 56% 32% 

Korean 52% 41% 

Chinese 48% 34% 

Latino 43% 26% 

Asian overall 39% 26% 

Filipino 23% 11% 

Japanese 22% 18% 

California 20% 10% 

White 3% 2% 

Chart J1: San Francisco County LEP and LIH Rates 

Group Percentage of Population that is 

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 

Percentage of Households That Are 

Linguistically Isolated (LIH) 

Vietnamese 63% 43% 

Chinese 58% 42% 

Asian overall 50% 35% 

Latino 42% 23% 

Korean 41% 33% 

Filipino 29% 14% 

County 25% 13% 

White 6% 4% 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
47 

Chart J2: San Mateo County LEP and LIH Rates 

Group Percentage of Population that is 

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 

Percentage of Households That Are 

Linguistically Isolated (LIH) 

Vietnamese 46% 29% 

Latino 45% 24% 

Korean 39% 26% 

Chinese 37% 23% 

Asian overall 29% 16% 

Filipino 23% 9% 

County 18% 8% 

White 4% 2% 

Chart J3: Alameda County LEP and LIH Rates 

Group Percentage of Population that is 

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 

Percentage of Households That Are 

Linguistically Isolated (LIH) 

Vietnamese 59% 44% 

Chinese 50% 36% 

Korean 44% 32% 

Latino 40% 22% 

Asian overall 38% 25% 

Filipino 23% 10% 

County 18% 9% 

White 3% 2% 

Chart J4: Santa Clara County LEP and LIH Rates 

Group Percentage of Population that is 

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 

Percentage of Households That Are 

Linguistically Isolated (LIH) 

Vietnamese 65% 45% 

Korean 49% 36% 

Chinese 44% 31% 

Asian overall 40% 25% 

Latino 38% 19% 

Filipino 26% 10% 

County 22% 10% 

White 4% 2% 

Chart J5: Los Angeles County LEP and LIH Rates 

Group Percentage of Population that is 

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 

Percentage of Households That Are 

Linguistically Isolated (LIH) 

Vietnamese 63% 45% 

Korean 59% 47% 

Cambodian 57% 33% 

Chinese 54% 39% 

Latino 48% 30% 

Asian overall 43% 30% 

County 29% 15% 

Japanese 25% 22% 

Filipino 23% 11% 

White 7% 4% 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
48 

Chart J6: Orange County LEP and LIH Rates 

Group Percentage of Population that is 

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 

Percentage of Households That Are 

Linguistically Isolated (LIH) 

Vietnamese 64% 46% 

Korean 54% 39% 

Latino 48% 27% 

Asian overall 45% 29% 

Chinese 40% 26% 

County 22% 10% 

Filipino 17% 7% 

White 2% 1% 

Chart J7: San Diego County LEP and LIH Rates 

Group Percentage of Population that is 

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 

Percentage of Households That Are 

Linguistically Isolated (LIH) 

Vietnamese 60% 45% 

Korean 39% 31% 

Latino 39% 23% 

Chinese 35% 25% 

Asian overall 32% 21% 

Filipino 23% 11% 

County 15% 7% 

White 2% 1% 

Chart J8: Sacramento County—LEP and LIH Rates 

Group Percentage of Population that is 

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 

Percentage of Households That Are 

Linguistically Isolated (LIH) 

Vietnamese 60% 47% 

Chinese 43% 32% 

Korean 38% 27% 

Asian overall 38% 24% 

Latino 27% 16% 

Filipino 18% 9% 

County 12% 6% 

White 4% 2% 

Chart K: Southern California Exit Poll Data—LEP Rates 

Election Percentage of APIA Voters Who Are 

Limited English Proficient 

November 2004* 40% 

November 2002 32% 

November 2000 46% 

March 2000 47% 

November 1998 35% 

*Represents preliminary findings. Subject to adjustment based on 

statistical weighting 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
49 

Chart L: Southern California Exit Poll Data—More Likely to Vote if Assistance Received 

Election Percentage of APIA Voters More Likely 

to Vote if Assistance Received 

Percentage of Latino Voters More 

Likely to Vote if Assistance Received 

November 2000 54% 46% 

March 2000 53% 42% 

November 1998 43% 38% 

Chart M1: San Francisco County—H.S. and Child LEP 

Group Less Than High School Degree Child LEP Rate 

Vietnamese 47% 37% 

Chinese 39% 34% 

Asian overall 32% 30% 

County 19% 20% 

Filipino 17% 13% 

Korean 14% 21% 

White 5% 5% 

Chart M2: San Mateo County—H.S. and Child LEP 

Group Less Than High School Degree Child LEP Rate 

Vietnamese 22% 11% 

County 15% 14% 

Chinese 13% 15% 

Asian overall 11% 13% 

Filipino 10% 9% 

White 7% 2% 

Korean 5% 21% 

Chart M3: Alameda County—H.S. and Child LEP 

Group Less Than High School Degree Child LEP Rate 

Vietnamese 35% 39% 

Chinese 24% 29% 

Asian overall 18% 22% 

County 18% 14% 

Korean 11% 22% 

Filipino 11% 11% 

White 8% 2% 

Chart M4: Santa Clara County—H.S. and Child LEP 

Group Less Than High School Degree Child LEP Rate 

Vietnamese 32% 42% 

County 17% 16% 

Asian overall 15% 23% 

Filipino 12% 11% 

Chinese 11% 22% 

Korean 10% 26% 

White 7% 2% 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
50 

Chart M5: Los Angeles County—H.S. and Child LEP 

Group Less Than High School Degree Child LEP Rate 

Vietnamese 39% 41% 

County 30% 23% 

Chinese 24% 30% 

Asian overall 18% 24% 

Korean 12% 30% 

White 11% 4% 

Filipino 10% 10% 

Japanese 7% 12% 

Chart M6: Orange County—H.S. and Child LEP 

Group Less Than High School Degree Child LEP Rate 

Vietnamese 34% 42% 

County 21% 19% 

Asian overall 19% 26% 

Chinese 12% 19% 

Korean 10% 27% 

Filipino 8% 8% 

White 7% 2% 

Chart M7: San Diego County—H.S. and Child LEP 

Group Less Than High School Degree Child LEP Rate 

Vietnamese 40% 38% 

Asian overall 18% 16% 

County 17% 14% 

Chinese 16% 14% 

Filipino 14% 7% 

Korean 10% 24% 

White 8% 2% 

Chart M8: Sacramento County—H.S. and Child LEP 

Group Less Than High School Degree Child LEP Rate 

Vietnamese 39% 34% 

Chinese 29% 25% 

Asian overall 27% 29% 

Korean 20% 15% 

County 17% 11% 

Filipino 12% 4% 

White 11% 5% 

The Committee has received testimony highlighting instances 

where citizens who are unable to speak English proficiently have 

encountered degraded educational opportunities. Evidence of unequal educational opportunities can also be found in court decisions. For example, in the State of Alaska, testimony revealed that 

during ‘‘the 2003–2004 school year, the statewide graduation rate 

for all students was 62.9 percent compared to the 47.5 percent of 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
51 

121See Landreth and Smith, Voting Rights Act Reauthorization 2007: Alaska Report, March 

2006, at 27. 122 Id.(citing No. 3AN–97–3782 CIV, Order granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary 

judgment on facilities funding, Sept. 1, 1999.). 123 Id. 124Letter from Stewart Kohl, President and Executive Director, The Asian Pacific American 

Legal Center of Southern California, to The Honorable Steve Chabot, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on the Constitution (November 16, 2005). 125 Id. 126 Id. 127See Legislative Hearing on H.R. 9, Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act 

of 2006 (Part II), Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 

2 (May 4, 2006)(statement of Dr. James Thomas Tucker, Voting Rights Consultant for the National Association of Latino Elected and appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund). 128 Id.; see also Kasayulie v. State of Alaska, Case No. 3AN–97–3782–CIV (Alaska Superior 

Ct. 1999); Flores v. State of Arizona, 405 F. Supp.2d 1112 (D. Ariz. 2005) (contempt order); CHE 

v. Denver Public Schools, a 1983 case resolved by consent decree after the United States Department of Justice intervened in 1999, 1999 WL 33300905; League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Florida Board of Education, Case No. 90–1913–Civ.–Scott (S.D. Fla. 1990) (consent 

decree) and Case No. 90–1913–Civ.–Moreno (S.D. Fla. 2003) (amending consent decree); Bilingual Master Parents Advisory Council v. Boston School Committee, 2002 WL 992541 (Mass. 

Super. Ct. May 15, 2002); United States v. City of Yonkers, 123 F. Supp.2d 694 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); 

Y.S. v. School District of Philadelphia, Case No. 85–6924 (E.D. Pa. 1986) (consent decree continued by stipulation in 2001). In addition, requests for relief are pending in other states where 

findings of educational discrimination have already been made, including Texas. United States 

v. State of Texas, 6:71–CV–5281 (E.D. Tex. 2006) (pending motion for further relief for alleged 

violations of consent decree). 

Alaska Native students who graduated.’’ 121 Reports from the State 

of Alaska further highlight recent cases, such as Kasayulie v. State 

of Alaska, in which the Alaska Superior Court identified discrepancies in funding made available to Native and non-Native students.122 In particular, the Court reiterated the ‘‘affirmative duty 

on the State to provide public education,’’ and found the discrepancy in funding for school construction in urban and rural Alaska 

unconstitutionally discriminated against Alaska Natives.123 Section 

203 remains a vital tool to ensure that those who are unable to 

avail themselves of adequate educational assistance continue to be 

able to vote without discrimination. 

Other examples of unequal educational opportunities received by 

the Committee reveals that Asian American and Hispanic children 

in California have lower rates of educational attainment than 

white students. In particular, the Committee found that ‘‘nineteen 

percent of Asian Americans have less than a high school degree, 

compared with 10 percent of the white population.’’ 124 The Committee was informed that 1.6 million language minority students in 

California are considered to be English language learners, and that 

a significant portion of these students have trouble maintaining 

similar levels of academic achievement as their English proficient 

counterparts.125 Moreover, testimony reveals that language minority students, and English learners in particular, were the first to 

be adversely affected by decisions made by States and local school 

boards. These decisions have forced English language learners to 

seek protection from Federal courts to prevent such disparate 

treatment.126 Since 1975, 24 discrimination lawsuits have been 

filed on behalf of English language learners in 15 States, 14 of 

which have been filed in jurisdictions that are covered by the language assistance provisions.127 Since 1992, ten lawsuits have been 

filed, with cases pending in three States that are covered statewide 

under Section 4(f)4 of the Act, Texas, Alaska, Arizona, and Florida 

and in other States with large language minority populations, including California and New York.128


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
52 

129See Statement from Angela M. Arboleda, National Council of La Raza, to the Honorable 

Steve Chabot, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, (November 22, 2005). 130See JoNel Newman, Unfinished Business: The Case For Continuing Special Voting Rights 

Act Coverage in Florida (March 8, 2006) (citing Complaint, United States v. Osceola County, 

Civil Action No. 6:02–CV–738–ORL–22JGG (M.D. Fla. 2002)). 

The problems faced by citizens who are limited-English proficient, linguistically isolated, and who face limited educational opportunities, impairing their ability to understand the electoral process, are exacerbated by the failure of jurisdictions to comply with 

Section 203. The Committee received substantial testimony revealing that more than half of the 505 jurisdictions covered by Section 

203 were not in full compliance, providing some form of written or 

oral assistance, but not both; in many instances there was no compliance at all. For example, the Committee received testimony from 

Latino and Hispanic organizations that ‘‘during the 2004 election 

in Pima County, Arizona, Latino LEP voters were denied equal access to voting due to the lack of sufficient bilingual ballots. Consequently, Latino voters were relegated to crowd around one translated, poster-sized board of more than a dozen initiatives that were 

on the ballot. At dusk, even this inadequate attempt to comply with 

Section 203 completely failed, given that the poster board was illegible due to the lack of lighting around it.’’ 129 Similar examples 

were reported by language minority voters from covered jurisdictions across the country, including New Mexico, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Alaska, Texas, California, and South Dakota. In some cases, the Committee was informed that jurisdictions 

covered by Section 203 reported not providing any assistance. The 

increased number of Section 203 enforcement actions undertaken 

by DOJ, have allowed a growing number of linguistically challenged minorities to participate in the voting process. 

Relatedly, the Committee received testimony that the number of 

enforcement actions undertaken by the Department of Justice to 

ensure compliance has increased over the last several years. For 

example, the Department of Justice reported an increase in the 

number of Section 203 enforcement actions since 2000. Enforcement cases such as the action taken in Osceola County, Florida, 

where the Department of Justice filed suit to remedy the ‘‘widespread violation of minority voting rights, including poll workers 

making hostile remarks to Spanish-speaking voters to discourage 

them from voting, the failure of poll officials to communicate effectively with Spanish-speaking voters, failure to staff polling places 

with bilingual poll officials, and failure to translate ballots and 

other election materials in Spanish,’’ have been critical to protecting language minority voters.130

Section 2 Litigation 

While not the focus of its examination, the Committee notes the 

importance of Section 2 in protecting minority voters. Moreover, 

the Committee finds the continued need for Section 2 to protect the 

rights of racial and language minority groups in jurisdictions covered by the temporary provisions of the VRA, such as Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana, and South Dakota, significant. 

In many of the jurisdictions covered by the Sections 4 through 9 

of the Voting Rights Act, the initial gains made by minority voters 

were the result of Section 2 enforcement, as was the case in CitiVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
53 

131See Citizens for a Better Gretna v. Gretna, 636 F.Supp.1113, 1118 (E.D. La. 1986). 132 Id. 133See Ellen Katz, Documenting Discrimination in Voting: Judicial Findings Under Section 2 

of the Voting Rights Act Since 1982 (December 2005). 134 Id. 135See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966). 136See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 5 and amend. XV, § 2. 

zens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna, which the Committee 

finds to be illustrative of the important role Section 2 plays.131

In Gretna, African American voters brought an action under the 

VRA challenging the city’s at-large aldermanic elections. Plaintiffs 

presented evidence, which the court found ‘‘cogent[] and 

convincing[],’’ that African Americans were excluded from the Miller-White Ticket, and by extension meaningful participation in the 

political process in Gretna. 

The city had an at-large voting system for its Board of Alderman, 

as well as a majority vote requirement. No African American had 

ever been elected to the board, despite the fact that African Americans constituted 28% of the city’s population. The district court 

found the election system violated the VRA and the city appealed. 

The Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court decision, finding that atlarge aldermanic elections violated Section 2 of the VRA. The court 

also observed that: 

[t]he history of black citizens’ attempts, in Louisiana since Reconstruction, to participate effectively in the political process 

and the white majority’s resistance to those efforts is one characterized by both de jure and de facto discrimination. Indeed, 

it would take a multi-volume[] treatise to properly describe the 

persistent, and often violent, intimidation visited by white citizens upon black efforts to participate in Louisiana’s political 

process.132

In other reports presented to the Committee, it was shown that 

of all the successful litigation undertaken in the last 25 years pursuant to Section 2, more than half of the cases were filed in covered 

jurisdictions, which contain less than 39 percent of the country’s 

total population.133 It was further reported to the Committee that 

African American plaintiffs filed and won the largest number of 

suits under Section 2, with Latino citizens close behind.134 The 

Committee finds that results achieved in Section 2 cases, such as 

in Gretna and other litigation, must be protected. Section 5, and 

the other temporary provisions have been and continue to be a 

shield that prevents backsliding from the gains previously won. 

The Need to Extend the Temporary Provisions—Exceptional Conditions Continue to Exist in 2006 

The Committee’s findings of continued efforts to discriminate 

against minority citizens in voting demonstrate that despite substantial improvements, there is a demonstrated and continuing 

need to reauthorize the temporary provisions.135 In reauthorizing 

the temporary provisions for an additional 25 years, the Committee 

is aware that it is again acting under its broadest power—to remedy continued discrimination.136 However, the record reveals that 

without the remedies available from the VRA’s temporary provisions, the injury to minority citizens and their right to the electoral 

franchise will be significant. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
54 

137See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966) (holding that provisions of Voting Rights Act of 1965 pertaining to review of proposed alteration of voting qualifications and 

procedures were appropriate means for carrying out Congress’ constitutional responsibilities 

under the 15th amendment and were consonant with all other provisions of the Constitution). 138See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 326–27 (1966) (citations omitted). 

The Remedial Power of Congress 

Congress acts pursuant to its broadest powers when remedying 

discrimination. When the Supreme Court first upheld the provisions of the VRA, the temporary provisions that will expire at the 

end of 2007, it stated that Congress has the power to address voting discrimination broadly. In South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 

U.S. 301 (1966), the Court stated that ‘‘Congress assumed the 

power to prescribe these remedies from § 2 of the 15th amendment, 

which authorizes the National Legislature to effectuate by ‘appropriate’ measures the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination in voting. We hold that the sections of the Act which 

are properly before us are an appropriate means for carrying out 

Congress’ constitutional responsibilities and are consonant with all 

other provisions of the Constitution.’’ 137

In describing the expansiveness of Congress’s power to address 

voting discrimination, the Supreme Court held that Congress’s 

power extends to the outer-most limits of the Necessary and Proper 

Clause, stating: 

The basic test to be applied in a case involving § 2 of the 15th 

amendment is the same as in all cases concerning the express 

powers of Congress with relation to the reserved powers of the 

States. Chief Justice Marshall laid down the classic formulation, 50 years before the 15th amendment was ratified: ‘‘Let 

the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are 

plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.’’ The Court has subsequently echoed his language 

in describing each of the Civil War Amendments: ‘‘Whatever 

legislation is appropriate, that is, adapted to carry out the objects the amendments have in view, whatever tends to enforce 

submission to the prohibitions they contain, and to secure to 

all persons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights and 

the equal protection of the laws against State denial or invasion, if not prohibited, is brought within the domain of congressional power.138

The Court stated that ‘‘The language and purpose of the Fifteenth Amendment, the prior decisions construing its several provisions, and the general doctrines of constitutional interpretation, all 

point to one fundamental principle. As against the reserved powers 

of the States, Congress may use any rational means to effectuate 

the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting . . . 

§ 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment expressly declares that ‘Congress 

shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’

By adding this authorization, the Framers indicated that Congress 

was to be chiefly responsible for implementing the rights created 

in § 1. . . . Accordingly, in addition to the courts, Congress has full 

remedial powers to effectuate the constitutional prohibition against 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
55 

139See Id. at 325–27 (emphasis added). 140See Id. at 331 (emphasis added). 141 521 U.S. 507, 530 (1997) (‘‘While preventive rules are sometimes appropriate remedial 

measures, there must be a congruence between the means used and the ends to be achieved.’’). 142 City of Boerne (struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as beyond Congress’s power under the enforcement clause of the 14th amendment, it did so on the grounds that the 

Act, if enforced, would change the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause.). Id. at 519. Certainly 

any extension of the VRA could not reasonably be described as altering the meaning of the 15th 

amendment’s prohibition on the denial of the right to vote on the basis of race. The Court also 

made clear in Boerne that it was not suggesting that ‘‘§ 5 legislation requires termination dates, 

geographic restrictions, or egregious predicates.’’ Id. at 533. 143 Id. 144 Id. at 533 (quotations and citations omitted). 145See City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 173, 176 (1980). See also Tennessee v. 

Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 520 (2004) (‘‘When Congress seeks to remedy or prevent unconstitutional 

discrimination, § 5 [of the Fourteenth Amendment] authorizes it to enact prophylactic legislation 

proscribing practices that are discriminatory in effect, if not in intent, to carry out the basic 

objectives of the Equal Protection Clause.’’) 146 466 U.S. 156, 177 (1980) (emphasis added). 

racial discrimination in voting.’’ 139 The Court added that ‘‘Legislation need not deal with all phases of a problem in the same way, 

so long as the distinctions drawn have some basis in practical experience.’’ 140

City of Boerne v. Flores 

While a ‘‘congruence and proportionality’’ test was announced in 

City of Boerne v. Flores,141 and applied to Congressional actions 

taken under the 14th amendment, the Court highlighted the broad 

authorization the 15th amendment confers upon Congress.142 It 

stated in Boerne that ‘‘[L]egislation which deters or remedies constitutional violations can fall within the sweep of Congress’ enforcement power even if in the process it prohibits conduct which is not 

itself unconstitutional and intrudes into legislative spheres of autonomy previously reserved to the States. For example, the Court 

upheld a suspension of literacy tests and similar voting requirements under Congress’ parallel power to enforce the provisions of 

the 15th amendment as a measure to combat racial discrimination 

in voting despite the facial constitutionality of the tests...’’ 143

The Court in Boerne stated approvingly that ‘‘to ensure that the 

reach of the Voting Rights Act was limited to those cases in which 

constitutional violations were most likely (in order to reduce the 

possibility of over breadth), the coverage under the Act would terminate at the behest of States and political subdivisions in which 

the danger of substantial voting discrimination has not materialized during the preceding 5 years.’’ 144 H.R. 9 preserves those same 

provisions that allow States and political subdivisions to escape 

coverage by showing the danger of substantial voting discrimination has not materialized during the preceding (now ten) years. 

Subsequent cases have held that Congress’s authority to address 

voting discrimination extends to the creation of remedies that prohibit not only purposeful discrimination, but also discriminatory effects,145 and Congress’s authority to do so will only be tested under 

a rational basis standard. In the City of Rome v. United States,146

the Court held ‘‘that the Act’s ban on electoral changes that are 

discriminatory in effect is an appropriate method of promoting the 

purposes of the Fifteenth Amendment, even if it is assumed that 

§ 1 of the Amendment prohibits only intentional discrimination in 

voting. Congress could rationally have concluded that, because electoral changes by jurisdictions with a demonstrable history of intentional racial discrimination in voting create the risk of purposeful 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
56 

147 Id. 148 Id. at 176. 149See 525 U.S.266, 283 (1999). 150Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 531 (2004). 

discrimination, it was proper to prohibit changes that have a discriminatory impact.’’ 147 In that case, the Court also stated ‘‘Congress passed the Act under the authority accorded it by the Fifteenth Amendment. We hold that, even if § 1 of the Amendment 

prohibits only purposeful discrimination, the prior decisions of this 

Court foreclose any argument that Congress may not, pursuant to 

§ 2, outlaw voting practices that are discriminatory in effect . . . 

Congress may, under the authority of § 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, prohibit state action that, though in itself not violative of § 1, 

perpetuates the effects of past discrimination.’’ 148 In its first decision addressing the VRA after City of Rome and City of Boerne, the 

Supreme Court upheld Congress’s authority to remedy racial discrimination in voting. In Lopez v. Monterey County, the Court reaffirmed ‘‘Congress’s . . . constitutional authority to designate covered jurisdictions and to guard against changes that give rise to a 

discriminatory effect in those jurisdictions . . . Section 5, as we interpret it today, burdens State law only to the extent that the law 

affects voting in jurisdictions properly designated for coverage.’’ 149

Record of Continued Efforts to Discriminate in Covered Jurisdictions 

The record before the Committee reveals that extending the 

VRA’s temporary provisions is necessary to protect racial and language minority citizens located in covered jurisdictions from discrimination. As a result, the gains achieved by minority voters over 

the last 40 years are vulnerable without the protections afforded by 

the temporary provisions. It is in light of this reality that the Committee concludes that the temporary provisions of the VRA must be 

reauthorized, including Section 4(a)(8) and the provisions it triggers, as well as Section 203, for an additional 25 years. 

Indeed, in reauthorizing the temporary provisions for an additional 25 years, the Committee looks to related Supreme Court decisions, such as Tennessee v. Lane, to address constitutional concerns about continued reauthorizations of the VRA. In Tennessee v. 

Lane, the Court noted that ‘‘The unequal treatment of disabled persons in the administration of judicial services has a long history, 

and has persisted despite several legislative efforts to remedy the 

problem of disability discrimination.’’ 150 Similar circumstances are 

true of the VRA: despite previous reauthorizations, the problem of 

voting discrimination justified reauthorization. In light of the considerable record before it, the Committee has a duty to maintain 

the protections afforded by the temporary provisions by reauthorizing these vital provisions. 

Reauthorizing Section 4(a)(8) 

Forty years has been an insufficient amount of time to address 

the century during which racial minorities were denied the full 

rights of citizenship. While substantial strides have been made toward racial equality, the attitudes and actions of some States and 

political subdivisions continue to fall short. Progress has been 

made by minority voters, some of which has been significant. HowVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
57 

151See H.R Rep. No. 97–227, at 7 (1982). 152Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 529 n.17 (2004) (citing Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 728–33 (2003)) (holding that Congress under the 14th amendment had the power to enact the Family and Medical Leave Act, which prophylactically sought 

to prevent gender discrimination in the provision of work leave.). 

ever, the Committee’s record demonstrates the importance of reauthorizing the VRA’s vital provisions. 

The Committee believes that if not for the temporary provisions 

of the VRA the gains made by minorities would not have been 

made. But as Congress found in 1982, the gains are fragile.151 The 

Committee is not willing to jeopardize 40 years of progress made 

by minority citizens by allowing the temporary provisions to expire, 

especially in the face of the evidence of discrimination compiled in 

the record. 

