VOTING RIGHTS ACT:

EVIDENCE OF CONTINUED NEED

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 8, 2006

Serial No. 109–103

Volume I

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

VOTING RIGHTS ACT: EVIDENCE OF CONTINUED NEED

(Volume I)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

26–411 PDF 2006

VOTING RIGHTS ACT:

EVIDENCE OF CONTINUED NEED

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 8, 2006

Serial No. 109–103

Volume I

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

E. STEWART JEFFRIES, Counsel 

HILARY FUNK, Counsel 

KIMBERLY BETZ, Full Committee Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Professional Staff Member 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 8, 2006

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

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

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

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

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

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution .............. 4

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

of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution .......................... 5

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

of North Carolina, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution .............. 6

The Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 8

The Honorable Chris Van Hollen, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Maryland, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ............. 9

The Honorable David Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Georgia .............................................................................................................. 9

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Bill Lann Lee, Chair, National Commission on the Voting 

Rights Act, and former Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice 

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

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

Ms. Nadine Strossen, President, American Civil Liberties Union, and Professor of Law, New York Law School 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 19

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 21

Mr. Wade Henderson, Executive Director, Leadership Conference on Civil 

Rights 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 45

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 47

The Honorable Joe Rogers, Commissioner, National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, and former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 87

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 90

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Appendix to the Statements of the Honorable Bill Lann Lee and the Honorable Joe Rogers, ‘‘Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act at 

Work, 1982–2005,’’ a report by the National Commission on the Voting 

Rights Act ............................................................................................................. 104

Appendix to the Statements of the Honorable Bill Lann Lee and the Honorable Joe Rogers, ‘‘Highlights of Hearings of the National Commission on 

the Voting Rights Act, 2005,’’ a report by the National Commission on 

the Voting Rights Act .......................................................................................... 291

Page

IV

Appendix to the Statement of Nadine Strossen, ‘‘VOTE: The Case for Extending an Amending the Voting Rights Act, Voting Rights Litigation, 1982–

2006,’’ a report of the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties 

Union ..................................................................................................................... 378

Appendix to the Statement of Nadine Strossen, ‘‘Promises to Keep: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act in 2006’’ ............................................................... 1270

Appendix to the Statement of Wade Henderson, ‘‘Voting Rights in Alaska, 

1982–2006,’’ a report of RenewTheVRA.org ....................................................... 1308

Appendix to the Statement of Wade Henderson, ‘‘Voting Rights in Arizona, 

1982–2006,’’ a report of RenewTheVRA.org ....................................................... 1363

Appendix to the Statement of Wade Henderson, ‘‘Voting Rights in Florida, 

1982–2006,’’ a report of RenewTheVRA.org ....................................................... 1456

Appendix to the Statement of Wade Henderson, ‘‘Voting Rights in Georgia, 

1982–2006,’’ a report of RenewTheVRA.org ....................................................... 1499

Appendix to the Statement of Wade Henderson, ‘‘Voting Rights in Louisiana, 

1982–2006,’’ a report of RenewTheVRA.org ....................................................... 1592

Appendix to the Statement of Wade Henderson, ‘‘Voting Rights in Mississippi, 

1982–2006,’’ a report of RenewTheVRA.org ....................................................... 1709

Appendix to the Statement of Wade Henderson, ‘‘Voting Rights in North 

Carolina, 1982–2006,’’ a report of RenewTheVRA.org ...................................... 1728

Appendix to the Statement of Wade Henderson, ‘‘Voting Rights in New York, 

1982–2006,’’ a report of RenewTheVRA.org ....................................................... 1836

Appendix to the Statement of Wade Henderson, ‘‘Voting Rights in South 

Carolina, 1982–2006,’’ a report of RenewTheVRA.org ...................................... 1928

Appendix to the Statement of Wade Henderson, ‘‘Voting Rights in South 

Dakota, 1982–2006,’’ a report of RenewTheVRA.org ........................................ 1986

Appendix to the Statement of Wade Henderson, ‘‘Voting Rights in Virginia, 

1982–2006,’’ a report of RenewTheVRA.org ....................................................... 2030

Material for the hearing record submitted by the Honorable Steve Chabot 

on March 16, 2006: 

United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Section, ‘‘The Effect of the Voting Rights Act’’ ................................................. 2093

Dr. James Thomas Tucker and Dr. Rodolfo Espino,’’ Minority Language 

Assistance Practices in Public Elections: Executive Summary’’ March 

7, 2006 ............................................................................................................ 2094

Dr. James Thomas Tucker and Dr. Rodolfo Espino, ‘‘Minority Language 

Assistance Practices in Public Elections’’ March 7, 2006 .......................... 2124

Edward Blum, ‘‘An Assessment of Voting Rights Progress in North Carolina’’ ................................................................................................................ 2352

Edward Blum, ‘‘An Assessment of Voting Rights Progress in Alaska, 

Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Dakota’’ ........................................ 2387

Material for the hearing record submitted by the Honorable Melvin L. Watt 

on March 16, 2006: 

Yishaiya Absoch, et al, ‘‘An Assessment of Racially Polarized Voting 

For and Against Latino Candidates’’ ........................................................... 2415

Angelo N. Ancheta, ‘‘Language Accomodation and the Right to Vote’’ ........ 2451

David J. Becker, ‘‘Saving Section 5: Reflections on Georgia v. Ashcroft, 

and Its Impact on Renewal of the Voting Rights Act ................................ 2481

Michael Jones-Correa & Israel Waismel-Manor, ‘‘Verifying Implementation of Language Provisions in the Voting Rights Act’’ ............................. 2514

Luis Ricardo Fraga & Maria Lizet Ocampo, ‘‘The Deterrent Effect of 

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: The Role of More Information 

Requests’’ ....................................................................................................... 2537

Christian R. Grose, ‘‘Black-Majority Districts or Black Influence Districts? 

Evaluating the Effect of Descriptive Representation on the Substantive 

Representation of African-Americans in Black-Majority and Black Influence Districts in the Wake of Georgia v. Ashcroft’’ ................................ 2576

Zoltan Hajnal & Jessica Trounstine, ‘‘Transforming Votes into Victories: 

Turnout, Institutional Context, and Minority Representation in Local 

Politics’’ .......................................................................................................... 2626

J. Gerald Hebert, ‘‘An Assessment of the Bailout Provisions of the Voting 

Rights Act’’ ..................................................................................................... 2664

David Lublin & Cheryl Lampkin, ‘‘Racial Redistricting and the Election 

of African-American County Supervisors in Mississippi’’ .......................... 2703

Allan M. Parnell, ‘‘Assessing the Effectiveness of Section 5 Preclearance 

of Annexations in North Carolina’’ .............................................................. 2734

Page

V

Material for the hearing record submitted by the Honorable Melvin L. Watt 

on March 16, 2006—Continued

Gary M. Segura & Nathan D. Woods, ‘‘Majority-Minority Districts, Coethnic Candidates, and Mobilization Effects .............................................. 2761

Material for the hearing record submitted by the Honorable Steve Chabot 

on March 16, 2006: 

Jim Boulet, Jr., & Peter Weyrich, ‘‘Without Our Consent: Abuses of 

Bilingual Voting Statues in the New Millennium’’ .................................... 2798

Statement of Shiny Liu, Resident, Fresh Meadows, New York .................... 2835

Statement of Byung Soo Park, Resident, Flushing, New York .................... 2836

Statement of Henry Yee, Co-Chair, Chinatown Resident Association, Boston .................................................................................................................. 2837

National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Appendix to Hearings: 

Table of Contents and Appendix Materials ................................................ 2840

National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Appendix to Hearings: 

Table of Contents and Appendix Materials (continued) ............................ 4298

(1)

VOTING RIGHTS ACT:

EVIDENCE OF CONTINUED NEED 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:32 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve Chabot 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CHABOT. The Committee will come to order. I’m Steve 

Chabot, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. I 

want to welcome everyone here this afternoon. I also want to apologize for starting a half-hour after the scheduled time. This Committee prides itself in starting almost exactly on time, or very close 

thereto. Unfortunately, we had a series of votes on the floor of the 

House and had to make those votes, so we apologize for keeping everyone waiting a little bit longer. 

I’d like to take a moment before we start today to recognize that 

yesterday was the 41st anniversary of ‘‘Bloody Sunday.’’ It was on 

March 7, 1965, that many of our citizens shed blood to ensure that 

the most sacred and fundamental right in this country, the right 

to vote, was extended to all citizens. Colleagues such as John 

Lewis, who I believe will be joining us here shortly, stood up to injustice and forced this country to acknowledge that not all of its 

citizens were afforded the full rights of citizenship. 

The results of their efforts are reflected in the act that we are 

discussing today, the Voting Rights Act. If not for the courage and 

conviction of these individuals, we would not be holding this hearing today, so I want to commend them for their years of commitment to the civil rights movement in this country, and particularly 

John Lewis, although there are many others, as well, but he, I believe, will be joining us here shortly. 

I’d also like to thank everyone else for joining us here this afternoon. This is the Subcommittee on the Constitution, as I mentioned 

before, and this afternoon, the Subcommittee will be holding its 

tenth hearing examining the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 

temporary provisions that are to expire. They’re set to expire in 

2007 unless we reauthorize by Congress, which I think most of us 

anticipate will occur. 

Last fall, the Subcommittee examined each of the expiring provisions in great detail. This afternoon, we pick up where we left off 

by examining the evidence of continued discrimination against racial and language minority citizens since 1982 that have been comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:30 Jul 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\030806\26411.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26411
2

piled by a number of non-governmental organizations who will be 

testifying here this afternoon. 

I’d like to take a brief moment to thank these organizations for 

the time and effort that they have put into completing these reports and in making sure that this Committee and Congress has 

before it a complete and accurate record of discrimination over the 

last 25 years, which was the last time that the Voting Rights Act 

was reauthorized to any considerable extent. 

The hearing this afternoon is an important one as the Committee 

continues to review and develop its own record for reauthorizing 

the temporary provisions. 

In 1966, the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach

upheld the constitutionality of the extraordinary measures taken 

by Congress to end the Nation’s sad history of discrimination in 

voting because of the record it had established. Recognizing that 

the temporary provisions, quote, ‘‘may have been an uncommon exercise of Congressional power, the Court has recognized that exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.’’ In continuing to reauthorize the temporary provisions, Congress, 

on four separate occasions, examined the extent to which discrimination continued to exist by analyzing information, such as enforcement statistics, minority voter registration rates, minority voter 

turnout, and litigation pursued to protect minority voting rights. 

Federal agencies, such as the United States Commission on Civil 

Rights, were instrumental in investigating, analyzing, and reporting back to Congress on the state of minority voting during each 

consideration. Each time, Congress concluded, based upon the evidence presented, that the exceptional conditions which existed in 

1966 continued to exist in 1970, 1975, 1982, and in 1992, when it 

was last reauthorized. 

This afternoon, the Committee continues to examine whether the 

exceptional conditions warranting the extension of the temporary 

provisions continue to exist in 2006. As in preceding years, we will 

look for assistance. A number of non-government organizations, including those before us today, have thoroughly investigated, analyzed, and reported on the state of minority voting in those jurisdictions covered by the Voting Rights Act since 1982. These reports 

play a crucial role in giving Congress a first-hand account of the 

continued efforts to discriminate against minority citizens in voting. The evidence contained in the reports will greatly assist this 

Committee and Congress in fulfilling its duties to determine 

whether the exceptional conditions still exist. 

At this time, I would ask for unanimous consent that these reports be recognized as official reports to Congress so that the reports are given the appropriate weight in any future consideration 

of the Voting Rights Act. Without objection, so noted. 

And I want to thank again the witnesses for being here this 

afternoon and for their testimony. I would yield back the balance 

of my time and would recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Nadler, for the purpose of making an opening statement. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want 

to thank you and Chairman Sensenbrenner for continuing this 

Subcommittee’s careful review of the Voting Rights Act, its record 

3

since the last reauthorization, and furthering the effort to ensure 

that any reauthorization and any modifications will be based on 

the facts and the documented need, that is, the documented need 

for any modifications. That careful fact finding will enable this 

Committee and this Congress to craft appropriate legislation. Any 

remedies in the reauthorizing act must be based on the actual documented need and be appropriately tailored to that need. 

The Supreme Court has made clear how we must go about reviewing the act. I believe this Committee has made a good start in 

fulfilling its obligation in the preparation of legislation that will be 

upheld, and I hope correctly applied by the Justice Department and 

by the United States Supreme Court. 