Indeed, the substantial volume of evidence warranting H.R. 9 

compiled by the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the 

Constitution far exceeds the quantum of evidence found adequate 

in other contexts (in which Congress’s power is less broad) to justify Congressional action to remedy discrimination. As characterized by the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Lane, the Supreme 

Court in Neveda Department of Resources v. Hibbs relied on only 

the following sources in holding that Congress under the 14th 

amendment had the power to enact the Family and Medical Leave 

Act, which prophylactically sought to prevent gender discrimination 

in the provision of work leave: 

Specifically, we relied on (1) a Senate Report citation to a Bureau of Labor Statistics survey revealing disparities in privatesector provision of parenting leave to men and women; (2) submissions from two sources at a hearing on the Parental and 

Medical Leave Act of 1986, a predecessor bill to the FMLA, 

that public-sector parental leave polices ‘‘diffe[r] little’’ from 

private-sector policies; (3) evidence that 15 States provided 

women up to 1 year of extended maternity leave, while only 4 

States provided for similarly extended paternity leave; and (4) 

a House Report’s quotation of a study that found that failure 

to implement uniform standards for parenting leave would 

‘‘leav[e] Federal employees open to discretionary and possibly 

unequal treatment.’’ 152

Indeed, the Committee believes that a failure to reauthorize the 

temporary provisions, given the record established, would leave minority citizens with the inadequate remedy of a Section 2 action. 

The Committee knows from history that case-by-case enforcement 

alone is not enough to combat the efforts of certain States and jurisdictions to discriminate against minority citizens in the electoral 

process. Moreover, the Committee finds that Section 2 would be ineffective to protect the rights of minority voters, especially in light 

of the increased activity under Sections 5 and 8 over the last 25 

years. It is against this backdrop that the Committee finds it necessary to extend the temporary provisions for an additional 25 

years. 

In upholding the 1975 VRA extension, the Supreme Court noted 

that a 7-year extension was ‘‘plainly constitutional’’ in light of the 

95-year period of pervasive discrimination it was attempting to 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
58 

153 City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 182 (1980) (‘‘In adopting the Voting Rights 

Act, Congress sought to remedy [the previous] century of obstruction by shifting ‘the advantage 

of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.’ Ten years later, Congress 

found that a 7-year extension of the Act was necessary to preserve the ‘limited and fragile’ achievements of the Act and to promote further amelioration of voting discrimination. When 

viewed in this light, Congress’ considered determination that at least another 7 years of statutory 

remedies were necessary to counter the perpetuation of 95 years of pervasive voting discrimination 

is both unsurprising and unassailable. The extension of the Act, then, was plainly a constitutional method of enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment.’’) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). 154 Voting Rights Act: An Examination of the Scope and Criteria for Coverage Under the Special Provision sof the Act Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary. 109th Cong. 104 (2005) (statement of Gerald Hebert, former Acting Chief, Civil Rights Division, United States Department 

of Justice, describing the bailout process since 1982 as ‘‘just the right stuff. They go exactly to 

the issues that Congress was concerned about when it enacted the Voting Rights Act in the first 

place . . . I think they’re perfectly tailored to meet the nature and extent of the violation, which 

is exactly what the Supreme Court has said repeatedly in this area.’’) 

remedy.153 Thus, despite the fact that another 25 years will have 

passed in 2007 since the 1982 VRA extension, another 25 years of 

remedial measures (for a total of 67 years of remedial measures 

under the VRA until 2032) remains appropriate given the near century of discrimination the Act is designed to combat. 

In 1982, Congress amended the bailout provision to encourage 

covered jurisdictions to work to end discriminatory conduct and to 

accept and include minority citizens into the electoral process. To 

date, 11 counties from the covered State of Virginia have utilized 

the bailout process. The Committee is disappointed that more 

States have not taken advantage of this liberalized process and 

finds it telling of the commitment by some of the covered jurisdictions to end discriminatory practices. The Committee reiterates 

that termination of covered status has been and continues to be 

within the reach of compliant covered jurisdictions and hopes that 

more covered States and political subdivisions will take advantage 

of the process.154

Reauthorizing Section 203 

In reauthorizing Section 203 for an additional 25 years, the Committee finds that language minorities have made progress, but continue to experience barriers to and within the electoral process. 

The Committee specifically reaffirms the findings in Section 203(a), 

which provides: 

The Congress finds that, through the use of various practices 

and procedures, citizens of language minorities have been effectively excluded from participation in the electoral process. 

Among other factors, the denial of the right to vote of such minority group citizens is ordinarily related to the unequal educational opportunities afforded them, resulting in high illiteracy and low voting participation. 

The Committee received a substantial record of documented discrimination in voting and education that supports maintaining the 

protections in Section 4(f) and Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act 

for the four covered language groups, Alaska Natives, Native 

Americans, Asian Americans, and citizens of Hispanic origin. 

Congress found that there is a positive correlation between the 

bilingual assistance provisions and increased voter registration levels in jurisdictions fully complying with Section 203. At the same 

time, a significant number of jurisdictions have yet to fully comply 

with Section 203’s obligations, which has had the effect of keeping 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
59 

155See Section 203 (a). 

citizens from experiencing full participation in the electoral process. 

The Committee notes the desire of many to see our citizens with 

limited English skills speak and understand English proficiently. 

The Committee agrees that this should be a goal all citizens of the 

United States should aspire to achieve. The English language has 

been and continues to be a great unifying force. The Committee believes that all newly arrived citizens and those who are native born 

should strive to learn English in order to fully embrace all that this 

Nation has to offer. However, the Committee notes that significant 

population increases have occurred among language minority 

groups over the last several decades, such as citizens of Hispanic 

origin who now are the largest minority population in the country 

and Asian Americans, who have also witnessed large population increases. It has been these newly arrived citizens, as well as subsequent generations, who have suffered most from the inability to 

speak English and who have lacked the resources and support to 

learn English proficiently. 

The continued need for bilingual support is reflected by: (1) the 

increased number of linguistically isolated households, particularly 

among Hispanic and Asian American communities; (2) the increased number of language minority students who are considered 

to be English language learners, such that students do not speak 

English well enough to understand the required curriculum and require supplemental classes; (3) the continued disparity in educational opportunities as demonstrated by the disparate impact 

that budget shortfalls have on language minority citizens, and the 

continued need for litigation to protect English language learners; 

and (4) the lack of available literacy centers and English as a Second Language programs. In reauthorizing Section 203, the Committee continues to believe in exercising the right to vote, language 

minority citizens should have the substantive right to understand 

the voting process and make informed decisions from start to finish, including how to register to vote, where to vote, and what 

issues and candidates are contained on the ballot. However, language assistance that facilitates equal participation in the voting 

process so language minority citizens are able to cast effective ballots does not require private citizens to make privately prepared 

and distributed materials available in the covered languages. In 

recognizing the exclusion of petitions that are initiated and distributed by private citizens from Section 203’s requirements, the Committee restates its position that Section 203 is intended to remedy 

the ‘‘denial of the right to vote of such minority group citizens . . . 

[that is] directly related to the unequal educational opportunities 

afforded them, resulting in high illiteracy and low voting participation.’’ 155 To impose Section 203’s requirements on private citizens 

whose actions are outside governmentally administered voting systems would have the effect of penalizing private citizens for injuries caused by States. Section 203’s assistance is a remedy for the 

past and present failures of States and jurisdictions to remedy educational disparities, putting language minority citizens on an equal 

footing in exercising the right to vote. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
60 

156See H.R. Rep. No. 97–227 (1982) (citing, Meyers v. Nebraska, 262 U.S.390, 401 (1923)). 157See Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 654 (1966). 158See Gaston County, North Carolina v. United States, 395 U.S. 285, 295 (1969). 159See Legislative Hearing on H.R. 9, Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act 

of 2006 (Part II), Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 

2 (May 4, 2006)(statement of Dr. James Thomas Tucker, Voting Rights Consultant for the National Association of Latino Elected and appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund). 

As early as 1923, the Supreme Court found, in Meyers v. Nebraska, that: 

Certain fundamental rights [are guaranteed] to all those who 

speak other languages as well as to those born with English 

on the tongue. Perhaps it would be advantageous if all had 

ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be 

coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution—a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.156

In 1966, the Supreme Court upheld Section 4(e) of the VRA, finding that Congress was within its authority to ‘‘question whether denial of a right so precious and fundamental in our society [the right 

to vote] was a necessary and or appropriate means of encouraging 

persons to learn English or of furthering the goal of an intelligent 

exercise of the franchise.’’ 157 In 1969, the Supreme Court further 

confirmed the impact that literacy tests had on citizens who were 

subjected to inferior educational opportunities, finding ‘‘that it is 

only reasonable to infer that among black children compelled to endure a segregated and inferior education, fewer will achieve any 

given degree of literacy than will their better-educated white contemporaries.’’ 158

It was on these bases that, in 1975, Congress expanded the protections of the VRA to ensure that all citizens have the opportunity 

to participate in the electoral process. In authorizing Sections 4(f) 

and 203, Congress did not want language to be a barrier to exercising the most fundamental right in our system of government, a 

right which had been historically compromised by the deliberate 

barriers erected by the administration of English-only elections, 

barriers that were exacerbated by the unequal educational opportunities that existed and continue to exist. 

Thirty years later, the Committee finds that our Nation’s educational system has improved. However, disparities in education 

continue to exist, resulting in the disparate treatment of language 

minority citizens and students. The evidence reveals that English 

language learner students must rely almost exclusively on the judicial system to protect their rights to equal educational opportunities. Since 1992, at least 10 successful cases have been filed, with 

litigation and consent decrees pending in the three States that are 

covered statewide under Section 4(f)4 of the Act, Texas, Alaska, Arizona, and Florida and in other States with large language minority populations, including California and New York. 

Testimony also revealed that adult citizens are impacted in their 

ability to learn English by the lack of literacy centers and lack of 

funding devoted to increasing the number of centers to accommodate the demonstrated need. The lack of funding to expand the 

number of ESL centers around the country leaves minority citizens 

unable to enroll in classes for several years, increasing the need for 

assistance while they wait.159 The Committee also notes the time 

it takes for citizens to learn English. Native English speaking citiVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
61 

zens have an advantage over naturalized citizens. For non-Native 

English speakers, learning English takes several years to even obtain a fundamental understanding of the English language—certainly not enough to understand complex ballots that native 

English speaking citizens often do not understand. Citizens should 

not be penalized for trying to learn English and exercising their 

right to vote. Section 4(f) and 203 level the playing field for language minority citizens, ensuring that the most fundamental right 

of all citizens is preserved regardless of one’s ability to speak 

English well. 

The Committee notes the concerns of many that the Department 

of Justice’s enforcement of Section 203’s requirements is inconsistent with the spirit of Section 203. The Committee is concerned 

about the Department’s disproportionate reliance on sur-name 

analyses. These actions are not consistent with the spirit and intent of Section 203. The Committee cautions the Department in reliance on such analyses and encourages the Department to work 

more closely with the minority community to determine the level 

of assistance necessary rather than making assumptions based on 

last name alone. The Committee intends to monitor the Department closely in its administration and enforcement of Section 203 

to ensure that the Department is not imposing requirements on jurisdictions not mandated by Section 203. 

The Need to Update and Clarify Certain Temporary and Permanent 

Provisions to Strengthen Protections and Enforcement Mechanisms (Section 3(a), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 203) 

In reauthorizing the temporary provisions for an additional 25 

years, the Committee recognizes that the electoral environment has 

evolved since 1965. Certain barriers to voting that were pervasive 

in 1965 no longer exist. However, those barriers to voting have 

been replaced with new ones, such that other temporary provisions 

continue to be necessary. The record reveals that over the last 40 

years, and in the last 25 years in particular, Section 5’s 

preclearance requirement and Section 8’s Federal observer program 

have been vital tools to protecting minority voters. Bailout, available through Section 4(a), while for the most part has gone unused 

until recently, has proven to be achievable to those jurisdictions 

that can demonstrate an end to their discriminatory histories. At 

the same time, the record reveals that Section 6, the Federal examiner program, has not been used in twenty years, suggesting to the 

Committee that examiners have successfully served their purpose. 

Recognizing these realities, the Committee amended and eliminated certain provisions to ensure that the VRA remains a relevant 

and an effective remedy to the continued problems of discrimination in the 21st century. 

Sections 6, 7, and 9 

In weighing whether to reauthorize the Federal examiner program, the Committee looked to voting rights experts, and representatives from the Department of Justice and the Office of Personnel Management who have worked with and supported the Federal examiner program over the last several decades. Testimony received by the Committee revealed that the Federal examiner provisions were ‘‘cumbersome’’ and ‘‘archaic,’’ and their functions were 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
62 

160See Oversight Hearing, The Voting Rights Act: Sections 6 and 8—The Federal Examiner 

and Observer Program, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th 

Cong. 1 (November 15, 2005) (statement of Barry J. Weinberg, former Deputy Chief and Acting 

Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice). 161 Id. 

considered to be ‘‘outdated.’’ 160 In essence, it was reported that 

Federal examiners were ‘‘not needed anymore.’’ 161 H.R. 9 reflects 

the lack of necessity and contains language to address this shift. 

In authorizing the Federal examiner provision, Congress sought 

to remedy the immediate barriers faced by minority citizens, mainly barriers to registration. Federal examiners were charged with 

ensuring that those citizens who were eligible to vote and who 

wanted to vote were able to register. To facilitate the process, Congress specifically authorized the procedures that examiners were to 

follow when listing a voter on Federal registration rolls. Moreover, 

Congress authorized a process under which those citizens who 

wanted to challenge the eligibility of a listed voter could do so. The 

positive impact that Sections 6, 7, and 9 have had on minority voters is reflected in the more than 100,000 citizens who were registered through Section 6. 

However, over the years, the need for Federal examiners to register eligible voters has declined. The decreased need for examiners 

can be attributed to the success of the other temporary provisions, 

as well as to the enactment of more recent Federal laws encouraging and supporting voter registration. In 1993, Congress enacted 

the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) to make voter 

registration more accessible to citizens who wanted to vote. Under 

the NVRA, States are required to make registration materials 

available at all driver’s license offices, public benefits offices, and 

other social service agencies. States are also required to maintain 

voter registration lists for Federal elections in accordance with 

standards set out by the NVRA. In addition to the NVRA, Congress 

enacted the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), which serves 

to assist States in improving the administration of elections. HAVA 

provides States with funding to improve voting technology and also 

requires States to meet minimum standards with regard to updating voting equipment, administering provisional balloting, and 

maintaining one centrally located Statewide voter registration list. 

The success of these laws is reflected in the increased number of 

minority citizens who are registered to vote. The fact that examiners have not contributed to these increases in the last 20 years 

suggests to the Committee that examiners have outlived their usefulness. 

Section 8 

Notwithstanding the elimination of the Federal examiner program, the Committee found a substantial need to continue the program assigning Federal observers on election day. As the only Federal officials authorized to enter polling locations, Federal observers continue to serve a vital enforcement function. The Committee 

found that the mere presence of Federal officials has worked to 

deter discriminatory conduct. In other cases, observations and reports of observers that most often provide the factual basis on 

which the Department of Justice proceeds to prosecute acts of harassment, intimidation, and discrimination engaged in by election 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
63 

officials. In reauthorizing the Federal observer program, the Committee is aware that, historically, observers have been assigned to 

covered jurisdictions only after a jurisdiction has been certified by 

the Attorney General, or a Federal court, for the use of examiners. 

However, since examiners have gone unused over the last twenty 

years, the Committee believes that minority voters will be better 

served by authorizing the Attorney General to directly certify jurisdictions for the use of Federal observers. In amending Section 8, 

the Committee authorizes the Attorney General to continue to coordinate with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to send 

observers to a covered jurisdiction once the Attorney General determines that there is a reasonable belief that a violation of the 14th 

or 15th amendment has occurred or will occur. The Committee also 

amended Section 8 by rendering the assignment of Federal observers by OPM mandatory upon request by the Attorney General following the required certification. In authorizing the Attorney General to certify jurisdictions for the use of Federal observers in the 

future, it is not the intent of this Committee to affect jurisdictions 

that have already been certified for examiners. Federal observers 

should continue to be assigned to these jurisdictions when there is 

a reasonable belief that voting violations will occur. The traditional 

functions of the Federal observers remain unchanged by the Committee. Federal observers shall continue to observe whether persons who are entitled to vote are permitted to do so and whether 

such votes cast are properly tabulated. Because of the elimination 

of examiners, observers shall report their observations directly to 

the Attorney General or, if assigned pursuant to Section 3(a), to the 

court. 

Section 13 

The Committee will continue to make the same termination process available to those jurisdictions currently certified for the assignment of Federal examiners to those that will be certified for 

Federal observers in the future under Section 8. In assessing 

whether to terminate Federal examiner or observer certification, 

the Attorney General or the court shall continue to have the authority to make such determinations upon petitions by the covered 

jurisdiction. 

Section 3(a), Section 4(a) and (b) 

In striking Section 6, the Committee was required to make several conforming changes. Those changes are reflected in Section 

3(a), in which the Committee replaced the authority of the Federal 

courts to assign Federal examiners with the authority to assign 

Federal observers pursuant to Section 8. In Section 4(a), the Committee added the requirement that ‘‘no observers have been assigned to a jurisdiction’’ to the existing criteria that a jurisdiction 

must establish when applying for bailout. Section 4(b) was amended to reflect that determinations by the Attorney General with respect to Section 8 are not reviewable by a Federal court, as has 

been the case for decisions related to Federal examiners. 

Section 203 

In reauthorizing Section 203, the Committee was made aware 

that the United States Census Bureau has changed its data collecVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
64 

162See 499 U.S. 83 (1991). 163See Pub. L. No. 102–166 (1991). 164See H.R. Rep. No. 102–40, at 30 (1991). 165See Oversight Hearing on the Voting Rights Act: Judicial Evolution of the Retrogression 

Standard, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (November 9, 2005). 

tion methods, eliminating the use of the long form questionnaire. 

The long form questionnaire was the detailed document used by 

the Census Bureau every decade to gather demographic, housing, 

and social information and upon which determinations with respect 

to Section 203 were made. In its place, the Census Bureau has 

been issuing the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is 

a detailed survey conducted by the Census Bureau that will be updated on a rolling basis annually. While issued to a smaller universe of households more frequently, the survey is designed to 

reach a greater number of individuals per decade (because it is 

issued more frequently), providing a more detailed look at communities on a more timely basis. In comparing the relevant questions 

from the long form questionnaire with the questions provided on 

the ACS, the Committee finds no substantive difference between 

the two documents and expects that the ACS will be a suitable substitute for the outdated long form questionnaire. In addition to 

identifying the ACS as the basis upon which the Director of the 

Census is required to make Section 203 determinations, the Committee also finds a benefit to reliance on survey results published 

on a more timely basis, as it better reflects our country’s rapidly 

changing makeup, as opposed to a reliance on results published 

only every decade. To reflect this need, Section 203 was also 

amended to require the Director of the United States Census to 

make determinations every 5 years based on a rolling 5 year average. 

Section 14 

In amending Section 14 of the VRA to explicitly include the recovery of expert costs as part of attorneys fees, the Committee 

seeks to update the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to comport with 

other Federal civil rights laws. Early in 1991, the Supreme Court 

held in West Virginia Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey that ‘‘Fees for services rendered by experts in civil rights litigation may not be shifted 

to the losing party as part of ‘a reasonable attorneys fee’ under 

§ 1988.’’ 162 Later that same year, Congress ‘‘amended the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 to strengthen and improve Federal civil rights 

laws,’’ including providing for the recovery of expert fees as part of 

attorneys fees.163 In amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress specifically ‘‘recognized that evidence from one or more expert 

witnesses is critical to trying an employment discrimination 

case.’’ 164 The Committee finds the same to be true in the context 

of voting discrimination cases pursued under the relevant provisions of the VRA. The Committee received substantial testimony 

indicating that much of the burden associated with either proving 

or defending a Section 2 vote dilution claim is established by information that only an expert can prepare.165 In harmonizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with other Federal civil rights laws, the 

Committee also seeks to ensure that those minority voters who 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
65 

166See 528 U.S. 320 (2000) and 539 U.S. 462 (2003), respectively. 167See Section 5. 168 By striking ‘‘does not have the purpose and will not have the effect’’ and inserting in its 

place, ‘‘neither has the purpose nor will have the effect,’’ Section 5 of H.R. 9 makes clear that 

both prongs must be satisfied before a voting change may be precleared. 

have been victimized by continued acts of discrimination are made 

whole. 

Congressional Intent with Regard to Section 5 and Supreme Court 

Decisions (South Carolina, Beer, Bossier II, and Georgia v. 

Ashcroft) 

In addition to updating the temporary provisions of the VRA, the 

Committee found that a series of Supreme Court decisions, beginning in 2000, have significantly weakened Section 5’s effectiveness 

as a tool to protect minority voters. These developments sharply 

conflict with the intent of Congress. Beginning with the case Reno 

v. Bossier Parish (II), which was followed 3 years later by the decision in Georgia v. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court has interpreted Section 5 to allow preclearance of voting changes that would have previously drawn objections. As a matter of statutory construction, the 

Committee finds that Congress did not intend for the burden of 

proof to be placed on covered jurisdictions to be weakened in the 

way that the Supreme Court rulings in these cases permit.166 The 

decisions have left covered jurisdictions with discretion under Section 5 to enact and enforce voting changes that may harm minority 

voters and limit their ability to elect their preferred candidates of 

choice in a manner never intended by Congress. To ensure that 

Section 5 remains the vital, prophylactic tool that Congress intends, certain amendments are necessary to: (1) restore the original 

purpose to Section 5 with respect to intentionally discriminatory 

voting changes; and (2) clarify the types of conduct that Section 5 

was intended to prevent, including those techniques that diminish 

the ability of the minority group to elect their preferred candidates 

of choice. 

Section 5 

Section 5 has been and continues to be one of the VRA’s most 

effective tools. Its strength lies, in part, in its burden-shifting remedy that requires covered jurisdictions to prove to the Federal Government or United States District Court for the District of Columbia that a voting change ‘‘does not have the purpose and will not 

have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote’’ 167 before 

such voting change can be enforced. The two-pronged shield afforded by Section 5 has enabled the Federal Government and court 

to stay one step ahead of covered jurisdictions that have a documented history of denying minorities the protections guaranteed by 

the Constitution. By requiring covered jurisdictions to establish 

that neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect exists with respect 

to a proposed voting change, Section 5 has prevented those voting 

changes that have a measurable negative impact on minorities, as 

well as voting changes that are enacted with a racial animus, from 

being enforced.168 The impact of Section 5’s two-pronged requirement is reflected in the gains minorities have achieved and sustained, despite the efforts of State and local Officials determined to 

see otherwise. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
66 

169See H.R. Rep. No. 91–397 (1970). 170See Id. 171See S. Rep. No. 94–295 (1975). 172See Reno v. Bossier Parish, 528 U.S. 320 (2000). 173 Id. at 336 (citing Lopez v. Monterey County, 525 U.S. 266, 282 (1999)). 174See 383 U.S. at 325, citing (Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. at 347). 

Indeed, by reauthorizing Section 5 unamended on three separate 

occasions, Congress recognized the need to preserve the burdens of 

proof placed on covered jurisdictions. For example, the Committee, 

in 1970, was ‘‘convinced that Section 5 procedures are an integral 

part of the rights afforded by the 1965 Act’’ and that ‘‘[f]ailure to 

continue this provision of the Act would jettison a vital element of 

the enforcement machinery. It would reverse the burden of proof 

and restore time consuming litigation as the principal means of assuring the equal right to vote.’’ 169 In 1975, Congress reiterated 

that Section 5 was needed to ensure that States do not undo or defeat the rights recently won,’’ 170 and that rights were not ‘‘destroyed through new procedures and techniques.’’ 171 Congress 

similarly extended Section 5 for 25 years in 1982. The Committee 

finds that the need for the protections of Section 5 in the present 

covered jurisdictions continues today. 

Discriminatory Purpose 

In 2000, the Supreme Court severely limited the reach of Section 

5’s ‘‘purpose’’ requirement, announcing that ‘‘Section 5 prevents 

nothing but backsliding,’’ such that a jurisdiction must prove only 

that its purpose in enacting a voting change is not retrogressive.172

Determining that a redistricting plan enacted with a discriminatory but non-retrogressive purpose can be precleared under Section 

5, the Court held that to find otherwise would ‘‘exacerbate the ‘substantial’ federalism costs that the preclearance procedure already 

exacts, perhaps to the extent of raising concerns about Section 5’s 

constitutionality.’’ 173

To be sure, Congress intended Section 5 to impinge on traditional 

State functions in certain States and jurisdictions, for a reason. 

Some of the States and jurisdictions covered by the temporary provisions of the VRA have a long and documented history of discriminating against certain citizens and preventing their exercise of the 

most fundamental right in our system of government. Indeed, in 

upholding the extraordinary remedy contained in Section 5, the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach recognized the long 

history of discrimination in certain areas of the country and reiterated its position that ‘‘When a State exercises power wholly within 

the domain of a State interest, it is insulated from Federal review 

but such insulation is not carried over when State power is used 

as an instrument for circumventing a Federally protected right.’’ 174

In remedying this documented problem, Congress sought to make 

Section 5’s hurdles significant, requiring of covered jurisdictions 

that any and all voting changes discriminated neither in purpose 

nor effect if they are to be precleared. 