Our witnesses today are here to present important studies that 

are the product of extensive fact finding hearings and the experience of many talented individuals who have been deeply involved 

in protecting the right to vote, to cast a meaningful vote, and to 

have that vote counted. Your reports, that is the reports the witnesses are presenting to us today, will substantially aid in Congress’ fact finding work and will inform our efforts to craft legislation appropriate to the needs and circumstances of the present day. 

The right to vote is the foundation of the basis of all other rights. 

We have too much experience as a Nation with the terrible and destructive legacies of disenfranchisement. Whether for reasons of 

bigotry or simply to protect political power, no American should be 

robbed of the right to cast a meaningful and effective vote. 

Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our witnesses and I look 

forward to their testimony. 

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

expired. 

The gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished gentleman who 

is the Ranking Member of the full Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that I won’t 

take that much time. 

You know, it occurs to me as I review this great amount of study 

and preparation that has gone into this, and I am looking now at 

‘‘Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act At Work, 1982-

2005,’’ may I suggest that one of our hearings shortly should be on 

how we deal with the voting in the wake of Katrina and the hurricanes, because without that, we are doing some great history making here, ladies and gentlemen, but we are overlooking an incredibly challenging problem that apparently doesn’t compare to the 

situation in December when our country provided Iraqi immigrants 

in America the opportunity to vote in Iraq’s elections. We provided 

satellite polling places across the United States where they could 

vote just the same as if they were in Baghdad. Is it asking too 

much that we try to extend the same courtesy to our own citizens 

that suffered devastating losses and were dispersed across the 

country following Hurricane Katrina? We cannot leave these hearings without examining what we are doing in the immediate 

present. 

What is happening in New Orleans is that special elections are 

scheduled to be held on April the 22nd, and apparently have been 

planned with no notice that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applies 

4

to the covered State of Louisiana. And so according to section 5 of 

the Voting Rights Act, any proposed changes to voting dates or precinct locations must be precleared by the Department of Justice, 

and this so far has not yet happened. In fact, 300 of the 442 precincts are unavailable for voting because of the hurricane damage 

and most of these are in African-American neighborhoods. 

Yet the State has pushed for early elections on April the 22nd 

when suitable conditions apparently in no way can exist for free 

and fair elections. Voter confusion and disenfranchisement is a 

clear consequence of the April 22 New Orleans planned municipal 

elections. The sad fact is that the State of Louisiana is apparently 

about to conduct an illegal election. 

When we passed legislation addressing the possibility, for example, that a terrorist attack on the United States Congress, as unthinkable as that is, could require special elections to reconstitute 

Congress, even those remarkable circumstances, it was held that 

the Voting Rights Act was inviolable. There is no circumstance for 

which the Voting Rights Act is too cumbersome to uphold and I 

hope that this Committee and our witnesses who have worked far 

beyond their preparation for this hearing will help us figure a way 

out of this very current dilemma, and I thank the Chairman for 

this time. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman. I would just note that I 

would hope that the State and city would recognize their obligations under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and if not and if individuals are concerned that they have not done that, then it would 

be the Justice Department’s responsibility, and I would hope and 

trust that the Justice Department, if there is something, a violation 

of the Voting Rights Act found, then they would use their enforcement and authority to take appropriate action, whether that would 

be enjoining the election or putting it off to another date or whatever would be the appropriate thing to do, but it would initially be 

up to the local State and city officials to comply with the Voting 

Rights Act, and if not, then it would be up to the Justice Department to act appropriately. But I thank the gentleman for raising 

the issue. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, since the Justice Department in 

some recent cases has not shown attendant solicitude for the Voting Rights Act and has overruled their own professional staff, 

might there be something this Committee could do? I mean, I’ve 

just read the letter of a former colleague of ours, now a State Senator in Louisiana, Mr. Cleo Fields, who makes a very, very strong 

prima facie case that this election is being conducted in clear violation of section 5 and probably section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 

and I suggest that this Committee might want to take a hard look 

at that and maybe prod the Justice Department, certainly before 

the date of this election, which is scheduled for April 22. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. I would thank the gentleman for raising that. 

I would also——

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, Mr. Conyers? 

5

Mr. CONYERS. I think your point is well taken, but it is clear to 

me that they’re already in violation, and it is also clear to me that 

the Department of Justice hasn’t said a word about this. So I am—

my faith in waiting for them to come to and decide something, it 

seems to me that, ironically, the Committee that is considering extending the Voter Rights Act in certain places may have the additional responsibility, as you have indicated, to examine what is actually going on here. I think a hearing of that sort, I would like 

to discuss with you further. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I would be happy to do that. I want to 

thank the gentleman for calling me a couple hours ago and letting 

me know that this was an issue and giving me a copy of Reverend 

Jackson’s letter and this issue, so we want to—thank you for letting us know about this. I would hope that the Justice Department 

is reviewing this as we speak. I don’t know for a fact that they are. 

But I would be pleased to follow up with you and also inform the 

Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, also of the 

situation. I would hope this is one where we could work together 

if there is action that needs to be taken. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the past years, Congress has recognized the tenacious grip 

of discrimination on voting, and over the years, we’ve continued to 

reauthorize several crucial sections of the Voting Rights Act set to 

expire in 2007, including section 5, protecting voters by requiring 

that States with a documented history of discrimination in voting 

practices submit planned changes of their election laws and procedures to Federal officials or judges for prior approval. Section 203 

provides important tools to ensure fundamental fairness in voting 

process for language minority groups whose proficiency in English 

has been limited. And sections 6 through 9 give the U.S. Attorney 

General the authority to send Federal observers to monitor elections. 

Since the initial passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Congress has relied on an extensive record of discrimination in voting 

to justify the need for the remedies imposed by these expiring provisions. 

Now, the Supreme Court has cited the Congressional record of 

the Voting Rights Act as a model in recent cases where it actually 

struck down other civil rights laws after finding that Congress had 

not established a record of discrimination to support its remedial 

action. These decisions have made clear that reauthorization of expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act must be supported by a 

record showing discrimination in voting since its last reauthorization in order to survive a constitutional challenge. 

So in October of last year, we began the task of building that 

record to justify the ongoing need for these provisions. It’s my hope 

that through these hearings we’ve conducted here in the Subcommittee, as well as field hearings conducted by many of the 

groups represented here today, it is my hope that we have done 

just that, build a record to justify the need to reauthorize the expiring provisions. 

6

Mr. Chairman, I think it’s appropriate to recognize the diligent 

work of those organizations. The information they’ve gathered will 

be essential to our deliberations and the work that they did was 

not easy. Many of the hearings were held at points all over the 

country, hearing hundreds of witnesses, and they will be providing—they have provided our Committee with the benefits of all 

that good work, and that good work will be part, as I indicated, of 

our deliberations. 

At a time when America has staked much of its international 

reputation on the need to spread democracy around the world, we 

must ensure its vitality here at home, and so, Mr. Chairman, I 

thank you for convening the hearing and look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. I yield back. 

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

expired. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me, if I can, deviate 

just a second from my prepared comments just to join in expressing 

my concern about the issue that Mr. Conyers has raised. We should 

recognize that the potential exists for the largest disenfranchisement of people since the passage of the Voting Rights Act. That potential is there if some steps are not taken to assure the voting 

rights of people in the Gulf area, not only Louisiana but throughout 

the Gulf. 

I do want to assure Mr. Conyers that we met today about that 

as the Congressional Black Caucus and are planning to meet with 

former Representative Cleo Fields at our next Wednesday meeting 

to deal with that in a more aggressive way, so I just wanted to 

kind of set him somewhat at ease, although there’s plenty of work 

to be done before that issue can be resolved. 

On the Voting Rights Act for which we are here to have a hearing today, I want to start simply by thanking Chairman Chabot 

and Ranking Member Nadler for the whole series of hearings. This 

is the tenth hearing that we’ve had on this and it is this Subcommittee that has really done the grunt work of building the 

record for the full Judiciary Committee as a context for extension 

of the Voting Rights Act and this provision. And I want to express 

my thanks to Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for ensuring that the time necessary for us to schedule and 

conduct these important hearings has been made available. 

It’s also fitting, Mr. Chairman, that as you noted, that this hearing comes 1 day after the 41st anniversary of Bloody Sunday, a day 

that our colleague, Mr. Lewis—who may show up here but I got an 

e-mail from him just a few minutes ago saying that he has been 

held up, we still hope he will get here—he will certainly remember 

that day because he was there on that bloody Sunday. On that 

Sunday in 1965, some 600 civil rights marchers headed out of 

Selma, Alabama, on U.S. Route 80 toward the State capital in 

Montgomery. They made it about six blocks to the Edmund Pettus 

Bridge when they were met by State and local law enforcement officers who attacked them with billy clubs and tear gas. 

Two days later, Martin Luther King, Jr., defiantly led a symbolic 

march back to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, but it was two addiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:30 Jul 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\030806\26411.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26411
7

tional weeks before the civil rights leaders launched a full-scale 

march from Selma to Montgomery on Sunday, March 21. That 

march began with about 3,200 marchers. By the time they reached 

the capital 4 days later, they were 25,000 strong. Less than 5 

months later, President Lyndon Johnson signed the original Voting 

Rights Act of 1965. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe this history is particularly relevant to 

our hearing today because today we have before us a bipartisan 

panel of civil rights leaders whose work has produced a body of evidence from the field, a body of evidence which, like Bloody Sunday, 

provides a factual predicate for the continued need for the protections afforded by the Voting Rights Act. 

The work of the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, 

co-Chaired by former Congressman Charles Mathias and former 

Attorney General Bill Lann Lee, who is here with us today, gives 

voice to the stories of over 100 witnesses from across the country 

who continue to confront obstacles to voting. The Leadership Council on Civil Rights, which has been on the forefront of fighting discrimination for decades, has done extensive research on the implementation and effect of the Voting Rights Act in several States covered by its provisions. And the ACLU, with its impressive voting 

rights docket, has assembled examples from its 200-plus cases of 

discriminatory techniques and tactics that have deliberately or inadvertently undermined the effectiveness of citizens from various 

racial and language minority groups to cast their votes, have that 

vote counted, and have that vote count. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. Would the gentleman like some additional time? 

Mr. WATT. Give me one additional minute. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman is granted an additional minute. 

Mr. WATT. But the news isn’t all bad. Days like March 7, 1965, 

are truly behind us, we hope, at least, that there has been a tremendous amount of progress as a direct result of the Voting Rights 

Act. Voter registration of racial and language minorities has increased in some of the covered jurisdictions. There have been inroads against racially-polarized voting. 

We fear, however, that the sacrifices of John Lewis, who is the 

human face of all American citizens represented in the stories we 

will hear about today, will be for naught if we celebrate our successes too quickly or too completely by ending the protections of the 

Voting Rights Act prematurely and by not asking to restore and 

strengthen them. 

Speaking about the right to vote in 1965, President Lyndon 

Johnson said to Congress, quote, ‘‘Many of the issues of civil rights 

are very complex and most difficult, but about this there can and 

should be no argument. Every American citizen must have an 

equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse the denial 

of that right. There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us 

than the duty we have to ensure that right.’’

I would dare to say that were this 1965, President Bush would 

be making much the same statement, and he has, in fact, reaffirmed and made that statement with respect to Iraq and other 

countries around the world and we need to recognize it right here 

on our own shores in the United States of America. 

8

This tenth hearing, Mr. Chairman, I think may be the most important one because we really can’t do this work by ourselves in 

this Committee and these organizations have conducted hearings 

throughout our country to document that there is continuing discrimination, intentional, sometimes inadvertent, that is preventing 

the full exercise of the right to vote in our country, and against 

that predicate, we need to reauthorize and strengthen and renew 

the Voting Rights Act. 

I yield back and thank the gentleman for the additional time. 

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

We have also been joined by three of our colleagues who are not 

actually Members of this Subcommittee, but two of the three of 

whom are Members of the full Judiciary Committee, Mr. Van 

Hollen of Maryland, Ms. Sa ́nchez of California, and Mr. Scott of 

Georgia. The rules of the Committee are that Members can be seated up here, but not actually participate. However, because of the 

importance of this hearing, what we have been doing in the previous hearings was to give each of the Members 5 minutes—I 

apologize for that. Mr. Van Hollen, you are a Member of this Subcommittee. I apologize. I stand corrected. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, if I could defer first to Ms. 

Sa ́nchez, who was here before me. 