Through the ‘‘purpose’’ requirement, Congress sought to prevent 

covered jurisdictions from enacting and enforcing voting changes 

made with a clear racial animus, regardless of the measurable impact of such discriminatory changes. The Committee heard testimony revealing that for more than 30 years, the purpose standard 

has been unbroken, barring those plans that were motivated by a 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
67 

175See Oversight Hearing on the Voting Rights Act: Section 5—Preclearance Standards, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (November 1, 2005). 

See also, City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 (1975); Texas v. United States, 802 

F. Supp.481 (1992) (stating ‘‘in order to grant preclearance . . . [the] court must make two findings: plan must not be retrogressive in terms of minority voting rights when compared to a plan 

that would be in effect were plan in question not approved, and discriminatory purpose may 

not be a motivating factor in selection of plan’’); State of Mississippi v. United States, 490 F. 

Supp. 569 (1979) (stating ‘‘For a state to meet its burden of proof in an action for declaratory 

relief under the Voting Rights Act, it must demonstrate that a racially discriminatory purpose 

was not among the factors that motivated it in devising its reapportionment plan.’’). 176See McCrary, Seaman, Valelly, ‘‘The End of Preclearance As We Knew It: How the Supreme Court Transformed Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (Feb. 2006) at 37–38. 177See Oversight Hearing on the Voting Rights Act: Section 5—Preclearance Standards, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (November 1, 2005). 178 Id. 179 Id. 

discriminatory intent.175 The effectiveness of the ‘‘discriminatory’’ purpose requirement in barring discriminatory voting changes is 

reflected in the 83 objections that were interposed during the 

1980’s and in the 151 objections interposed in the 1990’s solely on 

the basis of discriminatory purpose. Such objections accounted for 

25 percent and 43 percent of all objections interposed, respectively. 176

Had the Bossier II standard been in effect in 1982, the District 

of Columbia court would have been required to preclear Georgia’s 

congressional redistricting plan, which was found by the court to 

be the product of purposeful discrimination. In that instance, the 

State had increased the African American population in the Fifth 

District over the benchmark plan, but kept it as a district with a 

majority of white registered voters. The remaining nine congressional districts were all solidly majority white. As Joe Mack Wilson, the chief architect of redistricting in the house told his colleagues on numerous occasions, ‘‘I don’t want to draw nigger districts.’’ (Busbee v. Smith, 549 F.Supp. 495, 501 (D.D.C. 1982)). 

Since the redrawn Fifth District did not make African American 

voters worse off than they had been under the preexisting plan, 

and even though it was the product of intentional discrimination, 

the purpose was not technically retrogressive and so, under Bossier 

II, the plan would have been unobjectionable. Such a result is inconsistent with the clear purposes of the Voting Rights Act. 

Since Bossier II, the Committee finds that less than 1 percent of 

the objections that have been interposed have been on the basis of 

the purpose prong alone, supporting the perception that only an 

‘‘incompetent retrogressor’’ can be caught and denied preclearance 

under Section 5.177 Moreover, the Committee heard testimony that 

if the Bossier II standard is left unaddressed ‘‘all of the places 

where [we] did not have Black representation where the number of 

seats, members on the commission or county school board or city 

council were increased, we would stand to lose representation, all 

of those governing bodies, if the Bossier II standard is applied.’’ 178

Similar testimony was submitted to the Committee emphasizing 

the impact that the Bossier II standard would have had on voting 

changes precleared prior to the Bossier decision (had the decision 

been in place), particularly on the creation of districts currently 

held by African American elected officials.179 Outcomes such as 

these were not contemplated by Congress when enacting and reauthorizing Section 5. Section 5 was intended to foster and protect 

minority participation in the electoral process, particularly to facilitate the ability of minority groups to elect their preferred canVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
68 

180 Id. 181See 429 U.S. 252 (1976). 182See Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 479 (2003). 183 Id. at 480 (emphasis added). This vague and open-ended ‘‘totality of the circumstances’’ test 

opened the door to allow all manner of raw political considerations to trump the minority’s true 

and genuine choice of candidates. As one commentator has pointed out, ‘‘the majority [in Georgia 

v. Ashcroft] went further than the principle required to resolve Georgia itself and embraced a 

more expansive, still ill-defined conception of other modes of ‘political influence’ that might be 

attributed to minority voters. These more nebulous modes of influence might also substitute, the 

Court held, for safe minority-controlled election districts. The dissent was right to raise questions, both in principle and in practice, about whether this further flexibility in the VRA is appropriate.’’ Richard H. Pildes, ‘‘The Constitutionalization of Democratic Politics,’’ 118 Harv. L. 

Rev. 28, 95 (2004). The dissent in Georgia v. Ashcroft case correctly pointed out that a ‘‘totality 

didates of choice. Voting changes that ‘‘purposefully’’ keep minority 

groups ‘‘in their place’’ have no role in our electoral process and are 

precisely the types of changes Section 5 is intended to bar. To allow 

otherwise would be contrary to the protections afforded by the 14th 

and 15th amendment and the VRA. 

Thus, by clarifying that any voting change motivated by any discriminatory purpose is prohibited under Section 5, the Committee 

seeks to ensure that the ‘‘purpose’’ prong remains a vital element 

to ensuring that Section 5 remains effective. In amending the purpose prong to bar ‘‘any discriminatory purpose,’’ the Committee is 

aware of concerns by some that such a prohibition is ‘‘standardless’’ and unadministerable.180 However, the Committee finds these concern to be unfounded. H.R. 9 is intended to restore the ‘‘discriminatory purpose’’ standard that was in place and administered until 

2000. Moreover, the Committee concludes that the factors set out 

in Village of Arlington Heights et al. v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation et. al. provide an adequate framework for determining whether voting changes submitted for preclearance were 

motivated by a discriminatory purpose, including determining 

whether a disproportionate impact exists; examining the historical 

background of the challenged decision; looking at the specific antecedent events; determining whether such change departs from the 

normal procedures; and examining contemporary statements of the 

decision-maker, if any.181 In weighing each of these factors, the 

Committee believes that a proper and fair determination may be 

made as to whether a voting change was motivated by a discriminatory intent. 

Retrogressive Effect—The Ability to Elect 

In 2003, the Supreme Court, in the case of Georgia v. Ashcroft, 

construed Section 5 to narrow its reach, significantly restricting the 

scope of the ‘‘effect’’ prong and weakening Section 5’s protection of 

minority groups from voting changes that diminish their ability to 

elect their preferred candidates of choice. 

In a 5–4 decision, the Georgia Court held that ‘‘any assessment 

of the retrogression of a minority group’s effective exercise of the 

electoral franchise depends on an examination of all the relevant 

circumstances, such as the ability to elect candidates of choice, the 

extent of the minority groups’ opportunity to participate in the political process, and the feasibility of creating a non-retrogressive 

plan.’’ 182 In particular, the majority found that ‘‘In assessing the 

totality of the circumstances, a court should not focus solely on the 

comparative ability of a minority group to elect a candidate of its 

choice. While this factor is an important one in the Section 5 retrogression inquiry, it cannot be dispositive.’’ 183 Indeed, the Court 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
69 

of the circumstances’’ under Section 5 is hopelessly unadministrable by the Department of Justice because such a concept does not retain ‘‘the anchoring reference to electing a candidate of 

choice.’’ Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 493 (Souter, J., dissenting). 184 Id. at 483. 185See H.R. Rep. No. 94–196 (1975) and Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976). 186See Oversight Hearing on the Voting Rights Act: The Judicial Evolution of the Retrogression 

Standard, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (November 9, 2005). 187 425 U.S. 130 (1976). 188See Oversight Hearing on the Voting Rights Act: The Judicial Evolution of the Retrogression 

Standard, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (November 9, 2005). 189 Id. 

deemed other factors, such as whether minority voters could influence an elected representative (to the extent that a representative 

would be willing to take the minority interest into account) relevant to the retrogression analysis. The Court further held that—

the State’s choice ultimately may rest on a political choice of 

whether substantive or descriptive representation is preferable.’’ 184

Under its ‘‘new’’ analysis, the Supreme Court would allow the minority community’s own choice of preferred candidates to be 

trumped by political deals struck by State legislators purporting to 

give ‘‘influence’’ to the minority community while removing that 

community’s ability to elect candidates. 

Permitting these trade-offs is inconsistent with the original and 

current purpose of Section 5. The majority opinion in Georgia turns 

Section 5 on its head. The provision was and continues to be an extraordinary remedy to address a long and continued history of discrimination in certain States and jurisdictions. Its purpose is to require the scrutinizing of changes to voting procedures made by jurisdictions to ensure that minority voters are not discriminated 

against and that gains made by minority voters over the course of 

decades are not eroded. The preclearance provisions in Section 5 

were and are intended to put the burden of proof on covered jurisdictions to demonstrate they are not enacting voting changes that 

diminish the ability of minorities to elect their preferred candidates 

of choice.185 Directly contrary to that proposition, Georgia v. 

Ashcroft appears to hold that courts should defer to the political decisions of States rather than the genuine choice of minority voters 

regarding who is or is not their candidate of choice. 

Over the last 30 years, Section 5’s ‘‘effect’’ prong has served to 

protect the minority communities’ ability to elect candidates of 

choice in covered jurisdictions. In particular, the Committee heard 

testimony describing the ‘‘judicial development of the retrogression 

standard’’ 186 and the importance of the standard in protecting minority voters and their ability to elect candidates of their choice. 

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Beer v. United States,187 it 

was accepted that if ‘‘the ability of minority group’s ability to elect 

candidates of choice to office is diminished, Section 5 requires the 

denial of preclearance.’’ 188

Indeed, the benefits to the minority community under the Beer 

standard were significant over the last several decades. The Committee heard testimony describing the positive impact that minority-preferred representatives have had on minority communities by 

fully ‘‘representing their interests.’’ 189 In particular, the Committee 

heard testimony confirming that minority-preferred elected officials 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
70 

190See Frederickson and Vagins, Promises to Keep: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act in 

2006, March 2006, at 25. 191 Id. 192 Id. 193See Oversight Hearing on the Voting Rights Act: The Judicial Evolution of the Retrogression 

Standard, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (November 9, 2005). 194 Id. 195 Id. 196 Id. 

fight for issues that are of importance to minority communities,190

and received evidence that ‘‘[o]fficials elected because of the equal 

voting opportunities afforded minority citizens were more attuned 

to the needs of the minority communities.’’ 191 These ‘‘tangible benefits were the direct result of the success of the Voting Rights 

Act.’’ 192 The Committee finds these results to be the types of successes that Congress sought to achieve through Section 5. These 

outcomes are achieved most often when a geographically compact 

minority group is able to control the outcome of an election, such 

that minority-preferred candidates are elected to office—on terms 

similar to other communities. 

The Committee believes that the gains made by minority communities in districts represented by elected officials of the minority 

communities’ choice would be jeopardized if the retrogression 

standard, as altered by the Supreme Court in Georgia, remains uncorrected by Congress. Indeed, the Committee was persuaded by 

testimony revealing that the current interpretation ‘‘permits a jurisdiction to choose among different theories of representation, introduces a substantial uncertainty for minority communities into a 

statute that was specifically intended to block persistent and shifting efforts to limit the effectiveness of minority political participation.’’ 193 Moreover, the Committee is concerned by testimony indicating that ‘‘[m]inority influence is nothing more than a guise for 

diluting minority voting strength.’’ 194 Accordingly, leaving the 

Georgia standard in place would encourage States to spread minority voters under the guise of ‘‘influence’’ and would effectively shut 

minority voters out of the political process. In essence, the Committee heard that Section 5, if left uncorrected, would now allow 

‘‘States to turn black and other minority voters into second class 

voters who can influence elections of white candidates, but who 

cannot elect their preferred candidates, including candidates of 

their own race.’’ 195 This is clearly not the outcome that Congress 

intended the Voting Rights Act and Section 5 to have on minority 

voters. 

Testimony presented to the Committee further suggested that, if 

left unaddressed, the Georgia standard threatens ‘‘the Nation’s 

commitment to representative democracy....’’ 196 The Committee 

agrees. Section 5 was intended to prevent covered jurisdictions 

from making decisions that shut minority voters out of the political 

process. The Committee is convinced that Congress should not 

allow covered jurisdictions the discretion to make decisions on behalf of minority voters on the record it has before it. To leave the 

present retrogression standard enunciated in Georgia uncorrected 

would effectively diminish the significance of Section 5’s remedy 

and would make Federal scrutiny a wasteful formality. 

Thus, in amending Section 5 to add a new subsection (b), the 

Committee makes clear that in making preclearance determinaVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
71 

197See H.R. Rep. No. 94–196, at 60 (1975) (stating ‘‘the standard can only be satisfied by determining . . . whether the ability of minority group’s . . . to elect candidates of their choice 

to office is . . . diminished’’). 198See Beer v United States, 425 U.S.130 (1976). 199 Id. at 480 (emphasis added). 200See 478 U.S. 30 (1986). 201See 507 U.S. 25 (1993). 202See 507 U.S. 146 (1993). 

tions under Section 5, the comparative ‘‘ability [of the minority 

community] to elect preferred candidates of choice’’ is the relevant 

factor to be evaluated when determining whether a voting change 

has a retrogressive effect. This change is intended to restore Section 5 and the effect prong to the standard of analysis set forth by 

this Committee during its examination of Section 5 in 1975, such 

that a change should be denied preclearance under Section 5 if it 

diminishes the ability of minority groups to elect their candidates 

of choice.197 Such was the standard of analysis articulated by the 

Supreme Court in Beer v. United States, the retrogression standard 

of analysis on which the Court, the Department of Justice, and minority voters relied for 30 years, and the standard the Committee 

seeks to restore.198 Voting changes that leave a minority group less 

able to elect a preferred candidate of choice, either directly or when 

coalesced with other voters, cannot be precleared under Section 5. 

Furthermore, by adding the adjective ‘‘preferred’’ before ‘‘candidate,’’ the Committee makes clear that the purpose of Section 5 

is to protect the electoral power of minority groups to elect candidates that the minority community desires to be their elected 

representative. 

In preserving the ability of minority groups to determine who 

their elected representatives should be, the Committee makes clear 

that decisions or influence by States or partisan legislatures as to 

whom candidates of the minority community ‘‘should be’’ have no 

place in the comparative analysis. The comparative analysis under 

Section 5 is intended to be specifically focused on whether the electoral power of the minority community is more, less, or just as able 

to elect a preferred candidate of choice after a voting change as before. 

In adding subsection (d), the Committee makes clear that Congress explicitly rejects all that logically follows from Justice O’Connor’s statement that ‘‘In assessing the totality of the circumstances, 

a court should not focus solely on the comparative ability of a minority group to elect a candidate of its choice. While this factor is 

an important one in the Section 5 retrogression inquiry, it cannot 

be dispositive.’’ 199 The language in subsection (d) makes clear that 

it is the intent of Congress that the relevant analysis in determining whether a voting change violates subsection (b) is a comparison between the minority community’s ability to elect their 

genuinely preferred candidate of choice before and after a voting 

change, consistent with the standard established by the Beer Court 

and the precedent that followed. To be clear, in adding Subsections 

(b) and (d), the Committee intends only to clarify its intent with 

regard to Section 5 and does not intend to disturb Section 2 or the 

settled jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court in Thornburg v. G. Jingles, 200 Growe v. Emison,201 and Voinovich v. Quilter.202 Sections 2 and 5 serve two different purposes under the VRA. 

The Committee change to Section 5 is intended to ensure that SecVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
72 

tion 5 remains effective in its purpose such that Sections 2 and 5 

can continue to work together to protect minority voters. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
73 

APPENDICES 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSMapA0001.eps
74 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSMapB0002.eps
75 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSMapC0003.eps
76 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSMapD0004.eps
77 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSMapE0005.eps
78 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSMapF0006.eps
79 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSMapG0007.eps
80 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSMapH0008.eps
81 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSMapI0009.eps
82 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSMapJ0010.eps
83 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSMapK0011.eps
84 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSMapL0012.eps
85 

HEARINGS

The House Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the 

Constitution held 1 day of hearings on H.R. 9 on May 4, 2006. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: J. Gerald 

Hebert, Former Acting Chief, Civil Rights Division, Department of 

Justice; Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for 

Equal Opportunity; Debo Adegbile, Associate Director, NAACP 

Legal Defense and Education Fund; Rena Comisa, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department 

of Justice; The Honorable Chris Norby, Supervisor, Fourth District, 

Orange County Board of Supervisor; Karen Narasaki, President 

and Executive Director, Asian American Justice Center; and Dr. 

James Thomas Tucker, Voting Rights Consultant, NALEO Educational Fund and Adjunct Professor, Barrett Honors College, Arizona State University, with additional material submitted by individuals and organizations. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On May 10, 2006, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 9 with an amendment by a 

recorded vote of 33 to 1, a quorum being present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

9. 

1. An amendment was offered by Mr. King that would have 

struck the provisions of the bill that reauthorized Section 203 of 

the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. By a rollcall vote of 9 

yeas to 26 nays, the amendment was defeated. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte ....................................................................................................

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................

Mr. Inglis ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Flake ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
86 

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Van Hollen .................................................................................................. X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 9 26 

2. An amendment was offered by Mr. King that would have limited to 6 years the provisions of the bill that reauthorized Section 

203 of the Voting Rights Act for 25 years. The amendment also 

would have precluded the use American Community Survey data 

in 5-year increments. By a rollcall vote of 10 yeas to 24 nays, the 

amendment was defeated. 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................

Mr. Inglis ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Flake ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
87 

ROLLCALL NO. 2—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Delahunt ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Van Hollen .................................................................................................. X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 10 24 

3. Final Passage. The motion to report favorably the bill H.R. 9, 

as amended, was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 33 yeas to 1 nays. 

ROLLCALL NO. 3 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................

Mr. Inglis ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Flake ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Van Hollen .................................................................................................. X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 33 1 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
88 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 9, the following estimate and comparison prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 17, 2006. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 9, the ‘‘Fannie Lou 

Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.’’

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts is Matthew Pickford, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD B. MARRON, 

ACTING DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 9—Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King 

Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 

2006. 

SUMMARY

H.R. 9 would reauthorize and amend the Voting Rights Act of 

1965. Major provisions of the legislation would extend certain expiring provisions of the act for 25 years, expand the use of federal 

observers at polling sites, and authorize the use of the American 

Community Survey to identify areas that may need bilingual voting 

assistance. In addition, H.R. 9 would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report to the Congress on the implementation of a provision of the Voting Rights Act regarding the reVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
89 

quirement for election materials in both English and an alternative 

language. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 9 would cost $1 million in fiscal year 2007 and $15 million over the 2007–2011 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting the bill 

would have no impact on direct spending or revenues. 

Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) excludes from the application of the act any legislative provisions 

that enforce constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has determined that H.R. 9 would fall within that exclusion because it would 

protect the voting rights of minorities and those with limited proficiency in English. Therefore, CBO has not reviewed the bill for 

mandates. 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 9 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 800 (general government). 

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

OPM Spending Under Current Law for Voting Rights Program 

Estimated Authorization Level 2 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays 2 0 0 0 0 

Proposed Changes 

Estimated Authorization Level 1 4 3 3 3 

Estimated Outlays 1 4 3 3 3 

OPM Spending Under H.R. 9 for Voting Rights Program 

Estimated Authorization Level 3 4 3 3 3 

Estimated Outlays 3 4 3 3 3 

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 9 will be enacted near 

the end of fiscal year 2006, that the necessary amounts will be appropriated over the 2007–2011 period, and that spending will follow historical spending patterns for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 

The legislation would extend for 25 years certain expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Under current law, the Department 

of Justice (DOJ) certifies the appointment of federal observers to 

work at polling sites when it has received 20 or more written complaints from residents regarding voting rights violations. OPM, 

through its Voting Rights Program, works closely with DOJ to assign voting rights observers to locations designated by the department. OPM currently has about 1,000 intermittent employees who 

serve as neutral monitors at particular polling sites on election 

days. Since 1966, OPM has deployed 26,000 observers to 22 States. 

The legislation would amend current law to authorize the Attorney General to assign federal observers without using the certification process to election sites if he or she has had a reasonable 

belief that violations of the 14th or 15th amendment have occurred 

or will occur at a polling site. Based on information from OPM and 

the current cost of operating the observer program, CBO estimates 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
90 

that the Voting Rights Program would spend about $4 million in 

general election years and about $3 million in other years. 

H.R. 9 also would require the GAO to report to the Congress, 

within one year, on the implementation of a section of the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965 regarding the provision of voting materials in 

alternative languages (in addition to materials in English). Based 

on similar reports, CBO estimates that preparing and distributing 

the report would cost less than $500,000. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

Section 4 of UMRA excludes from the application of the act any 

legislative provisions that enforce constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has determined that H.R. 9 would fall within that exclusion because it would protect the voting rights of minorities and 

those with limited proficiency in English. Therefore, CBO has not 

reviewed the bill for mandates. 

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: 

Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford (226–2860) 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Sarah Puro (225–

3220) 

Impact on the Private-Sector: Craig Cammarata (226–2940) 

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: 

Peter H. Fontaine 

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 9 will: (1) extend 

for another 25 years Section 4(a)(8) and Section 203(b)(1), the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 currently set to 

expire on August 6, 2007; and (2) amend Section 3(a), Section (4), 

Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section 14, and 

Section 203 to update certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act 

of 1965 to reflect the current voting environment and to restore the 

original intent of Congress in enacting the temporary provisions of 

the Act. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation under amend. XIV, § 5 and amend. XV, § 2. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Sec. 1. Short Title. 

This section provides that the Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fannie 

Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act 

Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006’’ (the ‘‘VRARA’’). 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
91 

203Testimony received by the Subcommittee on the Constitution revealed that Federal statutes, such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help American Vote 

Act of 2002 (HAVA), have been integral in increasing voter registration applications and voter 

turnout, and such statutes are now the primary means by which the integrity of voting rolls 

is secured at the Federal level. (The NVRA requires States to make voter registration opportunities available to individuals at all agencies that provide public assistance, including driver’s license offices, public benefit offices, and social service agencies. Under the NVRA, states are required to update their registration list to reflect recently deceased voters or voters who have 

moved. In addition, the NVRA prohibits States from removing registered voters from a registration list solely because they have not voted in an election. HAVA requires states to update voting equipment, maintain a centrally located computerized registration list accessible by every 

election official, and make other changes related to voter registration. Both statutes are enforced 

by the Department of Justice.) 

Sec. 2. Congressional Purpose and Findings. 

This section sets out the Congressional findings and purposes 

supporting the VRARA. 

Sec. 3. Changes Relating to Use of Examiners and Observers. 

This section contains five subsections. 

• Sec. 3(a). Use of Observers. Current Section 8 of the VRA (42 

U.S.C. § 1973f) authorizes the Attorney General to request 

that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) assign Federal observers to jurisdictions where examiners are located 

to observe whether citizens who are eligible to vote are able 

to exercise the right to vote. Federal observers are the only 

Federal officials who are authorized to enter polls and places 

where votes are tabulated. (Under current law, observers can 

only be assigned after a jurisdiction has been certified for 

Federal examiner coverage.) Section 3(a) of the VRARA authorizes the Attorney General or court under Section 3(a) of 

the VRA to directly assign Federal observers upon a finding 

that there is a reasonable belief that a violation of the 14th 

or 15th amendment has occurred or will occur, without having to first certify the use of Federal examiners. (Federal examiners would be eliminated under Section 3(c) of the 

VRARA because examiners have not been appointed to jurisdictions certified for coverage in some twenty years.) 

• Sec. 3(b). Modification of Section 13. Section 13 of the VRA 

(42 U.S.C. § 1973k) enables those covered jurisdictions certified for Federal examiners, and subject to the listing procedures set forth in Section 7 of the VRA, the opportunity to 

apply to the Attorney General or to the Federal court, if applicable, to terminate the certification of such examiners. 

Section 3(b) of the VRARA would eliminate these provisions 

as applied to examiners (which would be eliminated under 

Section 3(c) of the VRARA) and simply transfer those termination procedures to allow for the termination of observers. 

• Sec. 3(c). Repeal of Sections Relating to Examiners. This section would strike Sections 6, 7, and 9 of the VRA. Section 6 

of the VRA (42 U.S.C. 1973d) authorizes the court or the Attorney General to direct the OPM to send Federal examiners 

either to covered jurisdictions, or where the court believes it 

necessary to protect citizens’ 14th and 15th amendment 

rights. Section 3(c) of the VRARA would strike the authority 

of the Attorney General, or the court, to appoint Federal examiners.203 Section 7 of the VRA (42 U.S.C. § 1973e) sets 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
92 

204 Again, this change is in response to testimony received by the Subcommittee on the Constitution showing that Federal examiners have not been used to list individuals for voting in 

the last twenty years. Federal observers, on the other hand, have been the most frequently used 

Federal oversight tools in the last 20 years. 

forth the process that Federal examiners are required to follow when listing those individuals who meet the voter qualifications set forth by a State. Section 3(c) of the VRARA 

would eliminate the listing procedures in accordance with 

the elimination of Federal examiners. Section 9 of the VRA 

(42 U.S.C. § 1973g) sets forth the process for individuals to 

challenge the eligibility of a voter listed by a Federal examiner. Section 3(c) of the VRARA would eliminate this process 

along with the rest of the Federal examiner provisions. 