Mr. CHABOT. What we have been doing is giving 5 minutes to the 

non-Members of the Committee and allowing them to either use it 

for the purpose of making an opening statement or to ask questions 

at their discretion, whichever one they wanted to use it for, so I 

don’t know that she wants to use it for an opening statement or 

not. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I would. 

Mr. CHABOT. She would. Okay. Then the gentlelady is recognized 

for 5 minutes, and again, I apologize to the gentleman from Maryland. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the gentleman 

from Maryland for yielding. I do have an opening statement. It is 

rather brief, so it won’t take up the full 5 minutes. 

But I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member now for 

convening this hearing on the evidence of continued need of the 

Voting Rights Act, and I also want to thank the witnesses and 

their respective organizations for the extensive reports that they 

have prepared on the importance of reauthorizing the Voting 

Rights Act and the need for preserving the safeguards therein. 

In a recent article, Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner was quoted as having said during the 1982 VRA reauthorization hearings that, quote, ‘‘the testimony amply demonstrated 

that the ingenuity of the human mind is limitless when it comes 

to devising ways to rig election systems to favor certain candidates 

or points of view,’’ and I believe the Chairman’s comments would 

be equally appropriate today. 

The need to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, especially the language assistance provisions in section 203 and the preclearance 

provisions in section 5, is as great today as it was when Chairman 

Sensenbrenner made his remarks back in 1982. 

9

The testimony we heard during the VRA hearings last fall and 

the conclusions found by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights 

Under Law and the American Civil Liberties Union’s reports provide undeniable evidence that the Voting Rights Act is still required to prevent voter suppression and to ensure that everyone 

has an equal opportunity to cast their vote. 

As a Member of Congress representing a Congressional district 

with a substantial Latino and Asian population, I have firsthand 

knowledge of the power of the Voting Rights Act. My district has 

been covered by section 203 since the year 2000 and I can tell you, 

the Lawyers’ Committee and ACLU reports confirmed what I have 

been seeing in my precinct for years. The language assistance provisions are still needed to protect many citizens’ voting rights. The 

Lawyers’ Committee and ACLU reports also confirm that Latino 

voters continue to suffer from discriminatory voting obstacles. In 

fact, as recently as last June, the Department of Justice sued the 

City of Boston for discouraging Hispanics from voting. Additionally, 

there are confirmed cases nationwide of election officials in jurisdictions covered by section 203 simply ignoring their legal requirement to provide language assistance, and that’s not only wrong, but 

it’s against the law. 

I strongly believe that the testimony and reports submitted in 

favor of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act are compelling. They 

prove beyond a doubt that the VRA not only needs to be reauthorized, but strengthened, and I again appreciate Chairman Chabot 

and Ranking Member Nadler’s courtesy in allowing me to join the 

Constitution Subcommittee today and I will yield back the remainder of my time. 

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

The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by 

thanking you, Mr. Chabot and Ranking Member Nadler, for conducting this series of hearings and thank you, all the witnesses for 

being here today and for the work that you and your organizations 

have done in compiling the stories and the evidence that I think 

clearly supports the need to continue and reauthorize the Voting 

Rights Act and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

My friend and colleague, Mr. Watt, talked about Bloody Sunday 

and how it led to change the sort of conscience and view of the 

country and led to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in August of that year after Bloody Sunday, and I have had the privilege 

of twice, actually, attending—going on a civil rights pilgrimage 

with our colleague, Congressman Lewis, and others here on the 

panel, and I think anyone who takes that trip both recognizes how 

far we’ve come as a Nation, but also as you listen to the people and 

stories, recognizes the need to remain vigilant and the need to 

make sure that we continue to protect the voting rights of every 

person in this country. 

I think the stories that you’re bringing to the Committee today 

are going to be powerful testimony to the fact that the need remains to make sure we protect the very important rights, the 

rights at the foundation of our democracy. So I thank you for the 

work that you’ve done and I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

10

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Scott, 

do you want to use your time now or as questioning? 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to use 

2 minutes now and save 3 minutes for questions, if I could. 

Mr. CHABOT. Fair enough. The gentleman is recognized for 2 

minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. First, thank you, Mr. Chabot, and I want 

to thank Ranking Member Nadler and my good friend, the senior 

Member of this Committee, Mr. Conyers, for your courtesies in having me be a part of this. 

I am so much interested in this because Georgia, my home State, 

is at the epicenter of this battle for the renewal of the Voting 

Rights Act on a number of fronts. First of all, since the last time 

we revisited this act in 1982, Georgia has led the Nation with 95 

cases, 95 cases on the preclearance alone, and 142 cases of the voting rights cases altogether. That averages out over the months period to one every month, one case every month of violations of the 

Voting Rights Act for the State of Georgia. 

The other reason is, of course, right now, Georgia is in battle 

with the voter I.D., which is the poster child for why we need the 

Voting Rights Act. As you recall, that act was ruled discriminatory. 

It came up here. It was gone through the process. The Justice Department attorneys ruled, rightly so, that it should never have 

been precleared. That should have been the end of the deal. But, 

oh no, political pressures came to bear. It said, too bad for the Voting Rights Act, violated it as if it didn’t even exist, and they went 

on and cleared that anyway. And only by the grace of one judge, 

Judge Murphy in Georgia, were we saved. 

Another reason is Ashcroft v. Georgia. That law, again from 

Georgia, is the one law that has minimized and tried to weaken the 

Voting Rights Act, and unfortunately, the leadership in this Congress at this point to dismantle this act comes from my fellow 

Georgian, from Georgia, my fellow Congressman from Georgia, Mr. 

Westmoreland. 

Georgia is vitally interested in this. We are at the epicenter of 

it. We want to make sure that this act is not only renewed, but it 

is strengthened, and I appreciate the gentleman for allowing me an 

opportunity to be a part of this Committee to help see that happen. 

Thank you, sir. 

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

expired. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional materials for the hearing record, and I’d now like 

to introduce our very distinguished panel here this afternoon. 

Our first witness will be the Honorable Bill Lann Lee, Chair of 

the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act and the Former 

Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice under President Bill Clinton. Mr. Lee’s tenure 

in the Department of Justice followed 23 years as a civil rights attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the 

Center for Law and the Public Interest, and the Asian-American 

Legal Defense and Education Fund, and we welcome you here this 

afternoon, Mr. Lee. 

11

Our second witness will be Ms. Nadine Strossen. Ms. Strossen is 

a professor of law at New York Law School, and since 1991 has 

served as President of the American Civil Liberties Union. She is 

the first woman to head this organization. The National Law Journal has twice named Professor Strossen one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, and in 1999, Ladies’ Home Journal included her in America’s 100 most important women. We welcome 

you here this afternoon, Ms. Strossen. 

Our third witness will be Mr. Wade Henderson. Mr. Henderson 

is the Executive Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil 

Rights and counsel to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 

Education Fund. Prior to his role with the Leadership Conference, 

Mr. Henderson was the Washington Bureau Director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP. 

He was also the Associate Director of the Washington National Office of the American Civil Liberties Union. We welcome you here 

this afternoon, Mr. Henderson. 

In addition, Mr. Henderson served as the Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., 

Professor of Public Interest Law at the David A. Clark School of 

Law at the University of the District of Columbia. He is the recipient of the 2003 Congressional Black Caucus Chairs Award and the 

District of Columbia’s Bar’s William J. Brennan Award for 2002, as 

well as many other awards, and again, we welcome you here. 

Our fourth and final witness is the Honorable Joe Rogers. In 

2003, Lieutenant Governor Rogers completed his term as the Lieutenant Governor of Colorado, where he held the distinction of serving as America’s youngest Lieutenant Governor and only the fourth 

African-American in U.S. history ever elected as the State’s number two executive. Now a practicing attorney in Colorado, he presently serves as a Commission on the National Commissioner on the 

Voting Rights Act. 

In 2001, Lieutenant Governor Rogers received the prestigious 

Trumpet Award from Time-Warner’s Turner Broadcasting System. 

The Trumpet Award is one of the Nation’s highest honors bestowed 

in recognition of African-Americans who have made significant contributions and enhance the quality of life for all Americans. Joe 

Rogers has been profiled by the New York Times, The Washington 

Post, the Washington Times, and Business Week, Ebony, Jet, and 

Teacher magazines. Ebony called him a political trailblazer. Lieutenant Governor Rogers was present during our initial foray into 

the Voting Rights Act and it is fitting that he is back before us 

today closing our hearings on the Voting Rights Act. We welcome 

you back here, Lieutenant Governor Rogers. 

For those who may not have testified before this Committee, let 

me explain our lighting system here. We have what is called the 

5-minute rule, and everyone, including Members, are limited to 5 

minutes. The green light will be on for 4 minutes. The yellow light 

comes on in the final minute. When you see the red light come on, 

that means that your time has expired and we’d appreciate it if 

you’d warp up as close to that as possible. We usually give a little 

flexibility, but not too much, so please try to keep within that as 

much as possible. 

12

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

appearing before it, so if you would, we’d ask each of you to please 

stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that in the testimony that you’re about to give, you 

will give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Mr. LEE. I do. 

Ms. STROSSEN. I do. 

Mr. HENDERSON. I do. 

Mr. ROGERS. I do. 

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

you can be seated. 

We will now begin with our first witness, Mr. Lee, and you’re 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BILL LANN LEE, CHAIR, NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AND 

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

Mr. LEE. Good afternoon, Chairman Chabot and Members of the 

House Committee on the Constitution. I am here today in my capacity as Chairman of the National Commission on the Voting 

Rights Act. 

Earlier, Mr. Chairman, you indicated that my fellow Commissioner, Mr. Rogers, attended the first meeting of the Subcommittee. 

At that time, he pointed out that the Commission’s then-forthcoming report would be prepared, and so here we are today after 

the report has been prepared. The report is entitled, ‘‘Protecting 

Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act At Work, 1982-2005,’’ and 

there is also a supplement to the report, ‘‘Highlights of Hearings 

of the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, 2005.’’ The 

report and the supplement can be found on the Commission’s 

website, www.votingrightsact.org. Pursuant to the written request 

of Chairman Sensenbrenner, the National Commission has provided the Judiciary Committee with its entire record of several 

thousand pages. 

The National Commission was created by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as several of the Members have 

noted. The National Commission is composed of a politically and 

ethnically diverse group of men and women, including former elected and appointed public officials, scholars, lawyers, and leaders. 

Along with Commissioner Rogers and myself, the Commissioners 

include Honorary Chair Charles Mathias, John Buchanan, Chandler Davidson, Dolores Huerta, Elsie Meeks, and Charles Ogletree. 

The National Commission’s charge was to evaluate discrimination in voting since Congress reauthorized the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1982. The Chairman has described 

the temporary provisions and I’m not going to say too much about 

them other than the three principal ones have to do with Federal 

oversight of the election process changes, minority language assistance to citizens whose primary language is not English, and the Attorney General’s ability to send observers and examiners to monitor elections. These provisions only apply to those areas of the 

country where Congress previously determined they were needed. 

13

The National Commission obtained all the relevant qualitative 

and quantitative data it could on discrimination in voting, including data from the United States Department of Justice, Federal 

court cases and dockets, information from civil rights groups, voting rights lawyers, academics, and electoral experts who provided 

counsel and made their files available. Moreover, the National 

Commission, as has been pointed out, conducted ten field hearings 

throughout the country and heard from over 100 witnesses with experience in elections or voting rights issues, including, notably, 

local election administrators. The National Commission’s report reflects the analysis of all that evidence. 

Although this effort reflected the input of the entire Commission, 

I would be remiss in not failing to acknowledge that Commissioner 

Chandler Davidson is perhaps the Nation’s most preeminent social 

scientist in the field of voting rights and he worked full time on 

this report for more than a year. 

The report, in sum, presents evidence that demonstrates, unfortunately, that the persistence, degree, geographic breadth, and 

methods of voting discrimination are substantial and ongoing. Instances of the kinds of voting discrimination that Congress intended to eliminating by enacting and reauthorizing the Voting 

Rights Act have held steady. The temporary provisions of the act, 

in fact, have prevented and remedied much discrimination. They 

continue to do so to this day. 

I will share some of the numerical findings set forth in the report 

and the report’s tables, maps, and charts. My colleague, Commissioner Rogers, has the better job of explaining some of the anecdotal evidence that gives some life to the statistics I am about to 

embark on and he will testify last. 

Regarding section 5 enforcement since 1982, which is the last 

time the Congress has acted, the District Court of the District of 

Columbia and the Justice Department together have declined to 

preclear over 1,100 voting changes contained in more than 650 section 5 submissions since 1982. In addition, as a result of the correspondence between the Justice Department and jurisdictions 

after submission, jurisdictions have withdrawn 200 submissions. 