• Sec.3(d). Substitution of References to ‘‘Observers’’ for References to ‘‘Examiners.’’ This section makes technical changes 

to several sections of the VRA that are necessary to replace 

the role of Federal examiners with those of Federal observers. Section 3(a) of the VRA (42 U.S.C. 1973a) currently authorizes Federal courts, in proceedings under any statutes 

enforcing the 14th and 15th amendments’ voting guarantees, 

to use Federal election examiners and observers to monitor 

the actions of covered jurisdictions. Section 3(d) of the 

VRARA amends Section 3(a) of the VRA by replacing the 

court’s authority to assign Federal examiners with the authority to assign Federal observers only.204

• Sec. 3(e). Conforming Changes Relating to Section References. 

This section makes technical changes to section references in 

the VRA to reflect the changes made by the VRARA. 

Sec. 4. Reconsideration of Section 4 by Congress. 

This section makes technical changes to the VRA to reflect the 

title of the VRARA, namely the ‘‘Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, 

and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and 

Amendments Act of 2006.’’ Section 4 of the VRA (42 U.S.C. § 1973b) 

identifies by formula those jurisdictions subject to the Federal oversight provisions contained in Sections 5 through 8 of the VRA and 

sets out the requirements covered jurisdictions must meet to ‘‘bailout’’ (that is, to be removed from coverage under the Voting Rights 

Act). Section 4 of the VRARA would extend these expiring provisions for an additional 25 years. In addition, and in accordance 

with the proposed replacement of Federal examiners with Federal 

observers in Section 3(c) of VRARA, the changes made by Section 

4 of the VRARA to Section 4 of the VRA would specify that the Attorney General’s decision to certify Federal observers in a covered 

jurisdiction is not reviewable (as is currently the law regarding the 

Attorney General’s determination to certify Federal examiners 

under the VRA). 

Sec. 5. Criteria for Declaratory Judgment. 

Section 5 of the VRA (42 U.S.C. § 1973c) requires covered jurisdictions to preclear all voting changes with either the Department 

of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

(The need to renew Section 5 is evidenced in part by the fact that 

Section 5 was used more often between 1982 and 2005 than it was 

between 1965 and 1982, resulting in the retraction of more voting 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
93 

205The Supreme Court has stated that ‘‘The language and purpose of the Fifteenth Amendment [which prohibits racial discrimination in voting], the prior decisions construing its several 

provisions, and the general doctrines of constitutional interpretation, all point to one fundamental principle. As against the reserved powers of the States, Congress may use any rational 

means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting . . . § 2 of 

the Fifteenth Amendment expressly declares that ‘Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’ By adding this authorization, the Framers indicated that Congress was to be chiefly responsible for implementing the rights created in § 1 . . . Accordingly, 

in addition to the courts, Congress has full remedial powers to effectuate the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination in voting.’’ South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 

325–27 (1966) (emphasis added). In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 518 (1997) (emphasis 

added), the Court stated ‘‘Legislation which deters or remedies constitutional violations can fall 

within the sweep of Congress’ enforcement power even if in the process it prohibits conduct 

which is not itself unconstitutional and intrudes into legislative spheres of autonomy previously 

reserved to the States. For example, the Court upheld a suspension of literacy tests and similar 

voting requirements under Congress’ parallel power to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth 

Amendment as a measure to combat racial discrimination in voting despite the facial constitutionality of the tests...’’ In City of Rome v. United States, the Court stated ‘‘‘Congress may, 

under the authority of § 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, prohibit state action that, though in itself 

not violative of § 1, perpetuates the effects of past discrimination.’’ City of Rome v. United States, 

446 U.S. 156, 173, 176 (1980) (emphasis added). 206To be removed from coverage under Section 5, a jurisdiction need only show that it has 

not administered literacy tests within the preceding 10 years; has complied with all Federal preclearance requirements; has not been the subject of litigation or consent decrees relating to voting discrimination; and has taken steps to include minorities in the electoral process. 207 528 U.S. 320 (2000). 208 ‘‘Retrogression’’ means a process by which voting changes put the minority community in 

a worse position to elect a candidate of their choice compared to such minorities’ position prior 

to the administration of a new voting provision. 

rules changes that would have adversely affected minorities.) The 

expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act only apply to jurisdictions that have the most extensive histories of discrimination and 

segregation. And even within those covered jurisdictions, the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act only require that voting 

rule changes first be ‘‘precleared’’ by the Justice Department or the 

D.C. Federal court before they go into effect. The Supreme Court 

has held that Congress has the clear authority to enact provisions 

that simply prevent certain states from ‘‘backsliding’’ in their protection of minority voting rights.205 (The expiring provisions of the 

Voting Rights Act allow any covered jurisdiction to remove itself 

from coverage if it can demonstrate a ‘‘clean record’’ 206 on discrimination over the previous 10 years. In fact, 11 counties in Virginia 

have successfully removed themselves from coverage under the 

Voting Rights Act.) 

Two Supreme Court decisions (Reno v. Bossier Parish (‘‘Bossier 

II’’) and Georgia v. Ashcroft) have significantly narrowed Section 5’s 

effectiveness. The changes Section 5 of the VRARA makes to Section 5 of the VRA will: 

• make clear that Congress rejects the Supreme Court’s holding in Reno v. Bossier Parish,207 by making clear that, contrary to that decision, ‘‘retrogression’’ 208 is not the only violation of voting rights the preclearance procedures protect 

against, and that a voting rule change motivated by any discriminatory purpose also cannot be precleared. The VRARA 

does this by creating new subsections (b) and (c) to Section 

5 that state: 

(b) Any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or 

standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting 

that has the purpose of or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States on 

account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), to elect their preferred 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
94 

209Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003). 210Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 480 (2003) (emphasis added). 211Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 493 (Souter, J., dissenting). 

candidates of choice denies or abridges the right to vote 

within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section. 

(c) The term ‘‘purpose’’ in subsections (a) and (b) of this 

section shall include any discriminatory purpose. 

• make clear that Congress partly rejects the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Georgia v. Ashcroft. Before the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Georgia v. Ashcroft,209 it was clear that the Voting Rights Act served to protect the minority community’s 

ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice. However, 

Justice O’Connor, writing for a 5–4 majority, held in Georgia 

v. Ashcroft that ‘‘In assessing the totality of the circumstances, a court should not focus solely on the comparative ability of a minority group to elect a candidate of its 

choice.’’ 210 This vague and open-ended ‘‘totality of the circumstances’’ test opened the door to allow all manner of undefined considerations to trump the minority’s choice of candidate, and the dissent in the Georgia v. Ashcroft case correctly pointed out that a ‘‘totality of the circumstances’’ under Section 5 is hopelessly unadministerable by the Department of Justice because such a concept does not retain 

‘‘the anchoring reference to electing a candidate of 

choice.’’ 211 VRARA restores the standard articulated in Beer 

v. United States. To restore the original meaning of Section 

5 of the Voting Rights Act, the VRARA makes clear, in a 

new subsection (d), that: 

(d) The purpose of subsection (b) of this section is to protect the ability of such [minority] citizens to elect their 

preferred candidates of choice. 

Sec. 6. Expert Fees and Other Reasonable Costs of Litigation. 

Section 14 of the VRA (42 U.S.C. § 1973l) currently authorizes 

prevailing parties (other than the United States) to recover attorney fees. Section 6 of the VRARA updates this provision by authorizing the prevailing party to also recover expert costs as part of the 

attorney fees, as is already provided for in the vast majority of civil 

rights legislation. 

Sec. 7. Extension of Language Assistance Requirements. 

Section 7 of the VRARA extends Section 203 of the VRA’s requirements (the bilingual election materials requirements) for a period of 25 years. Sections 203 and 4(f) of the VRA require that bilingual election assistance be given to language minority citizens in 

certain States and political subdivisions. Under Sections 203 and 

4(f), covered jurisdictions are required to provide voting materials 

such as notices, forms, instructions, ballots, and other materials in 

the applicable covered language (Spanish, Asian-American, Native 

American, and Native Alaskan). Section 203 of the Voting Rights 

Act only requires that non-English voting materials be made available in jurisdictions (1) in which 5 percent of the voting age population consists of a single language, limited English proficient minority and in which there is a literacy rate below the national averVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
95 

age; or (2) in which more than 10,000 citizens who meet those criteria reside. A jurisdiction can get out from under coverage under 

Section 203 if it shows the D.C. Federal court that the applicable 

language minority population’s literacy rate is at the national average or above. Section 203 protects citizens, not illegal immigrants. 

Citizens in the process of learning to read should not be denied assistance in voting, and such citizens should not be denied aid for 

lack of educational opportunities. 

Sec. 8. Use of American Community Survey Census Data. 

Section 8 of the VRARA updates Section 203 of the VRA to reflect the fact that the long form census, which had been used in 

coverage determinations, will no longer be used by the Census Bureau after 2010. The American Community Survey has replaced 

the long form and will be administered by the Census Bureau annually. Determinations for coverage under Section 203 will be 

made by the Director of the Census based upon information compiled by the ACS on a rolling 5-year average. 

Section 9. Study and Report. 

Section 9 of the VRARA authorizes the Comptroller General to 

conduct a study on the implementation, effectiveness, and efficiency of Section 203, the bilingual language assistance provision. 

In conducting the study, the Comptroller General is required to 

identify alternatives to the current administrative process under 

Section 203. The study is to be completed within a year of the effective date of the VRARA. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 

TITLE I—VOTING RIGHTS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3. (a) Whenever the Attorney General or an aggrieved 

person institutes a proceeding under any statute to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment in any 

State or political subdivision the court shall authorize the appointment of Federal øexaminers¿ observers by the United States Civil 

Service Commission in accordance with section 6 to serve for such 

period of time and for such political subdivisions as the court shall 

determine is appropriate to enforce the voting guarantees of the 

fourteenth or fifteenth amendment (1) as part of any interlocutory 

order if the court determines that the appointment of such øexaminers¿ observers is necessary to enforce such voting guarantees or 

(2) as part of any final judgment if the court finds that violations 

of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
96 

have occurred in such State or subdivision: That the court need not 

authorize the appointment of øexaminers¿ observers if any incidents of denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of 

race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), (1) have been few in number and have been promptly 

and effectively corrected by State or local action, (2) the continuing 

effect of such incidents has been eliminated, and (3) there is no 

reasonable probability of their recurrence in the future. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4. (a)(1) To assure that the right of citizens of the United 

States to vote is not denied or abridged on account of race or color, 

no citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, 

or local election because of his failure to comply with any test or 

device in any State with respect to which the determinations have 

been made under the first two sentences of subsection (b) or in any 

political subdivision of such State (as such subdivision existed on 

the date such determinations were made with respect to such 

State), though such determinations were not made with respect to 

such subdivision as a separate unit, or in any political subdivision 

with respect to which such determinations have been made as a 

separate unit, unless the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issues a declaratory judgment under this section. 

No citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, 

or local election because of his failure to comply with any test or 

device in any State with respect to which the determinations have 

been made under the third sentence of subsection (b) of this section 

or in any political subdivision of such State (as such subdivision existed on the date such determinations were made with respect to 

such State), though such determinations were not made with respect to such subdivision as a separate unit or in any political subdivision with respect to which such determinations have been made 

as a separate unit, unless the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia issues a declaratory judgment under this section. A declaratory judgment under this section shall issue only if 

such court determines that during the ten years preceding the filing of the action, and during the pendency of such action—

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) no Federal examiners or observers under this Act have 

been assigned to such State or political subdivision; 

* * * * * * * 

(7) The Congress shall reconsider the provisions of this section 

at the end of the fifteen-year period following the effective date of 

the amendments made by the øVoting Rights Act Amendments of 

1982¿ Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. 

(8) The provisions of this section shall expire at the end of the 

twenty-five-year period following the effective date of the amendments made by the øVoting Rights Act Amendments of 1982¿ 

Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting 

Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. 

* * * * * * * 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
97 

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply in any State or 

in any political subdivision of a State which (1) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1964, any test or device, and with respect to which (2) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 per centum of the persons of voting age 

residing therein were registered on November 1, 1964, or that less 

than 50 per centum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 1964. On and after August 6, 1970, in addition 

to any State or political subdivision of a State determined to be 

subject to subsection (a) pursuant to the previous sentence, the provisions of subsection (a) shall apply in any State or any political 

subdivision of a State which (i) the Attorney General determines 

maintained on November 1, 1968, any test or device, and with respect to which (ii) the Director of the Census determines that less 

than 50 per centum of the persons of voting age residing therein 

were registered on November 1, 1968, or that less than 50 per centum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 

1968. On and after August 6, 1975, in addition to any State or political subdivision of a State determined to be subject to subsection 

(a) pursuant to the previous two sentences, the provisions of subsection (a) shall apply in any State or any political subdivision of 

a State which (i) the Attorney General determines maintained on 

November 1, 1972, any test or device, and with respect to which 

(ii) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 per 

centum of the citizens of voting age were registered on November 

1, 1972, or that less than 50 per centum of such persons voted in 

the Presidential election of November 1972. 

A determination or certification of the Attorney General or of 

the Director of the Census under this section or under øsection 6¿ 

section 8 or section 13 shall not be reviewable in any court and 

shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register. 

SEC. 5. (a) Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) based upon 

determinations made under the first sentence of section 4(b) are in 

effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or 

prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 

1, 1964, or whenever a State or political subdivision with respect 

to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) based upon determinations made under the second sentence of section 4(b) are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or 

prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 

1, 1968, or whenever a State or political subdivision with respect 

to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) based upon determinations made under the third sentence of section 4(b) are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualifications or 

prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 

1, 1972, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the 

United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, 

practice, or procedure ødoes not have the purpose and will not have 

the effect¿ neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
98 

contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be 

denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, 

standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief 

legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not 

interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, or 

upon good cause shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within 

sixty days after such submission, the Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such objection will not be made. Neither an 

affirmative indication by the Attorney General that no objection 

will be made, nor the Attorney General’s failure to object, nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. In the event the Attorney General affirmatively indicates that no objection will be made 

within the sixty-day period following receipt of a submission, the 

Attorney General may reserve the right to reexamine the submission if additional information comes to his attention during the remainder of the sixty-day period which would otherwise require objection in accordance with this section. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in 

accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the 

United States Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. 

(b) Any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting that has the purpose of or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), to elect their 

preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right to vote 

within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section. 

(c) The term ‘‘purpose’’ in subsections (a) and (b) of this section 

shall include any discriminatory purpose. 

(d) The purpose of subsection (b) of this section is to protect the 

ability of such citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice. 

øSEC. 6. Whenever (a) a court has authorized the appointment 

of examiners pursuant to the provisions of section 3(a), or (b), unless a declaratory judgment has been rendered under section 4(a), 

the Attorney General certifies with respect to any political subdivision named in, or included within the scope of, determinations 

made under section 4(b) that (1) he has received complaints in 

writing from twenty or more residents of such political subdivision 

alleging that they have been denied the right to vote under color 

of law on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), and that he believes such complaints to be meritorious, or (2) that in his judgment (considering, 

among other factors, whether the ratio of nonwhite persons to 

white persons registered to vote within such subdivision appears to 

him to be reasonably attributable to violations of the fourteenth or 

fifteenth amendment or whether substantial evidence exists that 

bona fide efforts are being made within such subdivision to comply 

with the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment), the appointment of 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
99 

examiners is otherwise necessary to enforce the guarantees of the 

fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the Civil Service Commission 

shall appoint as many examiners for such subdivision as it may 

deem appropriate to prepare and maintain lists of persons eligible 

to vote in Federal, State, and local elections. Such examiners, hearing officers provided for in section 9(a), and other persons deemed 

necessary by the Commission to carry out the provisions and purposes of this Act shall be appointed, compensated, and separated 

without regard to the provisions of any statute administered by the 

Civil Service Commission, and service under this Act shall not be 

considered employment for the purposes of any statute administered by the Civil Service Commission, except the provisions of subchapter III of chapter 73 of title 5, United States Code, relating to 

political activities: That the Commission is authorized, after consulting the head of the appropriate department or agency, to designate suitable persons in the official service of the United States, 

with their consent, to serve in these positions. Examiners and hearing officers shall have the power to administer oaths. 

øSEC. 7. (a) The examiners for each political subdivision shall, 

at such places as the Civil Service Commission shall by regulation 

designate, examine applicants concerning their qualifications for 

voting. An application to an examiner shall be in such form as the 

Commission may require and shall contain allegations that the applicant is not otherwise registered to vote. 

ø(b) Any person whom the examiner finds, in accordance with 

instructions received under section 9(b), to have the qualifications 

prescribed by State law not inconsistent with the Constitution and 

laws of the United States shall promptly be placed on a list of eligible voters. A challenge to such listing may be made in accordance 

with section 9(a) and shall not be the basis for a prosecution under 

section 12 of this Act. The examiner shall certify and transmit such 

list, and any supplements as appropriate, at least once a month, 

to the offices of the appropriate election officials, with copies to the 

Attorney General and the attorney general of the State, and any 

such lists and supplements thereto transmitted during the month 

shall be available for public inspection on the last business day of 

the month and in any event not later than the forty-fifth day prior 

to any election. The appropriate State or local election official shall 

place such names on the official voting list. Any person whose 

name appears on the examiner’s list shall be entitled and allowed 

to vote in the election district of his residence unless and until the 

appropriate election officials shall have been notified that such person has been removed from such list in accordance with subsection 

(d): That no person shall be entitled to vote in any election by virtue of this Act unless his name shall have been certified and transmitted on such a list to the offices of the appropriate election officials at least forty-five days prior to such election. 

ø(c) The examiner shall issue to each person whose name appears on such a list a certificate evidencing his eligibility to vote. 

ø(d) A person whose name appears on such a list shall be removed therefrom by an examiner if (1) such person has been successfully challenged in accordance with the procedure prescribed in 

section 9, or (2) he has been determined by an examiner to have 

lost his eligibility to vote under State law not inconsistent with the 

Constitution and the laws of the United States. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
100 

øSEC. 8. Whenever an examiner is serving under this Act in 

any political subdivision, the Civil Service Commission may assign, 

at the request of the Attorney General, one or more persons, who 

may be officers of the United States, (1) to enter and attend at any 

place for holding an election in such subdivision for the purpose of 

observing whether persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote, and (2) to enter and attend at any place for tabulating the votes cast at any election held in such subdivision for 

the purpose of observing whether votes cast by persons entitled to 

vote are being properly tabulated. Such persons so assigned shall 

report to an examiner appointed for such political subdivision, to 

the Attorney General, and if the appointment of examiners has 

been authorized pursuant to section 3(a), to the court. 

øSEC. 9. (a) Any challenge to a listing on an eligibility list prepared by an examiner shall be heard and determined by a hearing 

officer appointed by and responsible to the Civil Service Commission and under such rules as the Commission shall by regulation 

prescribe. Such challenge shall be entertained only if filed at such 

office within the State as the Civil Service Commission shall by 

regulation designate, and within ten days after the listing of the 

challenged person is made available for public inspection, and if 

supported by (1) the affidavits of at least two persons having personal knowledge of the facts constituting grounds for the challenge, 

and (2) a certification that a copy of the challenge and affidavits 

have been served by mail or in person upon the person challenged 

at his place of residence set out in the application. Such challenge 

shall be determined within fifteen days after it has been filed. A 

petition for review of the decision of the hearing officer may be 

filed in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which 

the person challenged resides within fifteen days after service of 

such decision by mail on the person petitioning for review but no 

decision or a hearing officer shall be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Any person listed shall be entitled and allowed to vote pending final determination by the hearing officer and by the court. 

ø(b) The times, places, procedures, and form for application 

and listing pursuant to this Act and removals from the eligibility 

lists shall be prescribed by regulations promulgated by the Civil 

Service Commission and the Commission shall, after consultation 

with the Attorney General, instruct examiners concerning applicable State law not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the 

United States with respect to (1) the qualifications required for listing, and (2) loss of eligibility to vote. 

ø(c) Upon the request of the applicant or the challenger or on 

its own motion the Civil Service Commission shall have the power 

to require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses 

and the production of documentary evidence relating to any matter 

pending before it under the authority of this section. In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena, any district court of the 

United States or the United States court of any territory or possession, or the District Court of the United States for the District of 

Columbia, within the jurisdiction of which said person guilty of 

contumacy or refusal to obey is found or resides or is domiciled or 

transacts business, or has appointed an agent for receipt of service 

or process, upon application by the Attorney General of the United 

States shall have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order reVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
101 

quiring such person to appear before the Commission or a hearing 

officer, there to produce pertinent, relevant, and nonprivileged documentary evidence if so ordered, or there to give testimony touching the matter under investigation; and any failure to obey such 

order of the court may be punished by said court as a contempt 

thereof.¿ 

SEC. 8. (a) Whenever—

(1) a court has authorized the appointment of observers 

under section 3(a) for a political subdivision; or 

(2) the Attorney General certifies with respect to any political subdivision named in, or included within the scope of, determinations made under section 4(b), unless a declaratory 

judgment has been rendered under section 4(a), that—

(A) the Attorney General has received written meritorious complaints from residents, elected officials, or civic 

participation organizations that efforts to deny or abridge 

the right to vote under the color of law on account of race 

or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in 

section 4(f)(2) are likely to occur; or 

(B) in the Attorney General’s judgment (considering, 

among other factors, whether the ratio of nonwhite persons 

to white persons registered to vote within such subdivision 

appears to the Attorney General to be reasonably attributable to violations of the 14th or 15th amendment or 

whether substantial evidence exists that bona fide efforts 

are being made within such subdivision to comply with the 

14th or 15th amendment), the assignment of observers is 

otherwise necessary to enforce the guarantees of the 14th or 

15th amendment; 

the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall assign as 

many observers for such subdivision as the Director may deem appropriate. 

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), such observers shall be 

assigned, compensated, and separated without regard to the provisions of any statute administered by the Director of the Office of 

Personnel Management, and their service under this Act shall not 

be considered employment for the purposes of any statute administered by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, except 

the provisions of section 7324 of title 5, United States Code, prohibiting partisan political activity. 

(c) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to, after consulting the head of the appropriate department 

or agency, designate suitable persons in the official service of the 

United States, with their consent, to serve in these positions. 

(d) Observers shall be authorized to—

(1) enter and attend at any place for holding an election in 

such subdivision for the purpose of observing whether persons 

who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote; and 

(2) enter and attend at any place for tabulating the votes 

cast at any election held in such subdivision for the purpose of 

observing whether votes cast by persons entitled to vote are 

being properly tabulated. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
102 

(e) Observers shall investigate and report to the Attorney General, and if the appointment of observers has been authorized pursuant to section 3(a), to the court. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 12. (a) Whoever shall deprive or attempt to deprive any 

person of any right secured by section 2, 3, 4, 5, ø7,¿ or 10 or shall 

violate section 11(a), shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 

(b) Whoever, within a year following an election in a political 

subdivision in which øan examiner has been appointed¿ an observer has been assigned (1) destroys, defaces, mutilates, or otherwise alters the marking of a paper ballot which has been cast in 

such election, or (2) alters any official record of voting in such election tabulated from a voting machine or otherwise, shall be fined 

not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or 

both. 

(c) Whoever conspires to violate the provisions of subsection (a) 

or (b) of this section, or interferes with any right secured by section 

2, 3, 4, 5, ø7,¿ 10, or 11(a) shall be fined not more than $5,000, 

or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) Whenever in any political subdivision in which there are 

øexaminers¿ observers appointed pursuant to this Act any persons 

allege to such an øexaminer¿ observer within forty-eight hours 

after the closing of the polls that notwithstanding (1) their listing 

under this Act or registration by an appropriate election official 

and (2) their eligibility to vote, they have not been permitted to 

vote in such election, the øexaminer¿ observer shall forthwith notify the Attorney General if such allegations in his opinion appear 

to be well founded. Upon receipt of such notification the Attorney 

General may forthwith file with the district court an application for 

an order providing for the marking, casting, and counting of the 

ballots of such persons and requiring the inclusion of their votes in 

the total vote before the results of such election shall be deemed 

final and any force or effect given thereto. The district court shall 

hear and determine such matters immediately after the filing of 

such application. The remedy provided in this subsection shall not 

preclude any remedy available under State or Federal law. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 13. Listing procedures shall be terminated in any political subdivision of any State (a) with respect to examiners appointed pursuant to clause (b) of section 6 whenever the Attorney 

General notifies the Civil Service Commission, or whenever the 

District Court for the District of Columbia determines in an action 

for declaratory judgment brought by any political subdivision with 

respect to which the Director of the Census has determined that 

more than 50 per centum of the nonwhite persons of voting age residing therein are registered to vote, (1) that all persons listed by 

an examiner for such subdivision have been placed on the appropriate voting registration roll, and (2) that there is no longer reasonable cause to believe that persons will be deprived of or denied 

the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of 

the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) in such subdivision, and 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
103 

(b), with respect to examiners appointed pursuant to section 3(a), 

upon order of the authorizing court. A political subdivision may petition the Attorney General for the termination of listing procedures under clause (a) of this section, and may petition the Attorney General to request the Director of the Census to take such survey or census as may be appropriate for the making of the determination provided for in this section. The District Court for the 

District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction to require such survey 

or census to be made by the Director of the Census and it shall require him to do so if it deems the Attorney General’s refusal to request such survey or census to be arbitrary or unreasonable.¿ 

SEC. 13. (a) The assignment of observers shall terminate in any 

political subdivision of any State—

(1) with respect to observers appointed pursuant to section 

8 or with respect to examiners certified under this Act before the 

date of the enactment of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, 

and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and 

Amendments Act of 2006, whenever the Attorney General notifies the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, or 

whenever the District Court for the District of Columbia determines in an action for declaratory judgment brought by any political subdivision described in subsection (b), that there is no 

longer reasonable cause to believe that persons will be deprived 

of or denied the right to vote on account of race or color, or in 

contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) in 

such subdivision; and 

(2) with respect to observers appointed pursuant to section 

3(a), upon order of the authorizing court. 

(b) A political subdivision referred to in subsection (a)(1) is one 

with respect to which the Director of the Census has determined 

that more than 50 per centum of the nonwhite persons of voting age 

residing therein are registered to vote. 

(c) A political subdivision may petition the Attorney General for 

a termination under subsection (a)(1). 

SEC. 14. (a) * * * 

(b) No court other than the District Court for the District of 

Columbia øor a court of appeals in any proceeding under section 

9¿ shall have jurisdiction to issue any declaratory judgment pursuant to section 4 or section 5 or any restraining order or temporary 

or permanent injunction against the execution or enforcement of 

any provision of this Act or any action of any Federal officer or employee pursuant hereto. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees 

of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, 

a reasonable attorney’s fee, reasonable expert fees, and other reasonable litigation expenses as part of the costs. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
104 

BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS

SEC. 203. (a) * * * 

(b) BILINGUAL VOTING MATERIALS REQUIREMENT.—

(1) GENERALLY.—Before August 6, ø2007¿ 2032, no covered 

State or political subdivision shall provide voting materials 

only in the English language. 

(2) COVERED STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.—

(A) GENERALLY.—A State or political subdivision is a 

covered State or political subdivision for the purposes of 

this subsection if the Director of the Census determines, 

based on øcensus data¿ the 2010 American Community 

Survey census data and subsequent American Community 

Survey data in 5-year increments, or comparable census 

data, that—

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. A 

working quorum is present. Pursuant to notice I now call up the 

bill H.R. 9, the ‘‘Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott 

King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 

2006’’ for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House. Without objection, the bill is considered as read 

and open for amendment at any point, and the Chair recognizes 

himself for 5 minutes to explain the bill. 

[The bill, H.R. 9 follows:] 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
105 

1

I

109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 9

To amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 2, 2006

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself, Mr. HASTERT, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. CONYERS,

Mr. CHABOT, Mr. NADLER, Mr. WATT, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr.

TOWNS, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. OWENS, Mr.

CLYBURN, Ms. LEE, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of

California, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. JEFFERSON, Ms. NORTON, Ms.

KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. FATTAH, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms.

WATERS, Mr. HONDA, Mr. GONZALEZ, and Mrs. NAPOLITANO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fannie Lou Hamer,

5 Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act

6 Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006’’.

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSI9.AAB
106 

2

•HR 9 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.

2 (a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to ensure

3 that the right of all citizens to vote, including the right

4 to register to vote and cast meaningful votes, is preserved

5 and protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.

6 (b) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following:

7 (1) Significant progress has been made in elimi8 nating first generation barriers experienced by mi9 nority voters, including increased numbers of reg10 istered minority voters, minority voter turnout, and

11 minority representation in Congress, State legisla12 tures, and local elected offices. This progress is the

13 direct result of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

14 (2) However, vestiges of discrimination in vot15 ing continue to exist as demonstrated by second gen16 eration barriers constructed to prevent minority vot17 ers from fully participating in the electoral process.

18 (3) The continued evidence of racially polarized

19 voting in each of the jurisdictions covered by the ex20 piring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

21 demonstrates that racial and language minorities re22 main politically vulnerable, warranting the continued

23 protection of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

24 (4) Evidence of continued discrimination

25 includes—

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSI9.AAC
107 

3

•HR 9 IH

1 (A) the hundreds of objections interposed,

2 requests for more information submitted fol3 lowed by voting changes withdrawn from con4 sideration by jurisdictions covered by the Voting

5 Rights Act of 1965, and section 5 enforcement

6 actions undertaken by the Department of Jus7 tice in covered jurisdictions since 1982 that

8 prevented election practices, such as annex9 ation, at-large voting, and the use of multi10 member districts, from being enacted to dilute

11 minority voting strength;

12 (B) the number of requests for declaratory

13 judgments denied by the United States District

14 Court for the District of Columbia;

15 (C) the continued filing of section 2 cases

16 that originated in covered jurisdictions; and

17 (D) the litigation pursued by the Depart18 ment of Justice since 1982 to enforce sections

19 4(e), 4(f)(4), and 203 of such Act to ensure

20 that all language minority citizens have full ac21 cess to the political process.

22 (5) The evidence clearly shows the continued

23 need for Federal oversight in jurisdictions covered

24 by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 since 1982, as

25 demonstrated in the counties certified by the Attorrfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSI9.AAD
108 

4

•HR 9 IH

1 ney General for Federal examiner and observer cov2 erage and the tens of thousands of Federal observers

3 that have been dispatched to observe elections in

4 covered jurisdictions.

5 (6) The effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act

6 of 1965 has been significantly weakened by the

7 United States Supreme Court decisions in Reno v.

8 Bossier Parish II and Georgia v. Ashcroft, which

9 have misconstrued Congress’ original intent in en10 acting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and narrowed

11 the protections afforded by section 5 of such Act.

12 (7) Despite the progress made by minorities

13 under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the evidence

14 before Congress reveals that 40 years has not been

15 a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges

16 of discrimination following nearly 100 years of dis17 regard for the dictates of the 15th amendment and

18 to ensure that the right of all citizens to vote is pro19 tected as guaranteed by the Constitution.

20 (8) Present day discrimination experienced by

21 racial and language minority voters is contained in

22 evidence, including the objections interposed by the

23 Department of Justice in covered jurisdictions; the

24 section 2 litigation filed to prevent dilutive tech25 niques from adversely affecting minority voters; the

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSI9.AAE
109 

5

•HR 9 IH

1 enforcement actions filed to protect language minori2 ties; and the tens of thousands of Federal observers

3 dispatched to monitor polls in jurisdictions covered

4 by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

5 (9) The record compiled by Congress dem6 onstrates that, without the continuation of the Vot7 ing Rights Act of 1965 protections, racial and lan8 guage minority citizens will be deprived of the oppor9 tunity to exercise their right to vote, or will have

10 their votes diluted, undermining the significant gains

11 made by minorities in the last 40 years.

12 SEC. 3. CHANGES RELATING TO USE OF EXAMINERS AND

13 OBSERVERS.

14 (a) USE OF OBSERVERS.—Section 8 of the Voting

15 Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973f) is amended to read

16 as follows:

17 ‘‘SEC. 8. (a) Whenever—

18 ‘‘(1) a court has authorized the appointment of

19 observers under section 3(a) for a political subdivi20 sion; or

21 ‘‘(2) the Attorney General certifies with respect

22 to any political subdivision named in, or included

23 within the scope of, determinations made under sec24 tion 4(b), unless a declaratory judgment has been

25 rendered under section 4(a), that—

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSI9.AAF
110 

6

•HR 9 IH

1 ‘‘(A) the Attorney General has received

2 written meritorious complaints from residents,

3 elected officials, or civic participation organiza4 tions that efforts to deny or abridge the right

5 to vote under the color of law on account of

6 race or color, or in contravention of the guaran7 tees set forth in section 4(f)(2) are likely to

8 occur; or

9 ‘‘(B) in the Attorney General’s judgment

10 (considering, among other factors, whether the

11 ratio of nonwhite persons to white persons reg12 istered to vote within such subdivision appears

13 to the Attorney General to be reasonably attrib14 utable to violations of the 14th or 15th amend15 ment or whether substantial evidence exists that

16 bona fide efforts are being made within such

17 subdivision to comply with the 14th or 15th

18 amendment), the assignment of observers is

19 otherwise necessary to enforce the guarantees

20 of the 14th or 15th amendment;

21 the Director of the Office of Personnel Management

22 shall assign as many observers for such subdivision

23 as the Director may deem appropriate.

24 ‘‘(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), such ob25 servers shall be assigned, compensated, and separated

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSI9.AAG
111 

7

•HR 9 IH

1 without regard to the provisions of any statute adminis2 tered by the Director of the Office of Personnel Manage3 ment, and their service under this Act shall not be consid4 ered employment for the purposes of any statute adminis5 tered by the Director of the Office of Personnel Manage6 ment, except the provisions of section 7324 of title 5,

7 United States Code, prohibiting partisan political activity.

8 ‘‘(c) The Director of the Office of Personnel Manage9 ment is authorized to, after consulting the head of the ap10 propriate department or agency, designate suitable per11 sons in the official service of the United States, with their

12 consent, to serve in these positions.

13 ‘‘(d) Observers shall be authorized to—

14 ‘‘(1) enter and attend at any place for holding

15 an election in such subdivision for the purpose of ob16 serving whether persons who are entitled to vote are

17 being permitted to vote; and

18 ‘‘(2) enter and attend at any place for tab19 ulating the votes cast at any election held in such

20 subdivision for the purpose of observing whether

21 votes cast by persons entitled to vote are being prop22 erly tabulated.

23 ‘‘(e) Observers shall investigate and report to the At24 torney General, and if the appointment of observers has

25 been authorized pursuant to section 3(a), to the court.’’.

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSI9.AAH
112 

8

•HR 9 IH

1 (b) MODIFICATION OF SECTION 13.—Section 13 of

2 the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973k) is

3 amended to read as follows:

4 ‘‘SEC. 13. (a) The assignment of observers shall ter5 minate in any political subdivision of any State—

6 ‘‘(1) with respect to observers appointed pursu7 ant to section 8 or with respect to examiners cer8 tified under this Act before the date of the enact9 ment of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and

10 Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthoriza11 tion and Amendments Act of 2006, whenever the At12 torney General notifies the Director of the Office of

13 Personnel Management, or whenever the District

14 Court for the District of Columbia determines in an

15 action for declaratory judgment brought by any po16 litical subdivision described in subsection (b), that

17 there is no longer reasonable cause to believe that

18 persons will be deprived of or denied the right to

19 vote on account of race or color, or in contravention

20 of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) in such

21 subdivision; and

22 ‘‘(2) with respect to observers appointed pursu23 ant to section 3(a), upon order of the authorizing

24 court.

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSI9.AAI
113 

9

•HR 9 IH

1 ‘‘(b) A political subdivision referred to in subsection

2 (a)(1) is one with respect to which the Director of the Cen3 sus has determined that more than 50 per centum of the

4 nonwhite persons of voting age residing therein are reg5 istered to vote.

6 ‘‘(c) A political subdivision may petition the Attorney

7 General for a termination under subsection (a)(1).’’.

8 (c) REPEAL OF SECTIONS RELATING TO EXAM9 INERS.—Sections 6, 7, and 9 of the Voting Rights Act

10 of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973d, 1973e and 1973g) are re11 pealed.

12 (d) SUBSTITUTION OF REFERENCES TO ‘‘OBSERV13 ERS’’ FOR REFERENCES TO ‘‘EXAMINERS’’.—

14 (1) Section 3(a) of the Voting Rights Act of

15 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973a(a)) is amended by striking

16 ‘‘examiners’’ each place it appears and inserting

17 ‘‘observers’’.

18 (2) Section 4(a)(1)(C) of the Voting Rights Act

19 of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973b(a)(1)(C)) is amended by

20 inserting ‘‘or observers’’ after ‘‘examiners’’.

21 (3) Section 12(b) of the Voting Rights Act of

22 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973j(b)) is amended by striking

23 ‘‘an examiner has been appointed’’ and inserting ‘‘an

24 observer has been assigned’’.

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSI9.AAJ
114 

10

•HR 9 IH

1 (4) Section 12(e) of the Voting Rights Act of

2 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973j(e)) is amended—

3 (A) by striking ‘‘examiners’’ and inserting

4 ‘‘observers’’; and

5 (B) by striking ‘‘examiner’’ each place it

6 appears and inserting ‘‘observer’’.

7 (e) CONFORMING CHANGES RELATING TO SECTION

8 REFERENCES.—

9 (1) Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of

10 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973b(b)) is amended by striking

11 ‘‘section 6’’ and inserting ‘‘section 8’’.

12 (2) Subsections (a) and (c) of section 12 of the

13 Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973j(a) and

14 1973j(c)) are each amended by striking ‘‘7,’’.

15 (3) Section 14(b) of the Voting Rights Act of

16 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973l(b)) is amended by striking

17 ‘‘or a court of appeals in any proceeding under sec18 tion 9’’.

19 SEC. 4. RECONSIDERATION OF SECTION 4 BY CONGRESS.

20 Paragraphs (7) and (8) of section 4(a) of the Voting

21 Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973b(a)) are each amend22 ed by striking ‘‘Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982’’

23 and inserting ‘‘Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and

24 Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization

25 and Amendments Act of 2006’’.

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSI9.AAK
115 

11

•HR 9 IH

1 SEC. 5. CRITERIA FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.

2 Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42

3 U.S.C. 1973c) is amended—

4 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘Whenever’’;

5 (2) by striking ‘‘does not have the purpose and

6 will not have the effect’’ and inserting ‘‘neither has

7 the purpose nor will have the effect’’; and

8 (3) by adding at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(b) Any voting qualification or prerequisite to vot10 ing, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to

11 voting that has the purpose of or will have the effect of

12 diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States

13 on account of race or color, or in contravention of the

14 guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), to elect their pre15 ferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right

16 to vote within the meaning of subsection (a) of this sec17 tion.

18 ‘‘(c) The term ‘purpose’ in subsections (a) and (b)

19 of this section shall include any discriminatory purpose.

20 ‘‘(d) The purpose of subsection (b) of this section is

21 to protect the ability of such citizens to elect their pre22 ferred candidates of choice.’’.

23 SEC. 6. EXPERT FEES AND OTHER REASONABLE COSTS OF

24 LITIGATION.

25 Section 14(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42

26 U.S.C. 1973l(e)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, reasonable exrfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSI9.AAL
116 

12

•HR 9 IH

1 pert fees, and other reasonable litigation expenses’’ after

2 ‘‘reasonable attorney’s fee’’.

3 SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIRE4 MENTS.

5 Section 203(b)(1) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

6 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa–1a(b)(1)) is amended by striking

7 ‘‘2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2032’’.

8 SEC. 8. USE OF AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY CENSUS

9 DATA.

10 Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Voting Rights Act of

11 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa–1a(b)(2)(A)) is amended by

12 striking ‘‘census data’’ and inserting ‘‘the 2010 American

13 Community Survey census data and subsequent American

14 Community Survey data in 5-year increments, or com15 parable census data’’.

Æ

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSI9.AAM
117 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. H.R. 9 reauthorizes for an additional 

25 years and amends provisions of the Voting Rights Act set to expire on August 6, 2007. The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 

and reauthorized in 1970, 1975 and 1982, each time with strong bipartisan support. Like the preceding reauthorization efforts, this 

bill has strong support from Republicans and Democrats alike. 

On August 6th, 2005, our Nation celebrated the 40th anniversary 

of the VRA, which has been one of the most important pieces of 

civil rights legislation ever enacted. The enactment of the VRA resulted from the efforts of many who fought to eliminate our country’s sad legacy of racial discrimination and insure that the rights 

guaranteed by the constitution were protected for all Americans. 

There is no more fundamental right than the right to vote because in a democracy, only the right to vote can protect all the 

other rights. This right is so central to our system of Government 

that it is protected by five separate amendments to our Constitution, including the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments. 

History reveals, however, that States and localities have not always been faithful to the rights and protections offered by our Constitution. Sadly, some have tried to disenfranchise African American and other minority voters through means ranging from violence and intimidation to subtle changes in voting rules. As a result, many minorities were unable to fully participate in the political process for nearly a century. 

The VRA changed this and successfully transformed our Nation’s 

electoral process and the makeup of our local, State and Federal 

Governments. Since its enactment, the VRA has been instrumental 

in remedying past injustice by restructuring the relationship between States with a history of discrimination and the Federal Government. 

Section 5 prohibits States with a history of discrimination from 

changing electoral practices and processes without first submitting 

the changes to the Department of Justice, or to the district court 

for the District of Columbia. Section 5 helped ensure minority citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in our country’s political process, and with other provisions of the VRA has helped increase minority participation in elections as well as the number of 

minorities serving in elected positions. 

Last summer, I, along with Ranking Member Conyers and Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Watt, pledged to have the 

VRA’s temporary provisions authorized for another 25 years. Since 

last fall, the Subcommittee on the Constitution has been examining 

the VRA in great detail, focusing on the provisions set to expire in 

2007. During these hearings, the Subcommittee examined the impact two separate Supreme Court decisions Bossier II and Georgia 

versus Ashcroft have had on section 5’s ability to protect minorities 

from discriminatory voting changes, particularly in State and congressional redistricting initiatives. 

As a result, the bill includes language that makes it clear that 

a voting rule change motivated by any discriminatory purpose cannot be precleared, and clarifies that the purpose of the preclearance 

requirements is to protect the ability of minority citizens to elect 

their preferred candidates of choice. 

The Committee record shows that while the VRA has been successful, our work is not yet complete. Discrimination in the elecVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
118 

toral process continues to exist and threatens to undermine the 

progress that has been made over the last 40 years. By extending 

the VRA for an additional 25 years, H.R. 9 extending that the 

gains made by minorities are not jeopardized. As previously noted, 

this legislation has strong bipartisan support, including that of 

Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi. 

The bill is also supported by many religious and civil rights organizations, including the leadership conference on civil rights, the 

ACLU, MALDEF, the NAACP, the National Association of Latino 

Elected and Appointed Officials Education Fund. 

I ask unanimous consent to include in the record a letter dated 

May 3rd, sent by the leadership Congress on Civil Rights and cosigned by an extensive list of civil rights and religious organizations, and without objection the letter will be placed in the record 

at this point. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
119 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS9Let0001.eps
120 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS9Let0002.eps
121 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS9Let0003.eps
122 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS9Let0004.eps
123 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The majority leader’s office has indicated that H.R. 9 will be considered on the House floor next week. 

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 

I will now recognize the Ranking Member from Michigan, Mr. 

Conyers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Judiciary Committee, this is a historic moment for me because I came to the Congress in 1965 and was able to participate not only in the three extensions of the act in 1970, 1975 and 1982, but I was there at the 

beginning of it, and so I come with a lot of memories and a lot of 

reflections, and I am proud to support this reauthorization that has 

been the result of incredible amounts of work from nearly every 

Member of the Committee, but in particular, the Chairman, Jim 

Sensenbrenner, whose strong commitment to the act, which was 

equally evident in the 1982 reauthorization. His leadership has 

been critical to the legislative success of the act and a testament 

to the fact that civil rights is not a partisan issue, indeed, it is a 

bipartisan issue. 

I also note that one of the people that have worked with Mel 

Watt, who is a Member of this Committee and chairman of the 

Congressional Black Caucus, is with us, and his name is Wade 

Henderson of the leadership conference on civil rights, who has 

worked with dozens and dozens of groups until we could finally get 

this thing together, and then worked with our Republican colleagues, the leadership, and here we are today after having had a 

bipartisan, bicameral agreement on the east front of the steps of 

the United States Capitol, that this was, in fact, as important a 

matter as has been said. We haven’t reached a point, but we made 

incredible, incredible progress. 

Section 5, of course the trigger is the heart of the extension. 

Then we move to section 203, where we are trying to get the language minorities, who, in some places, remain victims of discriminatory voting continued in that for those who still need language 

assistance to cast an effective ballot. 

May I say, where could we show democracy working more finely 

than helping those new citizens get through this most important 

responsibility that they now bear. So through a series of 10 hearings, the Committees compiled a record, the Chairman and I went 

to the Senate before Chairman Specter of Judiciary, and they incorporated into their record our entire hearings. It was, I think, a 

very, very important event indeed. 

We have a couple of Supreme Court cases that we untangled, 

Georgia and Ashcroft and the Bossier decision earlier. 

And so what I close with is this, the Voting Rights Act is one of 

our Nation’s most important civil rights victories. It memorializes 

the struggles and the marches and the understanding that, thanks 

to John Lewis of Georgia, have come to understand that this is 

something that the world is watching to see how we respond to our 

own democratic institution, the one of voting. And so we know that 

we must continue our efforts to protect the rights of all voters, and 

the reauthorization and restoration of this crown jewel, the Voting 

Rights Act must be continued, and I am hoping that we can do it 

collectively in a collegial manner, as friendly even as we can to extend this act at full strength and send it to the other body. I am 

fully committed to doing it, just as I was in of 1965. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
124 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I return my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Without objection all Members may include opening statements in 

the record at this point. 

Are there amendments. The gentleman from California, for what 

purpose do you seek recognition? 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 9, offered by Mr. Issa of California. Add at the end, the following. Section, study and report. 

The comptroller general shall study the implementation, effectiveness and efficiency of the current section 203 of the Voting Rights 

Act of 1965 and alternatives to the current implementations consistent—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection the amendment is 

consider as read. The gentleman from California is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:] 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
125 

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 9

OFFERED BY MR. ISSA OF CALIFORNIA

Add at the end the following:

1 SEC. ll. STUDY AND REPORT.

2 The Comptroller General shall study the implementa3 tion, effectiveness, and efficiency of the current section

4 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and alternatives

5 to the current implementation consistent with that section.

6 The Comptroller General shall report the results of that

7 study to Congress not later than 1 year after the date

8 of the enactment of this Act.

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS9C.AAB
126 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer this, I believe, noncontroversial amendment first and foremost, because I support the 

Voting Rights Act reauthorization. I believe that it is an important 

continuing American legacy trying to reach as many people as possible so they can exercise their right to vote. 

But I also believe that in the 21st century the technologies and 

the ability to do a better job, perhaps more efficiently and effectively, at the same time exists. Just as the blind early on—just as 

the blind early on——

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman from California yield to me 

just briefly? 

Mr. ISSA. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. I wanted to indicate that we didn’t know if there 

were going to be amendments or not, but this amendment has been 

reviewed, and I can report to you that it is accepted on our side. 

I commend you for it, as a matter of fact. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman yield to me? 

Mr. ISSA. Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I reviewed it as well and I agree 

with Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. ISSA. Then I will quickly take yes for an answer and simply 

say that I believe that we will find ways to do even a better job 

of what we have been doing and trying to do since 1965. With that, 

I yield back. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. I wanted to inquire. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. I want to inquire between now and the floor we might 

look at whether the 1-year period is the right time. I think there 

is a lot of information about the effectiveness of 203 going back, but 

we have got an election this year and a big presidential election in 

2008. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield. 

Mr. WATT. Yes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. How long does the gentleman suggest that we have this study go out for? 

Mr. WATT. Well, I am not sure. I want to leave open the possibility that——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I was going to ask unanimous consent to strike 1 year from line 7 and insert another figure. Do you 

have a good idea what the figure should be? 

Mr. WATT. I think it ought to be right after the 2008 presidential 

election, because we will have a better body of information to analyze. 

Mr. ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? My intention with this 

was, in fact, that we would supplement after an initial 1-year report, that we would expect to go back out with an additional study 

that, in fact, I don’t expect they will have all the answers, but this 

body will begin looking at the future of ways to do what the Voting 

Rights Act insists that we do, and do it better. 

Mr. WATT. With that understanding and that record, I think it 

would be fine, Mr. Chairman. The challenge, I think we face addiVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
127 

tionally, is to convince the Senate to put this in their bill, because 

we are trying to keep this bill. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. WATT. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek recognition? 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have no objections to Mr. Issa’s 

amendments. I was looking forward to hearing from him what new 

technological developments he thinks affects this. 

Mr. ISSA. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. NADLER. Yes, I would. 

Mr. ISSA. A good example are the Internet-based universal translation devices that could, in fact, be certified. So instead of having 

an argument over whether there are sufficient Laotians in some 

area, that we may be able to have a national database for translation. In addition, the ability to convert text to voice in multiple 

languages, particularly for the blind and those who do not have 

reading skills in any language. 

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time. It is very interesting. I ask if 

the gentlemen would yield for a further question. It is your thought 

that if some of this technology works out, that maybe we would instead of requiring multiple languages on the ballot, require that 

this technology be at the polling places? 

Mr. ISSA. I think, if the gentleman would yield, I believe that 

what would begin to happen is we would begin to empower and 

probably fund with Federal funds these technologies being made 

available, certified, overseen and then they would become still a 

States issue, but I think a lot of States would quickly adopt. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa. 

Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. Ayes appear to have it. 

The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Are there further 

amendments? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 

desk, 248. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Clerk will report amendment 

248. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 9, offered by Ms. Jackson Lee 

of Texas. Add at the end the following: Sec. 9. additional violation 

of right to vote. Section 2 of Voting Rights Act of 1965 is amended 

by adding at the end the following. Subsection C, a per se violation 

of subsection A shall be established where a jurisdiction covered by 

section 5 of this Act redistricts its legislative or congressional districts in mid decade, provided that such redistricting take place 

after legislative or—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection the amendment is 

considered as read and the gentlewoman from Texas is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:] 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
128 

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 9

OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON-LEE OF TEXAS

Add at the end the following:

1 SEC. 9. ADDITIONAL VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO VOTE.

2 Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42

3 U.S.C. 1973) is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing:

5 ‘‘(c) A per se violation of subsection (a) shall be es6 tablished where a jurisdiction covered by section 5 of this

7 Act redistricts its legislative or congressional districts in

8 mid-decade, provided that such redistricting takes places

9 after a legislative or congressional redistricting plan has

10 previously in the decade been enacted or approved by a

11 final order of a federal court of competent jurisdiction.’’.