These withdrawals have the same functional effect as an objection 

blocking a suspect voting change. 

In addition, the act allows either the Justice Department or private citizens to bring section 5 enforcement actions to force officials 

to submit changes they have refused to submit. Our research shows 

that there have been a substantial number since 1982, numbering 

105, in eight of the nine totally covered States plus North Carolina. 

The Department of Justice has also sent observers to monitor 

elections in more than 600 jurisdictions since 1982. Two-thirds of 

all post-1982 observer coverages occurred in five States covered entirely by section 5—Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and 

South Carolina. Between 300 and 600 observers were sent out each 

year between 1984 and the year 2000. 

Regarding language minorities, we note that there remains an 

enormous gap in political participation. According to the Census, in 

the 2000 election, 45 percent of Hispanic voting age citizens and 43 

percent of Asian voting age citizens participated, as compared to 62 

14

percent of non-Hispanic voting age citizens, and the number for African-Americans is 58 percent. 

Section 2 is a permanent feature of the act that permits the 

United States or individuals to file suits alleging that a voting 

practice has a discriminatory purpose or effect. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Lee, if I could interrupt here, are you about at 

a point where you can wrap up, because your full statement will 

be admitted for the record. 

Mr. LEE. Well, if——

Mr. CHABOT. And we can get into it with questions to follow up 

in addition, as well. 

Mr. LEE. I can finish up in about a minute. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. That’s fine. 

Mr. LEE. Section 2 is important because it provides a check on 

the Justice Department statistics, and what we found was that in 

eight States fully covered by section 5 and North Carolina, there 

were fully 635 cases concerning election changes in 825 counties. 

The last point I would like to make has to do with racially-polarized voting. That is a phenomenon in which most voters, White voters, vote for different candidates than minority voters. That is a 

pattern that continues to this day, and those of us who have studied the Voting Rights Act, we were surprised to see that the persistence of racially-polarized voting. I have the numbers on that. I 

can provide it to you later. 

The bottom line is that, unhappily, 40 years after the Voting 

Rights Act was enacted, we still have the persistence of the voting 

rights discrimination that this Committee—of the kind that this 

Committee analyzed and has found to be problematic and to constitute the exceptional circumstances and conditions that the 

Chairman referred to earlier. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lee follows:]

15

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL LANN LEE


Lee0001.eps
16


Lee0002.eps
17


Lee0003.eps
18


Lee0004.eps
19

Mr. CHABOT. Ms. Strossen, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF NADINE STROSSEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AND PROFESSOR OF LAW, NEW 

YORK LAW SCHOOL 

Ms. STROSSEN. Thank you so much, Chairman Chabot, Ranking 

Member—— Mr. CHABOT. Could you turn that mike on there? And you might 

want to pull that kind of close, too. 

Ms. STROSSEN. I will pull myself closer, as well, and now my time 

is starting. Thank you, Chairman Chabot, Ranking Member Nadler, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased 

to appear before you today to present the key findings of the most 

recent report by the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, ‘‘The Case for 

Extending and Amending the Voting Rights Act, Voting Rights 

Litigation, 1982-2006.’’ I am also pleased to present policy recommendations from a second report prepared by our Washington 

legislative office, ‘‘Promises to Keep: The Impact of the Voting 

Rights Act in 2006,’’ and I understand, Chairman Chabot, that 

these will be incorporated in the record. I appreciate that. 

My brief oral comments will focus on the ACLU’s litigation report, the big one. Since 1982, when the Voting Rights Act was last 

reauthorized, the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project has brought or participated in 293 legal cases in 31 States challenging discrimination 

and failure to comply with Federal and State election laws. These 

cases clearly demonstrate the need to extend the act’s expiring provisions because they extensively document ongoing voting discrimination problems in the covered jurisdictions. 

In support of that conclusion, our litigation report prevents evidence substantiating five key findings. I am just going to list them 

now, and then, time permitting, add a few comments about each 

one. 

First, section 5 has blocked implementation of discriminatory 

voting changes. 

Two, there is a continuing pattern of blocked voting and racial 

polarization in the covered jurisdictions, as Mr. Lee alluded to. 

Third, there is continuing hostility to minority political participation. 

Four, there is a continued need for section 5, especially its deterrent effect. 

Five, the courts routinely apply section 5 to protect minority voting rights. 

So just a little bit of amplification. Section 5 has blocked implementation of discriminatory voting changes. Since 1982, the Department of Justice has filed more than 1,000 objections under section 5. These objections have protected millions of voters in thousands of elections. Our report documents numerous Department of 

Justice section 5 objections in those jurisdictions where the ACLU 

has been directly involved in voting rights litigation. Examples include objections to discriminatory State restrictions on registration 

and voting, discriminatory annexations in many locales, and discriminatory redistricting in many States. 

Second, there is a continuing pattern of blocked voting and racial 

polarization in the covered jurisdictions. While much progress has 

20

been made in minority registration and office holding, the persistence, the sad persistence of racial block voting shows that race remains a dynamic and corrosive factor, particularly in the covered 

jurisdictions. Our litigation report is replete with findings by courts 

and also by the Department of Justice of racial block voting in 12 

States where the ACLU has filed voting rights cases. 

Third, the continuing hostility to minority political participation. 

Our litigation report also documents that too many elected officials 

continue to manipulate the law in ways that disadvantage minority 

voters, just as the record showed in 1982 when Congress last reauthorized section 5. I’d like to simply list a few of the many types 

of discrimination of this type which are detailed in this extensive 

report: Discriminatory annexations and deannexations; pairing 

Black incumbents in redistricting plans; refusing to draw majority 

minority districts; refusing to appoint Blacks to public office; relocating polling places distant from the Black community; refusing to 

hold elections following a section 5 objection; failure to provide bilingual ballots and assistance in voting; packing Native American 

and African-American voters to dilute their influence; and discriminatory voter identification requirements, as Congressman Scott alluded to. 

A fourth finding is that there is a continued need for section 5 

especially in terms of its deterrent effects. The redistricting that 

follows each decennial census as well as other evidence clearly 

demonstrates the deterrent effect of section 5. As the report makes 

clear, in the absence of section 5, minority voters would become increasingly marginalized during the redistricting process and elected officials would be more inclined to adopt voting changes that 

disadvantage minority voters. 

And our last finding, backed up by much experience, is that the 

courts are routinely applying section 5 to protect minority voting 

rights to prevent retrogression and to protect equal rights. 

So in conclusion, each time the Voting Rights Act has been renewed, Congress has assessed the extent of current ongoing voting 

violations in the covered jurisdictions, and each time, Congress has 

concluded that these provisions must be extended. On every such 

past occasion, Congress has determined that its earlier attempts to 

remedy the evil of racial discrimination in voting had failed. Unfortunately, as the ACLU litigation report documents, those serious 

problems persist to the present day. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Strossen follows:]

21

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NADINE STROSSEN


NS0001.eps
22


NS0002.eps
23


NS0003.eps
24


NS0004.eps
25


NS0005.eps
26


NS0006.eps
27


NS0007.eps
28


NS0008.eps
29


NS0009.eps
30


NS0010.eps
31


NS0011.eps
32


NS0012.eps
33


NS0013.eps
34


NS0014.eps
35


NS0015.eps
36


NS0016.eps
37


NS0017.eps
38


NS0018.eps
39


NS0019.eps
40


NS0020.eps
41


NS0021.eps
42


NS0022.eps
43


NS0023.eps
44


NS0024.eps
45

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Henderson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF WADE HENDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the Members of the Subcommittee. I’m Wade Henderson, the Executive Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and 

counselor to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education 

Fund. The Leadership Conference is the Nation’s premier civil and 

human rights coalition. It consists of more than 190 national organizations and has coordinated the national legislative campaigns 

on behalf of every major civil rights law since 1957. 

Mr. Chairman, as you so eloquently noted along with Mr. Watt, 

yesterday marked the 41st anniversary of Bloody Sunday. Bloody 

Sunday vaulted voting rights abuses into the political forefront and 

led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

The Voting Rights Act, including its temporary provisions, section 5, sections 6 through 9, and section 203, has been the pivotal 

force behind the Nation’s progress toward protecting the right to 

vote. It has empowered large numbers of minority citizens to register and vote and to elect candidates of their choice to local, State, 

and Federal offices. The act has been successful in removing direct 

and indirect barriers to voting for African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Native Americans. 

As part of the Leadership Conference’s role in assessing the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act and its continuing need, our 

sister organization, the LCCR Education Fund, commissioned an 

educational and research collaborative, renewtheVRA.org, to draft a 

series of reports that have been requested by Congress examining 

the impact of the Voting Rights Act over the past 25 years. Beginning today and over the next month, renewtheVRA.org will release 

reports on the following States: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia. 

These States were chosen as a representative sampling geographically and demographically of jurisdictions covered in whole or in 

part by the expiring temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act. 

I would ask that each of the reports previously submitted to the 

Committee, those that will be submitted, and my testimony in full 

be admitted as part of the record of these proceedings. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Today, I will highlight the trends and findings 

of many of these reports. Several consistent themes emerge in the 

State reports. Over the course of the last 25 years, the temporary 

provisions of the VRA have been employed often and have worked 

well to limit practices harmful to the full participation of racial and 

ethnic minority voters. 

First, it is clear that the preclearance provision, the language minority protections, and the examiner and observer provisions of the 

Voting Rights Act have played significant roles in protecting the 

voting rights of minority citizens. These reports, however, also 

highlight a unifying theme. Discrimination still pervades the electoral process. The State reports chronicle why the expiring temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act remain relevant and 

46

necessary to stop both intentional discrimination and facially neutral proposals with potentially discriminatory effects. 

The State reports are rich with data and compelling stories of 

how the Voting Rights Act has impacted minority voters and office 

holders. For example, Mississippi, the poorest State of the Union, 

has a population that is 36 percent Black, the highest of any of the 

50 States. Despite bitter historical resistance to the civil rights 

movement, dramatic changes have occurred since 1965, thanks in 

large measure to the Voting Rights Act. Mississippi now has the 

highest number of Black elected officials in the country, and yet racially-polarized voting remains a pervasive problem. 

The reports also highlight the recent history of discrimination in 

the 14 States, focusing on old and new methods of discrimination 

employed to abridge the Voting Rights Act and minority citizens. 

The reports examine current events that impact the right to vote 

and illuminate the nature of the political climate for minorities. 

The Louisiana report indicates that apart from the extraordinary 

questions of voter disenfranchisement facing Louisiana in the wake 

of Hurricane Katrina, the Voting Rights Act has been instrumental 

in protecting the vote in that State. Since the Voting Rights Act 

was reauthorized in 1982, the Department of Justice has objected 

nearly 100 times to proposed changes that would have adversely 

impacted minority voters in Louisiana, particularly African-Americans. Sixty percent of the Department’s total section 5 objections in 

Louisiana since the enactment of the VRA have come after the 

1982 reauthorization. 

Additionally, the language assistance provisions of the VRA have 

been particularly important in empowering language minority voters. In New York, for example, the report reveals that in recent 

elections, the New York Board of Elections failed to provide sufficient Chinese, Spanish, and Korean interpreters, ranging in a deficiency from 25 to 59 percent. 

The Florida report, for example, documents particular Department of Justice actions against counties with high percentages of 

Latino voters, where one might have expected language assistance 

provisions to go into effect more openly. 

The South Dakota report underscores how societal attitudes and 

a hostile climate led to practices that undermined the full participation of Native American voters. These tactics include voter intimidation, investigations of newly-registered voters, failure to provide polling places on reservations, discriminatory redistricting, 

and a failure to provide language assistance at the polls. 