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS9F.AAB
129 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished Chairman and the 

Ranking Member. I appreciate this opportunity to explain my 

amendment, and my amendment makes it an automatic or per se 

violation of the Voting Rights Act for a covered jurisdiction like my 

home State of Texas to redistrict its legislative or congressional districts in the mid decade. After those—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. The 

gentlewoman from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I did want to mention to my colleagues that 

I have several amendments at the desk, but I will be listening 

keenly to my other colleagues as well. 

Let me just say that like my home State of Texas, to redistrict 

its legislative or congressional districts in the mid decade after 

those districts had already been redrawn in that decade and either 

enacted into State law or approved by a Federal court, and might 

I say that Texas is a Voting Rights Act State. 

Before I explain my amendment, let me express my sincere appreciation to the Chairman and Ranking Member for the generally 

bipartisan cooperation in shepherding this historic and vital legislation to this point. Let me thank the many organizations and particularly the leadership of Wade Henderson and a number of other 

very instructive groups. Let me thank my colleague, Representative 

Mel Watt and the Members of this Judiciary Committee. 

This hits home very hard and very pointedly and the enormous 

impact of the mid districting of our congressional districts in the 

State of Texas symbolizing what could happen across the Nation 

brought the acts of democracy and the Voting Rights Act in the 

State of Texas to its knees. 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is no ordinary piece of legislation. 

For millions of Americans and many on this Committee the Voting 

Rights Act act of 1965 is a sacred treasure earned by the sweat and 

toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the 

world it wasn’t impossible to accomplish extraordinary things. I 

think that it is particularly of note that the Honorable Barbara 

Jordan who sat in this Committee was one of the Members who 

modified along with the Judiciary Committee to add the language 

provision. This is how important this language and this Voting 

Rights Act is to all of us. 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended which we will vote 

to reauthorize today was enacted to remedy a history of discrimination in certain areas of the country. Presented with a record of systemic and systematic defiance by certain States and jurisdictions 

that could not be overcome by litigation, this Congress led by President Lyndon Johnson from my own home State of Texas took the 

steps necessary to stop it. 

It is instructive to recall the words of President Johnson when 

he proposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Rarely are we met with 

a challenge to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our 

beloved Nation. The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is 

such an issue. The command of the constitution is plain. It is 

wrong, deadly wrong to deny any of your fellow Americans the 

right to vote in this country. We are gratified that it has been expanded to include many other Americans. The Voting Rights Act of 

1965 represents our country and this Congress at its best. It 

matches our words to deeds, our actions to our values, and, as is 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
130 

usually the case, when American acts consistent with its highest 

values, success follows. 

Without exaggeration, the Voting Rights Act has been one of the 

most effective civil rights laws passed by the Congress. In 1964, 

there were approximately only 300 African Americans in public office, including just three in Congress; few, if any, black officials 

were elected anywhere in the south, and you can find the enormous 

impact on Hispanic-elected officials and voters. 

Today, there are more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 Members of Congress, the largest number ever. The act has 

opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 

Latino public officials that have been elected and appointed Nationwide, including 263 at the State level, 27 of whom serve in Congress; Native Americans, Asians and others who have been historically impacted by these harsh barriers. 

Mr. Chairman, I hail from the State of Texas, the Lone Star 

State and a State that sadly had one of the most egregious records 

of voting discrimination against racial and language minorities. 

Texas is one of the Voting Rights Act’s covered jurisdictions. And 

then, of course, we experienced this, if you will, heinous act of redistricting that impacted, if you will, the impact of African American and Hispanic Congresspersons. I am only one of three African 

American women from Texas that serve in the Congress of the 

United States, and one of only two to sit on this Committee. But 

we hold this seat with the idea of the Voting Rights Act. And I sit 

here as the heir of the Civil Rights Movement, a beneficiary of the 

Voting Rights Act, and my faith—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. My amendment simply, Mr. Chairman, if I 

might just finish this sentence, my amendment is simply it is obviously the right thing to do. It declares that it is an automatic per 

se violation of the Voting Rights Act for a covered jurisdiction to 

redistrict its legislative or Congressional district in the mid decade 

after those districts had already been redrawn in that decade and 

either enacted into State law or approved by a Federal court. This, 

I believe, is in compliance with the Voting Rights Act that we now 

have before us, and I would ask that we have the ability to make 

it more secure by adding this amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely reluctant after all 

of the great comments passed by the gentlelady from Texas to preserve any support for this amendment. I oppose it because Texas 

redistricting litigation is before the courts right now, and I think 

to write this into a 25-year bill would be totally inadequate and I 

reluctantly have to oppose the amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I do yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 

minutes in opposition to the amendment. 

This bill is the subject of lengthy negotiations and it is an agreed 

upon bill, and this amendment is a deal breaker, and I will be very 

blunt in saying that. If you look at the litigation history of the Voting Rights Act following its 1965 enactment and its 1972 and 1982 

extensions, the court repeatedly stated that for Congress to overVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
131 

ride the prerogatives of States in the election, there has to be an 

extensive legislative record and findings drawn from that record to 

show that there is discrimination. 

As a result, both the three times in the past when the Voting 

Rights Act was passed and reauthorized, as well as this time, there 

has been that extensive legislative record. There has not been a 

record that has been created on this subject. And to put this into 

section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, in my opinion, would end up 

jeopardizing the constitutionality of it because Congress has made 

no findings. 

I would also point out that the record or the amendment that has 

been offered by the gentlewoman from Texas is probably erroneously drafted because what it does do is it locks in the current 

Texas redistricting, if it should be enacted prior to the time a court 

should decide the case, if the court decides the case in favor of the 

plaintiffs and against the State of Texas. 

So for all of these reasons I would think it is not an amendment 

that should be agreed to. 

I yield to the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I would also like the record to note the current 

Texas redistricting plan added one African American, minority district that was not there, and to say that per se it violated the Voting Rights Act would actually be quite a snub. It would seem to African American Democrat Judge Al Green, who I think is a great 

addition to our Congress, and I would hate to say per se he is a 

bad thing for the African American community. 

I yield back, Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. You are going to yield back the balance of my time. 

The question is on—the gentleman from North Carolina Mr. 

Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last 

word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I recognize throughout the discussions 

leading to the introduction of this bipartisan and bicameral bill 

that there would be people both on the Committee and outside the 

Committee who have individual State interests, local interests, and 

national interests that would go beyond the scope of this bill, some 

of them possibly more appropriately addressed in the Help America 

Vote Act, some addressed in other contexts. 

I think we have reached a bill that is a very delicate balance, 

and in the interest of maintaining that balance I am going to ask 

Ms. Jackson Lee, if she might consider withdrawing this amendment so that we can keep the balance that has been neglected and 

maintained, avoid the possibility of ending up with a divisive fight 

with the Senate, avoid the possibility of prolonging the processing 

of this important extension bill by possibly having to go to conference, and I am going to ask not only Ms. Jackson Lee, but all 

of our Members to understand that the magnitude of the national 

interest here far exceeds what may be going on in any particular 

State or jurisdiction. 

We need to send a resounding message to America that the importance of the vote to every citizen in this country is important 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
132 

and is to be protected. And in that spirit I would ask the gentlelady 

if she might consider withdrawing her amendment at this point 

and I would be happy to yield to the gentlelady for the response. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlemen very much. If I might 

just briefly say I think it is well known of the devastating impact 

to the voters of Texas that generated out of mid-term redistricting, 

even to the extent that we saw the staff of the Justice Department’s position obliterated by political appointees. 

Let me just say this; that in that State we saw the diminishing 

of African American vote and the loss of impact of the Latino and 

Hispanic vote, if you will. So it is of enormous importance to us. 

Frankly, if we can draw upon the good graces of our colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle, frankly, to wait on these interests, your inquiry, Mr. Watt is one that I will consider. 

I will close by saying this; that we remember the African proverb 

when the bull and elephants fight, the ground gets trampled on. I 

believe that when we had this redistricting mid-term, we were 

trampled on, and that is the rights of African Americans, Hispanic, 

other racial minorities and language minorities. 

But because of the intent to move forward and the consensus 

that has been established and my desire for this voters right act 

and my constituents’ desire for it to be reauthorized without the 

baggage of amendments, without compromises, then at this time, 

as Mr. Conyers has said, I will pursue the legal remedies in the 

courts, and I will look to write legislation on this specific mid-term 

redistricting and encourage the civil rights organizations to support 

me in this effort and with that I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The amendment is withdrawn. The 

gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 

the desk, 109. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 9, offered by Mr. King of Iowa, 

strike section 7 and 8. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:] 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
133 

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 9

OFFERED BY MR. KING OF IOWA

Strike sections 7 and 8.

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS9D.AAB
134 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment 109, and 

it is in conjunction with the King-Inglis amendment, it simply allows the sunset of sections 203 and 4(f)(4). So it strikes section 7 

and 8 of the bill, the Voting Rights Act reauthorization, and allow 

them to automatically expire in 2007. It would not prohibit voters 

who need assistance from having help to vote. Current law states, 

and I will quote: Any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability or inability to read or write may be 

given assistance by a person of the voter’s choice. This allows people, including limited English-proficient persons, who are not able 

to read an English language ballot, to have assistance in the voting 

booth. This approach is preferable to the requirements in section 

203 and 4(f)(4), because it puts the burden to understand English 

ballots on U.S. citizens exercising their right to vote, not on the 

taxpayers of America. It also allows the voters to choose who will 

help him or her in the voting groups. My amendment ends the significant growing unfunded mandated on counties an localities. The 

number of counties required to provide election materials in foreign 

languages has increased dramatically. 

In 1975, only a relatively handful of counties in a few States 

were covered under sections 203 and 4(f)(4). Today, nearly 300 

counties and municipalities in 30 States across the country to hire 

bilingual poll workers and produce election materials in foreign 

languages. This number will only increase after the 2010, 2020 and 

the 2030 censuses, because the reauthorization extends them for 25 

more years. 

Reauthorizing the multilingual voting mandate for 25 years contradicts our immigration law, because knowledge of English is a 

condition for naturalization. Since 1907, Congress has required 

candidates for naturalization to demonstrate an understanding of 

the English language, including an ability to read, write and speak 

English in the ordinary usage of the English language. 

In order to vote, a person must be a U.S. citizen. Our naturalization standard was intended to ensure that immigrants are able to 

fully participate in our democratic process when they naturalize. 

The multilingual voting requirements were always intended to be 

temporary. The multilingual election requirements in 203 and 

4(f)(4) of the current Voting Rights Act were not part of the original 

VRA, and were always intended to be a temporary measure. They 

were only added by the VRA in 1975, 10 years after the original 

act became law, and they are designed for a specific purpose to 

automatically expire in 2007. 

That is what my amendment does, allows them to expire in 2007. 

My amendment fixes an historic aberration. For most of our Nation’s history, we have expected all Americans including new immigrants to vote in English. This encouraged new immigrants to 

learn English to assimilate in order to have full access to full freedom and economic opportunity available in America. 

At a time when the U.S. is experiencing record immigration, it 

is essential that we return to this tradition of encouraging assimilation. 

The King-Inglis amendment also reduces the likelihood of errors. 

During the 2000 general election, six polling places with significant 

Chinese immigrant population in Queens, New York, had Democratic translated in Chinese to Republican and Republican to 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
135 

Democratic on their ballots, causing confusion and one would presume voter error. 

Smaller populations of limited English proficient voters do not 

get bilingual ballots. They should be provided constitutional equal 

protection under the 14th amendment by allowing ballots only in 

one language, because that is the only way we can guarantee equal 

protection, is one single standard, the standard of English. The 

next leader of the free world may be chosen by non-English speakers. 

For these reasons and many more, I encourage the Members to 

support the King-Inglis amendment, which would allow for the 

sunset of bilingual ballots and return us back to the assimilation 

standard that this country has so historically stood by for these 

centuries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 

minutes in opposition to the amendment. 

The Chair thanks the gentleman from Iowa for bringing this 

issue up before the Committee, and let me say, I don’t think the 

time has come to get rid of bilingual ballots, for a couple of reasons. 

First of all, and probably most importantly, there are a number of 

United States citizens who are born here, and particularly those 

who have been residents of Puerto Rico where Spanish is the language that is used, and should they move to the mainland U.S., 

they are just as much U.S. citizens as everybody else. And even 

though they are not functional in English because of where they 

were raised, they are entitled to vote in their State or their locality 

of residence. And I believe that they should have access to bilingual 

ballots, if there is a concentration of them. 

The second point that I would like to make is that here we are 

not dealing with illegal immigrants, we are dealing with United 

States citizens, and they are people who have either attained citizenship by reason of birth in the United States, and that includes 

places like Puerto Rico and Guam, or have been naturalized. 

Now I think that probably the need for continuation of bilingual 

ballots is perhaps an indictment as to the lack of effectiveness of 

bilingual education. English is the language of commerce in this 

country, whether we pass a law saying that that is the case or not, 

and no one can really achieve the American dream unless they are 

able to function in English. 

Should we close the door to understanding a ballot because of a 

failure of our educational system or because of the fact that people 

have moved to a place where English is commonly used in the 

United States from a place in the United States where English is 

not commonly used? I would answer that question no, and for that 

reason, I think that the bilingual ballot provisions that are contained in the compromise in section 203 should not be stricken, as 

the gentleman from Iowa’s amendment proposes, and consequently 

I would urge its defeat. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could the Chairman yield to me? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I yield. 

Mr. CONYERS. I won’t need the time. But I agree and come to the 

same conclusion as the Chairman, but with this reasoning: The 

numbers of eligible Latino voting is still way behind their African 

American and white counterparts, and we also have an extremely 

low number of Latino elected officials. So bilingual assistance is 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
136 

still viable and necessary. The other reason, ladies and gentlemen, 

is that the Asian American populations are experiencing the same 

problem. 

I conclude by merely pointing out that the costs are very modest, 

if there are any costs at all. When we hire a bilingual poll worker, 

they are paid the same as other poll workers. And so it seems to 

me that from a cost basis and from a need basis, we don’t need this 

amendment; we need to continue on with section 203 in its presents form. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. I would like to speak briefly in support of the 

proposition just outlined by the Ranking Member and note that in 

my congressional district, there is the largest percentage of Americans of Vietnamese descent of any congressional district in the 

country, and these are patriotic Americans. But especially for the 

older people, English has been learned to become naturalized, but 

in California, we have these very complicated initiatives, and it is 

really very, very helpful for people to be able to read it in their first 

language instead of their second language. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair yields back whatever time 

he has left. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to 

thank you and Chairman Chabot and the Ranking Members for 

holding extensive hearings on this issue because we have a hearing 

record and the record is clear, if you provide the assistance, the 

voter participation will go up. If you remove the assistance, the 

voter participation will go down. There is no evidence presented to 

contradict that finding, nor is there any evidence that I remember 

of mistakes being made. That is new information. 

But as the gentleman from Michigan has indicated, there is virtually no cost to providing this assistance. You have got to hire a 

poll worker anyway. If you have a significant number of people who 

speak another language, it makes sense to hire somebody who 

speaks both languages. 

Mr. Chairman, this only applies when there is a critical mass of 

voters in that district. Five percent, or 10,000 voters are enough to 

affect an election and enough where encouraging or discouraging 

voter turnout might reasonably affect the outcome. Those in power, 

we don’t want to give those in power the ability to jury-rig the election by virtue of the fact they can discourage certain workers. 

A lot has been said about the need for people to learn English. 

The hearing record reflects that there is a long waiting list for people who are trying to learn to become for fluent in English. If we 

are going to apply for resources to get rid of these waiting lists, 

that is a political decision. The way people affect that decisions by 

voting. If you are denying them the right to vote or discouraging 

the right to vote, that makes no sense. The more they vote, the 

more English they will be able to learn because they will vote for 

those provisions. 

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that the assistance works, it increases voter participation. The point of the this bill, the Voting 

Rights Act is to encourage participation, and section 203 is clearly 

consistent with that desire and inconsistent with this amendment. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
137 

I would hope that we would defeat this amendment, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your and the Ranking 

Member’s collaborative efforts on this bill, and understand that the 

product is the result of a long negotiate process. I also appreciate 

Mr. King’s amendment on the subject of bilingual ballots and I intend to support the King amendment as well as the underlying bill. 

Our democracy rests on the foundation of the right to vote. The 

Voting Rights Act has succeeded in helping to guarantee that right 

over the last 40 years. It has enabled citizens who are eligible to 

vote, to do so. 

The Voting Rights Act has moved America from a place where 

people who supported the right of minorities to vote were being 

murdered, to a place where over 123 million citizens including minorities voted in the last national election. 

Like others though, I have concerns about 2 sections of the Voting Rights Act and whether they are necessary in their current 

form. First, I am concern that bilingual ballots are required whether there is a demonstrated need or not. Also, if you were born in 

America, you should know English. If you are a naturalized citizen, 

you should have passed an English proficiency test. 

Second, I am concerned that the preclearance requirements overly burden many jurisdictions. We should not automatically apply 

these requirements to jurisdictions that no longer disenfranchise 

minority or other voters. We should make allowances for jurisdictions across America that no longer engage in illegal or discriminatory practices. 

In 1982, Congress added a process that allows jurisdictions to opt 

out of the requirements if their application was granted by the D.C. 

district court, but the process is difficult, and in some respects, impractical, which is one reason why only a few jurisdictions have 

qualified to opt out. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the time when the opt out provisions will be used more successfully. Mr. Chairman, I support the 

goal of the underlying legislation and hope that during the legislative process, we can make the changes necessary to have a more 

workable Voting Rights Act, and, Mr. Chairman, I will yield balance of my time to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and 

appreciate the opportunity to make a couple of points and I agree 

with our remarks made by the Chairman with regard to some of 

the reality in places like Puerto Rico. But I would point out that 

there has been for a long time a requirement to teach English in 

the schools in Puerto Rico and the odds of finding people there who 

are not proficient enough in English to understand a ballot are diminishing by the year. 

It becomes less and less essential, and I would speak to the 

issue, if they can’t understand the ballot well enough in English, 

I still remind the Committee an individual has the opportunity to 

bring a person of their choice into the polling booth. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
138 

Then I would add that the issue of bilingual poll workers being 

paid the same; they are hard to find. Sometimes it takes quite a 

lot of money to encourage someone to come in there. I would submit if they are paid the same, perhaps everyone gets a raise because the supply and demand. But they aren’t always available. 

A third thing would be that if you cannot understand the ballot 

in English, and you can’t learn to understand the ballot in English, 

even though you can bring someone into the polling booth, how 

does a voter determine their judgment on how they make a selection on perhaps who would be the next leader in the free world. 

If you can’t understand the language, then how do you understand 

the culture, how do you make that evaluation. 

I would submit that 528 different decisions made in Florida in 

the year 2000 would have given a different electoral result, and I 

would also submit that that result may have been different had we 

seen this provision of the Voting Rights Act, the importance Voting 

Rights Act expire. 

I encourage support of this amendment and yield back to the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back as well. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We used 

to have literacy tests in this country on the grounds that only people who we thought were literate in the English language should 

be able to vote. We have now determined that that was discriminatory, and no one, I presume, on this Committee would defend that 

today, at least publicly. 

Now we have this amendment and this question before us. There 

are people in this country, Native Americans, people born in Puerto 

Rico, people who are legal immigrants who came here who are 

American citizens, all of whom had to take an English exam, civics 

exam to become citizens, except for those in Puerto Rico because 

they were already, but who are not as comfortable in English. 

I have at my house a history of the United States that ends in 

1917 in Yiddish and English. It is the book my grandparents studied for their citizenship exams. They only spoke Yiddish at home 

until they died. My parents only spoke Yiddish when they wanted 

to keep a secret from the kids. My brothers and I don’t speak Yiddish, for obvious reasons. 

Why would it have been harmful if we made it a little easier for 

my grandparents to vote by having a bilingual ballot. Section 203—

and today’s immigrants are no different. Section 203 simply says 

we have a concentration of foreign language proficient, less English 

proficient speakers in one district, then you should bilingual help 

there. 

The gentleman asks how are they supposed to know how to vote. 

We publish newspapers in this country in something like 300 different languages. You don’t have to read, as much as I hate to say 

it, The Washington Post or New York Times to know what you are 

doing. There are plenty of foreign language in Spanish, Russian 

and Chinese, and God knows what in this country that do as good 

a job at reporting, some of them. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
139 

So the question really is, and Mr. Scott talked about how when 

you have this assistance, the turnout goes up, when you don’t, it 

goes down. Do we want to discourage or encourage American citizens who want to vote because we are not sure they would vote for 

the right people. That is not worthy of this House. I had assumed 

that we weren’t going to be offering amendments to this section 

today. I have an amendment prepared. 

I have a couple hundred thousand in New York and elsewhere 

now, people who immigrated starting under Ronald Reagan from 

the former Soviet Union. They speak Russian and English. They 

are not eligible for the bilingual assistance because Russian is not 

an Asian language. I think it should be. I prepared an amendment 

for that. I wasn’t going to offer it because of an understanding we 

shouldn’t be tampering with this, and I may not, but if we start 

amending section 203, I may offer that to make 203 even better 

than it is. 

It is a perfectly fine section now. And to go backwards to say that 

we should make it harder for people to vote, harder for them to understand, and now they all speak English, at least to the degree 

necessary to pass their citizenship exam. No one has repealed that 

section. Why would we want to make it harder for people to vote 

unless we think we know better about who they should vote for? 

So I pose this amendment. 

Mr. CONYERS. I just want to commend the gentleman because he 

has brought his personal perspective and his family and also his 

reluctance to take more time as we move toward some votes on the 

floor that would prevent us from concluding with this measure 

today. And I thank the gentleman again. I yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 

Hostettler. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to voice my support 

for the King-Inglis amendment. As has been mentioned several 

times before, some people would suggest that voting is the most 

precious right that we encounter in America. I would suggest that 

probably even beyond that is having citizenship bestowed upon us 

at birth or as a result of naturalization, and, as has been mentioned, the process of naturalization requires a certain level of proficiency in English, and it was suggested earlier I guess that there 

is some implicit notion of bigotry in our naturalization process because it requires a proficiency of literacy in the English language. 

I don’t think that is what was meant to be said but that was effectively what was said. 

I believe that as we look toward the issue of voting, that as individuals who wish to become citizens or wish to become as citizens 

proficient in English, that it is a tremendous prize to be able to go 

into the polling place and use that English language, the de facto 

new native tongue in the process of exercising that very blessed 

right, and that is the right to vote. 

So I do not believe that it is a great thing; it is a tremendous 

burden to require individuals to exercise that right of voting in 

their newly acquired, in the case of naturalized citizens, native 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
140 

tongue, or in the native tongue in which they are born. It is what 

we have determined over many years in this country to be the native tongue, and I believe that it is time for this particular provision to be sunsetted and to be eliminated. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California, 

Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. I rise in opposition. I move to strike the last word. I rise in 

opposition to this amendment. I know that there are Members who 

have all kinds of immigration concerns. I, first, would like to ask 

my colleagues not to use this bill to address your concerns about 

immigration and immigration reform. 

As it has been stated over and over again, a lot of work went into 

getting this bill before us today in the shape and form that it is, 

with a lot of cooperation from both sides of the aisle. And so I think 

that this amendment would not only violate the kind of cooperation 

that has been seen in getting this bill before us, but there are other 

opportunities to deal with immigration concerns. 

Let me finally just say it was alluded to by my colleague from 

California that at one time, minorities were prevented from voting 

by having to pass a literacy test. For those people who never had 

the opportunity to go to school, to be educated, they were denied 

the right to vote. 

As we look at trying to make sure that we are fair to all Americans, we don’t say that the blind who cannot see or cannot read or 

understand Braille cannot vote. We don’t say that certain handicapped people who may have handicaps that would prevent them 

from being able to act in a total and complete way cannot be able 

to vote. And I think that this would be so discriminatory, this 

would single out Americans who for whatever reasons are not as 

proficient in English language and say that somehow they are less 

Americans and they should not be able to vote. I don’t think we 

want to do that. And I think for those people who have worked 

hard to try and preserve the work of the civil rights movement, 

that this would certainly undo the kind of agreements entered into 

to try to do the right thing in this authorization. 

Let me say also before I close, that this bill is not everything that 

I would have it be. There are a lot more things that I would like 

to see. Even though this Voting Rights Act has helped minorities 

to be able to vote without the kind of interference that we saw during the days of rampant discrimination, I want you to know we are 

still fighting a lot of things at the polling place. 

All of us can remember that there was a database that was put 

together identifying people as felons down in Florida, people who 

have never even been arrested before. This does not address that 

and we know that. We still have voting machines with no paper 

trail. This does not address that. And we know that. 