Now, despite progress made, barriers to full and equal minority 

voter participation remain. In the backdrop of many successes 

under the Voting Rights Act, a second generation of discrimination 

has emerged, more subtle and insidious than a half-century ago, 

but no less discriminatory. The Voting Rights Act remains a relevant, necessary tool to curb voting rights abuses and we believe, 

sir, that the reports certainly justify a Congressional reauthorization of the act. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Henderson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson follows:]

47

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON


WH0001.eps
48


WH0002.eps
49


WH0003.eps
50


WH0004.eps
51


WH0005.eps
52


WH0006.eps
53


WH0007.eps
54


WH0008.eps
55


WH0009.eps
56


WH0010.eps
57


WH0011.eps
58


WH0012.eps
59


WH0013.eps
60


WH0014.eps
61


WH0015.eps
62


WH0016.eps
63


WH0017.eps
64


WH0018.eps
65


WH0019.eps
66


WH0020.eps
67


WH0021.eps
68


WH0022.eps
69


WH0023.eps
70


WH0024.eps
71


WH0025.eps
72


WH0026.eps
73


WH0027.eps
74


WH0028.eps
75


WH0029.eps
76


WH0030.eps
77


WH0031.eps
78


WH0032.eps
79


WH0033.eps
80


WH0034.eps
81


WH0035.eps
82


WH0036.eps
83


WH0037.eps
84


WH0038.eps
85


WH0039.eps
86


WH0040.eps
87

Mr. CHABOT. Lieutenant Governor Rogers, you are recognized for 

5 minutes. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOE ROGERS, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS 

ACT, AND FORMER LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF COLORADO 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s good to 

be with you and good to be before the Committee. I am delighted 

in particular to be back before you to discuss the National Commission’s report and accompanying supplement. The report and supplement capture some of the most compelling testimony and facts 

culled from the ten hearings that the National Commission conducted throughout the United States. 

Of note, our hearings and review of the record and data show 

dramatic gains having been made in terms of decreasing the instances of discrimination and intimidation of minority voters 

throughout the United States since the establishment of the Voting 

Rights Act. Plainly, we have come a long way on our way toward 

racial equality and full access to the ballot for all of our citizens. 

However, with that said, the journey toward a color blind society 

in which discrimination against minority voters no longer exists is 

simply not yet complete. Whether the animus is hatred or power— I will state that once again, whether the animus is hatred or 

power—and whether the conduct is engaged by Democrats or Republicans, the end result, discrimination against minority voters, is 

the same. It is this result that is the aim and protection of the Voting Rights Act. 

As my fellow Commissioner Bill Lann Lee pointed out in particular, I would like to state and present to you several examples 

of the facts that we discovered regarding voting discrimination and 

instances where the Voting Rights Act has either prevented or remedied discrimination in our Nation between 1982 and 2005. 

I would like to begin with an example in particular from Mississippi, illustrating how section 5 of the act maintains gains resulting from section 2 litigation and an example in particular from 

California showing its impact in preventing vote dilution. 

Second, I would like to address the effectiveness and the efficiency of section 5. 

And third, I would like to point out the significance of the minority language provisions. 

Finally, I would like to note the persistence of practices of discrimination in jurisdictions throughout the Nation. 

Up through 1987, Mississippi in particular had a dual-registration system whereby people had to register separately in both the 

city and the county in order to vote in all elections, Federal, State, 

and local. This practice was found to be racially discriminatory 

under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Mississippi was forced 

to stop this practice. When Congress enacted the National Voter 

Registration Act, motor-voter, in 1993, Mississippi tried to revive 

its dual-registration system by passing legislation that restricted 

motor-voter registrants to voting only in Federal elections. Mississippi refused to submit its dual-registration system for section 5 

preclearance until it was sued by the Department of Justice in a 

section 5 enforcement action and the United States Supreme Court 

88

ultimately unanimously ordered Mississippi to submit the changes 

for preclearance. When Mississippi ultimately complied with the 

court order and submitted its dual-registration system to the Department of Justice, the Department objected in 1998 and Mississippi was prevented from reinstituting the discriminatory registration system. 

Moreover, the Commission received testimony about how section 

5 has blocked electoral changes whose effect was to dilute minority 

voting strength. Specifically, for example, the Chular Union Elementary School District in Monterey County, California, tried to 

change its method of election from single-Member districts to atlarge elections. The Department of Justice objected under section 

5 because the measure was, quote, ‘‘motivated, at least in part, by 

discriminatory animus’’ against Latino voters and because it would 

have a retrogressive impact upon Latino voting strength. 

The Commission also found several examples of how the mere existence of section 5, in fact, had a deterrent effect upon stopping 

jurisdictions from enacting discriminatory changes. 

With regard to the minority language provisions, the National 

Commission received testimony from several election administrators who testified about the need for minority language voters to 

have language assistance in order to vote. Conny McCormack in 

particular, the County Clerk and Recorder for Los Angeles County, 

testified that from January to August 2005, she received some 

135,000 multilingual voter requests. Shirlee Smith, the Voting 

Rights Act Coordinator for Bernalillo County, New Mexico, stated 

that because of section 203, her position was created and elderly 

Indian voters were able to vote for the first time because they were 

able to receive assistance in the language that they speak. 

There was also significant testimony about, frankly, the failures 

of providing language assistance at the polls in violation in particular of section 203. 

Moreover, we heard about the impact of the Voting Rights Act’s 

observer coverage provisions. Alabama Senator Bobby Singleton is 

from Hale County, Alabama, where the Department of Justice has 

sent observers on some 20 separate occasions. Senator Singleton 

stated that when the Department of Justice was not present at an 

election, Whites closed predominately Black polling places early. As 

a result, the Department of Justice intervention on multiple occasions in Hale County and Voting Rights Act enforcement measures, 

Blacks are now a majority of the elected officials within Hale County. 

Finally, and unfortunately, the Commission record contains examples of instances of disparate treatment, voter dilution schemes, 

and unfortunately, examples of conduct designed to intimidate or 

otherwise suppress minority voters throughout the country. 

In sum, these facts reveal that although our country has made, 

yes, significant progress, we have a long way to go. Racially-polarized voting remains a fact of life in many areas of our country. In 

States like Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, Federal courts 

in this decade have found that racially-polarizing voting exists. 

In 2000, I was one of 38 African-Americans elected Statewide in 

the United States out of the nearly 900 such officials in the country. Our election, and indeed, elections of people like myself, repVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:30 Jul 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\030806\26411.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26411
89

resent progress, but is far from full emancipation of opportunity. In 

2006, it still remains the case that most minority Members of this 

body, Mr. Chairman, most minority Members of the United States 

House of Representatives and State legislatures are elected in particular from majority-minority districts. 

These examples of the data that we received throughout the 

United States indicate that neither the act nor the problems it was 

designed to combat, unfortunately, cannot be simply dismissed as 

relics of the past. On the contrary, they indicate what appears to 

be both a present and future need for its continuing protections. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Lieutenant Governor Rogers. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]

90

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOE ROGERS


JR0001.eps
91


JR0002.eps
92


JR0003.eps
93


JR0004.eps
94


JR0005.eps
95

Mr. CHABOT. You may have seen us messing with our Blackberrys up here for a while, and I apologize if that was somewhat 

distracting, but we’ve been getting communications from the floor 

of the House indicating when votes might be upcoming and we’re 

hearing that they may be relatively soon, so if, in fact, that occurs, 

they’re going to go on for at least an hour. Therefore, what we’ve 

indicated that we’ve agreed to do is to go ahead with our questioning here. At the point that we have to leave for the floor, any 

other Members will have the opportunity to submit them in writing 

to the panel so that you don’t have to wait for an hour to answer 

our questions. So that’ll be the game plan at this point. 

The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes at this point, and I’ll 

begin with you, Mr. Lee, if I can. A large part of the report that 

you referred to is dedicated to analyzing the activity conducted by 

the Department of Justice under section 5. Would you talk about 

what types of discriminatory tactics continue to be employed by 

covered jurisdictions? 

Mr. LEE. Well, what we saw, and I think Mr. Rogers has canvassed them, is a persistence of the kind of tactics you saw in the 

past that Congress relied on, that is redistricting, gerrymandering, 

racially sort of sensitive annexations, line drawings. We heard a lot 

of testimony about manipulation of starting times for voting booths. 

These are the kinds of activities that, when combined with raciallypolarized voting, would constitute vote dilution. So it is very troubling because this is the same kind of problem that Congress 

sought to eliminate in 1965, and then when it saw that it had not 

been eliminated, reauthorized several times. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. Ms. Strossen, if I could go 

to you next, how important is section 5 to protecting minority voters in registering and turning out and casting ballots for candidates of their choice in local jurisdictions, such as counties and 

school boards and smaller cities, and where would minority citizens 

be without section 5, especially in these smaller jurisdictions? 

Ms. STROSSEN. Chairman Chabot, in a word, incredibly important with respect to every single factor that you mentioned, including registration, voting, the opportunity to choose a candidate of 

one’s choice. We have multiple examples throughout our litigation 

report, and as you indicate from your question, the local elections, 

which may perhaps receive less national attention, in some very 

real sense are even more important in terms of affecting people’s 

daily lives. The opportunity to have input into who is elected for 

school board may make, with all due respect, even more of a dramatic impact on somebody’s life than the opportunity to choose a 

Member of Congress of one’s choice. We have many, many examples that really could go below the radar screen were it not for the 

preclearance mechanism of section 5 and the ability of organizations such as the ACLU representing private clients to bring enforcement actions. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. Mr. Henderson, if I could go 

to you next, collectively, what do the reports say about the security 

of minority voting rights in jurisdictions covered by the temporary 

provisions of the Voting Rights Act and would minority voters continue to progress without the temporary provisions? 

96

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the 14 reports that are being submitted and will be submitted over the next 

month make several important points consistent with your question. First, progress has been made in this country, in large measure because of the Voting Rights Act and affording covered jurisdictions and minority citizens within those jurisdictions the opportunity to elect candidates of their choices, locally and State elections and also nationally. 

And without those provisions, what we have found is that conditions of racially-polarized voting within those covered States, the 

inventiveness of election officials and State leaders, often in instances sometimes with malice, sometimes without, adopting provisions that have the effect of discriminating against voters is widespread and well documented. We have seen that certainly with respect to provisions covered by section 5. We have also seen that 

very much in the language assistance provisions of section 203. 

And were those temporary provisions not reauthorized, I think it 

is reasonable to expect the kind of slippage of voter participation 

and electoral engagement on the part of minority citizens, particularly within those covered jurisdictions. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. And Lieutenant Governor 

Rogers, I will address my last question to you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. CHABOT. When you were here last fall on the first panel, you 

had touched upon the presence of racially-polarized voting in the 

elections, and, of course, you’ve touched on that again today. What 

were the Commission’s findings on the pervasiveness of racially-polarized voting and why is it significant and how does it impact the 

ability of minorities to elect candidates of their choice? 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we were both hopeful and at the 

same time discouraged when you looked at the numbers around the 

country. With the ten hearings that we conducted throughout the 

United States, it was clear that there are patterns of racially-polarized voting. Essentially, it is a world in which White folks vote for 

White folks, Blacks vote for Blacks, Hispanics vote for Hispanics, 

Asians may vote for Asians. And frankly, when you have circumstances where that exists and you don’t have the ability or the 

interest of people in crossing over to vote for each other across ethnic lines, that represents the world of racially-polarized voting and 

we found that world in nearly every region of the country. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much, and my time has expired. 

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

minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by thanking all the witnesses for their testimony in our continuing effort to 

establish a very adequate factual basis for the legislation that undoubtedly we are going to adopt this year, a basis that will satisfy 

the Court’s requirements that have been laid down in the cases, 

that shouldn’t be laid down, but that were laid down. 

And let me also note—I neglected to do so before—I welcome Ms. 

Strossen in particular, who is a law professor in my district as well 

as the distinguished President of the ACLU. 

Ms. STROSSEN. Thank you very much. 

97

Mr. NADLER. With that, given the fact that we are going to have 

votes starting in about 5 minutes, I am going to defer my questioning and yield to the next—well, I defer the questioning. You 

can go on to the next——

Mr. CHABOT. You are yielding back? 

Mr. NADLER. Yes, I will yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman 

from——

Mr. NADLER. No, no, no——

Mr. CHABOT. Oh, yields to Mr. Scott? 

Mr. NADLER. Yes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Mr. Scott is recognized for the balance of his 

time. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since we are 

developing a record on the need for section 5, I just wanted to get 

something on the record. 

Mr. CHABOT. Just for the record, I gave you an entire 5 minutes 

here, Bobby, just so you know. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Section 5 and the inadequacy of section 

2, if someone—if we forced someone to—if a bill passed and you let 

it go into effect and somebody got elected, is section 2 an adequate 

remedy if someone is now enjoying the benefits of incumbency? 

Lieutenant Governor Rogers, you are an elected, former elected official and you have seen a lot of campaigns. Does that incumbent 

who achieved his seat by an illegal scheme, does he then enjoy an 

advantage in the next election as an incumbent? 

Mr. ROGERS. Whether the incumbent achieved it by an illegal 

scheme, as you characterize it, or was simply elected to the position, the reality is that incumbents enjoy an advantage as it relates 

to opposition candidates. I mean, that has been proven clearly 

across the board in terms of the record of incumbency and the ability to hold on to offices. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. And that, therefore, is the magic of section 5. You don’t let the illegal scheme go into effect. It has to be 

precleared for those with a history of discrimination. 

Mr. ROGERS. There is no doubt, section 2 and section 5 clearly 

differ, and section 5 gives you the ability to, in effect, intervene, to 

stop the action from occurring or the discriminatory conduct from 

occurring in the first place, whereas section 2 allows it to—essentially, you’re intervening to try to stop what is already in place 

after it’s already been engaged. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Now, there are other disadvantages of 

section 2. Under section 2, who bears the major cost of going forward? 

Mr. ROGERS. Essentially, it’s the plaintiff, whoever is bringing 

the action. So if you were challenging, if I made the decision as a 

private party to challenge something in my State of Colorado under 

a section 2 claim, then I’d bear that burden in terms of that cost. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. You mean the victim? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. And who has the burden of proof in that 

case? Is it the victim again? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

98

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. And we will be considering a Bossier 

Parish fix. What is wrong with—Mr. Lee, you were Assistant Attorney General. What’s wrong with preclearing a plan that is a clear 

violation of section 2? 

Mr. LEE. Well, you don’t have—you’re not fulfilling the prophylactic function of section 5. The law once was that section 5 and 

section 2 were compatible and now they’re sort of somewhat out of 

sync. And so bringing the law back into sync would make section 

5 a more effective prophylactic device and deal with the kinds of 

issues that you dealt with with Mr. Rogers, that is, section 2 is, 

after all, an after-the-fact remedy and section 5 is a forward-looking remedy. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to compliment 

the witnesses today. I think it is an exceptionally high-qualified, 

well-informed, well-prepared delivery on all your parts. As I read 

through this, I have just some levels of curiosity. 

I think you’ve done a very good job of answering the issue that 

popped to me out of all of your testimony about racially-polarized 

voting and I believe it was Lieutenant Governor Rogers, perhaps, 

or maybe Mr. Henderson that addressed whether it is Black or 

whether it is White or what minority it may be, that that happens. 

Just my observation of human nature, having watched my own 

family polarize themselves by a unit of family, even cousins separate from each other because they always gravitate toward a like 

kind at the family reunion, there’s a certain human nature to do 

just that, to gravitate toward a like kind. 

But I wanted to pose a question. Are there examples out there 

that you have studied, that you’ve come across in your analysis 

that show where there is a minority majority district that has 

elected perhaps a non-minority to represent them, or vice-versa? 

Are there exceptions to these rules that you have all tended to testify to today, and if there are, can we learn from them? 

Mr. LEE. There are, of course—go ahead. 

Mr. ROGERS. Please. 

Mr. LEE. I will yield to the Lieutenant Governor. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Bill. I’d note, for example, if you look 

at California, if you looked at Oakland, for example, California, you 

have Jerry Brown who was elected as Mayor of Oakland, for example. It’s a majority Black community, but he’s elected to serve as 

mayor there. And there are examples of that in various portions of 

the country, where you have minorities essentially making a decision to elect somebody White to represent their interest and concern, and obviously the same is true, you do have circumstances 

where Whites will, in fact, vote for and support and otherwise endorse African-Americans or Latino candidates. 

For example, if you look at the United States Senate, you have 

in Colorado Ken Salazar, who serves as a Senator from Colorado, 

United States Senate. Obviously, Mr. Martinez out of Florida. So 

you have examples throughout the United States where you have 

had clear measures of success, and to be frank with you, CongressVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:30 Jul 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\030806\26411.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26411
99

man, I wouldn’t be standing before you right now were it not for 

the hearts and minds of folks in our State willing to cross the lines 

of culture to say that, Joe, I think you can fight for my interests 

and my concerns even though you don’t happen to look just like 

me, and that represents great progress in the Nation. 

I think the great concern that we have in terms of this whole 

issue of racially-polarized voting is the world in which you limit 

that opportunity, in which I simply won’t vote for you, Mr. King, 

because you are White. I think we would all concede that even 

though I can exercise a preference that I have, if I engage in that 

conduct, then that is something that’s not quite what we want to 

have happen in our world. 

Ms. STROSSEN. Congressman, could I make a point? 

Mr. KING. Go ahead, Ms. Strossen. 

Ms. STROSSEN. Thank you so much. I would be very curious as 

to whether those exceptions would fall within the covered jurisdictions. Our research indicates that the problem of racially-polarized 

voting is most prevalent in what is most relevant to this Committee’s concern, and that is the covered jurisdictions. 

I would also like to call your attention to my statement in our 

report which emphasizes that we’re not just giving anecdotal findings here. We are talking about repeated conclusions by courts of 

law in recent litigation, including courts or judges that cross the 

ideological spectrum just as a matter of statistical analysis. 

Mr. KING. Ms. Strossen, I appreciate your bringing that up and 

I look back to your testimony where you referenced packing minority voters to dilute their influence. I would submit that there’s another factor in this equation that could well be the polarization of 

political ideology rather than, I’ll say skin color, for example. There 

might well be some substance. Have you seen any of that evidence? 

Ms. STROSSEN. That was not what we were looking for. We were 

looking for what was relevant to the Voting Rights Act and namely 

packing of minority districts—— Mr. KING. Thank you——

Ms. STROSSEN [continuing]. There’s one very dramatic example 

where a court recently made a finding with respect to South Dakota, and there were enough—I don’t have the exact numbers in 

front of me, you can find it in the table of contents of our report, 

but there were more than enough Native Americans to have two 

majority-minority districts and instead they were concentrated into 

only one and that was found to be a legal violation. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, and in a short time, Mr. Lee? 

Mr. LEE. Mr. King, we tried to address that. Ours was a bipartisan panel, and so we delved into the question of whether this was 

party-specific and we found that there were documented instances 

of Democratic primary elections in which, frankly, the race card 

was played, and I think the fact—the danger in racially-polarized 

voting is it provides a ready mechanism for the race card to be 

played in any particular election. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, is recognized, 

and we may be able to get through this. 

100

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll try to be quick. I just 

want to do some clean-up things to make sure that, since this may 

be the last hearing before a bill is dropped, that we’ve done all our 

due diligence. 

I want to inquire of the Chair to be sure there his unanimous 

consent request was broad enough to cover—— Mr. CHABOT. I’m sorry. 

Mr. WATT. I wanted to make sure that the Chair’s unanimous 

consent request was broad enough to cover and get all of these reports into the record. 

Mr. CHABOT. It was and we’ll leave the record open for 5 days, 

as well. 

Mr. WATT. That was my second question. Okay. 

Now, I haven’t done this in a long time because I haven’t practiced law in 13 years, but I don’t know Lieutenant Governor Rogers’ background, but I know the background of the three people on 

this end and I think their record is such that they would be recognized as experts if they were in a court of law on some of these 

issues, and I think Mr. Rogers is going to be recognized as an expert as a result of having participated in the Commission. 

So I want to get technical legal here and ask each of you, Mr. 

Lee, Ms. Strossen, Mr. Henderson, whether you have an opinion, 

satisfactory to yourself, which you are able to express to a reasonable certainty as to whether the reports that you all have submitted for the record today are reliable. 

Mr. LEE. I can—yes, absolutely. 

Mr. WATT. And your opinion is? 

Mr. LEE. My opinion is our report is reliable. I looked at the 1981 

report that was prepared by the Civil Rights Commission and compared it to our report and our report is actually broader. Our report 

covers a broader geographic area. Our report covers not only reported decisions, but unreported decisions. Our report covers not 

only objections, but withdrawals and Attorney General coverage, 

which was not covered by the 1981 report. So our report is actually 

broader. 

Mr. WATT. Ms. Strossen, the same—— Ms. STROSSEN. I have an opinion and my opinion is that both of 

the ACLU reports are reliable. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Henderson? 

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Watt, we believe that the extensive research that went into the preparation of these reports, review of 

DOJ objections, district court declaratory judgments, other elements that would allow us to form an opinion have allowed me to 

believe that these are reliable reports. 

Mr. WATT. And Lieutenant Governor Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. I would simply concur with the Chair that, yes, in 

fact, we believe these reports are accurate and, in fact, reliable. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Final question. As experts, do you have an 

opinion satisfactory to yourself that you are able to express to a 

reasonable certainty as to whether it is necessary to extend and 

renew the provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the expiring 

provisions? Mr. Lee? 

Mr. LEE. Yes. Our Commission did not come to such a conclusion, 

but I personally have such an opinion. 

101

Mr. WATT. And that opinion is? 

Mr. LEE. And my opinion is that the evidence is overwhelming 

that it is appropriate to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act’s temporary provisions. 

Mr. WATT. Ms. Strossen? 

Ms. STROSSEN. I have an opinion and the opinion is that it is 

necessary to reauthorize, renew, and, I would add, revitalize by fixing the problems that were caused by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bossier and Ashcroft that have been alluded to. Those are 

inconsistent with what we believe to be Congress’s original intent. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Henderson? 

Mr. HENDERSON. Based on the information I have reviewed, Mr. 

Watt, I certainly concur with the two previous statements. I believe 

that reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act is necessary. I also 

strongly believe that restoring and revitalizing the act is also necessary regarding at least——

Mr. WATT. Necessary or unnecessary? 

Mr. HENDERSON. Is necessary——

Mr. WATT. I wanted to make sure. 

Mr. HENDERSON [continuing]. Absolutely necessary and that that 

conclusion is based on a careful review of the evidence gathered 

from the reports we’ve prepared. 

Mr. WATT. Lieutenant Governor Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. Congressman, I am hesitant to answer your question because our role has been solely as a fact-finding role. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. 

Mr. ROGERS. I would say that the facts clearly demonstrate that 

there are problems that presently exist and that the act in and of 

itself has been a remedy to solve these problems. It appears that 

it would be so both for the present and future. But I have one word 

of caution, if I may——

Mr. WATT. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROGERS. The demographics of the country are changing. 

Presently in the United States, seven out of every ten people in the 

country are White. One out of every ten people in the country is 

roughly Black, and roughly one out of every ten people in the country are Hispanic. In just 24 years, one-third of the Nation will be 

minority. In just 44 years from today, nearly one-half of America 

will be minority. And so the demographics of the country are 

changing in such a way that you can look forward in the context 

of this act to what it will mean in its broader sense as the country 

becomes much more concentrated in terms of minority——

Mr. WATT. You seem to be making the case that about 50 years 

from now, we may need a Voting Rights Act for the other minority—— [Laughter.] 

To protect their voting rights. 

Mr. CHABOT. That is why we have been so gracious in holding 

these hearings. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WATT. So when we get there, let the record show, if I’m still 

around, I’m going to be equally supportive of that notion. [Laughter.] 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I’m happy to yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. The Chair notes Mr. Watt’s comment. 

102

The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes, or if 

he can make it shorter, that would be great because we have a vote 

on the floor. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I won’t take up much time because I think a 

lot has been covered, especially in the last round of questioning 

from my colleague, Mr. Watt. 

I would just really point out that the testimony that you’ve given 

and all the individual stories that you searched for and found to 

support a continuation and a reinforcement of the Voting Rights 

Act, I think those individual stories are reflected in the aggregate 

by the statistics that Mr. Lee pointed out in his testimony, and just 

to repeat that for emphasis, where the Justice Department refused 

to preclear over 1,100 voting changes contained in more than 650 

section 5 submissions since 1982, and I think that aggregate figure 

clearly supports the individual stories and the specific cases that 

you have looked at and brought to the Committee. 

So I thank you for your work, and Mr. Chairman, I thank you 

for having this set of hearings. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

There are a series of votes on the floor now so we’re all, unfortunately, going to have to run. I want to thank this panel for their 

very helpful testimony this afternoon. I thought you did an excellent job in bringing a lot of things together here in concluding the 

ten hearings that we’ve had on the Voting Rights Act. So thank you 

very much. 