We know that there have been at least two cases that were 

brought before the Attorney General and the Justice Department 

that they precleared, one of which the courts found was discriminatory, and I believe that was the case in Georgia where the requirements for identification just absolutely threw many of us for a loop. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
141 

And this amendment that was attempted by Ms. Jackson and 

withdrawn was an amendment that certainly I could have supported, because of the way that redistricting is being done in order 

to eliminate the ability for certain people to participate through the 

redistricting efforts. 

So there is a lot that I would have liked to have done in order 

to deal with the new tricks, in order to deal with the new obstacles, 

in order to deal with the creative ways by which people get together and decide they are going to eliminate the ability for some 

people to vote. But I am not doing that. I am not addressing this 

legislation with any amendment because I think it is important to 

preserve the basic provisions of the Voting Rights Act. 

I would ask my friends on the opposite side of the aisle to not 

undo the tremendous cooperation that has taken place in order to 

get this reauthorization bill before us and not to attempt to address 

this issue in this way. 

So I would ask my colleagues to please vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I rise in support of Mr. King’s amendment—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT.—but I wanted to commend the gentleman from 

New York. It sounds like the inference by Mr. Nadler was that he 

would like to see the Voting Rights Act applied across the northeastern States, and I would very much like to see that as well. I 

would like to see it applied all across the country, not just to a selected group of States. I think what has been good for some States 

would be good for all the States. 

Mr. NADLER. Would the gentleman yield for a second? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. It does apply in my city. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But I would like to see it all across the board, all 

across the northeast. I don’t know if Yiddish would be added to the 

ballots in those situations, but that could certainly be looked at. 

But I would just point my friends in the direction of what I believe is a subtle form of bigotry that most people don’t realize that 

they have engaged in. I have a friend there in Tyler, Texas, Gus 

Ramirez, whose parents both came over from Mexico; and they 

started a restaurant in Tyler. There was a rule in the Ramirez 

house that Mr. Ramirez put in place: None of the kids could speak 

Spanish at home. Mr. Ramirez made the point because he said, if 

you are going to be successful in this country, if you are going to 

have good jobs and do well, you need to speak English and you 

need to speak it well. 

And what I have seen is this encouragement by people who intend to be compassionate, they intend well, they want well, but 

they continue to lure people into speaking Spanish for their lives, 

which actually condemns them to have nothing but manual labor 

in most cases for the rest of their lives. 

If we really care, what is more compassionate in the eagle world? 

Is it more compassionate if a mother eagle continues to feed the baVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
142 

bies for their whole lifetime thinking, oh, how terrible it would be 

to push them out of the nest? Or is it more compassionate to have 

enough strength of heart to push them out of the nest and force 

them to fly? 

I would say it is more compassionate, though tougher, to push 

the eagle babies out, let them fly, let them reach their true potential; and I would submit that the subtle form of bigotry in luring 

people to continue to speak Spanish for their lifetime ensures that 

they will not rise to their full potential in this country. They could, 

some of these—they are so bright. You talk to these people. They 

could have any position in this country and do it well if they were 

allowed and forced to communicate in the language that would 

allow them to soar. 

So I would support the gentleman’s amendment as just one small 

way to help encourage people to reach the true potential that people have in this country, and I would yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California, 

Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 

last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a great opportunity to allow me to set the record straight 

for some of my colleagues who have risen in support of this amendment. I want to start by taking exception to the comment made by 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, that people born in the U.S. 

should know English. 

Well, it is certainly the case that that would be the goal that everybody born in the U.S. would speak English fluently, but threequarters of those who use language assistance at the polling place 

are native-born. And I might remind the gentleman that in Arizona 

there is a school district that is currently being fined half a million 

dollars a day for their failure to provide adequate English instruction to the kids. 

So children who are not being taught in our family school system 

and who are being harmed by that would then be double harmed 

at the polling place, because you would yank from them the language assistance that would allow them to perhaps be fully participating members of society and vote for a regime that could probably fix the school systems. 

Number two, I might point out to my colleagues who support the 

King amendment that there is typically a higher level of proficiency 

required to vote in English than there is to pass the citizenship 

test in English. And if you ask me how I know that, it is because 

both of my parents are naturalized citizens. My mother is an elementary school teacher, so she is very proficient in English. In fact, 

she teaches it to young students. But she often prefers her election 

materials in Spanish because many of the complexities and subtleties of the vast ballot initiatives that California sees in every election cycle with their double negatives, sometimes triple negative 

languages are very difficult for her to understand. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
143 

So I am offended that people would say that if you can speak 

English well enough to pass a citizenship exam, you don’t need language assistance at the polls. I think that is false. 

And to Mr. Gohmert, I think you would say you have cited one 

example of an Hispanic family who sought to teach their family 

English. I want to give you another example, which is the example 

of the household I grew up in, where my parents said you will 

learn English in school and we will speak Spanish at home and 

when you grow up you will know both; and I don’t think that that 

has kept me or my sister from reaching our full potential in this 

society. It depends on the degree of support and it depends on the 

degree of effort that you are willing to make. 

So one size does not fit all here, and I would ask my colleagues 

to please vote against the King amendment. And I yield back to the 

Chairman. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. 

Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I rise in opposition to the amendment as well——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman—and for a 

number of reasons. Particularly because the gentleman from Iowa 

more than implied but suggested that the reason that we had difficulties in Florida in 2000 was possibly because of Section 203 language requiring ballots be printed in other languages. 

Maybe we should be amending this Voting Rights Act to require 

the supervisors of elections actually speak English. Because the 

real problem that we had in Florida was the 22,000 African Americans in Duvall County messed up their ballot choice because they 

were instructed to vote every page on the Duvall County ballot, 

and the Presidential election ballot was printed on more than one 

page. 

Additionally, there were 3,500 at least Palm Beach County voters 

who were given the butterfly ballot that was impossible to understand and didn’t have the Presidential candidates lined up properly 

so that many voters voted for the wrong person accidentally. 

So if we are going to start talking about what the problems were 

in 2000, let us be accurate about what those problems were. 

Mr. KING. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would be happy to yield in a minute. 

Additionally, let me point out that it is not just Spanish speakers 

that this ballot language in the Voting Rights Act assists. My county, Broward County, is a Section 203 county both for Spanish 

speakers and for Seminole Indians. So are you going to suggest to 

Seminole Indians, who were the first Americans, that they should 

learn English and that the ballot should not be printed in their native tongue? I don’t think so. 

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. KING. I thank the gentlelady. 

And I would just point out the observation there is something 

that I think we do all agree on universally amongst Democrats, 

Independents, and Republicans with regard to the 2000 election in 

Florida; and that is that those who intended to vote for Al Gore as 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
144 

opposed to those who intended to vote for George Bush had a lot 

more difficulty with the ballots; and I think that is an important 

observation. 

I thank you, and I yield back. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, 

the people who had problems voting for Al Gore voted for Pat Buchanan instead, not for George Bush, particularly in Palm Beach 

County; and those Jewish senior citizens didn’t have trouble discerning Spanish from English. 

We need to make sure that we preserve democracy and opportunity and the independent secret ballot for all people who have become American citizens, whether they were born here and English 

is their first language or whether it is their second or their third 

language. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I was just curious if you realized you could really 

be hurting Pat Buchanan’s feelings by your comments to say these 

people didn’t really mean to vote for him. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Reclaiming my time, you know, Mr. 

Gohmert, I think that you also probably hurt people’s feelings by 

suggesting that in—and I am sure you didn’t mean it this way—

in the nicest way possible that Spanish-speaking people are smart. 

I mean, the implication there might be Spanish-speaking people 

who are not smart is potentially insulting, and I think we all need 

to be a little bit more sensitive about the language that we use in 

this Committee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would you yield? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would be happy to yield. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. May I just add—and, Bill, let me thank you 

very much for really putting this debate in its expanded framework. Because so many of us have these personal passions, whether it is Florida in the butterfly ballot or the mid-term redistricting 

of Texas. But we are holding these passions so that we can move 

forward in something that is vital to our Nation. 

And might I just say, Mr. Gohmert, good friend, that just a few 

weeks ago I stood with an 81-year-old Iranian and a 72-year-old 

Iranian and that I don’t think their language is covered, but they 

did not speak English. But they took the oath of citizenship loving 

this country, tears in their eyes. 

I think it is just undermining our Constitution to suggest that 

your birthright of citizenship—you work all these years to become 

a citizen, you are of Puerto Rican heritage, you are of other heritage, and you tell them because of age or because of the fact that 

they came here as adults but that they that have the birthright of 

citizenship, the same thing that my mother had to go through in 

the State of Florida, born in the 1920’s, speaking the King’s 

English but yet she could not vote, her grandmother could not vote, 

her mother could not vote because of the fact of the color of her 

skin; and, whatever English she spoke, these are barriers to voting. 

This is what brings us to our knees in this country. This is the brutality that John Lewis experienced. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the woman has expired. 

For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler, 

seek recognition? 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
145 

Mr. WEXLER. To oppose the amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. 

Just as to Florida—and, quite frankly, I am astonished that we 

are even having this debate. But with all due respect to Mr. King, 

if there is going to be an analysis between those voters that chose 

to vote for President Bush in 2000 and those voters that chose to 

vote for Al Gore in 2000, with respect to the discrepancy that existed which I think is self-evident at this point, for those voters 

that chose to vote for President Bush it was a rather simple analysis or process. Because if you wanted to vote for President Bush, 

his name was first on the ballot, and the bubble that you punch 

was first. So it was logical. If you intend to vote for President 

Bush, his name was first, and the bubble was first. 

However, if your intention, Mr. King, was to vote for Al Gore for 

President, his name was second on the list, but his bubble was not 

second. His bubble was third. Because there was another bubble 

that was second that corresponded to a name on another sheet of 

paper as it appeared on the ballot. 

So with all due respect—and we have had this argument now for 

almost 6 years—it is not apples to apples. And those people that 

chose to vote for President Bush had a very simple exercise that 

was straightforward and in even the most elementary of analysis 

would be easy to perform. For other voters, however, it was different. 

As to the issue of the amendment, we are not discussing, with 

all due respect, how families ought to raise their children or what 

the goal should be with respect to how families should teach their 

children English. I think we would all agree that the teaching and 

learning of English is a goal that, hopefully, all Americans would 

pursue with vigor. But what we are talking about is voting. We are 

not talking about how we are preparing people for economic life. 

We are not talking about how we are preparing people for the job 

market. 

Ironically, we have a special law for Cuban Americans which I 

happen to support. The special law that we have for Cuban Americans is, if they take the extraordinary courage of fleeing the Castro 

regime and they take an incredibly difficult trip across the Florida 

Straits where a lot of people perish and if they physically can get 

their feet onto the ground in Florida, in America, we treat them 

specially. And I am all for that. 

Now some people have problems with that, but I am all for it. 

Because those people have exercised their great patriotism for democracy by taking an enormous risk, and then they get special 

treatment to get citizenship, if they master the English language 

enough to get citizenship, and then probably the first thing they 

are going to want to do is go vote in Miami-Dade County. 

And what you are saying in this amendment is, even though 

there are pages and pages of instructions, that if that person who 

took a boat to be an American, that took enormous risks to be an 

American, you are out of luck. If you are proficient enough to be 

an American citizen, pass the citizenship test, but now you go to 

vote and you go to read the amendments to the State constitution 

which are paragraphs long, that are complicated, that you don’t 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
146 

have the ability to ask for some assistance, so the trip you took 

across the Florida Straits, that was for naught. The trip that you 

took that endangered you and your family’s life, that was for 

naught. When you get here, sorry, you don’t really have full citizenship. You just can’t really vote because you haven’t mastered the 

English language quite proficiently enough so you may not be able 

to understand the entire ballot. 

We are not talking about preparing people for economic life. We 

are talking about having the common decency to respect people’s 

integrity so that we assist them to become the most engaged citizens that they can be in America as Americans. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. WEXLER. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am proud to join you and Ranking Member Conyers as a cosponsor of this important legislation and honored to play a small 

part in the reauthorizing of such historic rights legislation. This 

bill has been responsible—this legislation has been responsible for 

ensuring that minority citizens are able to elect representatives of 

their choice. 

Just over 41 years ago, on March 7, 1965, what became known 

as Bloody Sunday, 600 civil rights marchers peacefully protested 

for the right to vote. Upon reaching the Edmund Pettus Bridge, 

these marchers were attacked by State and local law enforcement 

officers. 

In commemoration of this event, 2 years ago I joined a pilgrimage led by our colleague, Congressman John Lewis—and I know 

many of our colleagues have done the same—to the sites of the civil 

rights struggles; and we visited that bridge. Standing there then 

and reflecting on the experience now, I can still feel the power 

yielded by the right to vote, powerful enough then to garner the hatred of a mob of segregationists, influential enough now to continue 

to incite debate over the legislation before us today. 

A decade since those civil rights activists were beaten with billy 

clubs, sprayed with tear gas in response to their demands for the 

right to vote, discrimination still continues to remain in elections 

across the Nation from California to Florida. However, significant 

progress has been made in the 41 years since the VRA was first 

passed. Minority voters have a much greater voice today because 

of the Voting Rights Act. Despite that, after every election we all 

still hear stories of voter discrimination and intimidation and realize this remains equally important today and we cannot let the 

temporary provisions of the VRA expire. These expiring provisions—pre-clearance of election law changes, Federal observers at 

polls, and language assistance for limited English speakers—serve 

to deter those seeking to weaken minority voting rights. 

It is evident to those from my home State of California just how 

critical language assistance is for those with limited English skills. 

In this diverse State, 51 of 53 congressional districts are subject to 

language assistance requirements. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
147 

We don’t make our elections easy on voters. In a State where 135 

candidates ran for governor 3 years ago, it should be no surprise 

that during the 2004 general election the California voter guidebook was nearly 200 pages. This guide includes information on candidates and ballot measures and helps voters prepare for the election. 

Looking at the book when it arrived in the mail, I was able to 

predict the stories I would hear from my constituents. But it wasn’t 

just those with limited English skills. Countless native English 

speakers shared with me how confusing the voting was and how 

difficult to decipher 200 pages of content in preparation for voting. 

I can only imagine that it would be nearly impossible for a voter 

with limited or no English. Yet these citizens, too, have the right 

to vote. Thankfully, due to the VRA in my district, our polling sites 

provide language assistance voters for Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, 

Vietnamese, and Latino voters. 

For these various reasons and many others, I oppose the amendment of the gentleman; and I support the base bill. 

The right to vote for every American citizen is the foundation of 

our democracy. Unfortunately, there are still barriers to overcome; 

and we as a Nation are not ready yet to give up this legislation 

that defends every American’s right to vote. For this reason, I am 

proud to support the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and 

Amendments Act and will continue to do my part to ensure that 

the VRA remains effective and enforced. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. 

Having chaired the 12 hearings that we had on the Voting Rights 

Act, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 

going through that process and having 40 plus witnesses. 

I think that the product that we have come to, H.R. 9, is a very 

carefully crafted product which I intend to support. This particular 

amendment, I have—there are many things about Mr. King’s—in 

fact, not just this amendment but his others—which I am in sympathy with. I think it is important for us to encourage English and 

emphasize English in this country, and I think all people who live 

here or may want to live here, it is critical that they do learn 

English as quickly as possible. 

That being said, I intend to oppose the amendment because I 

know the Chairman has worked both with the Ranking Member 

and Mr. Watt and other Members to very carefully craft this legislation, which I think is very important, to make sure that every 

person does have the opportunity and the right to vote in this country, irregardless of skin color. And for, unfortunately, quite some 

period in this country that was not the case. 

So, that being said, I will oppose the amendment. But I want to 

thank Mr. King for bringing it up, because I think it is important 

that we do debate this issue. It is a very important issue, it is a 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
148 

serious issue, and I think that it is one that we as a country really 

do need to continue to work on. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to bring us back to the amendment, if I can, as we approach this vote and encourage my colleagues not to cast a vote on 

the basis of their ideas or beliefs about immigration. This really is 

not about immigration; this is about citizens. As the Chairman has 

indicated, this is not about illegals coming into the country. This 

is about the basic right of people who are citizens in this country 

to cast a vote that they understand. 

I have two bases for opposing the amendment. First is the earlier 

statement that I made about reaching a balanced bill, working 

through these issues with the Chairman. I would have to admit, if 

I got everything I wanted in this bill, we would have had a lowering of the threshold for allowing people to cast, to take advantage 

of the provisions of this bill, section 203. But that is not what this 

is about. I think it is balanced to extend the existing provisions 

that already apply in the Voting Rights Act now, and that is what 

this bill does. 

But my opposition to this amendment is more basic than just 

preserving the balance and making sure that we don’t blow up the 

Voting Rights Act around the issue of immigration. It is more basic 

than that. Because on my wall at home in North Carolina I have 

framed the first ballot that was cast by the people of South Africa, 

and it keeps reminding me that the folks in South Africa were allowed to vote. We were their model for democracy, but they showed 

us some things about democracy. 

They showed us, first of all, that no registration was required, 

because people stood in lines and showed up to vote not even having registered to vote. 

That ballot shows us, second of all, that the extent to which they 

went to allow people to cast a meaningful vote, they put photographs on that ballot for people who couldn’t read a lick so that 

they would know who the candidates were that they were casting 

a ballot for. 

So, for many, this is not about immigration or lack of immigration. It is about the basic right to cast a vote in a democracy; and 

we shouldn’t be doing anything, in my opinion, to deprive people, 

citizens—not illegals, citizens—of the right to cast a meaningful 

vote. 

It is in that context that I encourage my colleagues to put aside 

all of these things about Florida and about the immigration debate 

and about even, with all respect to Mr. Wexler, all the preferences 

we give to Cubans and this and that, and focus in this vote on how 

we can make it meaningful for people, citizens of this country, to 

cast a vote, the most basic, basic right that one can have in a democracy such as ours. And let us restore, let us keep restoring the 

United States to be the gold standard of democracy in the world. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
149 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment 

offered by the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. Those in favor of 

the amendment will say aye; opposed, no. 

The noes appear to have it. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Iowa. 

Mr. KING. I ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A recorded vote is ordered. Those in 

favor of the King amendment will, as your names are called, answer aye; those opposed, no. And the clerk will call the role. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde. 

Mr. HYDE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde, no. 

Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, aye. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, aye. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, aye. 

Mr. Goodlatte. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK.Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. 

Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren, no. 

Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. JENKINS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, aye. 

Mr. Cannon. 

Mr. CANNON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, aye. 

Mr. Bachus. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, aye. 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, no. 

Mr. Keller. 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. 

Mr. Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, no. 

Mr. Flake. 

Mr. FLAKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
150 

Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, no. 

Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, no. 

Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, aye. 

Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. 

Mr. Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, aye. 

Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, aye. 

Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, no. 

Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, no. 

Mr. Boucher. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, no. 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, no. 

Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, no. 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren, no. 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. 

Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, no. 

Mr. Meehan. 

Mr. MEEHAN. [no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt, no. 

Mr. Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, no. 

Mr. Weiner. 

Mr. WEINER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, no. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
151 

Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, no. 

Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sanchez, no. 

Mr. Van Hollen. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, no. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, no. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? 

If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are nine ayes and 26 nays. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment is not agreed 

to. 

Are there further amendments? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 9 offered by Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California. 

Add at the end the following: 

Section blank. Elimination of certain requirements for counties 

where requirements were imposed because of the presence of large 

Federal military installations. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read. 

[The amendment follows:] 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
152 

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 9

OFFERED BY MR. DANIEL E. LUNGREN OF

CALIFORNIA

Add at the end the following:

1 SEC. lll. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS

2 FOR COUNTIES WHERE REQUIREMENTS

3 WERE IMPOSED BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE

4 OF LARGE FEDERAL MILITARY INSTALLA5 TIONS.

6 Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42

7 USC 1973b(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing:

9 ‘‘(10)(A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1)

10 through (9) of this subsection, and the last sentence

11 of subsection (b) of this section, any determination

12 or certification of the Director of the Census under

13 subsection (b) with regard to a political subdivision

14 as to which this subsection (a) is applicable as a sep15 arate unit, which determination or certification of

16 coverage resulted from the presence of military bases

17 of the Nation’s armed forces within the territory of

18 that particular political subdivision, and which was

19 published in the Federal Register as required by this

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS9A.AAB
153 

2

H.L.C.

1 section for the coverage dates of November 1, 1968

2 or November 1, 1972, shall be reviewable by the

3 United States District Court for the District of Co4 lumbia in a civil action for declaratory judgment

5 under this paragraph.

6 ‘‘(B) The court shall grant a declaratory judg7 ment that such determination or certification shall

8 not have any effect if the plaintiff—

9 ‘‘(i) makes a prima facie showing based on

10 historical and statistical data that, excluding

11 the military population and their spouses and

12 dependents eligible to vote, 50 per centum or

13 more of the citizens of voting age were reg14 istered on the applicable coverage date, and

15 that 50 per centum or more of such eligible per16 sons voted in the applicable Presidential elec17 tion; and

18 ‘‘(ii) establishes that the Attorney General

19 has not interposed an objection pursuant to 42

20 U.S.C. §1973c, in the ten years prior to No21 vember 1, 2005, to any voting change adopted

22 by the plaintiff jurisdiction, or to any voting

23 change affecting the plaintiff jurisdiction,.

24 ‘‘(C) The Attorney General may consent to a

25 declaratory judgment under this paragraph if, based

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS9A.AAC
154 

3

H.L.C.

1 upon the plaintiff’s showing and upon investigation,

2 the Attorney General concludes that the political

3 subdivision has made the required showing under

4 this paragraph.’’

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS9A.AAD
155 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. WATT. I reserve a point of order. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A point of order, subject to the reservation. 

The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the base bill. There are a few 

of us who were back here in 1982 when we had an extension of the 

law that was an historic extension; and the previous Chairman of 

the Committee, Mr. Hyde, was largely given credit at that time for 

holding the hearings as the Chairman of the Subcommittee and 

bringing to the attention of the American people the need for extending this law. 

I was very proud to work with Mr. Hyde; with the current Chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner; with our Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers; 

and I was pleased to work with Mr. Conyers on the establishment 

of the Martin Luther King holiday. Those are some of my proudest 

moments here in the House. 

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me extremely important for us to understand that we ought to take a look at some 

sections of the law to ensure that they are doing what they were 

intended to do. 

In enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1985 and in extending it, 

Congress intended that the Act’s special provisions operate against 

jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination. I don’t believe 

it ever intended for these provisions to penalize jurisdictions because they house the Nation’s Armed Forces during a time of 

armed conflict. Yet that very thing occurred in certain small jurisdictions in my State, Merced County, Kings County, Yuba County 

in California, where U.S. military bases constituted a substantial 

portion of the county’s resident population but where the voter 

turnout narrowly fell below the 50 percent rule because military 

personnel often voted in their home States by absentee ballot. 

For example, 49.6 percent of the estimated voting age population 

in Merced County voted in the 1972 Presidential election. If the 

participation of military personnel, their spouses and dependents 

eligible to vote but who voted in their other States were excluded, 

Merced’s participation would easily have exceeded 50 percent; and 

the county would not ever have been covered under section 5 in the 

first instance. 

I believe that coverage of these counties was an unintended consequence of the formula’s statement in neutral terms and almost 

certainly was not anticipated nor desired by Congress. This amendment simply gives relief to those jurisdictions accidentally swept 

into coverage. It requires these jurisdictions not to be in a State 

which is covered but only in a subdivision of a State, such as is the 

case here, that they were in as a result of the presence of military 

bases with their military populations and that they have had no 

violation under the Voting Rights Act under the jurisdiction of the 

counties involved over the last 10 years. 

I think it is important to correct this application of jurisdictions 

covered by reason of a substantial military presence because Congress would address a constitutional vulnerability of any extension. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
156 

Numerous parties have expressed concerns about the ability of 

any legislation extending the special provisions of the Voting 

Rights Act to survive constitutional scrutiny in light of the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence restricting power under section 

5 of the 14th amendment. That case law requires Congress to establish that any remedial legislation under that section be, quote, 

congruent and proportional to the harms Congress seeks to remedy 

by its enactment, in this case, actions of specific jurisdictions with 

a history of intentional discrimination in voting and artifice to 

avoid changing discriminatory practices. 

Permitting jurisdictions to exit coverage when they can establish 

they are only subjected to section 5 coverage because of a substantial military presence further tailors the provisions to the evils 

sought to be remedied and makes it more congruent and proportional to the harms to be addressed. 

My amendment does not grant an automatic exemption. Counties 

would have to initiate a court proceeding in the court most experienced with these matters, the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia, in order to exit coverage. 

Secondly, the burden of establishing the right to exemption is on 

the jurisdiction. 

Third, parties who have been subject to an objection in the past 

10 years may not be granted this exit coverage under this provision. 

And, fourth, I would repeat, the way we have drafted this, it does 

not apply to covered States or subjurisdictions covered as a result 

of State coverage. This only involves those jurisdictions that were 

placed in under that special section——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s has expired. 

Mr. LUNGREN.—and only those who were covered as a result of 

the military presence. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman from North 

Carolina insist on his point of order? 

Mr. WATT. No, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The point of order is withdrawn. 

For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina seek 

recognition? 

Mr. WATT. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 

The Voting Rights Act currently provides a mechanism for covered jurisdictions to get out from under the provisions of the preclearance section. Under the section 4(a) bailout criteria, jurisdiction may be removed from coverage and no longer subject to preclearance if it demonstrates, one, that it has been in full compliance with the pre-clearance requirements for the past 10 years; 

two, that no test or device has been used to discriminate on the 

basis of race, color, or language minority status; and, three, no lawsuits against the jurisdiction alleging voting discrimination are 

pending. 