If there is no further business to come before the Committee, 

we’re adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 6 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(103)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

104

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE BILL LANN LEE AND THE HONORABLE JOE ROGERS, ‘‘PROTECTING MINORITY VOTERS: THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AT

WORK, 1982–2005,’’ A REPORT BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING

RIGHTS ACT


26411.001
105


26411.002
106


26411.003
107


26411.004
108


26411.005
109


26411.006
110


26411.007
111


26411.008
112


26411.009
113


26411.010
114


26411.011
115


26411.012
116


26411.013
117


26411.014
118


26411.015
119


26411.016
120


26411.017
121


26411.018
122


26411.019
123


26411.020
124


26411.021
125


26411.022
126


26411.023
127


26411.024
128


26411.025
129


26411.026
130


26411.027
131


26411.028
132


26411.029
133


26411.030
134


26411.031
135


26411.032
136


26411.033
137


26411.034
138


26411.035
139


26411.036
140


26411.037
141


26411.038
142


26411.039
143


26411.040
144


26411.041
145


26411.042
146


26411.043
147


26411.044
148


26411.045
149


26411.046
150


26411.047
151


26411.048
152


26411.049
153


26411.050
154


26411.051
155


26411.052
156


26411.053
157


26411.054
158


26411.055
159


26411.056
160


26411.057
161


26411.058
162


26411.059
163


26411.060
164


26411.061
165


26411.062
166


26411.063
167


26411.064
168


26411.065
169


26411.066
170


26411.067
171


26411.068
172


26411.069
173


26411.070
174


26411.071
175


26411.072
176


26411.073
177


26411.074
178


26411.075
179


26411.076
180


26411.077
181


26411.078
182


26411.079
183


26411.080
184


26411.081
185


26411.082
186


26411.083
187


26411.084
188


26411.085
189


26411.086
190


26411.087
191


26411.088
192


26411.089
193


26411.090
194


26411.091
195


26411.092
196


26411.093
197


26411.094
198


26411.095
199


26411.096
200


26411.097
201


26411.098
202


26411.099
203


26411.100
204


26411.101
205


26411.102
206


26411.103
207


26411.104
208


26411.105
209


26411.106
210


26411.107
211


26411.108
212


26411.109
213


26411.110
214


26411.111
215


26411.112
216


26411.113
217


26411.114
218


26411.115
219


26411.116
220


26411.117
221


26411.118
222


26411.119
223


26411.120
224


26411.121
225


26411.122
226


26411.123
227


26411.124
228


26411.125
229


26411.126
230


26411.127
231


26411.128
232


26411.129
233


26411.130
234


26411.131
235


26411.132
236


26411.133
237


26411.134
238


26411.135
239


26411.136
240


26411.137
241


26411.138
242


26411.139
243


26411.140
244


26411.141
245


26411.142
246


26411.143
247


26411.144
248


26411.145
249


26411.146
250


26411.147
251


26411.148
252


26411.149
253


26411.150
254


26411.151
255


26411.152
256


26411.153
257


26411.154
258


26411.155
259


26411.156
260


26411.157
261


26411.158
262


26411.159
263


26411.160
264


26411.161
265


26411.162
266


26411.163
267


26411.164
268


26411.165
269


26411.166
270


26411.167
271


26411.168
272


26411.169
273


26411.170
274


26411.171
275


26411.172
276


26411.173
277


26411.174
278


26411.175
279


26411.176
280


26411.177
281


26411.178
282


26411.179
283


26411.180
284


26411.181
285


26411.182
286


26411.183
287


26411.184
288


26411.185
289


26411.186
290


26411.187
291

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE BILL LANN LEE AND THE HONORABLE JOE ROGERS, ‘‘HIGHLIGHTS OF HEARINGS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 2005,’’ A REPORT BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE

VOTING RIGHTS ACT


26411.188
292


26411.189
293


26411.190
294


26411.191
295


26411.192
296


26411.193
297


26411.194
298


26411.195
299


26411.196
300


26411.197
301


26411.198
302


26411.199
303


26411.200
304


26411.201
305


26411.202
306


26411.203
307


26411.204
308


26411.205
309


26411.206
310


26411.207
311


26411.208
312


26411.209
313


26411.210
314


26411.211
315


26411.212
316


26411.213
317


26411.214
318


26411.215
319


26411.216
320


26411.217
321


26411.218
322


26411.219
323


26411.220
324


26411.221
325


26411.222
326


26411.223
327


26411.224
328


26411.225
329


26411.226
330


26411.227
331


26411.228
332


26411.229
333


26411.230
334


26411.231
335


26411.232
336


26411.233
337


26411.234
338


26411.235
339


26411.236
340


26411.237
341


26411.238
342


26411.239
343


26411.240
344


26411.241
345


26411.242
346


26411.243
347


26411.244
348


26411.245
349


26411.246
350


26411.247
351


26411.248
352


26411.249
353


26411.250
354


26411.251
355


26411.252
356


26411.253
357


26411.254
358


26411.255
359


26411.256
360


26411.257
361


26411.258
362


26411.259
363


26411.260
364


26411.261
365


26411.262
366


26411.263
367


26411.264
368


26411.265
369


26411.266
370


26411.267
371


26411.268
372


26411.269
373


26411.270
374


26411.271
375


26411.272
376


26411.273
377


26411.274
378

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF NADINE STROSSEN, ‘‘VOTE: THE CASE FOR EXTENDING AN AMENDING THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, VOTING RIGHTS LITIGATION, 1982–

2006,’’ A REPORT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION


26411.275
379


26411.276
380


26411.277
381


26411.278
382


26411.279
383


26411.280
384


26411.281
385


26411.282
386


26411.283
387


26411.284
388


26411.285
389


26411.286
390


26411.287
391


26411.288
392


26411.289
393


26411.290
394


26411.291
395


26411.292
396


26411.293
397


26411.294
398


26411.295
399


26411.296
400


26411.297
401


26411.298
402


26411.299
403


26411.300
404


26411.301
405


26411.302
406


26411.303
407


26411.304
408


26411.305
409


26411.306
410


26411.307
411


26411.308
412


26411.309
413


26411.310
414


26411.311
415


26411.312
416


26411.313
417


26411.314
418


26411.315
419


26411.316
420


26411.317
421


26411.318
422


26411.319
423


26411.320
424


26411.321
425


26411.322
426


26411.323
427


26411.324
428


26411.325
429


26411.326
430


26411.327
431


26411.328
432


26411.329
433


26411.330
434


26411.331
435


26411.332
436


26411.333
437


26411.334
438


26411.335
439


26411.336
440


26411.337
441


26411.338
442


26411.339
443


26411.340
444


26411.341
445


26411.342
446


26411.343
447


26411.344
448


26411.345
449


26411.346
450


26411.347
451


26411.348
452


26411.349
453


26411.350
454


26411.351
455


26411.352
456


26411.353
457


26411.354
458


26411.355
459


26411.356
460


26411.357
461


26411.358
462


26411.359
463


26411.360
464


26411.361
465


26411.362
466


26411.363
467


26411.364
468


26411.365
469


26411.366
470


26411.367
471


26411.368
472


26411.369
473


26411.370
474


26411.371
475


26411.372
476


26411.373
477


26411.374
478


26411.375
479


26411.376
480


26411.377
481


26411.378
482


26411.379
483


26411.380
484


26411.381
485


26411.382
486


26411.383
487


26411.384
488


26411.385
489


26411.386
490


26411.387
491


26411.388
492


26411.389
493


26411.390
494


26411.391
495


26411.392
496


26411.393
497


26411.394
498


26411.395
499


26411.396
500


26411.397
501


26411.398
502


26411.399
503


26411.400
504


26411.401
505


26411.402
506


26411.403
507


26411.404
508


26411.405
509


26411.406
510


26411.407
511


26411.408
512


26411.409
513


26411.410
514


26411.411
515


26411.412
516


26411.413
517


26411.414
518


26411.415
519


26411.416
520


26411.417
521


26411.418
522


26411.419
523


26411.420
524


26411.421
525


26411.422
526


26411.423
527


26411.424
528


26411.425
529


26411.426
530


26411.427
531


26411.428
532


26411.429
533


26411.430
534


26411.431
535


26411.432
536


26411.433
537


26411.434
538


26411.435
539


26411.436
540


26411.437
541


26411.438
542


26411.439
543


26411.440
544


26411.441
545


26411.442
546


26411.443
547


26411.444
548


26411.445
549


26411.446
550


26411.447
551


26411.448
552


26411.449
553


26411.450
554


26411.451
555


26411.452
556


26411.453
557


26411.454
558


26411.455
559


26411.456
560


26411.457
561


26411.458
562


26411.459
563


26411.460
564


26411.461
565


26411.462
566


26411.463
567


26411.464
568


26411.465
569


26411.466
570


26411.467
571


26411.468
572


26411.469
573


26411.470
574


26411.471
575


26411.472
576


26411.473
577


26411.474
578


26411.475
579


26411.476
580


26411.477
581


26411.478
582


26411.479
583


26411.480
584


26411.481
585


26411.482
586


26411.483
587


26411.484
588


26411.485
589


26411.486
590


26411.487
591


26411.488
592


26411.489
593


26411.490
594


26411.491
595


26411.492
596


26411.493
597


26411.494
598


26411.495
599


26411.496
600


26411.497
601


26411.498
602


26411.499
603


26411.500
604


26411.501
605


26411.502
606


26411.503
607


26411.504
608


26411.505
609


26411.506
610


26411.507
611


26411.508
612


26411.509
613


26411.510
614


26411.511
615


26411.512
616


26411.513
617


26411.514
618


26411.515
619


26411.516
620


26411.517
621


26411.518
622


26411.519
623


26411.520
624


26411.521
625


26411.522
626


26411.523
627


26411.524
628


26411.525
629


26411.526
630


26411.527
631


26411.528
632


26411.529
633


26411.530
634


26411.531
635


26411.532
636


26411.533
637


26411.534
638


26411.535
639


26411.536
640


26411.537
641


26411.538
642


26411.539
643


26411.540
644


26411.541
645


26411.542
646


26411.543
647


26411.544
648


26411.545
649


26411.546
650


26411.547
651


26411.548
652


26411.549
653


26411.550
654


26411.551
655


26411.552
656


26411.553
657


26411.554
658


26411.555
659


26411.556
660


26411.557
661


26411.558
662


26411.559
663


26411.560
664


26411.561
665


26411.562
666


26411.563
667


26411.564
668


26411.565
669


26411.566
670


26411.567
671


26411.568
672


26411.569
673


26411.570
674


26411.571
675


26411.572
676


26411.573
677


26411.574
678


26411.575
679


26411.576
680


26411.577
681


26411.578
682


26411.579
683


26411.580
684


26411.581
685


26411.582
686


26411.583
687


26411.584
688


26411.585
689


26411.586
690


26411.587
691


26411.588
692


26411.589
693


26411.590
694


26411.591
695


26411.592
696


26411.593
697


26411.594
698


26411.595
699


26411.596
700


26411.597
701


26411.598
702


26411.599
703


26411.600
704


26411.601
705


26411.602
706


26411.603
707


26411.604
708


26411.605
709


26411.606
710


26411.607
711


26411.608
712


26411.609
713


26411.610
714


26411.611
715


26411.612
716


26411.613
717


26411.614
718


26411.615
719


26411.616
720


26411.617
721


26411.618
722


26411.619
723


26411.620
724


26411.621
725


264115.603
726


26411.622
727


26411.623
728


26411.624
729


26411.625
730


26411.626
731


26411.627
732


26411.628
733


26411.629
734


26411.630
735


26411.631
736


26411.632
737


26411.633
738


26411.634
739


26411.635
740


26411.636
741


26411.637
742


26411.638
743


26411.639
744


26411.640
745


26411.641
746


26411.642
747


26411.643
748


26411.644
749


26411.645
750


26411.646
751


26411.647
752


26411.648
753


26411.649
754


26411.650
755


26411.651
756


26411.652
757


26411.653
758


26411.654
759


26411.655
760


26411.656
761


26411.657
762


26411.658
763


26411.659
764


26411.660
765


26411.661
766


26411.662
767


26411.663
768


26411.664
769


26411.665
770


26411.666
771


26411.667
772


26411.668
773


26411.669
774


26411.670
775


26411.671
776


26411.672
777


26411.673
778


26411.674
779


26411.675
780


26411.676
781


26411.677
782


26411.678
783


26411.679
784


26411.680
785


26411.681
786


26411.682
787


26411.683
788


26411.684
789


26411.685
790


26411.686
791


26411.687
792


26411.688
793


26411.689
794


26411.690
795


26411.691
796


26411.692
797


26411.693
798


26411.694
799


26411.695
800


26411.696
801


26411.697
802


26411.698
803


26411.699
804


26411.700
805


26411.701
806


26411.702
807


26411.703
808


26411.704
809


26411.705
810


26411.706
811


26411.707
812


26411.708
813


26411.709
814


26411.710
815


26411.711
816


26411.712
817


26411.713
818


26411.714
819


26411.715
820


26411.716
821


26411.717
822


26411.718
823


26411.719
824


26411.720
825


26411.721
826


26411.722
827


26411.723
828


26411.724
829


26411.725
830


26411.726
831


26411.727
832


26411.728
833


26411.729
834


26411.730
835


26411.731
836


26411.732
837


26411.733
838


26411.734
839


26411.735
840


26411.736
841


26411.737
842


26411.738
843


26411.739
844


26411.740
845


26411.741
846


26411.742
847


26411.743
848


26411.744
849


26411.745
850


26411.746
851


26411.747
852


26411.748
853


26411.749
854


26411.750
855


26411.751
856


26411.752
857


26411.753
858


26411.754
859


26411.755
860


26411.756
861


26411.757
862


26411.758
863


26411.759
864


26411.760
865


26411.761
866


26411.762
867


26411.763
868


26411.764
869


26411.765
870


26411.766
871


26411.767
872


26411.768
873


26411.769
874


26411.770
875


26411.771
876


26411.772
877


26411.773
878


26411.774
879


26411.775
880


26411.776
881


26411.777
882


26411.778
883


26411.779
884


26411.780
885


26411.781
886


26411.782
887


26411.783
888


26411.784
889


26411.785
890


26411.786
891


26411.787
892


26411.788
893


26411.789
894


26411.790
895


26411.791
896


26411.792
897


26411.793
898


26411.794
899


26411.795
900


26411.796
901


26411.797
902


26411.798
903


26411.799
904


26411.800
905


26411.801
906


26411.802
907


26411.803
908


26411.804
909


26411.805
910


26411.806
911


26411.807
912


26411.808
913


26411.809
914


26411.810
915


26411.811
916


26411.812
917


26411.813
918


26411.814
919


26411.815
920


26411.816
921


26411.817
922


26411.818
923


26411.819
924


26411.820
925


26411.821
926


26411.822
927


26411.823
928


26411.824
929


26411.825
930


26411.826
931


26411.827
932


26411.828
933


26411.829
934


26411.830
935


26411.831
936


26411.832
937


26411.833
938


26411.834
939


26411.835
940


26411.836
941


26411.837
942


26411.838
943


26411.839
944


26411.840
945


26411.841
946


26411.842
947


26411.843
948


26411.844
949


26411.845
950


26411.846
951


26411.847
952


26411.848
953


26411.849
954


26411.850
955


26411.851
956


26411.852
957


26411.853
958


26411.854
959


26411.855
960


26411.856
961


26411.857
962


26411.858
963


26411.859
964


26411.860
965


26411.861
966


26411.862
967


26411.863
968


26411.864
969


26411.865
970


26411.866
971


26411.867
972


26411.868
973


26411.869
974


26411.870
975


26411.871
976


26411.872
977


26411.873
978


26411.874
979


26411.875
980


26411.876
981


26411.877
982


26411.878
983


26411.879
984


26411.880
985


26411.881
986


26411.882
987


26411.883
988


26411.884
989


26411.885
990


26411.886
991


26411.887
992


26411.888
993


26411.889
994


26411.890
995


26411.891
996


26411.892
997


26411.893
998


26411.894
999


26411.895
1000


26411.896
1001


26411.897
1002


26411.898
1003


26411.899
1004


26411.900
1005


26411.901
1006


26411.902
1007


26411.903
1008


26411.904
1009


26411.905
1010


26411.906
1011


26411.907
1012


26411.908
1013


26411.909
1014


26411.910
1015


26411.911
1016


26411.912
1017


26411.913
1018


26411.914
1019


26411.915
1020


26411.916
1021


26411.917
1022


26411.918
1023


26411.919
1024


26411.920
1025


26411.921
1026


26411.922
1027


26411.923
1028


26411.924
1029


26411.925
1030


26411.926
1031


26411.927
1032


26411.928
1033


26411.929
1034


26411.930
1035


26411.931
1036


26411.932
1037


26411.933
1038


26411.934
1039


26411.935
1040


26411.936
1041


26411.937
1042


26411.938
1043


26411.939
1044


26411.940
1045


26411.941
1046


26411.942
1047


26411.943
1048


26411.944
1049


26411.945
1050


26411.946
1051


26411.947
1052


26411.948
1053


26411.949
1054


26411.950
1055


26411.951
1056


26411.952
1057


26411.953
1058


26411.954
1059


26411.955
1060


26411.956
1061


26411.957
1062


26411.958
1063


26411.959
1064


26411.960
1065


26411.961
1066


26411.962
1067


26411.963
1068


26411.964
1069


26411.965
1070


26411.966
1071


26411.967
1072


26411.968
1073


26411.969
1074


26411.970
1075


26411.971
1076


26411.972
1077


26411.973
1078


26411.974
1079


26411.975
1080


26411.976
1081


26411.977
1082


26411.978
1083


26411.979
1084


26411.980
1085


26411.981
1086


26411.982
1087


26411.983
1088


26411.984
1089


26411.985
1090


26411.986
1091


26411.987
1092


26411.988
1093


26411.989
1094


26411.990
1095


26411.991
1096


26411.992
1097


26411.993
1098


26411.994
1099


26411.995
1100


26411.996
1101


26411.997
1102


26411.998
1103


26411.999
1104


264111.000
1105


264111.001
1106


264111.002
1107


264111.003
1108


264111.004
1109


264111.005
1110


264111.006
1111


264111.007
1112


264111.008
1113


264111.009
1114


264111.010
1115


264111.011
1116


264111.012
1117


264111.013
1118


264111.014
1119


264111.015
1120


264111.016
1121


264111.017
1122


264111.018
1123


264111.019
1124


264111.020
1125


264111.021
1126


264111.022
1127


264111.023
1128


264111.024
1129


264111.025
1130


264111.026
1131


264111.027
1132


264111.028
1133


264111.029
1134


264111.030
1135


264111.031
1136


264111.032
1137


264111.033
1138


264111.034
1139


264111.035
1140


264111.036
1141


264111.037
1142


264111.038
1143


264111.039
1144


264111.040
1145


264111.041
1146


264111.042
1147


264111.043
1148


264111.044
1149


264111.045
1150


264111.046
1151


264111.047
1152


264111.048
1153


264111.049
1154


264111.050
1155


264111.051
1156


264111.052
1157


264111.053
1158


264111.054
1159


264111.055
1160


264111.056
1161


264111.057
1162


264111.058
1163


264111.059
1164


264111.060
1165


264111.061
1166


264111.062
1167


264111.063
1168


264111.064
1169


264111.065
1170


264111.066
1171


264111.067
1172


264111.068
1173


264111.069
1174


264111.070
1175


264111.071
1176


264111.072
1177


264111.073
1178


264111.074
1179


264111.075
1180


264111.076
1181


264111.077
1182


264111.078
1183


264111.079
1184


264111.080
1185


264111.081
1186


264111.082
1187


264111.083
1188


264111.084
1189


264111.085
1190


264111.086
1191


264111.087
1192


264111.088
1193


264111.089
1194


264111.090
1195


264111.091
1196


264111.092
1197


264111.093
1198


264111.094
1199


264111.095
1200


264111.096
1201


264111.097
1202


264111.098
1203


264111.099
1204


264111.100
1205


264111.101
1206


264111.102
1207


264111.103
1208


264111.104
1209


264111.105
1210


264111.106
1211


264111.107
1212


264111.108
1213


264111.109
1214


264111.110
1215


264111.111
1216


264111.112
1217


264111.113
1218


264111.114
1219


264111.115
1220


264111.116
1221


264111.117
1222


264111.118
1223


264111.119
1224


264111.120
1225


264111.121
1226


264111.122
1227


264111.123
1228


264111.124
1229


264111.125
1230


264111.126
1231


264111.127
1232


264111.128
1233


264111.129
1234


264111.130
1235


264111.131
1236


264111.132
1237


264111.133
1238


264111.134
1239


264111.135
1240


264111.136
1241


264111.137
1242


264111.138
1243


264111.139
1244


264111.140
1245


264111.141
1246


264111.142
1247


264111.143
1248


264111.144
1249


264111.145
1250


264111.146
1251


264111.147
1252


264111.148
1253


264111.149
1254


264111.150
1255


264111.151
1256


264111.152
1257


264111.153
1258


264111.154
1259


264111.155
1260


264111.156
1261


264111.157
1262


264111.158
1263


264111.159
1264


264111.160
1265


264111.161
1266


264111.162
1267


264111.163
1268


264111.164
1269


264111.165
1270

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF NADINE STROSSEN, ‘‘PROMISES TO KEEP: THE

IMPACT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN 2006’’


264111.166
1271


264111.167
1272


264111.168
1273


264111.169
1274


264111.170
1275


264111.171
1276


264111.172
1277


264111.173
1278


264111.174
1279


264111.175
1280


264111.176
1281


264111.177
1282


264111.178
1283


264111.179
1284


264111.180
1285


264111.181
1286


264111.182
1287


264111.183
1288


264111.184
1289


264111.185
1290


264111.186
1291


264111.187
1292


264111.188
1293


264111.189
1294


264111.190
1295


264111.191
1296


264111.192
1297


264111.193
1298


264111.194
1299


264111.195
1300


264111.196
1301


264111.197
1302


264111.198
1303


264111.199
1304


264111.200
1305


264111.201
1306


264111.202
1307


264111.203
1308

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, ‘‘VOTING RIGHTS IN ALASKA, 

1982–2006,’’ A REPORT OF RENEWTHEVRA.ORG


264111.204
1309


264111.205
1310


264111.206
1311


264111.207
1312


264111.208
1313


264111.209
1314


264111.210
1315


264111.211
1316


264111.212
1317


264111.213
1318


264111.214
1319


264111.215
1320


264111.216
1321


264111.217
1322


264111.218
1323


264111.219
1324


264111.220
1325


264111.221
1326


264111.222
1327


264111.223
1328


264111.224
1329


264111.225
1330


264111.226
1331


264111.227
1332


264111.228
1333


264111.229
1334


264111.230
1335


264111.231
1336


264111.232
1337


264111.233
1338


264111.234
1339


264111.235
1340


264111.236
1341


264111.237
1342


264111.238
1343


264111.239
1344


264111.240
1345


264111.241
1346


264111.242
1347


264111.243
1348


264111.244
1349


264111.245
1350


264111.246
1351


264111.247
1352


264111.248
1353


264111.249
1354


264111.250
1355


264111.251
1356


264111.252
1357


264111.253
1358


264111.254
1359


264111.255
1360


264111.256
1361


264111.257
1362


264111.258
1363

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, ‘‘VOTING RIGHTS IN ARIZONA, 

1982–2006,’’ A REPORT OF RENEWTHEVRA.ORG


264111.259
1364


264111.260
1365


264111.261
1366


264111.262
1367


264111.263
1368


264111.264
1369


264111.265
1370


264111.266
1371


264111.267
1372


264111.268
1373


264111.269
1374


264111.270
1375


264111.271
1376


264111.272
1377


264111.273
1378


264111.274
1379


264111.275
1380


264111.276
1381


264111.277
1382


264111.278
1383


264111.279
1384


264111.280
1385


264111.281
1386


264111.282
1387


264111.283
1388


264111.284
1389


264111.285
1390


264111.286
1391


264111.287
1392


264111.288
1393


264111.289
1394


264111.290
1395


264111.291
1396


264111.292
1397


264111.293
1398


264111.294
1399


264111.295
1400


264111.296
1401


264111.297
1402


264111.298
1403


264111.299
1404


264111.300
1405


264111.301
1406


264111.302
1407


264111.303
1408


264111.304
1409


264111.305
1410


264111.306
1411


264111.307
1412


264111.308
1413


264111.309
1414


264111.310
1415


264111.311
1416


264111.312
1417


264111.313
1418


264111.314
1419


264111.315
1420


264111.316
1421


264111.317
1422


264111.318
1423


264111.319
1424


264111.320
1425


264111.321
1426


264111.322
1427


264111.323
1428


264111.324
1429


264111.325
1430


264111.326
1431


264111.327
1432


264111.328
1433


264111.329
1434


264111.330
1435


264111.331
1436


264111.332
1437


264111.333
1438


264111.334
1439


264111.335
1440


264111.336
1441


264111.337
1442


264111.338
1443


264111.339
1444


264111.340
1445


264111.341
1446


264111.342
1447


264111.343
1448


264111.344
1449


264111.345
1450


264111.346
1451


264111.347
1452


264111.348
1453


264111.349