This amendment would drastically reduce those standards to 

apply to a small category of counties in an otherwise noncovered 

State where the presence of a military base within its borders preVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
157 

sumably caused the low voter turnout statistics that brought the 

area under the coverage of the Voting Rights Act. 

There are a number of concerns I have about the amendment. 

The amendment, first of all, makes arbitrary distinctions for eligibility. It applies only to counties in noncovered States that had 

military bases at the time they were brought under coverage. But 

if a military installation artificially inflated or deflated turnout 

numbers, it would have done so in States fully covered by section 

5 as well. 

Second, the amendment would apply only to those counties 

whose military account allegedly affected coverage determinations 

made in 1968 and 1972. We don’t have a clue how many other 

counties would be eligible other than the counties that were referenced here, and no record has been developed on this because 

this is something that came up after the hearings took place, after 

this discussion took place. 

Third, the amendment would apply only to military installations; 

and this ignores other institutions that could also arguably skew 

turnout data, most notably college campuses. Jails and prison populations could arguably be included also. I mean, there are a number of things that could have impact on the criteria that bring you 

under the act. 

Fourth, the amendment presumes the entire population of the 

military installation consisted of either nonresidents of the county 

or individuals who were not properly registered in that county. 

Transient populations like students and military personnel often 

changed their residency for voting purposes. So it is unclear whether we can factually determine who was and who wasn’t properly included in the population count in these jurisdictions. 

Next, the only factual evidence in the record is submissions from 

lawyers; and you know how lawyers try to skew things. They always are going to be advocating for their clients in a way. What 

is so sinister about this is if they would just go and apply through 

the regular bailout process, they could do this through a court of 

law if they met the existing criteria, rather than sought some preferential judicial determination with no factual records having been 

developed. 

Most important, there is evidence that counties made eligible 

under this amendment have independent political entities within 

their geographical boundaries that do have recent or current evidence of discrimination or failure to comply with section 5. You 

have got water boards that fall under these counties, school boards 

that fall under these counties. So I just don’t—I think this is a 

back-door attempt to circumvent the existing bailout requirements. 

If we are going to do anything, I would hope the gentleman 

would consider maybe doing something similar to what Mr. Issa 

proposed. If there is a problem here, we might be able to document 

it if we had a study done of it and we could deal with this in the 

future. But to try to do this in this context is going to destroy the 

balance that we have worked out here and do so really without 

having the factual basis, the record basis that we need to justify 

doing so. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. [presiding.] The time of the gentleman has expired. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
158 

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jenkins, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to gentleman from California. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, just in response to the points made 

by the gentleman from North Carolina, first of all, this is hardly 

a back-door way. This is very upfront about what I am attempting 

to do. 

Mr. WATT. I apologize. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Secondly, to criticize it for being restrictive, I restricted it because we have a special set of circumstances. 

Third, to suggest that population bases as a result of our military 

people are somehow equivalent to population bases of our prison 

population, frankly, I think is a distortion of values in this country. 

Our military people are serving this Nation and giving us sacrifices 

in ways virtually no one else does, and the fact that a county has 

welcomed the presence of military bases it seems to me should not 

be used to punish those counties. 

Fourth, if the gentleman was asking about gaming statistics, we 

had 30 years worth of statistics on this. If the gentleman is concerned about any other entities that might be eligible under this 

provision, there is one other. In the State of New Hampshire, Rockingham County, Newington Township would also be able to avail 

itself of this if they wished. I have not been in contact with them, 

so I have no idea if they would avail themselves of this. 

The gentleman asked why the current bailout provisions are not 

sufficient. Well, the bailout provisions, as most recently amended 

in 1982, held the covered jurisdictions responsible for compliance 

by the political subdivisions within their borders based on the 

premise that they controlled those political subdivisions. And while 

that premise is essentially true in Virginia and most of the other 

covered States, it is not true in California. Merced and Yuba County are held responsible under the gentleman’s suggestion for the 

compliance of numerous special districts which are State rather 

than county agencies. They are beyond the county control. And the 

compliance of cities, which, unlike the case of most covered States, 

they are granted constitutional home rule powers. 

So here we have the State of California, which is not a covered 

State; and the subdivisions of that State are water districts and the 

other things the gentleman said, have the same legal bases as the 

counties do. This has brought counties under the coverage. 

My amendment would say those counties which are subject to 

coverage right now because of the presence of military installations 

would have to show that they have not done anything in violation 

of the law in the last 10 years, either by a finding of the court or 

by a rejection of a proposal of an electoral law change by the Justice Department. 

So this is a case where California is not covered. Counties are 

covered by this quirk in the law application because of the presence 

of military installations and being held responsible for jurisdictions 

over which they have no control. Arguably, those water districts 

and others are not covered because they are entities of the State, 

not entities of the county. 

I would just say to the gentleman there is no evidence whatsoever that these counties have done anything in terms of their law 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
159 

changes that is in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Again, I am 

saying adoption of this amendment in my judgment assists us in 

being able to show the courts that we have done the careful kind 

of analysis necessary to support the continuation of this law. Because the Voting Rights Act is an exceptional act in response to exceptional circumstances, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances I think the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court is that 

you don’t have a foundation for continuing——

Mr. WATT. Would the gentleman yield on that point? 

Mr. LUNGREN. It is not my time. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Jenkins, would the yield? 

Mr. JENKINS. I will yield. 

Mr. WATT. Just so I can make the point that, had the gentleman 

made the record during the hearings, what he is saying might be 

true. But here in this debate we are not making a record. There 

is no factual record being made. This is a markup. So the gentleman—if the gentleman were going to do this, we should have 

made a record about it at the appropriate time, not just kind of ex 

parte statements. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. 

For what purpose does the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, seek recognition? 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, initially on my time I would like to 

ask the sponsor of the amendment: There are four counties in California that are section 5 counties. The discussion here only makes 

reference to three of them. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes. 

Mr. BERMAN. Is there a reason why Monterey County is not included in it? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Because Monterey County has had a violation or 

a rejection of a request for a change by the Justice Department 

within the last 10 years. So it would not be able to apply to this 

at this present time. 

Mr. WATT. Would the gentleman yield so I can tell him also that 

they are——

Mr. BERMAN. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. WATT. There are boards under these counties that have had 

violations, also. So I don’t know how Monterey would be distinguishable on that basis, because there is a water board that has 

had a violation. And, notwithstanding what the gentleman says, 

there is nothing that suggests that those water boards and school 

boards are independent of the counties under the Voting Rights 

Act. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Would the gentleman yield on that point? 

Mr. BERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The California constitution is the authority for 

that. Counties have no control whatsoever with those boards. They 

are independent boards, and in some cases those boards actually go 

across county lines. They are not even exactly geographically the 

same as the counties. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
160 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, okay. I would like to ask the gentleman to 

consider delaying the offering of this amendment until we get to 

the floor, assuming there is an opportunity on the floor if this 

comes up under a rule. The reason I do it is I don’t think this is 

a malicious amendment in any way. But I think, as the gentleman 

from North Carolina has mentioned, there are a number of questions I would like to have answered before I could vote for the 

amendment. 

First of all, I don’t totally understand the gentleman’s answer to 

the question of why the existing bailout criteria wouldn’t apply. As 

I understand it, have they been in full compliance with the preclearance requirements for the past 10 years? 

Even conceding—and I think you are probably right—that the 

presence of those military bases may have been part of why those 

counties were considered section 5 counties originally, have they 

been in full compliance with the pre-clearance requirement for the 

last 10 years? Is there any test or device that has been used in 

those jurisdictions to discriminate on the basis of race, color or language, minority status? And are there pending lawsuits alleging 

voter discrimination? If those are the criteria, they seem pretty 

straightforward. And have these counties applied to get out of the 

section 5 pre-clearance provisions using those criteria? I didn’t 

quite understand the gentleman’s answer to that. 

Mr. LUNGREN. If the gentleman would yield, I could try to respond to that. 

Mr. BERMAN. If I could have an additional 2 minutes, I would be 

happy to yield. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. BERMAN. I yield. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The problem is the way that the provision currently works in the bailout provision the county is held responsible 

for those jurisdictions that are in part or in total in their geographic area. 

As the gentleman knows, in California we have 58 counties; yet 

we have 2,830 special districts. They are creations under the California constitution of the State, not the county. They are independent of the county. So while the county has no legal ability to 

control how those districts operate, they are held responsible for 

purposes of bailout for that, even though they don’t control it. 

Mr. BERMAN. All right. I appreciate that. 

Mr. WATT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BERMAN. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. WATT. I want you all to understand what the gentleman is 

saying. He is saying, on the one hand, that the county has no control over these jurisdictions; and he is saying, on the other hand, 

that the voting rights law, if they apply to bailout, they do have 

control over them, they are presumed to have control over them. 

So, I mean, heis having his cake and eating it, too. 

Mr. BERMAN. Just reclaiming my time. Then one could propose 

that a different amendment, an amendment which said that section 

5 counties can’t be asked, changes in the nature of the way the criteria worked to say that if you have no control over the jurisdiction 

which has been engaged in this, then that can’t be used as a basis 

for denying you the bailout. It would be a different kind of an approach than this amendment takes. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
161 

Mr. WATT. If the gentleman would yield, and that goes back to 

the point I was trying to make. This is so muddy and complex that 

it is the kind of thing that I think would be the proper subject for 

a study of some kind to clarify. But to try to do it in the context 

of this markup I think is a mistake. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman from California yield? 

Mr. BERMAN. I would be happy to yield. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I guess the question that is really 

relevant is for these subdistricts—and I believe that there is a 

water district that is in question—who handles the voter registration in the conduct of the elections for these independent districts? 

Because if the independent districts do it themselves, you know, 

then I think there is a way that the county, which is kind of an 

innocent third party, should be allowed to opt out. However, if the 

county handles the voter registration—— Mr. BERMAN. The county does handle the voter registration. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER.—and pays for the election judges 

and perhaps prints the ballots, you know, then the county is I 

guess kind of acting as the agent for the local district; and if there 

is discrimination, it would be imputed to the agent and section 5 

should apply. 

Mr. BERMAN. I would ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 

minutes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, it gets complicated, which 

again points out what the gentleman from North Carolina is saying. Clearly, the county is in charge of voter registration. But on 

the issue of these water districts, who pays for the election and 

who determines the policies which could be seen to discriminate in 

violation of law, may be less clear. It seems like something we need 

to have a better answer to, who conducts the elections. When the 

City of Los Angeles has an election, it is inside L.A. County. The 

registration roles are those of the County, but the election is conducted and paid for by the City. 

So I guess the answer to your points is, in some cases, the county 

is in control and, in some cases, they are not. We ought to know 

the answer to that. 

I guess the final reason I would ask you to consider deferring 

consideration of this amendment, again even though I—I mean, I 

might point out two things perhaps somewhat whimsically. Based 

on my experience, counties would much rather have military bases 

than prisons. So this notion of what counties want is I think maybe 

a little different than the way you indicated. 

Secondly, given the gentleman’s passionate belief in reforming 

the redistricting process, I would have thought that his amendment 

would be to cover all of California under the Voting Rights Act to 

require—since the one effect of those four counties being section 5 

counties is there is no effort to sever those counties and draw 

strange and slicing kinds of districts through those counties because they are under section 5. So you are working against your 

redistricting beliefs by your amendment. 

But the point I wanted to make was these three counties are in 

other Members’ congressional districts. There are three boards of 

supervisors in these counties. I don’t know what those Members 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
162 

think of this, and I don’t know what—oneis a Republican, and two 

are Democrats—and I don’t know what the boards of supervisors 

of the counties think. That is the reason why I think a little more 

time—if there is a way to create a record through a quick study 

to answer some of these questions, I would ask the gentleman to 

consider delaying the vote on it. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired, and the Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes to strike the 

last word. 

I believe that the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, makes 

a very valid point. 

First of all, there has been at least one violation in one of the 

three counties involved. I guess we don’t know who the guilty party 

is, whether it is the county or whether it is the local subdistrict or 

whether it is a combination of the two. It seems to me that, before 

passing an amendment which effectively is a get-out-of-jail card, we 

ought to look into this issue and pinpoint the responsibility. Because it seems to me that the level of Government or the agency 

of Government that was responsible for the violation should not be 

given such a get-out-of-jail card. 

The other thing—and I keep on coming back to this—is that the 

Voting Rights Act was upheld as constitutional three times by the 

Supreme Court based upon a showing that Federal intervention 

was necessary. Now there has been Federal intervention deemed to 

be necessary up until now. If Federal intervention was not necessary, then the amendment that the gentleman from California, 

Mr. Lungren, is offering would be redundant and would not have 

any type of an effect. 

I am really very hesitant to go ahead without the type of record 

to show that a change in the law is necessary that has been done 

extensively by Mr. Chabot and his Subcommittee to the tune of 40 

witnesses and about 8,800 pages of record that is in evidence. So 

while I agree with Mr. Berman that this amendment is not a malicious amendment to the legislation, it seems to me that we ought 

to be a little bit more precise in knowing what we are doing before 

going ahead and adopting it. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. I think I can save time by coming in now, because 

this may be the last major amendment, and I still have hopes that 

we can beat the clock and report this bill before the voting commences. 

Let me point out that I share the understanding that Mr. Lungren has about this. But after a dozen hearings—I said 10 at 

first—we have a suspicion that there are many other jurisdictions 

that might be in the same fix as the gentleman’s issue about the 

section 5 counties in California. For that reason and the fact that 

we did not take this up, we have gone through section 5, the trigger pre-clearance bailout, time after time after time over these 

weeks and months; and this is a far too complex matter for us to 

resolve here, especially since we have the unusual cooperation of 

the other body with an identical proposal. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
163 

Now I think a study to this would be a much better way. The 

gentleman from California Mr. Berman has suggested it. I think 

the gentleman from North Carolina has. 

Let us not muddy the waters. Let us remember that this is a 

huge measure. We have got a head of steam going. I would urge 

that the gentleman consider withdrawing the amendment or we 

dispose of it so that we can report a bill on today, May the 10th. 

And I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Does the gentleman yield. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, seek recognition? 

Mr. SCOTT. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having the hearings. 

There is a reason to having hearings. As has been pointed out, we 

don’t know how many different counties may be affected. There is 

no record on either the need or the effect, but there is a record on 

the bail-out provision which was uncontradicted testimony that it 

is easy to bail out if you qualify. In fact, there is nothing in the 

record to suggest that this process is even easier than the present 

process. This might be even more complicated. 

It has been pointed out that the effect of this would be to allow 

a county to get out and in effect to also let those who actually 

earned coverage within the county to also get out. 

So, Mr. Chairman, this is a last minute amendment. We can’t 

carefully analyze it because there is nothing in the record. It adds 

a complication to the bill. And there is nothing in the record to 

demonstrate whether there is need or whether it will have the desired effect. I would hope we would therefore, Mr. Chairman, defeat 

the amendment. 

I would yield to the gentlelady. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I wanted to add to the distinguished gentleman’s comments. I would ask my good friend from California to try 

the bail-out provision and accept the compromise offered by Mr. 

Conyers which is to prospectively look at relief if the bail-out provision does not work, and then we have a basis of moving forward 

because there may be many similarly situated. But the bail-out 

provision is there. It is to be utilized, and I would urge my colleague to withdraw the amendment. I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yield back. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon. 

Mr. CANNON. I move to strike the requisite number of words. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CANNON. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I find some of this debate interesting. On behalf 

of several of the counties in California, submission was made to the 

Committee on November 4th of last year. We have been in discussion with Members on the other side of the aisle on this for at least 

a week on the language that it has presented. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
164 

I appreciate the fact we want to get this bill through. I support 

this. I supported it in 1982. I support it now. But this is a 25-year 

extension, and the idea that somehow these three counties should 

wait until the next time around doesn’t seem to be reasonable to 

me. I can’t help that the hearings weren’t held on this when submission was made last November. I didn’t decide what the hearings 

were going to be. 

I have every single county that is covered under this section in 

a non-covered State. The non-covered States are California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Michigan, New 

Hampshire. I have the number of military bases involved there. I 

have the period of coverage. 

I would say that the records show that there is one other jurisdiction in the entire country, and that is Newington in Rockingham 

County in the State of New Hampshire. And I would say that there 

have been no objections affecting it. 

I would just say, again, to clear up the record, under California 

law and the California constitution, the county has no control over 

the activity of the governing boards of the entities described. Several of them cover more than one county, such as the Central California Irrigation District and San Louis Water District. Many of 

the districts are authorized by California law to conduct their own 

elections, and some do. And yet what I am saying, the county is 

held responsible to compliance or non-compliance when we look at 

the bail-out provision. 

Again, I would tell you those other districts are political subdivisions of the State of California, which is not a covered jurisdiction, 

so they are in a catch-22 situation is what they are in. 

What is to stop us from, when we get to the floor, being told that 

we can’t consider any amendments at that time because this is a 

carefully crafted vehicle that we can’t deal with? 

Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Be happy to yield. 

Mr. CANNON. The time being mine. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you. 

Understanding better the relationship of these special districts, 

your general proposition of rights. Even your own sentence said 

some special districts run their own elections; some are run by the 

counties. It is a big thing to do, and it is a big thing not to do, and 

just seems to me that if there is no fundamental underlying policy 

reason to hold three random counties under section 5 when the 

other counties in California aren’t and where maybe in fact there 

may be more serious problems of voter access in some of those 

other counties, it makes sense to clean that up. 

But there are two different ways to clean it up and some information to get. I do think it is appropriate to know—I didn’t know 

about this amendment until last night when you told me about this 

amendment. I didn’t know that the counties have submitted something. I would like to know what my colleagues from the areas 

think, and I would like to understand better just what the nature 

of these, quote, water district violations are and the extent to 

which the county is truly unable to impact on them because in the 

end, those water districts if they aren’t still voting based on how 

much land you own, if they aren’t voting that way, if they are votVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
165 

ing by people, there are people from rolls that the counties are in 

charge of. 

So it is just getting—in other words, this isn’t—I am not suggesting this is a trap to keep you from having a chance for the next 

25 years. I am suggesting that I think there is something to what 

you are saying, but I can’t vote for it until I get at least some answers to these questions. 

Mr. CANNON. Yield back to the gentleman from California. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent for 2 

additional minutes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. CANNON. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California. 

Mr. LUNGREN. If Mr. Berman would—if he’s saying he is willing 

to work with me to see if we can actually achieve something that 

would be brought, if we are allowed, to the floor as a solution to 

this problem, I would be happy to entertain that and work with the 

gentleman. 

My purpose is not to make some sort of statement here, I am trying to clear up something that I think makes some sense and is 

consistent with what we want to do with this extension. And if the 

gentleman will agree to work with me on that, I would be willing 

to withdraw the amendment at this time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Is the gentleman withdrawing the 

amendment? 

Mr. LUNGREN. I ask unanimous consent. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Are there further amendments? 

The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Clerk will report the amendment. 

Mr. KING. Number 110. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 9 offered by Mr. King of Iowa, 

page 12, line 7, strike 2032 and insert 2013. Page 12, beginning in 

line 13 strike subsequent and all that follows through increments 

in line 14. 

[The amendment follows:] 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
166 

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 9

OFFERED BY MR. KING OF IOWA

Page 12, line 7, strike ‘‘2032’’ and insert ‘‘2013’’.

Page 12, beginning in line 13, strike ‘‘and subsequent’’ and all that follows through ‘‘increments’’ in line

14.

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS9E.AAB
167 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment, amendment 110, is a very simple amendment and the subject has been 

brought up here in the discussion on the debate on this bill, and 

I think the intensity of the debate we have had, and I would like 

to compliment my colleagues on the breadth of their knowledge and 

the depth of the debate and the intensity that is here. It tells us 

a lot about how important this reauthorization of the Voting Rights 

Act is. 

And what my amendment does is it strikes the 25-year period of 

time for reauthorization for the sunset and sets it at a 6-year time. 

It takes us up to 2013, and it is designed to get us through the 

next census and through the election subsequent to the redistricting and of the census in 2010 so that we have an opportunity 

to see the effect of the reauthorization. 

There are so many unknowns in there, and there is certainly a 

significant amount of disagreement on how this policy plays out. 

There is no provision in this legislation that allows for a covered 

district to become an uncovered district, if I could coin that term, 

and we will have, if this is authorized for 25 more years, we will 

have then had established multilingual balance for 56 years in this 

country, the majority of the century. And by Thomas Jefferson’s 

term of 19 years per generation, we will be approaching three and 

a half generations, perhaps. So that is the scope of this. 

I would say if we proceed with 25 years, it will institutionalize 

multilingual balance, and I believe that we should stop and take 

a look at it far more quickly than that, and I would ask for support 

on this amendment that will allow us—Members of this Committee, many will still be here hopefully in 2013, but by 2032, it 

is unlikely any of us will be here, and the institutional knowledge 

will have passed from this Judiciary Committee and from the Congress, and the institutionalization of multilingual ballots will have 

been established, probably never to be reconsidered again in a serious way, and I would again urge support for this simple amendment. 

Yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The chair recognizes himself in opposition to the amendment. 

What the gentleman from Iowa proposes to do is to shorten the 

length of time for this reauthorization. The 25-year reauthorization 

that was passed in 1982 has worked well. This Committee has 

done oversight during the entire 25-year period of time as to how 

the Voting Rights Act has operated, and the conclusion was 

reached that discrimination has not gone away, and that another 

25 years reauthorization is proper. 

I am confident that whomever sits in this chair for the next 25 

years will continue to do reauthorization of this, the most important of all of the important Civil Rights Acts that have passed. 

Shortening the period of time to a mere 6-year reauthorization I 

think is a hostile amendment. 

I respect the gentleman from Iowa’s position on this, but I don’t 

think that this Committee should be continuously reauthorizing, 

particularly in light of the fact we have had a 10-year reauthorizaVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478.XXX HR478

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
168 

tion and a 25-year reauthorization and neither appeared to be too 

short a period of time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could I remind our Members that throughout a 

dozen hearings there has been no discussion about reducing the 25- 

year period? I think to cut it to 6 years would actually be stepping 

on a lot of testimony that has demonstrated that there are plenty 

of problems like you say that are out there. And so I plead with 

this Committee not to tamper with the 25-year period, which has 

worked pretty well. The former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor referenced it. And I think that it is a perfectly excellent way to continue. 

Mr. KING. Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. 

Mr. KING. I thank the Chairman. 

I wanted to point out for point of clarification that this amendment only addresses the bilingual balance section of the bill. It 

doesn’t affect any other section of the bill. 

I thank you and yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 

Iowa, Mr. King. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. 

Mr. KING. No. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Noes appear to have it. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Recorded vote is ordered on the King 

amendment. Those in favor of the King amendment will, as your 

name is called, answer aye; those opposed, no. The Clerk will call 

the role. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, aye. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, aye. 

Mr. Gallegly? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. 

Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren, aye. 

Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, aye. 

Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
169 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. 

Mr. Bachus? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, aye. 

Mr. Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, aye. 

Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, no. 

Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. 

Mr. Issa? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence? 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, no. 

Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, no. 

Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, aye. 

Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. 

Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, aye. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, no. 

Mr. Berman? 

Mr. BERMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, no. 

Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, no. 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, no. 

Mr. Watt? 

Mr. WATT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, no. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
170 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. 

Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, no. 

Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, no. 

Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, no. 

Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, no. 

Ms. Sanchez? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sanchez, no. 

Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, no. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their vote? 

Mr. Boucher. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from California, Mr. 

Issa. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, 

Gallegly. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members? 

The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wasserman Schultz is not recorded. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Mr. Delahunt. 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? If not, the Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 ayes and 24 nays. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

If there are no further amendments, a recording quorum is 

present. The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 

9 favorably, as amended. All in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
171 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. The ayes appear to have it, and the chair on his own 

request will order a rollcall. Those in favor of reporting the bill 

H.R. 9 favorably, as amended, will as your names are called answer aye; those opposed, no. 

And the Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, aye. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, aye. 

Mr. Gallegly? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, aye. 

Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren, aye. 

Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, aye. 

Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, aye. 

Mr. Bachus? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, aye. 

Mr. Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, aye. 

Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, aye. 

Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, aye. 

Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, aye. 

Mr. Flake? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence? 

Mr. PENCE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, aye. 

Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Aye. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
172 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, aye. 

Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, no. 

Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, aye. 

Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, aye. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. 

Mr. Berman? 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, aye. 

Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, aye. 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, aye. 

Mr. Watt? 

Mr. WATT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, aye. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. 

Ms. Waters? 

Ms. Waters. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. 

Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt, aye. 

Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, aye. 

Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, aye. 

Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. 

Ms. Sanchez? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sanchez, aye. 

Mr. Van Hollen? 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
173 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. 

Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Members who wish to cast or change 

their vote? 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Gallegly. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? If not, the Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 33 ayes and one nay. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The motion to report favorably the 

bill, as amended, is agreed to. Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the House in the form of a single amendment 

in the nature of a substitute incorporating the amendments adopted here today. Without objection, the staff is directed to make any 

technical and conforming changes and all Members will be given 2 

days as provided by the House rules in which to submit additional 

dissenting supplemental or minority views. 

[Intervening business.] 

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS