49–010 

Calendar No. 523 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 109–295 

FANNIE LOU HAMER, ROSA PARKS, CORETTA SCOTT 

KING, AND CE ́ SAR E. CHA ́ VEZ VOTING RIGHTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006 

JULY 26, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. SPECTER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 2703] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

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

(S. 2703) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 having considered 

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

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose of the Voting Rights Act ................................................................. 2 

II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 2 

III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 4 

IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 5 

V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 7 

VI. History of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ..................................................... 7 

VII. Expiring Provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ................................ 10 

VIII. The House and Senate Records .................................................................... 10 

IX. Clarifications to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ........................................... 15 

X. Additional Views of Mr. Kyl ......................................................................... 22 

XI. Additional Views of Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Coburn ....................................... 25 

XII. Additional Views of Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kohl, 

Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Durbin ................ 54 

XIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 55 

XIV. Appendices ...................................................................................................... 65 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
2 

I. PURPOSE OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. 89–110, 79 Stat. 437, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 to 1973bb–1 (2000), was enacted to 

remedy 95 years of pervasive racial discrimination in voting, which 

resulted in the almost complete disenfranchisement of minorities in 

certain areas of the country. The Act is rightly lauded as the crown 

jewel of our civil rights laws because it has enabled racial minorities to participate in the political life of the nation. We recognize 

the great strides that have been made in the treatment of racial 

minorities over the last forty years, but extending the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act is still necessary to continue to fulfill its purpose. For these reasons, the Committee reported favorably on, and passed, S. 2703, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, 

Coretta Scott King, and Ce ́sar E. Cha ́vez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act, which extends for twenty-five 

years certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that are 

set to expire in 2007, and which amends several provisions of the 

Act to ensure that it can continue to serve its historic purpose. 

II. HISTORY OF THE BILL AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

From October 18, 2005, through March 8, 2006, the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee 

held ten hearings featuring testimony from forty witnesses. Those 

hearings gathered evidence concerning voting rights in America 

and explored the effects of two Supreme Court decisions: Georgia 

v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), and Reno v. Bossier Parish School 

Board, 528 U.S. 320 (2000) (Bossier Parish II). 

On April 27, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing at which members of the House of Representatives submitted 

the voluminous record it had developed over the previous six 

months. 

On May 3, 2006, the House and Senate introduced identical proposals to renew and amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (H.R. 9 

and S. 2703). 

On May 9, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing 

on ‘‘An Introduction to the Expiring Provisions of the Voting Rights 

Act.’’ The Committee heard testimony from Chandler Davidson, political science professor at Rice University; Richard Hasen, law professor at Loyola Law School; Samuel Issacharoff, law professor at 

Columbia Law School; Ted Shaw, President of the NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (NAACP–LDF); and Laughlin 

McDonald, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 

Voting Rights Project. At each hearing, in addition to their oral testimony at the hearing, witnesses also submitted written testimony 

and articles they had written on this topic and answered written 

questions by Committee members. 

On May 10, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on ‘‘Modern Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.’’ The Committee heard testimony from Gregory Coleman, former Solicitor 

General of Texas; Frank Strickland, attorney and member of the 

Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections in Georgia; Robert McDuff, a civil rights litigator in Mississippi; Juan Cartegena, 

General Counsel, Community Service Society in New York City; 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
3 

and Natalie Landreth, attorney for the Native American Rights 

Fund in Anchorage, Alaska. 

On May 16, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on ‘‘The Continued Need for Section 5.’’ The Committee heard 

testimony from the following witnesses: Richard Pildes, Professor of 

Law at New York University; Ronald Keith Gaddie, Professor of 

Political Science at the University of Oklahoma; Pamela Karlan, 

Professor of Law at Stanford University; Anita Earls, Director of 

the Center for Civil Rights at the University of North Carolina and 

former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the 

U.S. Department of Justice; and Ted Arrington, Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina and a former Republican elected official in North Carolina. 

On May 17, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on ‘‘The Benefits and Costs of Section 5.’’ The Committee heard 

testimony from the following witnesses: Abigail Thernstrom, Senior 

Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and Vice-Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Nathaniel Persily, Professor of Law and 

Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania; Fred Gray, Alabama civil rights attorney and former counsel for Rosa Parks and 

Martin Luther King, Jr.; Drew Days, Professor of Law at Yale University, former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, and 

former Solicitor General of the United States; and Armand Derfner, 

a voting rights attorney in South Carolina. 

On June 13, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on ‘‘The Continuing Need for Section 203’s Provisions for Limited English Proficient Voters.’’ The Committee heard testimony 

from John Trasvin ̃ a, Interim President and General Counsel of the 

Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF); 

Mauro Mujica, Chairman and CEO of U.S. English; Peter 

Kirsanow, Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

and member of the National Labor Relations Board; Margaret 

Fung, Executive Director of the Asian-American Legal Defense and 

Education Fund; Deborah Wright, Los Angeles County Executive 

Liaison Officer and Acting Assistant Registrar for the Election 

Services Bureau; and Linda Chavez, Chairman of the Center for 

Equal Opportunity and President of One Nation Indivisible. 

On June 21, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil rights 

and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee held a 

hearing on ‘‘Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act: Policy Perspectives and Views from the Field.’’ The Subcommittee heard testimony from Debo Adegbile, Associate Director of Litigation of the 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; Gerald A. Reynolds, Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and Assistant General Counsel of Kansas City Power & Light Co.; David 

Canon, Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin; John J. Park, Jr., an Assistant Attorney General in the Office of the Attorney General of Alabama; Donald M. 

Wright, General Counsel of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; and Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science and Professor 

of Law at Vanderbilt University. 

On July 10, 2006, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee held 

a testimony-only hearing on ‘‘The Continuing Need for Federal Examiners and Observers to Ensure Electoral Integrity.’’ The SubVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:28 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR295.XXX SR295

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
4 

committee received testimony from Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II, National Counsel to the American Center for Voting Rights—Legislative Fund; Kay Coles James, former Director of the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management; Constance Slaughter-Harvey, an attorney 

in private practice in Forest, Mississippi, and former Mississippi 

Assistant Secretary of State for Elections and General Counsel; Dr. 

James Thomas Tucker, voting rights consultant to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials; and Alfred 

Yazzie, Navajo Language Consultant for the U.S. Department of 

Justice and Certified Navajo Interpreter. 

On July 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee held 

a hearing on ‘‘Renewing the Temporary Provisions of the Voting 

Rights Act: Legislative Options after LULAC v. Perry.’’ The Subcommittee heard testimony from Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity in Sterling, Virginia; Professor Sherrilyn Ifill, professor at the University of Maryland Law School in Baltimore and former Assistant Counsel at the 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; Nina Perales, 

Southwest Regional Counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF); Michael Carvin, a partner 

with the law firm of Jones Day, specializing in constitutional, appellate, civil rights, and civil litigation against the Federal Government; Professor Joaquin Avila, Assistant Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law in Seattle, Washington; and Abigail 

Thernstrom, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and Vice 

Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 

On July 19, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee met in open 

session to consider the bill S. 2703. A technical amendment was offered by Mr. Leahy to provide that the short title of the bill, S. 

2703, would be expanded to include the name of Ce ́sar E. Cha ́vez. 

The technical amendment was agreed to by voice vote. An amendment was offered by Dr. Coburn to provide that persons who state 

that they speak English ‘‘well’’ in response to the Census Bureau’s 

inquiry would not be considered limited-English proficient under 

section 203(b)(3) of the Voting Rights Act. The amendment was defeated by voice vote. The motion to report favorably the bill, S. 

2703, was agreed by a roll call vote of 18–0. 

III. SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE BILL

Section 1 

Section 1, as amended, provides that the Act may be cited as the 

‘‘Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and Ce ́sar E. 

Cha ́vez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 

2006.’’

Section 2 

Section 2 explains that the ‘‘purpose of this Act is to ensure that 

the right of all citizens to vote, including the right to register to 

vote and cast meaningful votes, is preserved and protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.’’ Section 2 sets forth the Senate’s findings that ‘‘[s]ignificant progress has been made,’’ but ‘‘vestiges of 

discrimination in voting continue to exist.’’


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
5 

Section 3 

Section 3 eliminates the provisions for federal election examiners, who, in the past, were used to ensure that voters were not 

excluded from voter registration lists. These examiners have not 

been used for that purpose in over 20 years. Section 3 also eliminates the provisions for terminating federal examiner certifications. 

In the remaining provisions of the Act, all references to federal examiners have been replaced with references to federal observers. 

Section 3 also alters one of the standards for certifying jurisdictions for federal observer coverage. Currently, the Attorney General may appoint federal observers to monitor polling places in covered jurisdictions if the Attorney General has received written complaints from at least twenty residents who have been denied the 

right to vote by the government. Section 3 amends the Voting 

Rights Act to allow the Attorney General to do so provided that at 

least two ‘‘residents, elected officials, or civic participation organizations’’ have complained in writing that voting rights violations 

‘‘are likely to occur.’’

Section 4 

Section 4 provides for a 25-year renewal of the coverage formula 

stated in section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It also requires 

Congress to reconsider these provisions in 15 years. 

Section 5 

Section 5 responds to, in part, two Supreme Court decisions that 

interpreted the criteria for preclearance of voting changes under 

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Reno v. Bossier Parish 

School Board, 528 U.S. 320 (2000) (Bossier Parish II), and Georgia 

v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003). 

Section 6 

Section 6 amends the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to allow certain 

prevailing plaintiffs to collect ‘‘reasonable expert fees, and other 

reasonable litigation expenses.’’

Section 7 

Section 7 extends the requirements of section 203 of the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965 through 2032. 

Section 8 

Section 8 allows use of American Community Survey census data 

under the Act. 

IV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, S. 2703, the 

following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974: 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
6 

JULY 20, 2006. 

Hon. ARLEN SPECTER, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2703, the Fannie Lou 

Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and Cesar E. Chavez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD B. MARRON, 

Acting Director. 

Enclosure. 

Summary: S. 2703 would reauthorize and amend the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965. Major provisions of the legislation would extend 

certain expiring provisions of the act for 25 years, expand the use 

of federal observers at polling sites, and authorize the use of the 

American Community Survey to identify areas that may need bilingual voting assistance. 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 2703 would cost $1 million 

in fiscal year 2007 and $15 million over the 2007–2011 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting the bill 

would have no impact on direct spending or revenues. 

Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) excludes from the application of the act any legislative provisions 

that enforce constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has determined that S. 2703 would fall within that exclusion because it 

would protect the voting rights of minorities and those with limited 

proficiency in English. Therefore, CBO has not reviewed the bill for 

mandates. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2703 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 800 (general government). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

OPM spending under current law for voting rights program: 

Estimated authorization level .............................................................. 2 0 0 0 0 

Estimated outlays ................................................................................ 2 0 0 0 0 

Proposed changes: 

Estimated authorization level .............................................................. 1 4 3 3 3 

Estimated outlays ................................................................................ 1 4 3 3 3 

OPM spending under S. 2703 for voting rights program: 

Estimated authorization level .............................................................. 3 4 3 3 3 

Estimated outlays ................................................................................ 3 4 3 3 3 

Note: OPM = Office of Personnel Management. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 2703 

will be enacted near the end of fiscal year 2006, that the necessary 

amounts will be appropriated over the 2007–2011 period, and that 

spending will follow historical spending patterns for the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM). 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
7 

1 Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, Pub. L. 91–285, 84 Stat. 314. 2Pub. L. 94–73, 89 Stat. 402 (1975). 3 Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982, Pub. L. 97–205, 96 Stat. 134. 

The legislation would extend for 25 years certain expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Under current law, the Department 

of Justice (DOJ) certifies the appointment of federal observers to 

work at polling sites when it has received 20 or more written complaints from residents regarding voting rights violations. OPM, 

through its Voting Rights Program, works closely with DOJ to assign voting rights observers to locations designated by the department. OPM currently has about 1,000 intermittent employees who 

serve as neutral monitors at particular polling sites on election 

days. Since 1966, OPM has deployed 26,000 observers to 22 states. 

The legislation would amend current law to authorize the Attorney General to assign federal observers without using the certification process to election sites if he or she has had a reasonable 

belief that violations of the 14th or 15th amendment have occurred 

or will occur at a polling site. Based on information from OPM and 

the current cost of operating the observer program, CBO estimates 

that the Voting Rights Program would spend about $4 million in 

general election years and about $3 million in other years. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: Section 4 of UMRA 

excludes from the application of the act any legislative provisions 

that enforce constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has determined that S. 2703 would fall within that exclusion because it 

would protect the voting rights of minorities and those with limited 

proficiency in English. Therefore, CBO has not reviewed the bill for 

mandates. 

Previous CBO estimate: On May 17, 2006, CBO transmitted a 

cost estimate for H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and 

Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, as ordered reported by the House Committee on 

the Judiciary on May 10, 2006. The two versions of the bill are 

similar and CBO’s cost estimates for these bills are identical. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford; impact 

on state, local, and tribal governments: Sarah Puro; impact on the 

private-sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

V. REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that no significant regulatory impact will 

result from the enactment of S. 2703. 

VI. HISTORY OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 

In 1965, Congress at last began to fulfill our Nation’s promise of 

full participation in the democratic process for all Americans by 

passing the Voting Rights Act. That Act created permanent, nationwide protection for every American citizen, protections that remain 

vital to voters today. It also created certain temporary provisions, 

which were reauthorized and expanded in 1970,1 1975,2 1982,3 and 

(with respect to language assistance) 1992. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
8 

Prior to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, African-Americans and other minorities were prevented from exercising their constitutional rights through violence, intimidation, and systematic 

and deliberate State action. 

Tragically, there are too many examples of this overt hatred and 

discrimination to detail them all in this record. But understanding 

the environment of bigotry that led to the Act’s passage helps to 

understand its applicability today and in the future. 

The effort to give all voters full access to the ballot box was 

thwarted systematically and violently. In 1961, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee began a black voter registration 

drive in McComb, Mississippi, led by ‘‘Robert Moses, a black field 

secretary who had quit his job as a private-school mathematics 

teacher in New York to work full time on voter registration in the 

South.’’ Abigail Thernstrom, Whose Vote Counts? 14 (Harvard University Press, 1987). ‘‘Moses was attacked and beaten by a cousin 

of the sheriff; a co-worker was ordered out of a registrar’s office at 

gunpoint and then hit with a pistol; a black sympathizer was murdered by a state representative; another black who asked for Justice Department protection to testify at the inquest was beaten 

(and three years later killed); a white activist’s eye was gouged out; 

and, finally, twelve SNCC workers and local supporters were fined 

and sentenced to substantial terms in jail.’’ Id. And those were just 

a few of many incidents. 

The ‘‘usual’’ legislation, however, had failed to break the usual 

pattern of black disfranchisement. Voting rights litigators in the 

South in the early 1960s had learned several lessons. The first concerned the literacy test. ‘‘No matter from what direction one looks 

at it,’’ V.O. Key had written in 1949, ‘‘the Southern literacy test is 

a fraud and nothing more.’’ It was no less a fraud in 1965. In the 

1960s, southern registrars were observed testing black applicants 

on such matters as the number of bubbles in a soap bar, the news 

contained in a copy of the Peking Daily, the meaning of obscure 

passages in state constitutions, and the definition of such terms as 

habeas corpus. By contrast, even illiterate whites were being registered. Booker T. Washington had believed that ‘‘brains, property, 

and character’’ would ‘‘settle the question of civil rights,’’ but eighty 

years after the founding of Tuskegee Institute blacks with brains, 

property, and character in the city of Tuskegee still found themselves unable to demonstrate their literacy. ‘‘If a fella makes a mistake on his questionnaire, I’m not gonna discriminate in his favor 

just because he’s got a Ph.D.,’’ the chairman of the Board of Registrars self-righteously maintained. Id. at 15. 

‘‘The long struggle for black voting rights during the Twentieth 

Century crested on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, when 

peaceful demonstrators were savagely attacked by law enforcement 

officers on March 7, 1965.’’ Testimony of Chandler Davidson, An 

Introduction to the Expiring Provisions of the Voting Rights Act 

and Legal Issues Relating to Reauthorization, Hrg. before the Senate Judiciary Committee (May 9, 2006). This ‘‘Bloody Sunday, was 

filmed by news photographers and immediately telecast around the 

world. It shocked the conscience of America, and at the behest of 

President Lyndon Johnson, a bipartisan Congress passed the Voting Rights Act a few months later.’’ Id. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
9 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to ‘‘foster our transformation to a society that is no longer fixated on race,’’ to an ‘‘allinclusive community, where we would be able to forget about race 

and color and see people as people, as human beings, just as citizens.’’ Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 490 (2003) (quoting Rep. 

John Lewis). The Act includes a permanent provision, section 2, 

that applies to every voter in America. ‘‘As amended by Congress 

in 1982, it prohibits any voting qualification or practice that results 

in denial or abridgement of voting rights on the basis of a citizen’s 

race, color, or membership in one of four language-minority groups: 

speakers of Spanish or of Native American, Native Alaskan, and 

Asian languages.’’ Testimony of Chandler Davidson, supra. The Act 

also includes several temporary provisions that ‘‘Congress renewed 

and expanded * * * in 1970, 1975, and 1982, the last time for 25 

years.’’ Id. 

Congress’s enactment of the Voting Rights Act presaged an immediate and breathtaking transformation. The Voting Rights Act of 

1965 had a concrete impact on individuals’ lives. ‘‘Maynard Jackson’s mother (in her middle age) was the first black in Atlanta to 

obtain a library card; in 1973 her son was elected mayor. In Selma, 

Alabama, in 1965, Andrew Young placed his life in jeopardy on behalf of black voting rights; only seven years later he was the first 

black congressman elected from the Deep South since Reconstruction.’’ Abigail Thernstrom, Whose Vote Counts? 1 (Harvard University Press, 1987). 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 had a concrete impact on Americans’ attitudes and beliefs. In 1975, only 20% of African-Americans 

said they had good friends who were white; by 2003, the figure had 

jumped to 88%. And the proportion of whites with good friends who 

were African American soared from 9% to 82%. Testimony of Abigail Thernstrom, Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Section 

5 Pre-Clearance, Hrg. before the Senate Judiciary Committee (May 

17, 2006). 

Similarly, the Voting Rights Act had a concrete impact on America’s political landscape. The covered jurisdictions that once sponsored violence against minority voters now elect hundreds of minorities to elected office. In Georgia, the voting age population is 

27.2% African-American, and African-Americans comprise 30.7% of 

its delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives and 26.5% of 

the officials elected statewide. U.S. Census Bureau Report on 2004 

Election; The Bullock-Gaddie Voting Rights Studies: An Analysis of 

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (2006). Black candidates in Mississippi have achieved similar success. The State’s voting age population is 34.1% African-American, and 29.5% of its representatives 

in the State House and 25% of its delegation to the U.S. House of 

Representatives are African-American. Id. As of 2003, Texas had 

elected 2,000 Latinos to office; two years before, California voters 

had sent 757 Latinos to office. Id. America has had two AfricanAmerican Secretaries of State, Colin Powell and Condoleezza 

Rice—both of whom have been touted as formidable candidates for 

President of the United States, and two African-American Supreme 

Court Justices, legendary civil rights lawyer Thurgood Marshall, 

and former head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Clarence Thomas. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
10 

4Sections 7 and 9, which provide additional procedures for examiners appointed under section 

6, expire together with section 6. 

Congress is once again confronted with the expiration of several 

of the Voting Rights Act’s temporary provisions. The five provisions 

of the Voting Rights Act set to expire in June and August of 2007 

are sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 203.4

VII. EXPIRING PROVISIONS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 

Five provisions of the Voting Rights Act are set to expire in June 

and August of 2007. 

Section 4(b) of the Act sets out a formula to identify discriminatory, or ‘‘covered,’’ jurisdictions. 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(b). In 1965, a political subdivision was covered under section 4(b) if (1) it used a literacy test or other device as a condition for voter registration on 

November 1, 1964, and (2) either less than 50% of eligible persons 

were registered to vote on that date or less than 50% of such persons voted in the Presidential election of that year. Id. Congress 

has since added similar triggers using data from 1968 and 1972. 

Id. Congress has also added jurisdictions with a significant population of non-English speakers. 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(f). 

Section 5 provides that if a jurisdiction is covered under section 

4(b), then all voting laws in that jurisdiction must be pre-approved 

either by the Justice Department or the federal district court for 

the District of Columbia, with the burden of proof on the jurisdiction to show an absence of discriminatory purpose or effect. 42 

U.S.C. § 1973c. 

Section 203 requires covered jurisdictions to provide bilingual 

elections for American Indians, Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives, 

or persons of Spanish heritage who are not proficient in English. 

Sections 6 and 8 ensure that minority voters may register to vote 

and cast their ballots. Section 6 provides for federal election examiners to prepare and maintain lists of eligible voters in covered jurisdictions. Section 8 provides for federal election observers to ensure that all voters are permitted to cast their ballots and that all 

ballots are properly counted. 

VIII. THE HOUSE AND SENATE RECORDS

The Senate Judiciary Committee held nine hearings regarding 

the bill, S. 2703, at which the Committee received testimony from 

46 witnesses. In addition, the House Judiciary Committee held 12 

hearings featuring 46 witnesses. The total record consists of over 

15,000 pages. The House and Senate owe thanks to the many 

groups dedicated to the civil rights of Americans which, over the 

past two years, have collected and analyzed evidence regarding voting rights in America. 

Just as it did for each previous enactment and reauthorization 

of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, 1970, 1975, and 1982, the Senate 

collected data consisting of statistics, findings by courts and the 

Justice Department, and first-hand accounts of discrimination. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
11 

A. STATISTICAL EVIDENCE

1. Minority Registration and Turnout 

In 1965, there was significant evidence that black registration 

was dramatically lower than white registration, and that this significant difference was explained primarily by the purposeful attempts to disenfranchise black citizens. Indeed, in some states, the 

gap was 50 percentage points. In Alabama, black registration was 

just 18.5% and in Mississippi, was a dismal 6.4%. Voting Rights 

Legislation, Sen. Rep. 89–162, at 44 (1965). 

Due to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, minorities in covered jurisdictions have made great strides over time. Indeed, presently in 

seven of the covered States, African-Americans are registered at a 

rate higher than the national average. Moreover, in California, 

Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas, black registration 

and turnout in the 2004 election (the most recent Presidential election) was higher than that for whites. In Louisiana and South 

Carolina, African-American registration was 4 percentage points 

lower than that for whites—a rate identical to the national average. Virginia, however, remains an outlier: in the 2004 election, 

black registration was 7 percentage points lower than the national 

average, black registration was 11 percentage points lower than 

white registration, and black turnout was 13 percentage points 

lower than white turnout. There is some reason to believe that 

without the Voting Rights Act’s deterrent effect on potential misconduct, these rates might be considerably worse. 

In the 2004 election, nationwide, Latinos registered and turned 

out at rates significantly lower than white voters in the 2004 election—roughly 30 percentage points lower. In Texas and California, 

the gap was slightly smaller—26 percentage points in each State. 

State 

2004 Registration 2004 Turnout 

Minority White Minority White 

Alabama ................................. Black: 72.9% ........................ 73.8% Black: 63.9% ........................ 62.2% 

Alaska ..................................... n/a ......................................... n/a Native: 41.4% ....................... Non-Native: 

68.4% 

Arizona .................................... Black: 55.3% ........................ 61.4% Black: 45.6% ........................ 55.8% 

Latino: 30.5% ....................... .................... Latino: 25.5% ....................... ....................

California ................................ Black: 67.9% ........................ 56.4% Black: 61.3% ........................ 51.3% 

Latino: 30.2% ....................... .................... Latino: 25.6% ....................... ....................

Florida .................................... Black: 52.6% ........................ 64.7% Black: 44.5% ........................ 58.4% 

Latino: 38.2% ....................... .................... Latino: 34.0% ....................... ....................

Georgia ................................... Black: 64.2% ........................ 63.5% Black: 54.4% ........................ 53.6% 

Louisiana ................................ Black: 71.1% ........................ 75.1% Black: 62.1% ........................ 64.0% 

Mississippi ............................. Black: 76.1% ........................ 72.3% Black: 66.8% ........................ 58.9% 

North Carolina ........................ Black: 70.4% ........................ 69.4% Black: 63.1% ........................ 58.1% 

South Carolina ....................... Black: 71.1% ........................ 74.4% Black: 59.5% ........................ 63.4% 

Texas ...................................... Black: 68.4% ........................ 61.5% Black: 55.8% ........................ 50.6% 

Latino: 41.5% ....................... .................... Latino: 29.3% ....................... ....................

Virginia ................................... Black: 57.4% ........................ 68.2% Black: 49.6% ........................ 63.0% 

Nationwide .............................. Black: 64.3% ........................ 67.9% Black: 56.1% ........................ 60.3% 

Latino: 34.3% ....................... .................... Latino: 28.0% ....................... ....................

* Source for Citizen Minority Voting Age Population: U.S. Census Bureau Report on 2004 Election. 

* Source for all other information: The Bullock-Gaddie Voting Rights Studies: An Analysis of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 

2. Minority Elected Officials 

For years, States had created unconstitutional barriers for minority candidates resulting in few minorities serving in elected office. In 1964, for example, there were only approximately 300 AfriVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:28 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR295.XXX SR295

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
12 

can-Americans in public office, including just three in the United 

States Congress. Few, if any, black elected officials were elected 

anywhere in the South. While the Constitution ‘‘does not require 

proportional representation as an imperative of political organization,’’ City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 75–76 (1980), and the 

Voting Rights Act itself specifically rejects a requirement of proportional representation, both stand for the elimination of purposeful 

obstacles to minorities holding office. The Nation has made great 

progress in eliminating such obstacles—even if the work of establishing civil rights for all is not yet complete. Much of that progress 

is due to the Voting Rights Act. 

According to data made available to the Senate, today there are 

more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of 

the United States Congress, the largest number ever. Id. at 2. 

ACLU, Promises to Keep: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act in 

2006 (March 2006). ‘‘The Act has also opened the political process 

for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials who 

have been elected and appointed nationwide,’’ including 263 at the 

state or federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. Id. Indeed in 

Georgia, minorities are elected at rates proportionate to or higher 

than their numbers. While Georgia’s voting age population is 27.2% 

African-American, 30.7% of its delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives and 26.5% of the officials elected statewide are African-American. Black candidates in Mississippi have achieved similar success. The State’s voting age population is 34.1% AfricanAmerican, and 29.5% of its representatives in the State House and 

25% of its delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives are African-American. 

State 

Citizen Minority 

Voting Age Popu- lation (2000 Census) 

Minority Percentage in State Sen- ate 

(2005) 

Minority Percentage in State House 

(2005) 

Number Minority Officials 

(2001) 

Minority Percentage in U.S. House 

Delegation 

(2006) 

Minority Percentage in 

U.S. Senate 

Delegation 

(2006) 

Alabama ........... Black: 24.5% .. 22.86% ........... 25.71% ........... 756 .................. 14.3% ............. 0% 

Alaska .............. Black: 3.0% .... Black: 5.0% .... Black: 2.5% .... n/a .................. 0% .................. 0% 

Native: 25.0% Native: 20.0%.

Arizona ............. Hispanic of any 

race: 17.9%.

Latino: 16.7% 

(2003).

Latino: 15.0% 

(2003).

Latino: 268 

(2000).

Latino: 25% .... 0% 

California ......... Hispanic of any 

race: 21.4%.

22.5% ............. 22.5% ............. 757 (as of 

2000).

Latino: 11.3% 0% 

Florida .............. Black: 13.0% .. Black: 7.5% .... Black: 13.3% .. Black: 243 ...... Black: 12% ..... Latino: 50% 

Hispanic of any 

race: 12.6%.

Latino: 15.0% Latino: 9.2% ... Latino: 89 ....... Latino: 12%.

Georgia ............. Black: 27.2% .. 19.6% ............. 21.7% ............. 611 .................. 30.7% ............. 0% 

Louisiana ......... Black: 30.0% .. 23.1% ............. 21.9% ............. 705 .................. 14.3% ............. 0% 

Mississippi ....... Black: 34.1% .. 21.2% ............. 29.5% ............. 897 .................. 25% ................ 0% 

North Carolina Black: 20.5% .. 14.0% ............. 15.8% ............. 491 .................. 7.7% ............... 0% 

South Carolina Black: 27.8% .. 17.4% ............. 20.1% ............. 534 .................. 16.7% ............. 0% 

Texas ................ Black: 11.6% .. Black: 6.5% .... Black: 9.3% .... Black: 460 ...... Black: 9.4% .... 0% 

Hispanic of any 

race: 26.5%.

Latino: 19.4% Latino: 18.0% Latino: 2,000 

(as of 2003).

Latino: 15.6%.

Virginia ............ Black: 18.4% .. 12.5% ............. 11.0% ............. 246 .................. 9.1% ............... 0% 

* Source for Citizen Minority Voting Age Population: U.S. Census Bureau Report on 2004 Election. 

* Source for all other information: The Bullock-Gaddie Voting Rights Studies: An Analysis of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; Joint Center 

for Pol. & Econ. Studies, Black Elected Officials 14 (2001) (Table 2), Materials. 

B. COURT VERDICTS AND DOJ ENFORCEMENT

In 1965, the Congress relied upon findings by federal courts and 

the Justice Department that the covered States were engaged in a 

pattern of unconstitutional behavior. South Carolina v. KatzenVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:28 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR295.XXX SR295

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
13 

bach, 383 U.S. 301, 329–30 & nn.38, 39 (1966). For example, the 

1965 Senate Report observed that Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi had lost every voting discrimination suit brought against 

them, and in the previous 8 years each State had eight or nine 

courts find them guilty of violating the Constitution. Voting Rights 

Legislation, Sen. Rep. No. 89–162, at 9–10 (1965). 

1. Court Verdicts 

The current record discusses hundreds of cases alleging voting 

rights violations. Since 1982, six published cases have ended in a 

court ruling or a consent decree finding that one of the 880 covered 

jurisdictions had committed unconstitutional discrimination 

against minority voters. The same number of cases ended in a finding that the covered jurisdictions had committed unconstitutional 

discrimination against white voters. During that same time period, 

six cases have found that a non-covered jurisdiction committed unconstitutional discrimination against minority voters. See Appendix 

I for full list. 

Examining Voting Rights Act cases also is instructive. Since 

1982, 39 court cases have ended with a finding that one of the 880 

covered jurisdictions had violated section 2 of the Voting Rights 

Act—the permanent provision of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits discrimination nationwide. During that same time period, 40 

court cases have ended with a finding that one of the non-covered 

jurisdictions had violated section 2. See Appendix II for full list. 

Plainly, the Voting Rights Act has done much to achieve its original aims. 

2. Department of Justice Enforcement Efforts 

The record also indicates that the Justice Department has issued 

754 objection letters since 1982: 

Year Number of submissions 

Number of objection letters 

Percent of submissions receiving objection letter 

(percent) 

1982 ................................................................................................................ 2848 66 2.32 

1983 ................................................................................................................ 3203 52 1.62 

1984 ................................................................................................................ 3975 49 1.23 

1985 ................................................................................................................ 3847 37 0.96 

1986 ................................................................................................................ 4807 41 0.85 

1987 ................................................................................................................ 4478 29 0.65 

1988 ................................................................................................................ 5155 39 0.76 

1989 ................................................................................................................ 3920 30 0.77 

1990 ................................................................................................................ 4809 37 0.77 

1991 ................................................................................................................ 4592 75 1.63 

1992 ................................................................................................................ 5307 77 1.45 

1993 ................................................................................................................ 4421 69 1.56 

1994 ................................................................................................................ 4661 61 1.31 

1995 ................................................................................................................ 3999 19 0.48 

1996 ................................................................................................................ 4729 7 0.15

1997 ................................................................................................................ 4047 8 0.20

1998 ................................................................................................................ 4021 8 0.20

1999 ................................................................................................................ 4012 5 0.12

2000 ................................................................................................................ 4638 4 0.09

2001 ................................................................................................................ 4222 7 0.17

2002 ................................................................................................................ 5910 21 0.36 

2003 ................................................................................................................ 4628 8 0.17

2004 ................................................................................................................ 5211 3 0.06

2005 ................................................................................................................ 4734 1 0.002 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
14 

Year Number of submissions 

Number of objection letters 

Percent of submissions receiving objection letter 

(percent) 

2006 ................................................................................................................ 4094 1 0.002 

*Data provided by the Department of Justice, Hrg. Before the Senate Judiciary Committee (May 10, 2006) (testimony of Wan J. Kim, Assistant Att’y Gen., Civil Rights Div.) (data current as of May 8, 2006) 

It is important to note, however, that many of the objection letters included in the above chart were the result of the Justice Department’s application of a standard subsequently struck down by 

the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In the 1980s and 1990s, 

the Justice Department required jurisdictions to include ‘‘the maximum number of majority-minority districts that it was possible to 

create. The Supreme Court ruled that this policy amounted to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering and struck it down. Miller v. 

Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 921 (1995); see also Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 

952, 958–59 (1996); Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999). In including in the chart objection letters that were subsequently found 

unconstitutional, we do not mean to endorse the government’s earlier position that was struck down. 

3. First-Hand Accounts of Voting Discrimination 

Most of the record adduced in the House and Senate Judiciary 

Committees is devoted to first-person accounts of alleged discrimination. Such accounts can be significant because they demonstrate 

the real impact of any ongoing discrimination. 

In 1991, Mississippi legislators rejected proposed House and Senate redistricting plans that would have given African-American voters greater opportunity to elect representatives of their choice, referring to one such alternative on the House floor as the ‘‘black 

plan’’ and privately as ‘‘the n- plan.’’ DOJ objected, concluding that 

a racially discriminatory purpose was at play. In the 1992 elections, the cured redistricting plans boosted the percentage of African-American representatives in the legislature to an all time high: 

27% of the House and 19% of the Senate (up from 13% and 4%, 

respectively, in a state where 33% of the voting-age population is 

African-American). Robert McDuff, Voting Rights in Mississippi: 

1982–2006, RenewTheVRA.org at 9–10. 

Additionally, a witness claimed that ‘‘in North Carolina in 

Alamance County, a sheriff took it upon himself to get a sample 

list of Latino voters and then announce . . . I’m going to go door 

to door knocking on people’s houses and ask—and see proof of citizenship.’’ Leslie Lobos, Testimony at Nat’l Comm’n on VRA Southern Reg’l Hrg., House hrg. 201 (Oct. 18, 2005). These types of anecdotes, and the others in the record, demonstrate that the type of 

behavior that may warrant oversight by federal officials. If individuals deny minorities access to the ballot box, equal justice is denied. 

Despite the numerous examples of continued discrimination, 

some of the testimony gathered indicates that certain States have 

made great progress under the Voting Rights Act. For example, a 

witness recounted that ‘‘[d]uring the last redistricting cycle, the 

Alaska Redistricting Board took special care to preserve existing 

‘Native Districts’—districts which provided Native voters the opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice.’’ Nat’l Comm’n on 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
15 

VRA Report, at 57. One Arizona voting rights attorney, who had 

represented voters for four decades, observed that ‘‘Arizona was 

added in 1975 because of an amendment that Congress had adopted that said a voting test included the language in which five percent of the people, other than English, five percent of the people 

spoke. To wit, Spanish. And in a state where more than 50 percent 

of those who were registered to vote—were not registered to vote. 

Arizona was such a state, in 1975. But Arizona is not such a state 

today.’’ Paul Eckstein, Testimony at Nat’l Comm’n on VRA Southwestern Reg’l Hrg., House hrg. 291 (Oct. 18, 2005). Without the 

Voting Rights Act, it is difficult to know whether such progress 

would be possible. 

The sheer bulk of the record showing both continued problems 

and significant improvements—nearly 15,000 pages—compels us to 

summarize these first-hand accounts of discrimination. Accordingly, we attach Appendix III, a comprehensive list of every account of discrimination articulated in the House record and the 

Senate record available at the time of this writing (several Senate 

witnesses had not responded as of this writing). 

IX. CLARIFICATIONS TO THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 

Section 5 of the legislation amends the Voting Rights Act by abrogating, in part, two recent Supreme Court decisions: Georgia v. 

Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), and Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 

528 U.S. 320 (2000) (‘‘Bossier Parish II’’). The changes work together and are designed to protect minorities from purposeful, unconstitutional discrimination and to eliminate potential obstacles to 

minority representation in elected bodies. With regard to redistricting plans, they protect naturally occurring districts that have 

a clear majority of minority voters. 

A. PROCESS

When the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965, and for 

each reauthorization, consideration was initiated in the House. 

This Congress followed the same practice. From October 18, 2005, 

through March 8, 2006, the Subcommittee on the Constitution of 

the House Judiciary Committee held ten hearings featuring testimony from forty witnesses. At those hearings, the House gathered 

extensive factual evidence and considered proposals to amend section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to address Bossier Parish II and 

Georgia v. Ashcroft. 

The House and Senate introduced identical versions of the 

Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting 

Rights Act Reauthorization Act on May 3, 2006. Because the Senate had not yet held substantive hearings on the Senate bill, S. 

2703—other than a hearing on April 27, 2006, at which members 

of the House of Representatives submitted the record that the 

House had developed—we relied heavily upon the House’s examination of the proposed language in section 5. We found particularly informative the testimony from witnesses called to explain the 

meaning of and context for the new provisions. 

In the course of our consideration, concerns were raised. The 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary responded by convening hearings in which we further investigated issues implicated by the 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
16 

amendments in section 5 of the bill. The Committee heard from 

several witnesses who helpfully commented on the amendments 

and assured us that the language reflected our intent. 

B. ‘‘ANY DISCRIMINATORY PURPOSE’’

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bossier Parish II has created a 

strange loophole in the law: it is possible that the Justice Department or federal court could be required to approve an unconstitutional voting practice ‘‘taken with the purpose of racial discrimination.’’ Testimony of Nina Perales, Renewing the Temporary Provisions of the Voting Rights Act: Legislative Options after LULAC v. 

Perry, Hrg. before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee 

(July 13, 2006). ‘‘[A]fter Bossier Parish II, the Supreme Court has 

directed preclearance authorities to permit changes that have an 

unconstitutional, racially discriminatory purpose as long as the 

purpose is simply to perpetuate unconstitutional conditions and not 

to make them actually worse.’’ Pamela S. Karlan, Responses to 

Written Questions from Sen. Kennedy (submitted for May 16, 2006 

hearing). The federal government should not be giving its seal of 

approval to practices that violate the Constitution. Under this 

amendment, which forbids voting changes motivated by ‘‘any discriminatory purpose,’’ it will not do so. 

During the hearings, witnesses echoed the explanation provided 

by Pamela S. Karlan that ‘‘[t]he amendment of section 5 to overturn the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Bossier II . . . only forbids states from making changes that would themselves violate the 

Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.’’ Testimony of Pamela S. 

Karlan, The Continuing Need for Section 5 Pre-Clearance, Hrg. before the Senate Judiciary Committee (May 16, 2006) (emphasis 

added); accord Juan Catagena, Responses to Written Questions 

from Sen. Schumer (submitted for May 10, 2006 hearing). They testified that the language encompasses voting practices that are 

‘‘taken with the purpose of racial discrimination,’’ that are ‘‘intentionally discriminatory,’’ and that are ‘‘purposefully taken . . . to 

lock out racial and language minorities from political power.’’ Testimony of Perales, supra; Anita Earls, Reponses to Written Questions from Sen. Cornyn (submitted for May 16, 2006 hearing); Responses of Catagena, supra. 

The language of the bill, ‘‘discriminatory purpose,’’ is clear on its 

face. Voting practices adopted with a ‘‘discriminatory purpose . . . 

do, of course, violate the Constitution.’’ Testimony of Pamela S. 

Karlan, supra. This is familiar language. It is the language that 

the Supreme Court uses in defining unconstitutional behavior 

under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. It is the language of cases such as City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), 

and Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976). 

The question of whether ‘‘any discriminatory purpose’’ provided 

protections equal to, or beyond, the Constitution was fundamental 

at the hearings. Several witnesses had raised concerns that expanding section 5 of the Voting Rights Act might render section 5 

unconstitutionally broad. Testimony of Michael Carvin, Renewing 

the Temporary Provisions of the Voting Rights Act: Legislative Options after LULAC v. Perry, Hrg. before the Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights of the Senate JudiVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:28 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR295.XXX SR295

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
17 

ciary Committee (July 13, 2006); Testimony of Abigail Thernstrom, 

Renewing the Temporary Provisions of the Voting Rights Act: Legislative Options after LULAC v. Perry, Hrg. before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights 

of the Senate Judiciary Committee (July 13, 2006). Committee 

Members rejected these concerns because witnesses who supported 

the bill, S. 2703, assured Members that the amendment ‘‘causes no 

constitutional difficulty whatsoever, since the amendment only forbids states from making changes that would themselves violate the 

Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.’’ Testimony of Karlan, 

supra; accord id. (‘‘Amending section 5 to prohibit all unconstitutional discrimination with respect to the right to vote, rather than 

only the subset of unconstitutional discrimination that is also retrogressive poses no constitutional difficulties under any conceivable 

theory of congressional power.’’). 

Another witness confirmed that adding the phrase ‘‘any discriminatory purpose’’ posed no problems since it merely reiterated the 

constitutional standard: ‘‘[T]here can be no constitutional difficulties in prohibiting under Section 5 all unconstitutional discrimination touching upon the right to vote—discrimination which would 

also violate the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. 

Restoring Section 5 preclearance review to a pre-Reno [v. Bossier 

Parish] standard would make Section 5 consistent with the prohibition in these Constitutional amendments.’’ Responses of Catagena, 

supra. 

One traditional and important standard for identifying unconstitutional racial discrimination is to ask whether the challenged action departs from normal rules of decision. Courts and the Justice 

Department should ask whether the decision not to create a blackmajority district departed from ordinary districting rules. If a state 

has a large minority population concentrated in a particular area, 

ordinary rules of districting—following political and geographic borders and keeping districts as compact as possible—would recommend that those voters be given a majority-minority district. If 

the State went out of its way to avoid creating such a majority-minority—one that would be created under ordinary rules—that is 

unconstitutional racial discrimination. 

This amendment also has the effect of preventing the recurrence 

of some Justice Department policies. For years, the Justice Department required States to maximize majority-minority districts at 

any cost. The result was bizarrely shaped districts and maps gerrymandered beyond recognition, all on the basis of race. The Supreme 

Court repeatedly ruled that this policy violated the Constitution. 

See, e.g., Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 921 (1995); Bush v. Vera, 

517 U.S. 952 (1996); Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999). It is 

perverse to think that, under the guise of enforcing voting rights, 

the Justice Department was forcing States to violate citizens’ constitutional voting rights. This bill prevents future incidences of 

such behavior by depriving the Justice Department of the power to 

define for itself ‘‘discriminatory purpose’’ under the Voting Rights 

Act. 

During the Senate hearings, some witnesses raised concerns that 

the amendment could be misinterpreted, and that the Justice Department or federal courts might compel the creation of so-called 

influence or coalitional districts. The adopted language does not 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
18 

prevent a state official from declining to combine a group of minority voters with a group of white voters who tend to support the 

same parties and candidates in a district where candidates supported by minorities will reliably prevail. Although such an action 

may make it more difficult for that coalition of voters to elect their 

preferred candidate, the Voting Rights Act is designed to ferret out 

and stop unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of race or 

ethnicity. It is not designed to protect political parties, or to prevent statewide political realignments from being reflected in the redistricting process. Nor can any racial or political group claim a 

right under the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment to have its 

members placed as often as possible in districts where candidates 

of the party favored by that group’s members will prevail. The ultimate goal of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment is to ensure 

that persons of all races are treated equally. Those implementing 

and applying the Voting Rights Act must keep in mind that the Act 

is designed to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. 

The language ‘‘any discriminatory purpose’’ does not permit a 

finding of discriminatory purpose that is based, in whole or part, 

on a failure to adopt the optimal or maximum number of majorityminority districts or compact minority opportunity districts. Nor 

does it permit a finding of discriminatory purpose based on a determination that the plan seeks partisan advantage or protects incumbents. The Constitution and the courts already define racial discrimination and it is that constitutional definition which we incorporate. Indeed, it would raise serious constitutional questions if we 

were to adopt a free-flowing definition of purpose—or authorized 

the Justice Department to invent one—that is untethered from the 

Constitution’s commands or the Supreme Court’s precedents. By 

anchoring the language of section 5 in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, we limit Executive Branch discretion and prevent future incidents of overreaching. 

C. ‘‘PREFERRED CANDIDATE OF CHOICE’’

Another important aspect of the Voting Rights Act is the protection afforded to minorities with respect to districting plans established after each census. For over two decades, the Supreme Court 

applied a workable standard when reviewing such plans under section 5. The Court asked whether under the proposed plan, ‘‘the 

ability of minority groups . . . to elect their choices to office is . . . 

diminished.’’ Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976). In 

areas with racially polarized voting, this was often equivalent to 

asking whether the plan maintained naturally occurring majorityminority districts. 

In the 2003 case of Georgia v. Ashcroft, the Court replaced this 

definition—that is, one that protects against retrogression—with a 

totality of the circumstances approach. The Court held that Section 

5 permits states to replace majority-minority districts in which minorities have the ability to elect a candidate of choice with ‘‘coalition’’ or ‘‘influence’’ districts in which minorities have less voting 

power. 

Whatever the merits of such an approach, experts in the area of 

voting rights have explained that the Georgia standard is unworkable. The concept of ‘‘influence’’ is vague and the concept of a ‘‘coalition’’ district is difficult to define. Theodore M. Shaw, President 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
19 

and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, testified that he was ‘‘skeptical that a workable 

standard of minority voters’ ‘influence’ exists, or could be devised 

and implemented.’’ Testimony of Theodore M. Shaw, Hrg. before 

the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee 25 (Nov. 9, 2005). And Mr. Shaw was not alone, as numerous witnesses who testified before the House and Senate explained 

that the Georgia standard is functionally unworkable. E.g., Testimony of Robert Kengle, Hrg. before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee 136 (Nov. 9, 2005); Testimony of David T. Canon, Reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act’s 

Temporary Provisions: Policy Perspectives and Views from the 

Field, Hrg. before the Senate Judiciary Committee (June 21, 2006); 

Appendix to Testimony of Nathaniel Persily, The Continued Need 

for Section 5, Hrg. before Senate Judiciary Committee (May 16, 

2006). 

The House witnesses were also unified in their conclusion that 

Congress needed to adopt language in order to prevent the substitution of coalition or influence districts for naturally occurring majority-minority districts. Mr. Shaw testified, ‘‘What Georgia v. 

Ashcroft does is open a door to cracking, [or] dilution’’ of majorityminority districts in order to limit minorities’ voting power. Testimony of Theodore M. Shaw, supra, at 58. Attorney Anne Lewis explained that the purpose of this language is to prevent elected officials from unpacking majority-minority districts into ‘‘influence’’ or ‘‘coalitional’’ districts. Testimony of Anne W. Lewis, Hrg. before the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee 32 (Nov. 9, 2005); accord id. at 35. 

Accordingly, S. 2703 specifically amends section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act to clarify that it protects the ability of minority voters 

‘‘to elect their preferred candidates of choice,’’ and thus re-adopts— and clarifies further—the Beer standard. The phrase ‘‘preferred 

candidate of choice’’ was first proposed in the House hearings by 

Mr. Shaw, Ms. Lewis, and Congressman Tyrone Brooks to solve 

this problem. 

These witnesses made it clear that the new language did not require the maximization or creation of majority-minority districts. 

As one witness explained, the Supreme Court has held ‘‘in Miller 

v. Johnson and Shaw v. Hunt that maximization of minority voting 

strength is an improper reading of Section 5,’’ Testimony of Kengle, 

supra, 139, and this bill does not change that. Ms. Lewis explained 

that the language ‘‘preferred candidate of choice’’ was not aimed at 

drawing ‘‘bizarre shape[d]’’ majority-minority districts. Testimony 

of Anne W. Lewis, supra, 34. 

Instead, the language seeks to protect naturally occurring majority-minority districts. Ms. Lewis explained that the goal of the 

amendment was to prevent states from dismantling or ‘‘refusing to 

draw naturally occurring geographically compact majority-minority 

districts.’’ Id. Mr. Shaw likewise stated that the ‘‘preferred candidate of choice’’ language was designed to prevent legislators from 

intentionally ‘‘ ‘cracking’ or ‘fragmenting’ geographically compact 

minority voting communities.’’ Testimony of Shaw, supra, 24. 

If covered jurisdictions are permitted to break up districts where 

minorities form a clear majority of voters and replace them with 

vague concepts such as influence, coalition, and opportunity—a 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
20 

standard under which no one factor or specific combination of factors is determinative—this may actually facilitate racial discrimination against minority voters. 

Particularly disconcerting is the prospect that the Georgia opinion potentially opens the door to increased substitution of partisan 

interests for the ability of minorities to elect their preferred candidate of choice. Several House witnesses articulated the problem 

in clear terms: ‘‘[To] the extent that [we] can imagine what measures would be used to determine whether substantive representation or influence has been enhanced to prevent retrogression, these 

measures amount to simply helping Democratic Party candidates 

. . . Helping Democratic Party candidates would be argued to be 

equivalent to increasing minority voter influence and helping minority substantive representation. In other words, influence districts, if seen as a replacement for opportunities for minority voters 

to elect representatives of their choice, would become simply a rationale for creating Democratic party gerrymanders.’’ Prepared 

Statement of Theodore S. Arrington, Hrg. before the Subcommittee 

on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee 84 (Nov. 9, 

2005). 

However, as we learned from witnesses, this is not an acceptable 

result. Congressman Brooks made this point when he stated that 

‘‘. . . retrogression would be something I could never accept. I 

would not ever sacrifice the full protections of section 5 . . . simply 

to promote a particular candidate or a political party. And I think 

that’s basically what it came down to in 2001 in Georgia. We were 

putting political decisions ahead of what the Voting Rights Act 

really is all about, and I think we made a mistake.’’ Testimony of 

Rep. Tyrone Brooks, Hrg. before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee 76 (Nov. 9, 2005). One 

House Member commented that the Georgia legislature ‘‘had made 

a partisan decision to basically protect Democratic districts, or the 

Democratic Party,’’ and asked, ‘‘do you believe that that’s an appropriate use of the Voting Rights Act?’’ Rep. Brooks responded, ‘‘No, 

I do not,’’ and urged the Committee to accept the ‘‘preferred candidate of choice’’ language in order to prevent this result in the future. Id. Congressman John Lewis, in endorsing the amendment, 

stated, ‘‘I cannot accept the Court’s conclusion that the interests of 

an incumbent minority politician are the same as the interest of 

minority voters, with respect to redistricting. There is a clear conflict there.’’ Prepared Statement of Congressman John Lewis, Hrg. 

before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee 81 (Nov. 9, 2005). 

In truth, witnesses made clear to the committee that the ‘‘argument was that the Voting Rights Act was not intended to protect 

the incumbents of any political party or, for that matter, the incumbents of any particular race. Instead, the purpose of the Voting 

Rights Act is to protect the rights of voters in minority racial and 

language communities, who have historically been denied the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.’’ Testimony of Anne W. 

Lewis, supra, at 34. 

The bill’s proposed language codifies this understanding. It eliminates any risk that the scenarios feared by Georgia v. Ashcroft’s 

critics will unfold. By focusing solely on the protection of naturally 

occurring legislative districts with a majority of minority voters, 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
21 

the reauthorization bill ensures that minority voters will not be 

forced to trade away solidly majority-minority districts for ambiguous concepts like ‘‘influence’’ or ‘‘coalitional.’’ Rather, as the House 

Committee Report makes clear, the bill ‘‘rejects’’ the Supreme 

Court’s interpretation of section 5 in Georgia v. Ashcroft, and establishes that the purpose of section 5’s protection of minority voters 

is, in the words of the bill, to ‘‘protect the ability of such citizens 

to elect their preferred candidates of choice.’’

It is important to emphasize that this language does not protect 

any district with a representative who gets elected with some minority votes. Rather, it protects only districts in which ‘‘such citizens’’—minority citizens—are the ones selecting their ‘‘preferred 

candidate of choice’’ with their own voting power. These two 

phrases have a limited but important purpose: protecting naturally 

occurring majority-minority districts. By limiting non-retrogression 

requirements to districts in which ‘‘such [minority] citizens’’ are 

able with their own vote power to elect ‘‘preferred’’ candidates of 

choice—not just a candidate of choice settled for when forced to 

compromise with other groups—the bill limits section 5 to protecting those naturally occurring, compact majority-minority districts with which section 5 was originally concerned. This approach 

would avoid what one minority witness called the ‘‘ ‘cracking’ of majority-minority districts.’’ Testimony of Persily, supra. 

Among the salutary effects of the ‘‘preferred candidate of choice’’

language is that it avoids several legal and practical pitfalls. First, 

the bill would replace the ambiguous standard set by the Supreme 

Court in Georgia v. Ashcroft with the workable standard in Beer. 

This would promote the Act’s original purposes, provide predictability to all involved, and reduce wasteful litigation. Additionally, 

the bill would not lock into place coalition or influence districts, as 

this would wreak havoc with the redistricting process and would 

stretch the Voting Rights Act beyond the scope of Congress’s authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Finally, 

the amendment clarifies that the competitive position of a political 

party is not the concern of the Voting Rights Act. This legislation 

definitively is not intended to preserve or ensure the successful 

election of candidates of any political party, even if that party’s 

candidates generally are supported by members of minority groups. 

The Voting Rights Act was intended to enhance voting power, not 

to serve as a one-way ratchet in favor of partisan interests. 

Naturally occurring majority-minority districts have long been 

the historical focus of the Voting Rights Act. They are the districts 

that would be created if legitimate, neutral principles of drawing 

district boundaries, such as attention to county and municipal political borders, were combined with the existence of a large and 

compact minority population to draw a district in which racial minorities form a majority. The changes made by section 5 of this bill, 

overriding aspects of Georgia v. Ashcroft, would give federal authorities the tools they need to prevent state and local authorities 

from arbitrarily refusing to create or arbitrarily dismantling such 

districts, or from implementing other voting practices that are motivated by racial or ethnic discrimination. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(22) 

X. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. KYL

I concur without reservation in the Chairman’s report. I write 

separately simply to add a few points with regard to the VRARA’s 

treatment of Reno v. Bossier Parish II, 528 U.S. 320 (2000), and 

Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003). 

As the Chairman notes, the VRARA’s changes to Section 5 of the 

Voting Rights Act ensure that the Act will protect the creation and 

retention of naturally occurring districts with a clear majority of 

minority voters—and nothing more. The Chairman emphasizes 

that the Act as amended by the bill does not protect coalitional or 

influence districts. 

I write separately to explain why I believe that Congress cannot 

require that state or local governments create or retain influence 

or coalitional districts. These are districts that do not have a majority of minority voters but that nevertheless reliably support candidates and parties supported by minority voters. I believe that extending the protections of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to 

these districts would exceed the scope of Congress’s power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause pursuant to Section 5 of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. 

The ultimate goal of the Equal Protection Clause is to ensure 

that different races are treated equally. Even if influence or 

coalitional districts were properly understood to protect the interests of minority voters, rather than the interests of political parties—a matter that is of some dispute—a mandate for the creation 

or retention of such districts would not be a reasonable means of 

enforcing that Clause. If the Voting Rights Act forced states to create such districts whenever possible (or even only when permitted 

by neutral redistricting criteria), or barred states from disassembling such districts, Federal law effectively would require that one 

group of voters be placed as often as possible in districts where 

candidates and parties supported by that group of voters will prevail. 

Such a requirement would be problematic for several reasons. 

First, it is the nature of politics and elections that some voters will 

support a winning candidate and that some will support a candidate who loses. It is no violation of a person’s voting rights that 

the candidate that he voted for lost. That is simply how elections 

work. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments protect a right 

to be able to vote free from the influence of racial discrimination. 

They do not protect a right to have one’s candidate prevail in an 

election. 

Moreover, in jurisdictions in which the protected group of voters 

largely supports one party, a requirement that those voters be 

placed in districts where their candidates and party will prevail 

would introduce severe distortions into the redistricting process. In 

effect, that jurisdiction would be required to create and retain as 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
23 

many districts as possible that would reliably elect candidates of 

the party favored by the protected group of voters. 

Such a mandate would be grossly unfair to voters who support 

other parties that compete in the jurisdiction’s elections. A requirement that one group of voters be given winning districts as often 

as possible also is a requirement that other voters who support 

competing parties be placed in losing districts. It is a mandate that 

effectively would require affirmative discrimination against the aspirations of other voters. Such a system would not be consistent 

with the principle of the equal protection of the laws. It would not 

be a reasonable means of enforcing the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Further, any application of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 

that would have the effect of favoring one group of voters above 

and at the expense of other voters would be in serious tension with 

other parts of the Act. Statutes with integrated provisions effecting 

a common general objective are read in pari matera—that is, in 

such a way that one provision does not negate or undercut another. 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars the creation of a system 

under which members of one group ‘‘have less opportunity than 

other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.’’ Obviously, if Section 5 were applied in a way that required that one group of voters 

be given opportunities superior to those enjoyed by other groups to 

have its candidates prevail in elections, that section would be inconsistent with Section 2. It would contravene Section 2’s prohibition on systems that give some groups ‘‘less opportunity than other 

members of the electorate * * * to elect representatives of their 

choice.’’ If the different parts of the Voting Rights Act are to be construed 

in harmony, no part of that Act should be employed to require implementation or retention of a particular voting practice simply because it increases the competitive position of a political party that 

is favored by a particular group of voters. The Voting Rights Act 

does not require maximization or enhancement of the electoral opportunities of any particular group of voters—a result that could 

only be achieved at the expense of the rights of other groups of voters. Indeed, such a result would be at odds with the very constitutional provision that the Act is designed to enforce, the Fourteenth 

Amendment, which requires equal treatment of the rights and opportunities of different groups of voters. 

Finally, I would note that the operative assumptions underlying 

the concepts of influence and coalitional districts appear to be inconsistent with the predicates for Congress’s exercise of its powers 

under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress may legislate pursuant to Section 5 in order to enact remedial legislation 

designed to combat substantial and sustained racial discrimination. 

Because Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has been enacted and 

extended pursuant to these Fourteenth Amendment powers, it 

must be reasonably targeted at jurisdictions suspected of discriminating against the aspirations of minority voters. In reauthorizing 

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Congress cannot presume the 

existence of the opposite of the predicates for the exercise of its 

Fourteenth Amendment powers. The preclearance requirement canVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:28 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR295.XXX SR295

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
24 

not be based on the assumption that spreading out minority voters 

will have no negative impact on their electoral aspirations because 

other groups will readily support minority voters’ preferred candidates. If such an assumption were clearly accurate, there would 

be no basis for legislating pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth 

Amendment in the first place. And if this or any future Congress 

were to incorporate such assumptions into Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act, it would cast doubt on the constitutionality of the Act’s 

mandate that covered states and localities preclear all changes in 

their voting procedures with the Federal government. 

With these considerations in mind, I concur in the Committee’s 

decision to report a bill that does not require influence or 

coalitional districts, but that instead reaffirms the Voting Rights 

Act’s historical focus on protecting naturally occurring majority-minority districts. 

JON KYL. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(25) 

1Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965. Volume II, 

entry 394, pp. 811–815. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1966. 

XI. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. CORNYN AND MR. COBURN

We regret that these views will be filed post-enactment. The expedited process prohibited normal order, but we believe the following considerations should accompany the Act’s passage. 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is arguably the most important 

and effective civil rights legislation ever enacted. Indeed, when 

signing the landmark legislation into law, Lyndon Johnson, the 

President of the United States and former member of the Senate 

from the state of Texas, described the act’s passage as ‘‘a triumph 

for freedom as huge as any victory that has ever been won on any 

battlefield.’’ 1 President Johnson’s words captured the importance of 

the act’s passage and underscore that it was a hard-fought victory 

at a tense time in American history. 

It is no secret why the Voting Rights Act was necessary. It was 

adopted at the height of the civil rights movement, when numerous 

jurisdictions throughout the United States had actively engaged in 

the intentional, systematic disenfranchisement of blacks and other 

minorities from the electoral process. As the committee report and 

the extensive record reflects, these jurisdictions engaged in the discriminatory use of tests and devices such as literacy, knowledge 

and moral character tests—tests specifically designed to be failed. 

Even worse, violence and brutality were commonplace. Blacks were 

beaten and killed simply for attempting to exercise their right to 

participate in the democratic process, and civil rights activists were 

thwarted at every turn in their attempt to enact reform. This type 

of bigotry and hatred at the polls, coupled with escalating violence 

and the murder of activists, is the backdrop against which the Voting Rights Act was adopted. 

S. 2703, the legislation that has passed out of committee, is another step in our nation’s long road toward equal justice under the 

law for all Americans. The legislation provides for the reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act—provisions 

that are designed to protect against discrimination at the polls. For 

these reasons, and because we believe that there are certain political subdivisions across the nation that would further benefit from 

federal oversight, we joined our colleagues in voting for this legislation. 

However, we do hold some significant reservations about a number of important issues. These concerns can generally be categorized as follows: (1) the record of evidence does not appear to 

reasonably underscore the decision to simply reauthorize the existing Section 5 coverage formula—a formula that is based on 33 to 

41 year old data, and (2) the seemingly rushed, somewhat incomplete legislative process involved in passing the legislation preVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:28 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR295.XXX SR295

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
26 

2Senate Report 162, at 44 (April 21, 1965). 

3 2004 Election Data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Reflects the percentage as a percent of 

the population, as compared to as a percent of the Citizen Voting Age Population. Those numbers are 69.9 percent and 67.9 percent. In addition, certain assumptions were made to account 

for partially covered jurisdictions—North Carolina and Virginia were considered ‘‘covered’’ for 

this calculation because of their significant number of covered counties. 4 Id. 

5 Id. 

vented the full consideration of numerous suggested improvements 

to the Act. 

In short, while we support reauthorization generally, we reluctantly conclude that the final product is not the best product we 

might have produced had we engaged in a more thorough debate 

about possible improvements. We also conclude that it would have 

been beneficial if the Section 4 coverage formula had been updated 

in order to adhere to constitutional requirements—an update that 

would have preserved, strengthened and expanded the Act to ensure its future success. 

1. EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD CALLS FOR AN UPDATED COVERAGE

FORMULA

The good news is that the Act fulfilled its promise. Today, we live 

in a different—albeit still imperfect—world. Today, no one can 

claim that the kind of systematic, invidious practices that plagued 

our election systems 40 years ago still exist in America. And the 

Act resulted in almost immediate, measurable improvements with 

respect to covered jurisdictions. However, simply reauthorizing the 

expiring provisions with the existing coverage formula—based on 

33 to 41 year old data—may not have been the best approach given 

the evidence today in 2006. 

Increased Voter Registration and Turnout Rates in Covered Jurisdictions 

In 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was adopted the average 

registration rate for black voters in the seven original covered 

states was only 29.3 percent.2 Today, the voter registration rate 

among blacks, for example, in covered jurisdictions is over 68.1 percent of the population—higher than the 62.2 percent found in noncovered jurisdictions.3 As the chart below indicates, voter registration data since the Act’s original passage in 1965 shows that covered jurisdictions have demonstrated equal or higher voter registration rates among black voters as non-covered jurisdictions 

since the mid 1970’s.4 Voter turnout data is equally encouraging, 

with 60 percent of black citizens casting votes in both covered jurisdictions and non-covered jurisdictions.5


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
27 

6 Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Section 5 Pre-Clearance: Before the Senate Comm. 

on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 5 (2006) (Submitted testimony by Professor Keith Gaddie on May 

17, 2006: The Bullock-Gaddie Voting Rights Studies: An Analysis of Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act. See Table 2 on Alabama.) 7 Id. See Table 2 on Georgia. 

8 Id. See Table 2 on Louisiana. 

9 Id. See Table 1 on Mississippi. 

10 Id. See Table 1 on South Carolina. 11 Id. See Table 3 on Alabama. 12 Id. See Table 3 on Georgia. 13 Id. See Table 3 on Louisiana. 14 Id. See Table 2 on Mississippi. 15 Id. See Table 2 on South Carolina. 16 Id. See Table 2 on Virginia. 

Further, statistician Keith Gaddie reported registration of black 

citizens in Alabama during the 2004 elections was 72.9% of the voting age population,6 in Georgia, 64.2%,7 in Louisiana, 71.1%,8 in 

Mississippi, 76.1%,9 in South Carolina, 71.1%,10 and in Virginia, 

57.4% of the voting age population. Voter turnout rates were equally improved. For example, in 2004 Alabama had a 63.9% turnout 

rate of registered black voters,11 Georgia had a 54.4% turnout 

rate,12 Louisiana had a 62.1% turnout rate,13 Mississippi had a 

66.8% turnout rate,14 South Carolina had a 59.5% turnout rate,15

and Virginia had a 49.6% turnout rate.16

Declining Objections by the Department of Justice 

Another important indicator of the success of the Act is the continual decline of objections issued by the Department of Justice to 

plans submitted under section 5 for pre-clearance. The Supplemental Views submitted by the Chairman of the Committee includes a chart depicting DOJ objections since 1982. It is worth noting that both total objections and objections as a percent of submissions have declined significantly over that time, and as we understand, since the original passage of the Act. 

Our review of the data indicates that the continual decline has 

occurred under both Republican and Democrat Presidential administrations, dropping from 67 objections out of 2848 in 1982 to only 

19 objections out of 3,999 submissions in 1995. Perhaps most tellVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:28 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR295.XXX SR295

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 here SR295.300
28 

17 Id. 18 It was not possible for our staffs to investigate and verify each and every account of discrimination submitted. 

ing is the fact that in 2005, there was only 1 objection out of 3,811 

pre-clearance submissions.17

While some maintain that the analysis may be skewed since Bossier v. Parrish II removed ‘‘discriminatory purpose’’ from the equation, the fact is that the trend has been a declining number of objections in covered jurisdictions over time. We believe this is something to celebrate as an indication of the success of the Act. 

Anecdotal Accounts Submitted Implicate only a Portion of Covered 

Political Subdivisions 

The volume of testimony and submissions amassed during the 

House and Senate hearings was overwhelming. Indeed, when the 

Senate Judiciary Committee held its first hearing, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman said, ‘‘I am here today to present this 

Committee with the results of our examination, which includes almost 8,000 pages of testimony that comprise 9 of the 10 hearing 

records compiled by the House Judiciary Committee.’’ Our understanding is that ultimately the Senate received almost 10,000 

pages from the House of Representatives. 

Numerous witnesses suggested that the primary rationale for 

continued coverage based on the existing formula was over 10,000 

pages of accounts of discrimination compiled. Senate Judiciary staff 

analyzed the report during the course of hearings seeking to find 

all accounts of discrimination alleged in the report. The result of 

that effort—a 283 page summary of examples of discrimination— is included as Appendix 3 to the Committee Report. 

While we take no position on the existence of discrimination alleged in the accounts in the record, at face value the anecdotes submitted implicate only a fraction of the total number of covered political subdivisions.18 For example, of the 254 counties in Texas, 

only 22 are implicated by the accounts of discrimination submitted 

in the record. This analysis admittedly excludes any accounts of 

statewide discrimination (e.g. a redistricting plan)—because including such examples are indicative of the state policy not the local 

political subdivision. 

COUNTIES SPECIFICALLY IMPLICATED IN HOUSE AND SENATE RECORD ACCOUNTS OF 

DISCRIMINATION 19

State 

Number of 

Counties 

Implicated 

Total Number of 

Counties in the 

State 

Percentage of 

Counties 

Implicated 

(Percent) 

Alabama ...................................................................................................... 13 67 19.40 

Alaska ......................................................................................................... 5 27 18.52 

Arizona ........................................................................................................ 6 15 40.00 

California .................................................................................................... 10 58 17.24 

Colorado ...................................................................................................... 2 64 3.13 

Florida ......................................................................................................... 5 67 7.46 

Georgia ........................................................................................................ 27 159 16.98 

Illinois ......................................................................................................... 8 102 7.84 

Indiana ........................................................................................................ 1 92 1.09 

Kentucky ...................................................................................................... 3 120 2.50 

Louisiana ..................................................................................................... 2 64 3.13 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
29 

20 Unofficial Transcript: Special Executive Business Meeting to Consider S. 2703, Fannie Lou 

Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006: Senate Committee on Judiciary, 109th Cong. 19 (2006) (Oral statement of 

Senator Dick Durbin on July 19, 2006). 

COUNTIES SPECIFICALLY IMPLICATED IN HOUSE AND SENATE RECORD ACCOUNTS OF 

DISCRIMINATION 19—Continued 

State 

Number of 

Counties 

Implicated 

Total Number of 

Counties in the 

State 

Percentage of 

Counties 

Implicated 

(Percent) 

Maryland ..................................................................................................... 1 23 4.35 

Massachusetts ............................................................................................ 2 14 14.29 

Michigan ..................................................................................................... 5 83 6.02 

Minnesota .................................................................................................... 2 87 2.30 

Mississippi .................................................................................................. 8 82 9.76 

Missouri ....................................................................................................... 1 114 0.88 

Montana ...................................................................................................... 6 56 10.71 

New Jersey ................................................................................................... 5 21 23.81 

New Mexico ................................................................................................. 3 33 9.09 

New York ..................................................................................................... 8 62 12.90 

North Carolina ............................................................................................. 15 100 15.00 

Ohio ............................................................................................................. 2 88 2.27 

Pennsylvania ............................................................................................... 3 67 4.48 

Rhode Island ............................................................................................... 1 5 20.00 

South Carolina ............................................................................................ 23 46 50.00 

South Dakota .............................................................................................. 14 66 21.21 

Texas ........................................................................................................... 22 254 8.66 

Virginia ........................................................................................................ 14 134 10.45 

Washington ................................................................................................. 1 39 2.56 

Wisconsin .................................................................................................... 3 72 4.17 

Wyoming ...................................................................................................... 1 23 4.35 

.

19 Data collected from a review of the record by Senate Judiciary Committee staff. 

COUNTIES SPECIFICALLY IMPLICATED IN PARTIALLY COVERED JURISDICTIONS 

State Covered Counties 

Implicated 

Preclearance 

Counties 

Percentage of 

Preclearance 

Counties 

Implicated 

(Percent) 

California .................................................................................................... 3 4 75 

Florida ......................................................................................................... 0 5 0 

Michigan ..................................................................................................... 2 2 100 

New York ..................................................................................................... 3 3 100 

North Carolina ............................................................................................. 9 40 22.5 

South Dakota .............................................................................................. 2 2 100 

Virginia ........................................................................................................ 14 123 11.38 

Interestingly, while Florida has 5 counties that are subject to 

Section 5 coverage, none of these counties were implicated by the 

accounts of discrimination. Yet there were 5 non-covered counties 

in Florida that were pointed out in the list of accounts. If reauthorization of Section 5 coverage is based on the accounts in the record, 

it does not seem that the coverage formula in Florida as re-authorized could possibly be appropriate. 

In the Senate Judiciary Committee mark-up, Senator Durbin argued in favor of reauthorization by stating that, ‘‘[w]e have gathered thousands of pages of reports and evidence.’’ 20 While there 

are, in fact, thousands of pages in the record—it is important to 

clarify that there are a limited number of examples of discrimination and that the examples offered do not implicate the majority of 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
30 

21www.usdoj.gov, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Section, Voting 

Rights Act Clarification. 

covered political subdivisions. In all, of 893 covered counties, 139 

are directly implicated in the accounts of discrimination scattered 

throughout those ‘‘thousands of pages.’’ There is no question that if those accounts are accurate, that 

those 139 counties are deserving of coverage under Section 5, and 

possibly numerous others upon review. That is precisely the reason 

we voted for this legislation. But it would have been advisable for 

the committee or the Senate as a whole to consider an updated coverage formula to ensure that the appropriate jurisdictions were 

covered according to constitutional requirements. That kind of deliberative process simply was not allowed to occur. 

It strikes us that much of this is great news. Increased voter registration rates for African American voters in covered jurisdictions, 

reduced numbers of objections sustained, increased numbers of minority elected officials, fewer counties implicated with discriminatory activity, and generally a decreasing distinction, if any, between covered jurisdictions and non-covered jurisdictions means 

that there is strong and compelling evidence that, in fact, the Voting Rights Act has largely achieved the purposes that Congress had 

hoped for and that millions of people who had previously been 

disenfranchised had prayed for. 

In light of this strong indication that the act has largely achieved 

the purposes that Congress had intended, of course, the logical 

question before us was whether these provisions under section 5 

should have been reauthorized. 

2. THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS FAILED TO PRODUCE THOROUGH

DELIBERATION

Misunderstood Timing and Nature of Re-Authorization 

From the beginning of the reauthorization process, two critical 

facts were repeatedly ignored or misunderstood: (1) that the Voting 

Rights Act is, in fact, permanent and only certain temporary provisions are set to expire; and (2) that the expiring provisions were 

not set to expire until the summer of 2007—and thus there was 

plenty of time to work on improving the Act. 

The misunderstanding about the permanence of the Voting 

Rights Act—particularly by the press—is perhaps most troubling. 

In truth, the act’s core provision, section 2, prohibits the denial or 

abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race 

or color, is permanent, and applies nationwide. That provision will 

never expire, and it is not affected by the reauthorization language 

we review today. 

This is an important distinction because it caused a great deal 

of confusion in the public. In fact, according to the Department of 

Justice, the agency ‘‘received numerous inquiries concerning a 

rumor that [was] intermittently circulating around the nation . . . 

According to this rumor, the Voting Rights Act will expire in 2007, 

and as a result African Americans are in danger of losing the right 

to vote in that year.’’ 21 In truth, as the DOJ points out, ‘‘[t]he voting rights of African Americans are guaranteed by the United 

States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, and those guaranVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:28 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR295.XXX SR295

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
31 

22 Id. 

tees are permanent and do not expire.’’ 22 Instead, we are addressing (a) temporary provisions that were originally set to expire in 

5 years, and that were adopted to subject certain jurisdictions to 

Federal oversight of the voting laws and procedures until the intent of the Voting Rights Act was accomplished, as well (b) certain 

temporary, later-added provisions designed to protect voters from 

discrimination based upon limited English proficiency. 

We believe that this misunderstanding about the nature and timing of the expiration of certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act 

contributed to an unnecessarily heightened political environment 

that prohibited the Senate from conducting the kind of thorough 

debate that would have produced a superior product. 

Expedited Process Reduced Focus on the Issue 

Chairman Specter readily ceded to requests that were made to 

try to create a complete record. The Chairman worked hard to hold 

a sufficient number of fair and balanced hearings, but given our 

busy schedule on the Senate floor, it was not always easy for Members to attend and participate. An artificial rush to move the House 

version of the Voting Rights Act through the Senate on an expedited basis began more than a full year prior to the earliest expiration of any provisions of the Act. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee held nine hearings with a total 

of forty-six witnesses. Eight of those hearings were held in nine 

work weeks—and during times when many Committee members 

had other obligations. Indeed, four hearings were held during a 

substantial floor debate on the issue of immigration—legislation 

that directly involved most Judiciary Committee members in one 

way or another. Two hearings were interrupted by roll-call votes on 

the floor. 

The timing of our hearings and the expedited nature of the process was prohibitive to Senators who otherwise would have participated. Member attendance at these hearings was low. Indeed, at 

each of the first two hearings on Section 5, only one Senator was 

able to attend. Five Committee Members were unable to attend any 

of the hearings, while five others attended only a portion of one 

hearing. This is not meant as criticism to the Members that were 

unable to attend—indeed we unfortunately missed a number of 

hearings. Rather, it is meant to shed light on the process, a process 

that prohibited the kind of engaged discussion we would have preferred. 

The only way many Senators could ask thoughtful questions of 

witnesses at the hearings was through written questions, and 

many were submitted. In fact, Senators submitted a total of 610 

follow-up questions. Unfortunately, however, when the Senate 

marked up the legislation, we were told that 107 written questions 

to 10 witnesses were outstanding. Further, questions had not yet 

even been submitted for the final hearing—a hearing we had held 

just one week prior regarding the important issue of how the Supreme Court’s decision in LULAC v. Perry may have influenced our 

legislation. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
32 

23 Unofficial Transcript: An Introduction to the Expiring Provisions of the Voting Rights Act 

and Legal Issues Relating to Reauthorization: Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th 

Cong. 25 (2006). 

Suggested Improvements Not Considered 

Over the course of the many hearings we held, we heard from a 

variety of witnesses—from across the political spectrum and across 

racial lines. Many witnesses, from all sides of the debate, suggested 

improvements to the Act. 

For example, Loyola law professor Rick Hasen suggested in his 

testimony before the committee several specific ways to amend the 

Act. For example, he suggested that ‘‘Congress should make it easier for covered jurisdictions to bail out from coverage under Section 

5 upon a showing that the jurisdiction has taken steps to fully enfranchise and include minority voters,’’ and that Congress should 

impose a shorter time limit, perhaps 7 to 10 years for extension. 

The bill includes a 25-year extension, and the Court may believe 

it is beyond ‘‘congruent and proportional’’ to require, for example, 

the State of South Carolina to pre-clear every voting change, no 

matter how minor, through 2031.’’ 23

Similarly, Samuel Issacharoff, Professor of Constitutional Law at 

the New York University School of Law, suggested five ways to improve the Act during his oral testimony: 

First, I would recommend that the unit of coverage be 

moved from the States to political subdivisions of the 

States . . . Second, I think that is important, as Professor 

Hasen said a minute ago, to liberalize the bailout provisions . . . Third, I think that if we were to start from 

scratch today, we might consider a different kind of administrative mechanism other than the preclearance, and one 

way of thinking about this is that preclearance is extremely onerous and applies an ex ante and ahead-of-time 

review much like the FDA to any proposed change. One 

could also imagine a Securities and Exchange Commission 

type reporting system that covered jurisdictions who have 

not actively violated the Act in the last 5 years, or some 

defined period, would be required to post on a website any 

proposed change and the reasons for it and be subject to 

either affirmative litigation under Section 2 or simply a 

false statement litigation . . . Fourth, I would expand the 

jurisdictional reach of Section 5 by allowing this disclosure 

regime to be applied to any jurisdiction that has been 

found guilty of a Section 2 violation or that has engaged 

in affirmative actions against minority voters. And, finally, 

I think that there is reason for concern with the language 

on the overruling of Georgia v. Ashcroft, and I think that 

the reason for the concern is that the current statute faces 

a climate very different from that in 1965 in that you have 

real bipartisan competition in most of the covered jurisdictions today, which means that certain features of conduct, 

State conduct, will not go by unattended, will not simply 

pass muster without anybody realizing. And I would recommend removing statewide redistricting from Section 5 

overview altogether. That has been an area of some conVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:28 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR295.XXX SR295

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
33 

24 Unofficial Transcript: An Introduction to the Expiring Provisions of the Voting Rights Act 

and Legal Issues Relating to Reauthorization: Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th 

Cong. 37 (2006). 

troversy with the Department of Justice, and it has been 

an area where there is plenty of litigation in every redistricting anyway, and I don’t think Section 5 worked particularly effectively there.24

We believe it would have been beneficial for the long-term viability, constitutionality and success of the Voting Rights Act had for 

the Senate Judiciary Committee to engage in a serious, reasoned 

debate over some of these suggested possible improvements as well 

as any other ideas. These improvements would underscore the Act’s 

original purpose, and would modernize it to reflect today’s reality. 

They would possibly expand the coverage of section 5 to jurisdictions where recent abuses have taken place or, perhaps, have improved the so-called bailout procedures for those jurisdictions that 

had a successful record of remedying, indeed eliminating discrimination when it comes to voting rights. 

One idea that was offered was to update the coverage formula. 

We don’t know if that is a good idea or not, but we would like to 

know. Some suggest that such an update would ‘‘gut’’ or otherwise 

undercut the effectiveness of the Act—something that certainly 

would not be our intention. But we are skeptical that this would 

be the result. The amendment that was voted on in the House, for 

example, would have updated the coverage trigger to the most recent three Presidential elections from the current trigger of the 

1964, 1968, and 1972 elections. 

As we understand it, coverage, after an update to cover the most 

recent three Presidential elections, would look something like the 

chart included at the end of our views, entitled ‘‘Effect of Basing 

Section Coverage on Recent Election Data.’’ This chart reflects the 

effect of implementing a new coverage formula. In other words, 

rather than basing coverage on election data that is several decades old, where nine states are completely covered and a handful 

of other political subdivisions around the country are covered, one 

would see coverage of different jurisdictions around the country 

based on the updated formula. The intent would be to reflect the 

problems where they really exist and where the record demonstrates some justification for the assertion of Federal power and 

intrusion into the local and State electoral processes. 

If this map is an accurate reflection of the effects of updating the 

trigger to the most recent three Presidential elections, it certainly 

changes the coverage. But we would suggest, just looking at the jurisdictions on the map, it hardly guts it. Another alternative might 

have been to use the very evidence provided in the House and Senate record—as discussed above—that implicates 139 of the currently covered counties as well as 45 of the non-covered counties 

throughout the nation. 

The primary point is not that any of these methods is necessarily 

the right approach, but that it would have been beneficial for us 

to have had a full discussion of ways to improve the Act to ensure 

its important provisions were narrowly tailored and applied in a 

congruent and proportional way, something the Supreme Court will 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
34 

take into consideration when it considers the renewed Act. We believe we could have done it had we taken the time to do it. 

Legislative Language Seemingly a Foregone Conclusion 

Probably our most significant concern is that this important legislation was—unfortunately—a bit of a foregone conclusion. As we 

described above, the hearings held in the Senate were quite informative. There were numerous perspectives—numerous ideas offered 

on how to improve the Act from witnesses across the ideological 

and racial spectrum and those both supportive of the reauthorization and concerned with the reauthorization. 

From the outset, the default seemed to be to accept the House 

product without deliberation. In fact, the findings in the Senatedropped version of the bill were adopted PRIOR to a single hearing 

being held in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Despite the fact 

that each hearing had a very balanced panel and many amendment 

ideas were offered by witnesses, it was clear that no amendment 

would be given serious consideration because of the political nature 

of the bill and the expedited, rushed process. As described earlier 

in our views, the Committee marked up the legislation with 107 

written questions to 10 witnesses outstanding, as well as before 

questions were even submitted to our final panel. Unfortunately, 

we proceeded without the benefit of a complete record despite the 

fact that we had plenty of time to receive the answers from witnesses and fully consider their implications and input. 

And the questions that Senators asked revealed that they were 

interested in at least considering amendments. Many Senators 

asked which amendments to consider and how to properly draft 

such amendments. However, when the House of Representatives 

passed H.R. 9, their version of the Voting Rights Act, without any 

amendments on July 13, 2006, it became clear that the Senate 

would pass a bill without any amendments. If there had been any 

doubt prior, the text of the bill became a foregone conclusion for 

the Senate after House passage. 

The process that led to a vote on the floor reveals that not a single change was permitted to be made to the legislation passed in 

the Senate. While the Committee approved by voice vote an amendment offered by Senator Leahy to incorporate Mr. Cesar Chavez’s 

name into the title of the Act, it became clear that the Committee 

would not accept any amendments that changed the substance of 

the bill, including the amendments circulated by Senator Coburn. 

In fact, Senators expressed concern about any amendments that 

would slow the expedited passage of the Act. The Judiciary Committee reported out the Senate’s version of the Fannie Lou Hamer, 

Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King and Caesar Chavez Voting Rights 

Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, S. 2703, without substantive amendment. 

Yet, Majority Leader Frist had already used Rule 14 of Senate 

procedure to place H.R. 9 on the calendar, and we were told that 

it was the House legislation would be called up for a full vote on 

the Senate floor the following afternoon. The rules adopted for floor 

debate allowed for eight hours of discussion evenly divided by the 

Republicans and Democrats and ruled out the ability to offer 

amendments on the floor. The process prevented any amendments 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
35 

25Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 490 (2003). 

on the floor so that the same Act that the House of Representatives 

approved would pass the Senate and there would be no conference. 

While a Member may have been able to object and require a vote 

on an amendment, the outcome was a foregone conclusion, and 

thus it would have been futile. 

Finally, even the production of this committee report—something 

that normally is of the utmost significance for such important, complicated legislation—has been short circuited. Indeed, the report 

will not be filed until several days after the passage of the legislation and just before it is signed into law. We remain convinced that 

these views are critical to a full understanding of the legislative 

process behind enactment and thus include them in the Committee 

Report. 

CONCLUSION

We decided to support the extension of the expiring changes, 

even though it would have been preferable and even constitutionally advisable for us to review the application of the Act’s preclearance and other provisions. Unfortunately, the Act’s language 

was a foregone conclusion, and we were unable to have the kind 

of debate and discussion and perhaps amendment process that 

might have been helpful to protect the act against future legal 

challenges. We wish we would have had the opportunity to improve 

the Act—because we are confident that with a little work, we could 

have done just that. 

We cannot help but fear that the driving force behind this rushed 

reauthorization process was the reality that the Voting Rights Act 

has evolved into a tool for political and racial gerrymandering. We 

believe that is unfortunate and that political re-districting should 

be driven by objective parameters and should not use race to further the objectives of political parties. 

Nonetheless, we voted for reauthorization because of the unparalleled success of the Voting Rights Act in the past in securing the 

opportunity to vote. Few issues are as fundamental to our system 

of democracy and the promise of equal justice under law as the 

Voting Rights Act. The Act was specifically designed to ‘‘foster our 

transformation to a society that is no longer fixated on race,’’ to an 

‘‘all-inclusive community, where we would be able to forget about 

race and color and see people as people, as human beings, just as 

citizens.’’ 25

It is our sincere hope that we will move beyond distinctions 

based on race in our policymaking, lest we, in the words of Justice 

Anthony Kennedy, make ‘‘the offensive and demeaning assumption 

that voters of a particular race, because of their race, think alike, 

share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls.’’

The question in the end is this: Is this bill that we have passed 

the very best possible product? We would conclude that it is not. 

Yet, in response to the question: Is this the very best that we can 

do under the circumstances?’’ We reluctantly conclude that it is. 

And that is why we supported it in Committee and on the floor. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
36 

EFFECT OF BASING SECTION COVERAGE ON RECENT ELECTION DATA

The table below reflects the results we believe would occur from 

updating the Section 4 coverage formula to 2000 and 2004 Presidential Election data from the current formula based on the 1964, 

1968 and 1972 election years. The original figure to be included in 

this Committee Report was a map depicting the counties covered. 

The purpose of the map was to demonstrate the significant coverage that would be retained in currently covered jurisdictions as 

well as the fact coverage would be expanded. However, GPO is unable to print such a map into the record, so in its place we have 

included the following table. As pointed out in the additional views, 

we do not suggest that this coverage formula is the best or preferred formula, but that it would have been a reasonable alternative and should have been given appropriate consideration in the 

Senate. 

JOHN CORNYN. TOM COBURN. 

VOTER TURNOUT DATA REPRESENTS THE PERCENTAGE OF 

THE CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

AL ............. Barbour County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.72% 1 

AL ............. Bibb County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.28% 45.89% 1 

AL ............. Blount County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.68% 1 

AL ............. Butler County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.92% 1 

AL ............. Calhoun County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.78% 1

AL ............. Chambers County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.85% 43.19% 1 

AL ............. Cherokee County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.50% 42.12% 1 

AL ............. Cleburne County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.83% 1

AL ............. Coffee County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.67% 1 

AL ............. Coosa County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.18% 1 

AL ............. Covington County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.46% 1 

AL ............. Crenshaw County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.62% 1 

AL ............. Dale County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.70% 1 

AL ............. DeKalb County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.04% 43.39% 1 

AL ............. Elmore County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.84% 1 

AL ............. Escambia County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.96% 40.16% 1 

AL ............. Franklin County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.57% 1 

AL ............. Geneva County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.99% 1 

AL ............. Houston County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.21% 1

AL ............. Jackson County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.39% 43.93% 1 

AL ............. Lauderdale County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.77% 1 

AL ............. Lawrence County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.20% 1 

AL ............. Lee County ................................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.95% 44.22% 1 

AL ............. Limestone County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.46% 1 

AL ............. Macon County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.61% 1 

AL ............. Marion County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.73% 1 

AL ............. Marshall County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.87% 1

AL ............. Mobile County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.96% 1 

AL ............. Montgomery County .................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.98% 1 

AL ............. Pike County ............................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.90% 1 

AL ............. Randolph County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.56% 1 

AL ............. Russell County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.98% 40.89% 1 

AL ............. Talladega County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 42.43% 1

AL ............. Tuscaloosa County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.38% 1 

AL ............. Walker County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.64% 1 

AL ............. Winston County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.61% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
37 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

AL Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 36 

AR ............ Arkansas County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.76% 41.02% 1 

AR ............ Ashley County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.75% 47.46% 1 

AR ............ Bradley County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.06% 42.74% 1 

AR ............ Chicot County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.23% 44.12% 1 

AR ............ Clark County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.75% 1 

AR ............ Clay County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.25% 43.59% 1 

AR ............ Columbia County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.89% 1 

AR ............ Conway County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.16% 1 

AR ............ Craighead County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.57% 41.05% 1 

AR ............ Crawford County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.90% 1 

AR ............ Crittenden County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.51% 38.14% 1 

AR ............ Cross County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.39% 1 

AR ............ Dallas County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.27% 1 

AR ............ Desha County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.82% 41.86% 1 

AR ............ Drew County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.31% 43.15% 1 

AR ............ Faulkner County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.22% 1

AR ............ Franklin County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.02% 1

AR ............ Fulton County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.84% 1 

AR ............ Grant County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.62% 1 

AR ............ Greene County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.95% 44.73% 1 

AR ............ Hempstead County ................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.43% 44.84% 1 

AR ............ Hot Spring County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.56% 1 

AR ............ Howard County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.05% 44.14% 1 

AR ............ Independence County ............... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.39% 45.40% 1 

AR ............ Izard County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.17% 1 

AR ............ Jackson County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.82% 42.59% 1 

AR ............ Jefferson County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.03% 1

AR ............ Johnson County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.35% 43.69% 1 

AR ............ Lawrence County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.49% 44.84% 1 

AR ............ Lee County ................................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.66% 44.49% 1 

AR ............ Lincoln County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 36.20% 31.56% 1 

AR ............ Logan County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.36% 48.83% 1 

AR ............ Lonoke County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.16% 1

AR ............ Marion County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.15% 1

AR ............ Miller County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.76% 46.62% 1 

AR ............ Mississippi County ................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.71% 34.69% 1 

AR ............ Monroe County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.95% 1

AR ............ Nevada County ......................... Y ...................... ......................... 48.18% .................. 1 

AR ............ Ouachita County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.98% 1 

AR ............ Pike County ............................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 40.98% 47.76% 1 

AR ............ Poinsett County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.17% 38.37% 1 

AR ............ Polk County ............................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.54% 1 

AR ............ Pope County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.10% 1 

AR ............ Prairie County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.43% 1 

AR ............ Pulaski County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.01% 1 

AR ............ Randolph County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.35% 43.01% 1 

AR ............ Sebastian County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.84% 1 

AR ............ Sevier County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.53% 42.37% 1 

AR ............ St. Francis County .................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.22% 40.24% 1 

AR ............ Union County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.60% 1 

AR ............ Washington County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.54% 1 

AR ............ White County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.46% 44.14% 1 

AR ............ Woodruff County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 41.08% 1 

AR ............ Yell County ............................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.83% 45.81% 1 

AR Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 54 

AZ ............ Apache County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.83% 1

AZ ............ Cochise County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 41.16% 1

AZ ............ Gila County ............................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.14% 1 

AZ ............ Graham County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.10% 41.95% 1 

AZ ............ La Paz County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 35.06% 31.15% 1 

AZ ............ Maricopa County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.44% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
38 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

AZ ............ Mohave County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.73% 38.45% 1 

AZ ............ Navajo County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.43% 40.53% 1 

AZ ............ Pima County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.14% 1 

AZ ............ Pinal County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.18% 33.02% 1 

AZ ............ Santa Cruz County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.26% 1 

AZ ............ Yuma County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 39.49% 31.71% 1 

AZ Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 12 

CA ............ Del Norte County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.04% 42.00% 1 

CA ............ Fresno County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.16% 49.48% 1 

CA ............ Imperial County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.45% 38.87% 1 

CA ............ Kern County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.46% 47.29% 1 

CA ............ Kings County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 35.32% 35.48% 1 

CA ............ Lake County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.10% 1 

CA ............ Lassen County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.28% 40.42% 1 

CA ............ Madera County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.71% 46.70% 1 

CA ............ Merced County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.26% 45.88% 1 

CA ............ Mono County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.77% 1 

CA ............ Riverside County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.72% 49.10% 1 

CA ............ San Bernardino County ............ Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.37% 45.98% 1 

CA ............ San Joaquin County .................. Y ...................... ......................... 47.66% .................. 1 

CA ............ Stanislaus County .................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.90% 48.27% 1 

CA ............ Tulare County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.20% 46.36% 1 

CA ............ Yuba County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.89% 43.20% 1 

CA Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 16 

CO ............ Adams County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.35% 1 

CO ............ Bent County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.59% 1 

CO ............ Crowley County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 33.01% 32.40% 1 

CO ............ Fremont County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.31% 44.17% 1 

CO ............ Lincoln County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.92% 1 

CO ............ Prowers County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.47% 1

CO Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 6 

FL ............. Bradford County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.13% 42.76% 1 

FL ............. Columbia County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.34% 1 

FL ............. DeSoto County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.05% 38.45% 1 

FL ............. Dixie County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.80% 1 

FL ............. Duval County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.87% 1 

FL ............. Gadsden County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.07% 1 

FL ............. Glades County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.96% 42.97% 1 

FL ............. Hamilton County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.82% 39.61% 1 

FL ............. Hardee County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.26% 38.26% 1 

FL ............. Hendry County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.82% 41.64% 1 

FL ............. Jackson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.24% 1 

FL ............. Lafayette County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.94% 1 

FL ............. Levy County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.08% 1 

FL ............. Liberty County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.60% 1 

FL ............. Madison County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.81% 1

FL ............. Okeechobee County ................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.52% 40.71% 1 

FL ............. Orange County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.18% 1 

FL ............. Osceola County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.91% 1 

FL ............. Polk County ............................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.48% 1 

FL ............. Suwannee County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.85% 1 

FL ............. Taylor County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.19% 1 

FL ............. Union County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.72% 37.01% 1 

FL Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 22 

GA ............ Appling County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.41% 49.71% 1 

GA ............ Atkinson County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.63% 44.05% 1 

GA ............ Bacon County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 40.47% 1

GA ............ Baldwin County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.43% 35.06% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
39 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

GA ............ Banks County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.02% 43.31% 1 

GA ............ Barrow County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.57% 37.44% 1 

GA ............ Bartow County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.54% 42.41% 1 

GA ............ Ben Hill County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.36% 37.95% 1 

GA ............ Berrien County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.88% 37.71% 1 

GA ............ Bibb County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.59% 1 

GA ............ Bleckley County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.25% 1

GA ............ Brantley County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.08% 43.89% 1 

GA ............ Brooks County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.08% 38.55% 1 

GA ............ Bryan County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.52% 1 

GA ............ Bulloch County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.34% 34.72% 1 

GA ............ Burke County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.82% 1 

GA ............ Butts County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.42% 38.15% 1 

GA ............ Calhoun County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.13% 38.59% 1 

GA ............ Camden County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.60% 34.46% 1 

GA ............ Candler County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.08% 41.13% 1 

GA ............ Carroll County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.90% 40.84% 1 

GA ............ Catoosa County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.86% 45.38% 1 

GA ............ Charlton County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.97% 37.99% 1 

GA ............ Chatham County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.18% 1 

GA ............ Chattahoochee County .............. Y ...................... Y ...................... 11.82% 11.80% 1 

GA ............ Chattooga County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 38.54% 33.57% 1 

GA ............ Clarke County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.61% 37.24% 1 

GA ............ Clayton County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.99% 40.83% 1 

GA ............ Clinch County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.62% 39.22% 1 

GA ............ Coffee County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.70% 36.71% 1 

GA ............ Colquitt County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 39.61% 34.90% 1 

GA ............ Cook County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.45% 35.72% 1 

GA ............ Crawford County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.19% 39.46% 1 

GA ............ Crisp County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 40.98% 36.66% 1 

GA ............ Dade County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.16% 1 

GA ............ Dawson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.77% 1 

GA ............ Decatur County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.48% 38.73% 1 

GA ............ Dodge County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.40% 41.83% 1 

GA ............ Dooly County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.03% 41.63% 1 

GA ............ Dougherty County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.46% 42.33% 1 

GA ............ Douglas County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.67% 1 

GA ............ Early County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.81% 40.91% 1 

GA ............ Echols County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 36.83% 39.65% 1 

GA ............ Effingham County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.87% 40.85% 1 

GA ............ Elbert County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.93% 39.09% 1 

GA ............ Emanuel County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.97% 41.14% 1 

GA ............ Evans County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.86% 42.31% 1 

GA ............ Floyd County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.54% 40.95% 1 

GA ............ Franklin County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.89% 37.67% 1 

GA ............ Fulton County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.36% 1 

GA ............ Gilmer County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.03% 1 

GA ............ Glynn County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.42% 1 

GA ............ Gordon County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.20% 39.93% 1 

GA ............ Grady County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.38% 40.54% 1 

GA ............ Greene County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.05% 1

GA ............ Habersham County ................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.14% 37.59% 1 

GA ............ Hall County ............................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.19% 1 

GA ............ Hancock County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.95% 40.49% 1 

GA ............ Haralson County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.80% 43.26% 1 

GA ............ Harris County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.09% 1 

GA ............ Hart County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.82% 43.14% 1 

GA ............ Heard County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 40.93% 1 

GA ............ Henry County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.86% 1 

GA ............ Houston County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.51% 1 

GA ............ Irwin County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.89% 40.85% 1 

GA ............ Jackson County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.42% 38.97% 1 

GA ............ Jasper County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.56% 48.04% 1 

GA ............ Jeff Davis County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.56% 1 

GA ............ Jefferson County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.24% 1


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
40 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

GA ............ Jenkins County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 42.93% 1 

GA ............ Johnson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.33% 1

GA ............ Jones County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.24% 1 

GA ............ Lamar County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.84% 1

GA ............ Lanier County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.45% 36.50% 1 

GA ............ Laurens County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.06% 1

GA ............ Lee County ................................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.75% 46.32% 1 

GA ............ Liberty County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 38.44% 24.89% 1 

GA ............ Lincoln County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.32% 1 

GA ............ Long County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.57% 35.33% 1 

GA ............ Lowndes County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.24% 38.01% 1 

GA ............ Lumpkin County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.45% 43.38% 1 

GA ............ Macon County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.42% 43.58% 1 

GA ............ Madison County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.51% 42.80% 1 

GA ............ Marion County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.86% 1

GA ............ McDuffie County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.46% 42.93% 1 

GA ............ McIntosh County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.41% 1 

GA ............ Meriwether County .................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.65% 40.92% 1 

GA ............ Miller County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.80% 1 

GA ............ Mitchell County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.07% 33.84% 1 

GA ............ Monroe County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.27% 1

GA ............ Montgomery County .................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.20% 41.89% 1 

GA ............ Murray County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 37.54% 32.87% 1 

GA ............ Muscogee County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.64% 39.37% 1 

GA ............ Newton County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.84% 41.56% 1 

GA ............ Oglethorpe County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.83% 1 

GA ............ Paulding County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.47% 1 

GA ............ Peach County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.02% 42.11% 1 

GA ............ Pickens County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.94% 47.32% 1 

GA ............ Pierce County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.56% 41.49% 1 

GA ............ Pike County ............................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.65% 1 

GA ............ Polk County ............................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.21% 37.79% 1 

GA ............ Pulaski County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.13% 46.54% 1 

GA ............ Putnam County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.52% 1 

GA ............ Quitman County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.05% 1 

GA ............ Rabun County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.78% 1

GA ............ Randolph County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.45% 1 

GA ............ Richmond County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.00% 40.04% 1 

GA ............ Schley County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.36% 1 

GA ............ Screven County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 42.95% 1

GA ............ Seminole County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.33% 41.90% 1 

GA ............ Spalding County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.80% 36.78% 1 

GA ............ Stephens County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.28% 1 

GA ............ Stewart County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.97% 1

GA ............ Sumter County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.23% 41.27% 1 

GA ............ Tattnall County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 38.98% 34.35% 1 

GA ............ Taylor County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.54% 1 

GA ............ Telfair County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.58% 38.55% 1 

GA ............ Terrell County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.77% 40.17% 1 

GA ............ Thomas County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.10% 39.08% 1 

GA ............ Tift County ................................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.07% 39.06% 1 

GA ............ Toombs County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.34% 40.90% 1 

GA ............ Treutlen County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 39.09% 1

GA ............ Troup County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 42.75% 1 

GA ............ Turner County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.63% 37.39% 1 

GA ............ Twiggs County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.00% 1

GA ............ Upson County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.46% 40.86% 1 

GA ............ Walker County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.88% 41.37% 1 

GA ............ Walton County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.56% 1

GA ............ Ware County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.73% 36.51% 1 

GA ............ Warren County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.16% 1

GA ............ Washington County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.35% 1 

GA ............ Wayne County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.82%40 .92% 1 

GA ............ Wheeler County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 39.33% 33.41% 1 

GA ............ White County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.39% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
41 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

GA ............ Whitfield County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.52% 45.37% 1 

GA ............ Wilcox County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 38.32% 36.05% 1 

GA ............ Worth County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.36% 38.89% 1 

GA Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 137 

HI ............. Hawaii County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.17% 1 

HI ............. Honolulu County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.34% 41.91% 1 

HI ............. Maui County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.88% 44.78% 1 

HI Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 3 

ID ............. Elmore County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.37% 35.19% 1 

ID ............. Madison County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.77% 1

ID ............. Owyhee County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.83% 49.21% 1 

ID ............. Payette County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.75% 1 

ID Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 4 

IL .............. Brown County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.89% 47.35% 1 

IL .............. Coles County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.45% 1 

IL .............. McDonough County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.22% 1 

IL Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 3 

IN ............. Allen County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.96% 1 

IN ............. Blackford County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.30% 1

IN ............. Cass County ............................. Y ...................... ......................... 48.60% .................. 1 

IN ............. Clinton County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.83% 1 

IN ............. Daviess County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.80% 46.89% 1 

IN ............. DeKalb County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.88% 1 

IN ............. Delaware County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.28% 1

IN ............. Elkhart County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.16% 44.75% 1 

IN ............. Fayette County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.82% 1 

IN ............. Grant County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.35% 1 

IN ............. Henry County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.87% 1 

IN ............. Jackson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.44% 1 

IN ............. Jennings County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.80% 1

IN ............. Kosciusko County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.34% 1

IN ............. LaGrange County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 37.74% 36.75% 1 

IN ............. LaPorte County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.47% 1 

IN ............. Lawrence County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.85% 1 

IN ............. Marion County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.36% 1 

IN ............. Miami County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.63% 1 

IN ............. Monroe County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 42.51% 1 

IN ............. Montgomery County .................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.71% 1 

IN ............. Morgan County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.62% 1

IN ............. Noble County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.37% 45.00% 1 

IN ............. Owen County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.65% 40.72% 1 

IN ............. Parke County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.29% 1 

IN ............. Putnam County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.29% 43.50% 1 

IN ............. Randolph County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.77% 1 

IN ............. Scott County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.28% 46.39% 1 

IN ............. Shelby County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.62% 1 

IN ............. Steuben County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.12% 1

IN ............. Sullivan County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.19% 49.14% 1 

IN ............. Switzerland County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.56% 1 

IN ............. Tippecanoe County ................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.13% 42.42% 1 

IN ............. Vigo County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.00% 1 

IN ............. Wabash County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.98% 1

IN ............. Washington County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.09% 1 

IN ............. Wayne County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.15% 1 

IN Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 37 

KS ............ Butler County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.78% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
42 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

KS ............ Finney County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.90% 43.31% 1 

KS ............ Ford County .............................. Y ...................... ......................... 49.36% .................. 1 

KS ............ Geary County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.59% 36.31% 1 

KS ............ Leavenworth County ................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.78% 1 

KS ............ Riley County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.07% 37.43% 1 

KS ............ Seward County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.99% 43.50% 1 

KS ............ Wyandotte County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.70% 1 

KS Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 8 

KY ............ Allen County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.00% 1 

KY ............ Barren County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.35% 1 

KY ............ Bell County ............................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.03% 46.92% 1 

KY ............ Bourbon County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.78% 1 

KY ............ Boyd County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.84% 1 

KY ............ Boyle County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.85% 1 

KY ............ Bracken County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.00% 1 

KY ............ Breathitt County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.39% 42.47% 1 

KY ............ Carroll County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.69% 1 

KY ............ Carter County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.26% 1 

KY ............ Casey County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.26% 1 

KY ............ Christian County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.15% 34.79% 1 

KY ............ Clay County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.14% 36.94% 1 

KY ............ Elliott County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.20% 1 

KY ............ Estill County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.36% 40.69% 1 

KY ............ Floyd County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.68% 1 

KY ............ Fulton County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.86% 1 

KY ............ Gallatin County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.81% 1 

KY ............ Grant County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.78% 1 

KY ............ Grayson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.30% 1

KY ............ Hardin County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.05% 1 

KY ............ Harlan County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.15% 42.48% 1 

KY ............ Harrison County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.36% 1

KY ............ Hart County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.58% 46.66% 1 

KY ............ Henderson County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.80% 1 

KY ............ Henry County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.32% 1 

KY ............ Hopkins County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.84% 1

KY ............ Jackson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.74% 1

KY ............ Johnson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.56% 1

KY ............ Knott County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.61% 1 

KY ............ Knox County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 42.28% 1 

KY ............ Laurel County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.29% 1 

KY ............ Lawrence County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.60% 1 

KY ............ Lee County ................................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.95% 45.21% 1 

KY ............ Leslie County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.47% 1 

KY ............ Letcher County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.04% 46.70% 1 

KY ............ Lewis County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.37% 1 

KY ............ Lincoln County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.74% 44.10% 1 

KY ............ Logan County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.62% 1 

KY ............ Madison County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.21% 1 

KY ............ Marion County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.60% 1

KY ............ Martin County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.02% 49.27% 1 

KY ............ Mason County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.69% 1

KY ............ McCreary County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.07% 38.89% 1 

KY ............ Meade County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.47% 1

KY ............ Menifee County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.91% 45.82% 1 

KY ............ Morgan County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.80% 39.41% 1 

KY ............ Muhlenberg County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.66% 1 

KY ............ Owsley County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.71% 1

KY ............ Pendleton County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.79% 1 

KY ............ Perry County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.58% 1 

KY ............ Pike County ............................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.70% 1 

KY ............ Powell County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.87% 44.93% 1 

KY ............ Rockcastle County .................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.66% 41.81% 1 

KY ............ Rowan County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.04% 41.60% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
43 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

KY ............ Simpson County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.41% 1 

KY ............ Todd County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.18% 1 

KY ............ Union County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.32% 1 

KY ............ Warren County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.97% 1

KY ............ Wayne County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.67% 44.08% 1 

KY ............ Webster County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.24% 1

KY ............ Whitley County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.13% 44.44% 1 

KY ............ Wolfe County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.67% 1 

KY Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 63 

LA ............. Allen Parish .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.21% 43.40% 1 

LA ............. Avoyelles Parish ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.45% 48.33% 1 

LA ............. East Carroll Parish ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.59% 1

LA ............. Terrebonne Parish ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.99% 1

LA ............. Vernon Parish ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.68% 37.96% 1 

LA ............. West Feliciana Parish ............... Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.38% 40.48% 1 

LA Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 6 

MA ............ Suffolk County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.07% 1 

MA Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 1 

MD ........... Allegany County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.55% 1 

MD ........... Baltimore City ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.47% 40.43% 1 

MD ........... Caroline County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.85% 41.94% 1 

MD ........... Cecil County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.93% 1 

MD ........... Dorchester County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.07% 1 

MD ........... Garrett County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.84% 1

MD ........... Somerset County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.78% 38.29% 1 

MD ........... St. Mary’s County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.11% 1 

MD ........... Washington County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.41% 1 

MD Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 9 

MI ............. Branch County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.19% 1 

MI ............. Chippewa County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.14% 1 

MI ............. Gratiot County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.45% 1 

MI ............. Isabella County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.00% 42.51% 1 

MI ............. Luce County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.24% 1 

MI ............. Mecosta County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.59% 1

MI ............. St. Joseph County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.93% 1

MI Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 7 

MO ........... Butler County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.74% 1 

MO ........... Crawford County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.64% 1 

MO ........... DeKalb County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.09% 44.38% 1 

MO ........... Dunklin County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.09% 43.36% 1 

MO ........... Jasper County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.17% 1

MO ........... Johnson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.58% 1 

MO ........... Madison County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.28% 1 

MO ........... McDonald County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.65% 1 

MO ........... Mississippi County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.60% 1 

MO ........... Pemiscot County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.81% 43.41% 1 

MO ........... Pulaski County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 36.00% 36.13% 1 

MO ........... Randolph County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.33% 1 

MO ........... St. Francois County .................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.99% 44.73% 1 

MO ........... Taney County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.52% 1

MO ........... Washington County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.42% 1 

MO Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 15 

MS ............ Alcorn County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.34% 1 

MS ............ Attala County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.63% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
44 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

MS ............ Bolivar County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.39% 1 

MS ............ Coahoma County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.81% 1 

MS ............ Covington County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.96% 1 

MS ............ DeSoto County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.05% 1

MS ............ Forrest County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.67% 41.34% 1 

MS ............ Greene County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.02% 1

MS ............ Hancock County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.59% 1 

MS ............ Harrison County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.20% 38.30% 1 

MS ............ Hinds County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.89% 1 

MS ............ Itawamba County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.83% 1 

MS ............ Jackson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.18% 1

MS ............ Jasper County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.45% 1 

MS ............ Jefferson County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.06% 1

MS ............ Lafayette County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.31% 41.51% 1 

MS ............ Lauderdale County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.47% 1 

MS ............ Leake County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.01% 1 

MS ............ Lee County ................................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.17% 1 

MS ............ Leflore County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.10% 42.73% 1 

MS ............ Lowndes County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.04% 1 

MS ............ Marshall County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.35% 1 

MS ............ Monroe County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.45% 1

MS ............ Neshoba County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.06% 44.34% 1 

MS ............ Newton County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.20% 1

MS ............ Oktibbeha County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.35% 45.11% 1 

MS ............ Panola County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.29% 1

MS ............ Pearl River County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.69% 1 

MS ............ Pontotoc County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.57% 1

MS ............ Prentiss County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.37% 1

MS ............ Quitman County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.64% 1 

MS ............ Rankin County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.96% 1

MS ............ Scott County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.49% 1 

MS ............ Simpson County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.37% 1 

MS ............ Sunflower County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.61% 34.09% 1 

MS ............ Tate County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.08% 1 

MS ............ Tishomingo County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.74% 1 

MS ............ Tunica County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.08% 37.83% 1 

MS ............ Washington County ................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.87% 42.71% 1 

MS Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 39 

MT ............ Glacier County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.43% 1 

MT Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 1 

NC ............ Anson County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.38% 42.51% 1 

NC ............ Avery County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.49% 1 

NC ............ Bertie County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.33% 1 

NC ............ Bladen County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.78% 1

NC ............ Burke County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.56% 47.04% 1 

NC ............ Caldwell County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.80% 1

NC ............ Caswell County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.35% 1

NC ............ Chowan County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.73% 44.70% 1 

NC ............ Cleveland County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.04% 1 

NC ............ Columbus County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.88% 1 

NC ............ Craven County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.41% 1

NC ............ Cumberland County .................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.77% 36.46% 1 

NC ............ Davidson County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.02% 1 

NC ............ Duplin County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.60% 44.55% 1 

NC ............ Edgecombe County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.73% 1 

NC ............ Franklin County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.15% 1

NC ............ Gaston County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.24% 42.47% 1 

NC ............ Gates County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.98% 1 

NC ............ Granville County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.35% 42.72% 1 

NC ............ Greene County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.88% 43.39% 1 

NC ............ Halifax County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.30% 40.43% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
45 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

NC ............ Harnett County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.40% 37.76% 1 

NC ............ Hertford County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.38% 47.27% 1 

NC ............ Hoke County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.28% 38.16% 1 

NC ............ Hyde County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.67% 1 

NC ............ Jackson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.71% 1

NC ............ Johnston County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.34% 1 

NC ............ Lee County ................................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.89% 1 

NC ............ Lenoir County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.53% 1 

NC ............ Martin County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.71% 1 

NC ............ McDowell County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.42% 44.02% 1 

NC ............ Montgomery County .................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.95% 1 

NC ............ Nash County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.90% 1 

NC ............ Northampton County ................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.32% 1 

NC ............ Onslow County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 37.64% 28.04% 1 

NC ............ Pasquotank County ................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.80% 42.07% 1 

NC ............ Pender County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.02% 1

NC ............ Perquimans County .................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.23% 1 

NC ............ Person County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.29% 1 

NC ............ Pitt County ................................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.44% 1 

NC ............ Randolph County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.98% 1 

NC ............ Richmond County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.20% 42.09% 1 

NC ............ Robeson County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 39.12% 35.44% 1 

NC ............ Rockingham County .................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.27% 1 

NC ............ Rowan County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.52% 1

NC ............ Rutherford County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.87% 1 

NC ............ Sampson County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.04% 1 

NC ............ Scotland County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.32% 36.64% 1 

NC ............ Surry County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.45% 44.88% 1 

NC ............ Swain County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.84% 1 

NC ............ Vance County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 41.84% 1 

NC ............ Warren County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.36% 1

NC ............ Washington County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.62% 1 

NC ............ Wayne County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.84% 41.89% 1 

NC ............ Wilkes County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.28% 1 

NC ............ Wilson County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.26% 1 

NC Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 56 

ND ............ Benson County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.00% 48.68% 1 

ND ............ Divide County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.09% 1 

ND ............ Rolette County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.12% 1 

ND ............ Sioux County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.31% 43.54% 1 

ND Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 4 

NE ............ Thurston County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.57% 1 

NE Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 1 

NJ ............. Cumberland County .................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.21% 46.56% 1 

NJ ............. Hudson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.60% 1

NJ Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 2 

NM ........... Chaves County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.64% 1 

NM ........... Cibola County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 39.58% 40.44% 1 

NM ........... Curry County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.00% 39.79% 1 

NM ........... Dona Ana County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.31% 1 

NM ........... Eddy County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.94% 1 

NM ........... Grant County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.96% 1

NM ........... Guadalupe County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.12% 1 

NM ........... Hidalgo County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.17% 1 

NM ........... Lea County ................................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 40.37% 1 

NM ........... Lincoln County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.12% 1

NM ........... Luna County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.89% 45.21% 1 

NM ........... McKinley County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.52% 34.67% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
46 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

NM ........... Otero County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.95% 40.47% 1 

NM ........... Rio Arriba County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 42.57% 1 

NM ........... Roosevelt County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.10% 1 

NM ........... San Juan County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.07% 1 

NM ........... San Miguel County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 42.89% 1 

NM ........... Sierra County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.86% 45.20% 1 

NM ........... Taos County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.58% 1 

NM ........... Torrance County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.41% 1 

NM ........... Valencia County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.66% 1 

NM Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 21 

NV ............ Clark County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 42.90% 1 

NV ............ Humboldt County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.88% 1 

NV ............ Lyon County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.38% 1 

NV ............ Pershing County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.03% 38.00% 1 

NV Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 4 

NY ............ Allegany County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.61% 49.92% 1 

NY ............ Bronx County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 41.77% 1 

NY ............ Franklin County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.30% 45.10% 1 

NY ............ Jefferson County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.47% 45.21% 1 

NY ............ Kings County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.59% 1 

NY ............ Orleans County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.63% 1

NY ............ Queens County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.15% 1

NY ............ Richmond County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.87% 1 

NY ............ St. Lawrence County ................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.87% 47.20% 1 

NY Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 9 

OH ............ Fayette County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.93% 1 

OH ............ Holmes County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.53% 36.60% 1 

OH ............ Madison County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.74% 1 

OH ............ Marion County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.92% 1

OH ............ Pickaway County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.48% 1 

OH ............ Ross County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.82% 1 

OH Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 6 

OK ............ Adair County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.20% 41.40% 1 

OK ............ Atoka County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.78% 40.94% 1 

OK ............ Beckham County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.97% 44.20% 1 

OK ............ Blaine County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.10% 1 

OK ............ Bryan County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.27% 1 

OK ............ Caddo County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.99% 43.51% 1 

OK ............ Carter County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.31% 1 

OK ............ Cherokee County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.11% 1 

OK ............ Choctaw County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.96% 1 

OK ............ Cleveland County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.84% 1 

OK ............ Comanche County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 40.97% 36.20% 1 

OK ............ Craig County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.43% 1 

OK ............ Creek County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.78% 1 

OK ............ Delaware County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.13% 1 

OK ............ Garvin County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.60% 1 

OK ............ Grady County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.07% 1 

OK ............ Greer County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.00% 44.65% 1 

OK ............ Hughes County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.82% 42.30% 1 

OK ............ Jackson County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.93% 41.87% 1 

OK ............ Kiowa County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.62% 1 

OK ............ Latimer County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.53% 1

OK ............ Le Flore County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.47% 43.18% 1 

OK ............ McCurtain County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.53% 42.87% 1 

OK ............ Muskogee County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.57% 1 

OK ............ Nowata County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.43% 1 

OK ............ Okfuskee County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.64% 43.02% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
47 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

OK ............ Oklahoma County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.03% 1 

OK ............ Okmulgee County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.65% 1 

OK ............ Osage County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.80% 1

OK ............ Ottawa County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.92% 1

OK ............ Pawnee County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.73% 1 

OK ............ Payne County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.51% 1 

OK ............ Pittsburg County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.95% 1

OK ............ Pontotoc County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.02% 1

OK ............ Pottawatomie County ................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.29% 1 

OK ............ Seminole County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.16% 1 

OK ............ Sequoyah County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.55% 43.57% 1 

OK ............ Texas County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.30% 1 

OK Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 38 

OR ............ Malheur County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.59% 1 

OR ............ Umatilla County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.59% 1

OR Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 2 

PA ............ Adams County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.89% 1 

PA ............ Armstrong County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.23% 1 

PA ............ Berks County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.30% 1 

PA ............ Blair County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.37% 1 

PA ............ Cameron County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.93% 1 

PA ............ Carbon County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.72% 1

PA ............ Centre County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.65% 1 

PA ............ Clarion County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.71% 1 

PA ............ Clearfield County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.62% 1

PA ............ Clinton County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.47% 40.57% 1 

PA ............ Columbia County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.38% 1 

PA ............ Crawford County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.16% 1 

PA ............ Fayette County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.98% 43.20% 1 

PA ............ Fulton County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.23% 1 

PA ............ Greene County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.64% 43.15% 1 

PA ............ Huntingdon County ................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.61% 44.84% 1 

PA ............ Indiana County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.88% 1

PA ............ Luzerne County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.82% 1

PA ............ Lycoming County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.10% 1 

PA ............ McKean County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.89% 45.52% 1 

PA ............ Mifflin County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.48% 41.90% 1 

PA ............ Monroe County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.99% 47.22% 1 

PA ............ Montour County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.57% 1 

PA ............ Northumberland County ............ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.20% 1 

PA ............ Perry County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.73% 1 

PA ............ Schuylkill County ...................... ................... Y ...................... 49.18% 1 

PA ............ Snyder County ........................... ................... Y ...................... 45.19% 1 

PA ............ Tioga County ............................. ................... Y ...................... 47.12% 1 

PA ............ Union County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.45% 40.92% 1 

PA ............ Venango County ........................ ................... Y ...................... 47.15% 1 

PA Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 30 

SC ............ Abbeville County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.61% 43.07% 1 

SC ............ Aiken County ............................. ................... Y ...................... 48.98% 1 

SC ............ Allendale County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.64% 41.12% 1 

SC ............ Anderson County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.67% 45.78% 1 

SC ............ Bamberg County ....................... ................... Y ...................... 44.87% 1 

SC ............ Barnwell County ....................... ................... Y ...................... 49.27% 1 

SC ............ Berkeley County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.64% 42.85% 1 

SC ............ Charleston County .................... ................... Y ...................... 48.39% 1 

SC ............ Cherokee County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.50% 42.35% 1 

SC ............ Chester County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.62% 42.07% 1 

SC ............ Chesterfield County .................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.48% 40.52% 1 

SC ............ Clarendon County ..................... ...................... Y ...................... 47.36% 1 

SC ............ Colleton County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.98% 48.62% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
48 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

SC ............ Darlington County ..................... ...................... Y ...................... 44.26% 1 

SC ............ Dillon County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.90% 41.64% 1 

SC ............ Dorchester County .................... ...................... Y ...................... 49.83% 1 

SC ............ Edgefield County ...................... ...................... Y ...................... 47.61% 1 

SC ............ Fairfield County ........................ ...................... Y ...................... 48.72% 1 

SC ............ Florence County ........................ ...................... Y ...................... 44.99% 1 

SC ............ Georgetown County ................... ...................... Y ...................... 49.41% 1 

SC ............ Greenwood County .................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.27% 43.28% 1 

SC ............ Horry County ............................. ...................... Y ...................... 48.84% 47.27% 1 

SC ............ Jasper County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.30% 45.15% 1 

SC ............ Lancaster County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.42% 45.74% 1 

SC ............ Laurens County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.10% 39.81% 1 

SC ............ Lee County ................................ ...................... Y ...................... 45.46% 1 

SC ............ Marion County .......................... ...................... Y ...................... 48.00% 1 

SC ............ Marlboro County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.13% 37.22% 1 

SC ............ McCormick County .................... ...................... Y ...................... 45.65% 1 

SC ............ Newberry County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.19% 46.69% 1 

SC ............ Oconee County .......................... ...................... Y ...................... 46.92% 1 

SC ............ Orangeburg County ................... ...................... Y ...................... 48.54% 1 

SC ............ Pickens County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.53% 41.18% 1 

SC ............ Richland County ....................... ...................... Y ...................... 49.22% 1 

SC ............ Spartanburg County ................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.65% 44.93% 1 

SC ............ Sumter County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.68% 41.34% 1 

SC ............ Union County ............................ ...................... Y ...................... 48.70% 1 

SC ............ Williamsburg County ................ ...................... Y ...................... 42.78% 1 

SC ............ York County .............................. ...................... Y ...................... 45.61% 1 

SC Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 39 

SD ............ Bennett County ......................... ...................... Y ...................... 49.21% 1 

SD ............ Brookings County ...................... ...................... Y ...................... 49.86% 1 

SD ............ Buffalo County .......................... ...................... Y ...................... 34.52% 1 

SD ............ Clay County .............................. ...................... Y ...................... 47.55% 1 

SD ............ Corson County .......................... ...................... Y ...................... 47.03% 1 

SD ............ Dewey County ........................... ...................... Y ...................... 46.24% 1 

SD ............ Shannon County ....................... ...................... Y ...................... 28.62% 1 

SD ............ Todd County .............................. ...................... Y ...................... 29.61% 1 

SD ............ Ziebach County ......................... ...................... Y ...................... 48.23% 1 

SD Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 9 

TN ............ Bedford County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.07% 46.73% 1 

TN ............ Benton County .......................... ...................... Y ...................... 49.17% 1 

TN ............ Bledsoe County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.67% 44.22% 1 

TN ............ Bradley County ......................... ...................... Y ...................... 44.61% 1 

TN ............ Campbell County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.08% 40.63% 1 

TN ............ Cannon County ......................... ...................... Y ...................... 49.45% 1 

TN ............ Carroll County ........................... ...................... Y ...................... 48.15% 1 

TN ............ Carter County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.68% 42.99% 1 

TN ............ Cheatham County ..................... ...................... Y ...................... 48.86% 1 

TN ............ Chester County ......................... ...................... Y ...................... 48.94% 1 

TN ............ Claiborne County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.30% 39.60% 1 

TN ............ Cocke County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.59% 39.78% 1 

TN ............ Davidson County ....................... ...................... Y ...................... 49.84% 1 

TN ............ Decatur County ......................... ...................... Y ...................... 48.21% 1 

TN ............ DeKalb County .......................... ...................... Y ...................... 47.96% 1 

TN ............ Dickson County ......................... ...................... Y ...................... 49.31% 1 

TN ............ Dyer County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.25% 43.19% 1 

TN ............ Fentress County ........................ ...................... Y ...................... 47.87% 1 

TN ............ Franklin County ........................ ...................... Y ...................... 49.16% 1 

TN ............ Gibson County .......................... ...................... Y ...................... 47.13% 1 

TN ............ Giles County ............................. ...................... Y ...................... 45.63% 1 

TN ............ Grainger County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.47% 39.21% 1 

TN ............ Greene County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.93% 43.00% 1 

TN ............ Grundy County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.98% 42.94% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
49 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

TN ............ Hamblen County ....................... ...................... Y ...................... 46.28% 1 

TN ............ Hancock County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.71% 39.81% 1 

TN ............ Hardeman County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.60% 41.43% 1 

TN ............ Hardin County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.84% 44.73% 1 

TN ............ Hawkins County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.89% 41.73% 1 

TN ............ Haywood County ....................... ...................... Y ...................... 45.28% 1 

TN ............ Henderson County ..................... ...................... Y ...................... 43.66% 1 

TN ............ Hickman County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.82% 43.44% 1 

TN ............ Humphreys County .................... ...................... Y ...................... 49.19% 1 

TN ............ Jefferson County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.91% 41.79% 1 

TN ............ Johnson County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.78% 40.39% 1 

TN ............ Lake County .............................. ...................... Y ...................... 34.27% 1 

TN ............ Lauderdale County .................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.73% 37.58% 1 

TN ............ Lawrence County ...................... ...................... Y ...................... 49.39% 1 

TN ............ Lincoln County .......................... ...................... Y ...................... 44.79% 1 

TN ............ Macon County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.98% 43.83% 1 

TN ............ Marion County .......................... ...................... Y ...................... 48.56% 1 

TN ............ Marshall County ....................... ...................... Y ...................... 47.67% 1 

TN ............ Maury County ............................ ...................... Y ...................... 46.42% 1 

TN ............ McMinn County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.00% 44.95% 1 

TN ............ McNairy County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.19% 1

TN ............ Meigs County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.64% 40.81% 1 

TN ............ Monroe County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.94% 44.64% 1 

TN ............ Montgomery County .................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.73% 41.49% 1 

TN ............ Morgan County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.54% 40.59% 1 

TN ............ Overton County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.75% 1

TN ............ Perry County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.85% 1 

TN ............ Polk County ............................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.37% 1 

TN ............ Putnam County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.54% 1 

TN ............ Rhea County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.36% 45.45% 1 

TN ............ Rutherford County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.70% 1 

TN ............ Scott County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.82% 42.42% 1 

TN ............ Sequatchie County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.75% 1 

TN ............ Sevier County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.74% 1 

TN ............ Sullivan County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.86% 1

TN ............ Tipton County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.84% 1 

TN ............ Unicoi County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.17% 1 

TN ............ Union County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.85% 44.14% 1 

TN ............ Warren County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.18% 46.73% 1 

TN ............ Washington County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.54% 1 

TN ............ Wayne County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.24% 40.18% 1 

TN ............ Weakley County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.95% 1

TN ............ White County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.21% 1 

TN Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 67 

TX ............. Anderson County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 38.31% 35.28% 1 

TX ............. Andrews County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.67% 1

TX ............. Angelina County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.12% 1

TX ............. Aransas County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.72% 1

TX ............. Atascosa County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.68% 42.10% 1 

TX ............. Bastrop County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.93% 47.40% 1 

TX ............. Bee County ............................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 38.19% 33.90% 1 

TX ............. Bell County ............................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.23% 39.22% 1 

TX ............. Bexar County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.60% 44.77% 1 

TX ............. Bowie County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.67% 1 

TX ............. Brazoria County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.37% 1 

TX ............. Brazos County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.16% 42.97% 1 

TX ............. Brooks County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.40% 1 

TX ............. Brown County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.14% 1 

TX ............. Burleson County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.74% 1

TX ............. Caldwell County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.59% 42.43% 1 

TX ............. Calhoun County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.61% 1

TX ............. Cameron County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 35.61% 35.53% 1 

TX ............. Camp County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.71% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
50 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

TX ............. Cass County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.49% 1 

TX ............. Castro County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.86% 1 

TX ............. Cherokee County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.84% 45.33% 1 

TX ............. Childress County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 37.92% 36.52% 1 

TX ............. Concho County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 37.68% 33.90% 1 

TX ............. Coryell County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 32.80% 28.14% 1 

TX ............. Crosby County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 42.00% 1 

TX ............. Culberson County ..................... Y ...................... ......................... 46.90% .................. 1 

TX ............. Dallam County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.90% 44.40% 1 

TX ............. Dallas County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.29% 1 

TX ............. Dawson County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.23% 44.34% 1 

TX ............. Deaf Smith County ................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.15% 44.28% 1 

TX ............. Delta County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.21% 48.02% 1 

TX ............. DeWitt County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.60% 41.23% 1 

TX ............. Dickens County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.01% 39.52% 1 

TX ............. Duval County ............................ Y ...................... ......................... 47.70% .................. 1 

TX ............. Eastland County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.07% 46.96% 1 

TX ............. Ector County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.71% 42.47% 1 

TX ............. El Paso County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.40% 39.27% 1 

TX ............. Erath County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.15% 1 

TX ............. Falls County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.71% 43.93% 1 

TX ............. Fannin County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.96% 44.39% 1 

TX ............. Floyd County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.31% 1 

TX ............. Foard County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.80% 1 

TX ............. Freestone County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.59% 1

TX ............. Frio County ............................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 34.60% 37.02% 1 

TX ............. Gaines County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.57% 42.28% 1 

TX ............. Gonzales County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.95% 49.53% 1 

TX ............. Gray County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.72% 1 

TX ............. Grayson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.77% 1 

TX ............. Gregg County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.29% 1 

TX ............. Grimes County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.33% 39.89% 1 

TX ............. Hale County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.31% 38.06% 1 

TX ............. Hall County ............................... Y ...................... ......................... 48.48% .................. 1 

TX ............. Hardeman County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.63% 1 

TX ............. Harris County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.61% 1 

TX ............. Hartley County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.12% 1 

TX ............. Hays County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.49% 1 

TX ............. Henderson County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.97% 47.66% 1 

TX ............. Hidalgo County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 36.31% 37.42% 1 

TX ............. Hill County ................................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.79% 1 

TX ............. Hockley County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.05% 43.53% 1 

TX ............. Hopkins County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.36% 1 

TX ............. Houston County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.52% 1

TX ............. Howard County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.64% 39.65% 1 

TX ............. Hunt County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.84% 45.17% 1 

TX ............. Jack County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.46% 45.26% 1 

TX ............. Jackson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.72% 1 

TX ............. Jasper County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.72% 45.64% 1 

TX ............. Jefferson County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.65% 1 

TX ............. Jim Wells County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.12% 45.62% 1 

TX ............. Johnson County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.14% 44.58% 1 

TX ............. Jones County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 38.22% 37.77% 1 

TX ............. Karnes County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 40.07% 36.77% 1 

TX ............. Kaufman County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.73% 47.58% 1 

TX ............. Kleberg County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.61% 41.91% 1 

TX ............. La Salle County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.78% 1 

TX ............. Lamar County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.69% 43.70% 1 

TX ............. Lamb County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.59% 46.66% 1 

TX ............. Lampasas County ..................... Y ...................... ......................... 48.73% .................. 1 

TX ............. Liberty County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 41.41% 41.33% 1 

TX ............. Limestone County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.99% 45.22% 1 

TX ............. Live Oak County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.08% 42.46% 1 

TX ............. Lubbock County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.03% 1

TX ............. Lynn County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.27% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
51 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

TX ............. Madison County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.13% 36.84% 1 

TX ............. Marion County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.50% 1 

TX ............. Matagorda County .................... Y ...................... ......................... 49.30% .................. 1 

TX ............. Maverick County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.23% 45.29% 1 

TX ............. McCulloch County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.58% 1 

TX ............. McLennan County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.24% 1 

TX ............. Medina County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.03% 47.38% 1 

TX ............. Milam County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.28% 48.77% 1 

TX ............. Mitchell County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 34.85% 33.85% 1 

TX ............. Moore County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.79% 1 

TX ............. Nacogdoches County ................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.43% 46.27% 1 

TX ............. Navarro County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.73% 46.19% 1 

TX ............. Newton County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.04% 1 

TX ............. Nolan County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.93% 47.06% 1 

TX ............. Nueces County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.03% 45.26% 1 

TX ............. Orange County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.55% 1 

TX ............. Palo Pinto County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.02% 1

TX ............. Parmer County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.84% 48.05% 1 

TX ............. Pecos County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.17% 39.26% 1 

TX ............. Potter County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 36.91% 33.34% 1 

TX ............. Rains County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.88% 48.78% 1 

TX ............. Red River County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.62% 1

TX ............. Reeves County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.61% 38.62% 1 

TX ............. Runnels County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.77% 1

TX ............. Rusk County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.46% 1 

TX ............. San Jacinto County ................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.38% 47.40% 1 

TX ............. San Patricio County .................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.54% 41.28% 1 

TX ............. Scurry County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.76% 44.53% 1 

TX ............. Smith County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.92% 1 

TX ............. Starr County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 38.83% 37.44% 1 

TX ............. Stephens County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.03% 1

TX ............. Swisher County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 38.55% 43.25% 1 

TX ............. Taylor County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.66% 1 

TX ............. Terry County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.92% 46.48% 1 

TX ............. Titus County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.22% 1 

TX ............. Tom Green County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.83% 1 

TX ............. Tyler County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.69% 44.76% 1 

TX ............. Uvalde County .......................... Y ...................... ......................... 49.94% .................. 1 

TX ............. Val Verde County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.19% 46.12% 1 

TX ............. Victoria County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.64% 47.47% 1 

TX ............. Walker County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 35.90% 29.22% 1 

TX ............. Waller County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.50% 1 

TX ............. Webb County ............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 40.39% 34.47% 1 

TX ............. Wharton County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.52% 48.34% 1 

TX ............. Wichita County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.94% 44.71% 1 

TX ............. Wilbarger County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.72% 1

TX ............. Willacy County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 39.47% 40.42% 1 

TX ............. Winkler County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.81% 46.74% 1 

TX ............. Wise County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.86% 48.59% 1 

TX ............. Wood County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.37% 1 

TX ............. Zapata County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 40.62% 39.42% 1 

TX ............. Zavala County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.84% 48.52% 1 

TX Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 136 

UT ............ Tooele County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.86% 1 

UT ............ Weber County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.91% 1 

UT Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 2 

VA ............ Accomack County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 46.02% 42.82% 1 

VA ............ Amherst County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.39% 1 

VA ............ Bedford city .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.53% 1 

VA ............ Bland County ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.45% 48.55% 1 

VA ............ Bristol city ................................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.96% 45.53% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
52 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

VA ............ Brunswick County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.85% 41.15% 1 

VA ............ Buchanan County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.15% 46.72% 1 

VA ............ Buckingham County ................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.06% 45.21% 1 

VA ............ Buena Vista city ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.79% 40.05% 1 

VA ............ Carroll County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.81% 1 

VA ............ Charlottesville city .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 36.21% 1 

VA ............ Clifton Forge city ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.18% 1 

VA ............ Covington city ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.62% 45.33% 1 

VA ............ Culpeper County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.41% 1 

VA ............ Danville city .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.78% 1 

VA ............ Dinwiddie County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.39% 1 

VA ............ Fredericksburg city ................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.80% 43.77% 1 

VA ............ Galax city .................................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.82% 46.24% 1 

VA ............ Grayson County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.94% 1

VA ............ Greene County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.31% 1

VA ............ Greensville County .................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.32% 41.33% 1 

VA ............ Halifax County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.53% 1 

VA ............ Hampton city ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.97% 1 

VA ............ Harrisonburg city ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 34.37% 31.35% 1 

VA ............ Henry County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.02% 1 

VA ............ Hopewell city ............................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.53% 43.11% 1 

VA ............ King George County .................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.55% 1 

VA ............ Lee County ................................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.08% 1 

VA ............ Lexington city ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 37.45% 35.55% 1 

VA ............ Lunenburg County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.93% 1 

VA ............ Lynchburg city .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.32% 1 

VA ............ Manassas Park city .................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 41.80% 1 

VA ............ Martinsville city ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.99% 48.57% 1 

VA ............ Mecklenburg County ................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.98% 46.38% 1 

VA ............ Montgomery County .................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.69% 41.23% 1 

VA ............ Newport News city .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.41% 1 

VA ............ Norfolk city ............................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 40.43% 35.77% 1 

VA ............ Norton city ................................ ......................... Y ...................... 48.94% .................. 1 

VA ............ Nottoway County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.97% 1 

VA ............ Page County ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.07% 1 

VA ............ Patrick County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.31% 1 

VA ............ Petersburg city ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.57% 44.14% 1 

VA ............ Portsmouth city ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.80% 1

VA ............ Prince Edward County .............. Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.33% 40.80% 1 

VA ............ Prince George County ............... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.51% 1 

VA ............ Pulaski County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.56% 1 

VA ............ Radford city .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 38.30% 32.69% 1 

VA ............ Richmond city ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.90% 1 

VA ............ Richmond County ..................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.99% 41.59% 1 

VA ............ Roanoke city ............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.55% 1 

VA ............ Rockbridge County .................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.83% 1 

VA ............ Rockingham County .................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.23% 1 

VA ............ Russell County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.31% 1 

VA ............ Smyth County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.33% 45.36% 1 

VA ............ Southampton County ................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.80% 1 

VA ............ Staunton city ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.92% 1 

VA ............ Sussex County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.85% 39.15% 1 

VA ............ Tazewell County ........................ Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.49% 46.92% 1 

VA ............ Warren County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.00% 1

VA ............ Waynesboro city ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.61% 1

VA ............ Westmoreland County ............... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.52% 1 

VA ............ Williamsburg city ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 42.82% 35.54% 1 

VA ............ Winchester city ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.44% 1 

VA ............ Wise County .............................. Y ...................... Y ...................... 43.62% 43.19% 1 

VA ............ Wythe County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.32% 1 

VA Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 65 

WI ............. Menominee County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.15% 1 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
53 

State County 2004 

Coverage 

2000 

Coverage 

2004 

Turnout 

2000 

Turnout Count 

WI Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 1 

WV ............ Berkeley County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 41.19% 1

WV ............ Boone County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.73% 1 

WV ............ Braxton County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.85% 1

WV ............ Brooke County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.57% 1 

WV ............ Cabell County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 41.82% 1 

WV ............ Calhoun County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.49% 1 

WV ............ Clay County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.54% 1 

WV ............ Fayette County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.51% 39.40% 1 

WV ............ Gilmer County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.33% 48.34% 1 

WV ............ Greenbrier County ..................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.47% 1 

WV ............ Hampshire County .................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.26% 40.32% 1 

WV ............ Hardy County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.61% 1 

WV ............ Jefferson County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 45.23% 1

WV ............ Kanawha County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.97% 1 

WV ............ Lewis County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.71% 1 

WV ............ Lincoln County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.95% 44.10% 1 

WV ............ Logan County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.19% 1 

WV ............ Marshall County ....................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.35% 1 

WV ............ McDowell County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 38.19% 34.90% 1 

WV ............ Mercer County ........................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 45.53% 38.07% 1 

WV ............ Mineral County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.32% 1

WV ............ Mingo County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.98% 1 

WV ............ Monongalia County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 42.03% 1 

WV ............ Monroe County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 44.16% 1

WV ............ Nicholas County ........................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 42.19% 1

WV ............ Ohio County .............................. ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.45% 1 

WV ............ Pocahontas County ................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 48.21% 1 

WV ............ Preston County ......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.77% 1

WV ............ Raleigh County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.72% 38.98% 1 

WV ............ Randolph County ...................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 43.62% 1 

WV ............ Ritchie County .......................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.87% 1 

WV ............ Roane County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 47.64% 1

WV ............ Summers County ...................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 48.11% 45.70% 1 

WV ............ Taylor County ............................ ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.18% 1 

WV ............ Upshur County .......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 49.35% 44.98% 1 

WV ............ Wayne County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 49.53% 1

WV ............ Webster County ......................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 47.90% 44.22% 1 

WV ............ Wetzel County ........................... ......................... Y ...................... .................. 46.67% 1 

WV ............ Wyoming County ....................... Y ...................... Y ...................... 44.64% 39.54% 1 

WV Count ......................... ......................... .................. .................. 39 

Total Counties Covered Under Proposed Formula ...................................... 1010 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(54) 

1Senator Coburn offered the only substantive amendment in the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

His amendment related to Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. It was debated and then defeated by a voice vote. Senator Leahy offered an amendment to add the name of Ce ́sar Cha ́vez 

to the short title, which was adopted. 2The House and the Senate legislation are virtually identical. The only difference between 

them reflects an amendment adopted in the House Judiciary Committee to order a study about 

Section 203 and an amendment adopted in the Senate Judiciary Committee to add the name 

of Ce ́sar Cha ́vez to the short title. 

XII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. LEAHY, MR. KENNEDY, MR. BIDEN, 

MR. KOHL, MRS. FEINSTEIN, MR. FEINGOLD, MR. SCHUMER AND

MR. DURBIN IN SUPPORT OF S. 2703 

We object and do not subscribe to this Committee Report on S. 

2703, the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act 

(VRARA), which by including Additional Views signed by the 

Chairman, has become a very different document than the draft 

Report circulated by the Chairman on July 24, 2006. As sponsors 

of the Senate legislation who have supported it, pressed for its enactment and voted for it, we must register our disappointment that 

this Report does not reflect our views or those of scores of other cosponsors, does not properly describe the record supporting our bill, 

and does not fully endorse the bill we introduced and sponsored 

and that we and all Members of the Committee voted to report favorably to the Senate. Although the Senate Committee Report filed 

today does not make any findings based on the extensive record 

created in both the House and Senate, those findings can be found 

in the text of the legislation itself. We submit these additional 

views to note for the record the unique procedural posture of the 

Committee’s actions today. 

On July 19, 2006, the Committee debated and voted on two 

amendments to the VRARA.1 No other amendments were offered 

and there was no further clarifying debate during this session. 

Then, the Committee unanimously voted to report the legislation 

favorably to the full Senate. The following day, on July 20, 2006, 

the full Senate debated H.R. 9,2 the companion bill that had been 

passed by the House of Representatives. No amendments were offered and the Senate voted 98–0 for final passage. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee Report on the VRARA is being 

filed close to a week after the Senate unanimously passed its companion bill, H.R. 9. 

At the time of floor debate and consideration of final passage of 

H.R. 9 in the Senate, Senators had the following to inform their 

vote: the extensive Senate Judiciary Committee record, including 

thousands of pages of testimony; the full record before the House 

of Representatives, including thousands of pages of testimony; the 

House Committee Report; and the full debate on the floor of the 

House of Representatives, including debate surrounding four substantive amendments to H.R. 9 that were all rejected. Most importantly, at the time they voted, all Senators had before them the deVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:28 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR295.XXX SR295

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
55 

3See, e.g., ‘‘Evidence of continued discrimination includes * * * the hundreds of objections 

interposed, requests for more information submitted followed by voting changes withdrawn from 

consideration by jurisdictions covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and section 5 enforcement actions undertaken by the Department of Justice in covered jurisdictions since 1982 that 

prevented election practices, such as annexation, at-large voting, and the use of multi-member 

districts, from being enacted to dilute minority voting strength; * * * the number of requests 

for declaratory judgments denied by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; * * * the continued filing of section 2 cases that originated in covered jurisdictions; and 

* * * the litigation pursued by the Department of Justice since 1982 to enforce sections 4(e), 

4(f)(4), and 203 of such Act to ensure that all language minority citizens have full access to the 

political process.’’ Section 2(b)(4). See also Section 2(b)(3) (‘‘The continued evidence of racially 

polarized voting in each of the jurisdictions covered by the expiring provisions of the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965 demonstrates that racial and language minorities remain politically vulnerable, warranting the continued protection of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.’’). 4The Congress finds that, through the use of various practices and procedures, citizens of language minorities have been effectively excluded from participation in the electoral process. 

Among other factors, the denial of the right to vote of such minority group citizens is ordinarily 

directly related to the unequal educational opportunities afforded them, resulting in high illiteracy and low voting participation. The Congress declares that, in order to enforce the guarantees of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, it is necessary to eliminate such discrimination by prohibiting these practices, and by prescribing other 

remedial devices. 42 U.S.C. §1973aa–1a(a). 5The Congress finds that voting discrimination against citizens of language minorities is pervasive and national in scope. Such minority citizens are from environments in which the dominant language is other than English. In addition they have been denied equal educational opportunities by State and local governments, resulting in severe disabilities and continuing illiteracy 

in the English language. The Congress further finds that, where State and local officials conduct 

elections only in English, language minority citizens are excluded from participating in the electoral process. In many areas of the country, this exclusion is aggravated by acts of physical, 

economic, and political intimidation. The Congress declares that, in order to enforce the guarantees of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, it is necessary to eliminate such discrimination by prohibiting English-only elections, and by prescribing 

other remedial devices. 42 U.S.C. §1973b(f)(1). 6 42 U.S.C. §1973h(a). 7 42 U.S.C. §1973aa–1(a). 

tailed findings in Section 2 of the legislation.3 These findings are 

identical in H.R. 9 and S. 2703 and, as reauthorization measures, 

both incorporated the statutory findings within the following provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 203(a); 4 Section 

4(f)(1); 5 Section 10(a); 6 and Section 202(a).7 At the time of floor debate and consideration of H.R. 9 in the Senate, no draft Senate 

Committee Report was available to Senators. 

By voting to pass the legislation, Congress has adopted and reaffirmed the detailed findings in H.R. 9. The Senate unanimously 

adopted these findings. Nothing written by a Member of Congress 

after final passage can diminish the force of those findings contained within the enacted legislation itself or the Member’s vote 

supporting them. As several courts have suggested, post-passage 

legislative history is a contradiction in terms. Any after-the-fact attempts to re-characterize the legislation’s language and effects 

should not be credited. 

PATRICK J. LEAHY. 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY. 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. 

HERBERT KOHL. 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN. 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD. 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER. 

RICHARD J. DURBIN. 

XIII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown 

as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
56 

brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no 

change is proposed is shown in roman): 

VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 

TITLE I—VOTING RIGHTS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3. (a) Whenever the Attorney General or an aggrieved person institutes a proceeding under any statute to enforce the voting 

guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment in any State 

or political subdivision the court shall authorize the appointment 

of Federal øexaminers¿ observers by the Director of the Office of 

Personnel Management in accordance with section 6 to serve for 

such period of time and for such political subdivisions as the court 

shall determine is appropriate to enforce the voting guarantees of 

the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment (1) as part of any interlocutory order if the court determines that the appointment of such 

øexaminers¿ observers is necessary to enforce such voting guarantees or (2) as part of any final judgment if the court finds that violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred in such State or subdivision: Provided, 

That the court need not authorize the appointment of øexaminers¿ 

observers if any incidents of denial or abridgement of the right to 

vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the voting 

guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) (1) have been few in number 

and have been promptly and effectively corrected by State or local 

action, (2) the continuing effect of such incidents has been eliminated, and (3) there is no reasonable probability of their recurrence 

in the future. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4. (a)(1) To assure that the right of citizens of the United 

States to vote is not denied or abridged on account of race or color, 

no citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, 

or local election because of his failure to comply with any test or 

device in any State with respect to which the determinations have 

been made under the first two sentences of subsection (b) of this 

section or in any political subdivision of such State (as such subdivision existed on the date such determinations were made with 

respect to such State), though such determinations were not made 

with respect to such subdivision as a separate unit, or in any political subdivision with respect to which such determinations have 

been made as a separate unit, unless the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia issues a declaratory judgment 

under this section. No citizen shall be denied the right to vote in 

any Federal, State, or local election because of his failure to comply 

with any test or device in any State with respect to which the determinations have been made under the third sentence of subsection (b) of this section or in any political subdivision of such 

State (as such subdivision existed on the date such determinations 

were made with respect to such State), though such determinations 

were not made with respect to such subdivision as a separate unit, 

or in any political subdivision with respect to which such determinations have been made as a separate unit, unless the United 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
57 

States District Court for the District of Columbia issues a declaratory judgment under this section. A declaratory judgment under 

this section shall issue only if such court determines that during 

the ten years preceding the filing of the action, and during the 

pendency of such action— (A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) no Federal examiners or observers under this Act have 

been assigned to such State or political subdivision; 

* * * * * * * 

(7) The Congress shall reconsider the provisions of this section at 

the end of the fifteen-year period following the effective date of the 

amendments made by the øVoting Rights Act Amendments of 

1982¿ Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and 

Ce ́sar E. Cha ́vez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. 

(8) The provisions of this section shall expire at the end of the 

25-year period following the effective date of the amendments made 

by the øVoting Rights Act Amendments of 1982¿ Fannie Lou 

Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and Ce ́sar E. Cha ́vez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. 

* * * * * * * 

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall apply in 

any State or in any political subdivision of a State which (1) the 

Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1964, 

any test or device, and with respect to which (2) the Director of the 

Census determines that less than 50 per centum of the persons of 

voting age residing therein were registered on November 1, 1964, 

or that less than 50 per centum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 1964. On and after August 6, 1970, 

in addition to any State or political subdivision of a State determined to be subject to subsection (a) of this section pursuant to the 

previous sentence, the provisions of subsection (a) of this section 

shall apply in any State or any political subdivision of a State 

which (i) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1968, any test or device, and with respect to which (ii) the 

Director of the Census determines that less than 50 per centum of 

the persons of voting age residing therein were registered on November 1, 1968, or that less than 50 per centum of such persons 

voted in the presidential election of November 1968. On and after 

August 6, 1975, in addition to any State or political subdivision of 

a State determined to be subject to subsection (a) of this section 

pursuant to the previous two sentences, the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall apply in any State or any political 

subdivision of a State which (i) the Attorney General determines 

maintained on November 1, 1972, any test or device, and with respect to which (ii) the Director of the Census determines that less 

than 50 per centum of the citizens of voting age were registered on 

November 1, 1972, or that less than 50 per centum of such persons 

voted in the Presidential election of November 1972. 

A determination or certification of the Attorney General or of the 

Director of the Census under this section or under øsection 6¿ secVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:28 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR295.XXX SR295

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
58 

tion 8 or 13 shall not be reviewable in any court and shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5. (a) Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect 

to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) based upon determinations made under the first sentence of section 4(b) are in effect 

shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect 

to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, 

or whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which 

the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) based upon determinations 

made under the second sentence of section 4(b) are in effect shall 

enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite 

to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting 

different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1968, or whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) based upon determinations made 

under the third sentence of section 4(b) are in effect shall enact or 

seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1972, such State 

or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that 

such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure 

ødoes not have the purpose and will not have the effect¿ neither 

has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the 

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

guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), and unless and until the 

court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to 

vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, 

standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, 

prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced 

without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, 

practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer 

or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, or upon good cause 

shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within sixty days after 

such submission, the Attorney General has affirmatively indicated 

that such objection will not be made. Neither an affirmative indication by the Attorney General that no objection will be made, nor 

the Attorney General’s failure to object, nor a declaratory judgment 

entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin 

enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, 

or procedure. In the event the Attorney General affirmatively indicates that no objection will be made within the sixty-day period following receipt of a submission, the Attorney General may reserve 

the right to reexamine the submission if additional information 

comes to his attention during the remainder of the sixty-day period 

which would otherwise require objection in accordance with this 

section. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions 

of section 2284 of Title 28 and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme 

Court. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
59 

(b) Any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, 

practice, or procedure with respect to voting that has the purpose of 

or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens of 

the United States on account of race or color, or in contravention 

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

candidates of choice denies or abridges the right to vote within the 

meaning of subsection (a) of this section. 

(c) The term ‘‘purpose’’ in subsections (a) and (b) of this section 

shall include any discriminatory purpose. 

(d) The purpose of subsection (b) of this section is to protect the 

ability of such citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice. 

øSEC. 6. Whenever (a) a court has authorized the appointment of 

examiners pursuant to the provisions of section 3(a), or (b) unless 

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

Attorney General certifies with respect to any political subdivision 

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

under section 4(b) that (1) he has received complaints in writing 

from twenty or more residents of such political subdivision alleging 

that they have been denied the right to vote under color of law on 

account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set 

forth in section 4(f)(2), and that he believes such complaints to be 

meritorious, or (2) that in his judgment (considering, among other 

factors, whether the ratio of nonwhite persons to white persons registered to vote within such subdivision appears to him to be reasonably attributable to violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment or whether substantial evidence exists that bona fide efforts 

are being made within such subdivision to comply with the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment), the appointment of examiners is 

otherwise necessary to enforce the guarantees of the fourteenth or 

fifteenth amendment, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall appoint as many examiners for such subdivision as 

the Director may deem appropriate to prepare and maintain lists 

of persons eligible to vote in Federal, State, and local elections. 

Such examiners, hearing officers provided for in section 9(a) and 

other persons deemed necessary by the Director to carry out the 

provisions and purposes of this Act shall be appointed, compensated, and separated without regard to the provisions of any 

statute administered by the Director of the Office of Personnel 

Management, and service under this Act shall not be considered 

employment for the purposes of any statute administered by the 

Director of the Office of Personnel Management, except the provisions of subchapter III of chapter 73 of title 5, United States Code, 

relating to political activities: Provided, That the Director is authorized, after consulting the head of the appropriate department 

or agency, to designate suitable persons in the official service of the 

United States, with their consent, to serve in these positions. Examiners and hearing officers shall have the power to administer 

oaths. 

øSEC. 7. (a) The examiners for each political subdivision shall, at 

such places as the Director of the Office of Personnel Management 

shall by regulation designate, examine applicants concerning their 

qualifications for voting. An application to an examiner shall be in 

such form as the Director may require and shall contain allegations 

that the applicant is not otherwise registered to vote. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
60 

ø(b) Any person whom the examiner finds, in accordance with instructions received under Section 9(b), to have the qualifications 

prescribed by State law not inconsistent with the Constitution and 

laws of the United States shall promptly be placed on a list of eligible voters. A challenge to such listing may be made in accordance 

with Section 9(a) and shall not be the basis for a prosecution under 

Section 12. The examiner shall certify and transmit such list, and 

any supplements as appropriate, at least once a month, to the offices of the appropriate election officials, with copies to the Attorney General and the attorney general of the State, and any such 

lists and supplements thereto transmitted during the month shall 

be available for public inspection on the last business day of the 

month and in any event not later than the forty-fifth day prior to 

any election. The appropriate State or local election official shall 

place such names on the official voting list. Any person whose 

name appears on the examiner’s list shall be entitled and allowed 

to vote in the election district of his residence unless and until the 

appropriate election officials shall have been notified that such person has been removed from such list in accordance with subsection 

(d) of this section: Provided, That no person shall be entitled to 

vote in any election by virtue of this Act unless his name shall 

have been certified and transmitted on such a list to the offices of 

the appropriate election officials at least forty-five days prior to 

such election. 

ø(c) The examiner shall issue to each person whose name appears on such a list a certificate evidencing his eligibility to vote. 

ø(d) A person whose name appears on such a list shall be removed therefrom by an examiner if (1) such person has been successfully challenged in accordance with the procedure prescribed in 

section 9, or (2) he has been determined by an examiner to have 

lost his eligibility to vote under State law not inconsistent with the 

Constitution and the laws of the United States. 

øSEC. 8. Whenever an examiner is serving under this Act in any 

political subdivision, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management may assign, at the request of the Attorney General, one 

or more persons, who may be officers of the United States, (1) to 

enter and attend at any place for holding an election in such subdivision for the purpose of observing whether persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote, and (2) to enter and attend 

at any place for tabulating the votes cast at any election held in 

such subdivision for the purpose of observing whether votes cast by 

persons entitled to vote are being properly tabulated. Such persons 

so assigned shall report to an examiner appointed for such political 

subdivision, to the Attorney General, and if the appointment of examiners has been authorized pursuant to Section 3(a), to the court. 

øSEC. 9. (a) Any challenge to a listing on an eligibility list prepared by an examiner shall be heard and determined by a hearing 

officer appointed by and responsible to the Director of the Office of 

Personnel Management and under such rules as the Director shall 

by regulation prescribe. Such challenge shall be entertained only if 

filed at such office within the State as the Director of the Office 

of Personnel Management shall by regulation designate, and within 

ten days after the listing of the challenged person is made available for public inspection, and if supported by (1) the affidavits of 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
61 

at least two persons having personal knowledge of the facts constituting grounds for the challenge, and (2) a certification that a copy 

of the challenge and affidavits have been served by mail or in person upon the person challenged at his place of residence set out in 

the application. Such challenge shall be determined within fifteen 

days after it has been filed. A petition for review of the decision 

of the hearing officer may be filed in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the person challenged resides within 

fifteen days after service of such decision by mail on the person petitioning for review but no decision of a hearing officer shall be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Any person listed shall be entitled 

and allowed to vote pending final determination by the hearing officer and by the court. 

ø(b) The times, places, procedures, and form for application and 

listing pursuant to this Act and removals from the eligibility lists 

shall be prescribed by regulations promulgated by the Director of 

the Office of Personnel Management and the Director shall, after 

consultation with the Attorney General, instruct examiners concerning applicable State law not inconsistent with the Constitution 

and laws of the United States with respect to (1) the qualifications 

required for listing, and (2) loss of eligibility to vote. 

ø(c) Upon the request of the applicant or the challenger or on its 

own motion the Director of the Office of Personnel Management 

shall have the power to require by subpoena the attendance and 

testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence 

relating to any matter pending before the Director under the authority of this Section. In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a 

subpoena, any district court of the United States or the United 

States court of any territory or possession, or the District Court of 

the United States for the District of Columbia, within the jurisdiction of which said person guilty of contumacy or refusal to obey is 

found or resides or is domiciled or transacts business, or has appointed an agent for receipt of service of process, upon application 

by the Attorney General of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring such person to appear before the Director or a hearing officer, there to produce pertinent, relevant, and nonprivileged documentary evidence if so ordered, or there to give testimony touching the matter under investigation; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be 

punished by said court as a contempt thereof.¿ 

SEC. 8. (a) Whenever—

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

Section 3(a) for a political subdivision; or 

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

subdivision named in, or included within the scope of, determinations made under Section 4(b), unless a declaratory judgment has been rendered under Section 4(a), that—

(A) the Attorney General has received written meritorious 

complaints from residents, elected officials, or civic participation organizations that efforts to deny or abridge the 

right to vote under the color of law on account of race or 

color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in Section 4(f)(2) are likely to occur; or 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
62 

(B) in the Attorney General’s judgment (considering, 

among other factors, whether the ratio of nonwhite persons 

to white persons registered to vote within such subdivision 

appears to the Attorney General to be reasonably attributable to violations of the 14th or 15th amendment or 

whether substantial evidence exists that bona fide efforts 

are being made within such subdivision to comply with the 

14th or 15th amendment), the assignment of observers is 

otherwise necessary to enforce the guarantees of the 14th or 

15th amendment; 

the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall assign 

as many observers for such subdivision as the Director may 

deem appropriate. 

(b) Except as provided in subSection (c), such observers shall be 

assigned, compensated, and separated without regard to the provisions of any statute administered by the Director of the Office of 

Personnel Management, and their service under this Act shall not 

be considered employment for the purposes of any statute administered by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, except 

the provisions of Section 7324 of title 5, United States Code, prohibiting partisan political activity. 

(c) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to, after consulting the head of the appropriate department or 

agency, designate suitable persons in the official service of the 

United States, with their consent, to serve in these positions. 

(d) Observers shall be authorized to—

(1) enter and attend at any place for holding an election in 

such subdivision for the purpose of observing whether persons 

who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote; and 

(2) enter and attend at any place for tabulating the votes cast 

at any election held in such subdivision for the purpose of observing whether votes cast by persons entitled to vote are being 

properly tabulated. 

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

and if the appointment of observers has been authorized pursuant 

to section 3(a), to the court. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 12. (a) Whoever shall deprive or attempt to deprive any person of any right secured by section 2, 3, 4, 5, ø7,¿ or 10 or shall 

violate section 11(a), shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 

(b) Whoever, within a year following an election in a political 

subdivision in which øan examiner has been appointed¿ an observer has been assigned (1) destroys, defaces, mutilates, or otherwise alters the marking of a paper ballot which has been cast in 

such election, or (2) alters any official record of voting in such election tabulated from a voting machine or otherwise, shall be fined 

not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or 

both. 

(c) Whoever conspires to violate the provisions of subsection (a) 

or (b) of this section, or interferes with any right secured by section 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
63 

2, 3, 4, 5, ø7,¿ 10, or 11(a) shall be fined not more than $5,000, 

or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) Whenever in any political subdivision in which there are øexaminers¿ observers appointed pursuant to this Act any persons alleged to such an øexaminer¿ observer within forty-eight hours after 

the closing of the polls that notwithstanding (1) their listing under 

this Act or registration by an appropriate election official and (2) 

their eligibility to vote, they have not been permitted to vote in 

such election, the øexaminer¿ observer shall forthwith notify the 

Attorney General if such allegations in his opinion appear to be 

well founded. Upon receipt of such notification, the Attorney General may forthwith file with the district court an application for an 

order providing for the marking, casting, and counting of the ballots of such persons and requiring the inclusion of their votes in the 

total vote before the results of such election shall be deemed final 

and any force or effect given thereto. The district court shall hear 

and determine such matters immediately after the filing of such 

application. The remedy provided in this subsection shall not preclude any remedy available under State or Federal law. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 13. Listing procedures shall be terminated in any political 

subdivision of any State (a) with respect to examiners appointed 

pursuant to clause (b) of section 6 whenever the Attorney General 

notifies the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, or 

whenever the District Court for the District of Columbia determines in an action for declaratory judgment brought by any political subdivision with respect to which the Director of the Census 

has determined that more than 50 per centum of the nonwhite persons of voting age residing therein are registered to vote, (1) that 

all persons listed by an examiner for such subdivision have been 

placed on the appropriate voting registration roll, and (2) that 

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

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

or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) in 

such subdivision, and (b), with respect to examiners appointed pursuant to section 3(a), upon order of the authorizing court. A political subdivision may petition the Attorney General for the termination of listing procedures under clause (a) of this section, and 

may petition the Attorney General to request the Director of the 

Census to take such survey or census as may be appropriate for the 

making of the determination provided for in this section. The District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction to 

require such survey or census to be made by the Director of the 

Census and it shall require him to do so if it deems the Attorney 

General’s refusal to request such survey or census to be arbitrary 

or unreasonable.¿ 

SEC. 13. (a) The assignment of observers shall terminate in any 

political subdivision of any State—

(1) with respect to observers appointed pursuant to section 8 

or with respect to examiners certified under this Act before the 

date of the enactment of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, 

and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
64 

Amendments Act of 2006, whenever the Attorney General notifies the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, or 

whenever the District Court for the District of Columbia determines in an action for declaratory judgment brought by any political subdivision described in subsection (b), that there is no 

longer reasonable cause to believe that persons will be deprived 

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

contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) in 

such subdivision; and 

(2) with respect to observers appointed pursuant to section 

3(a), upon order of the authorizing court. 

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

with respect to which the Director of the Census has determined 

that more than 50 per centum of the nonwhite persons of voting age 

residing therein are registered to vote. 

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

a termination under subsection (a)(1). 

SEC. 14. (a) * * * 

(b) No court other than the District Court for the District of Columbia øor a court of appeals in any proceeding under section 9¿ 

shall have jurisdiction to issue any declaratory judgment pursuant 

to section 4 or 5 or any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction against the execution or enforcement of any provision of this Act or any action of any Federal officer or employee 

pursuant hereto. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees 

of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, 

a reasonable attorney’s fee, reasonable expert fees, and other reasonable litigation expenses as part of the costs. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS 

SEC. 203. (a) * * * 

(b) BILINGUAL VOTING MATERIALS REQUIREMENT.—

(1) GENERALLY.—Before August 6, ø2007¿ 2032, no covered 

State or political subdivision shall provide voting materials 

only in the English language. 

(2) COVERED STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.—

(A) GENERALLY.—A State or political subdivision is a 

covered State or political subdivision for the purposes of 

this subsection if the Director of the Census determines, 

based on øcensus data¿ the 2010 American Community 

Survey census data and subsequent American Community 

Survey data in 5-year increments, or comparable census 

data, that—

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
65 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 here SR295.001
66 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 here SR295.002
67 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 here SR295.003
68 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 here SR295.004
69 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 here SR295.005
70 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 here SR295.006
71 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 here SR295.007
72 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 here SR295.008
73 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 here SR295.009
74 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 here SR295.010
75 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 here SR295.011
76 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 here SR295.012
77 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 here SR295.013
78 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 here SR295.014
79 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 here SR295.015
80 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 here SR295.016
81 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 here SR295.017
82 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 here SR295.018
83 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 here SR295.019
84 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 here SR295.020
85 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 here SR295.021
86 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 here SR295.022
87 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 here SR295.023
88 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 here SR295.024
89 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 here SR295.025
90 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 here SR295.026
91 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 here SR295.027
92 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 here SR295.028
93 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 here SR295.029
94 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 here SR295.030
95 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 here SR295.031
96 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 here SR295.032
97 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 here SR295.033
98 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 here SR295.034
99 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 here SR295.035
100 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 here SR295.036
101 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 here SR295.037
102 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 here SR295.038
103 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 here SR295.039
104 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 here SR295.040
105 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 here SR295.041
106 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 here SR295.042
107 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 here SR295.043
108 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 here SR295.044
109 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 here SR295.045
110 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 here SR295.046
111 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 here SR295.047
112 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 here SR295.048
113 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 here SR295.049
114 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 here SR295.050
115 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 here SR295.051
116 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 here SR295.052
117 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 105 here SR295.053
118 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 106 here SR295.054
119 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 here SR295.055
120 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 here SR295.056
121 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 here SR295.057
122 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 here SR295.058
123 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 here SR295.059
124 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 here SR295.060
125 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 here SR295.061
126 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 here SR295.062
127 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 here SR295.063
128 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 here SR295.064
129 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 here SR295.065
130 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 here SR295.066
131 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 here SR295.067
132 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 here SR295.068
133 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 here SR295.069
134 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 here SR295.070
135 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 here SR295.071
136 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 here SR295.072
137 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 here SR295.073
138 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 126 here SR295.074
139 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 127 here SR295.075
140 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 here SR295.076
141 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 here SR295.077
142 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 here SR295.078
143 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 131 here SR295.079
144 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 here SR295.080
145 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 here SR295.081
146 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 here SR295.082
147 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 135 here SR295.083
148 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 136 here SR295.084
149 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 here SR295.085
150 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 here SR295.086
151 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 here SR295.087
152 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 here SR295.088
153 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 here SR295.089
154 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 here SR295.090
155 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 here SR295.091
156 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144 here SR295.092
157 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 145 here SR295.093
158 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 here SR295.094
159 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 147 here SR295.095
160 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 here SR295.096
161 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 here SR295.097
162 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 here SR295.098
163 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 here SR295.099
164 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 here SR295.100
165 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 here SR295.101
166 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 here SR295.102
167 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 here SR295.103
168 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 here SR295.104
169 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 here SR295.105
170 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 here SR295.106
171 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 159 here SR295.107
172 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 160 here SR295.108
173 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 161 here SR295.109
174 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 here SR295.110
175 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 163 here SR295.111
176 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 164 here SR295.112
177 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 165 here SR295.113
178 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 here SR295.114
179 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 here SR295.115
180 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 here SR295.116
181 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 here SR295.117
182 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 here SR295.118
183 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 here SR295.119
184 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 here SR295.120
185 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 here SR295.121
186 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 174 here SR295.122
187 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 here SR295.123
188 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 here SR295.124
189 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 here SR295.125
190 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 here SR295.126
191 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 here SR295.127
192 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 here SR295.128
193 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 here SR295.129
194 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 here SR295.130
195 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 here SR295.131
196 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 here SR295.132
197 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 here SR295.133
198 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 here SR295.134
199 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187 here SR295.135
200 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 here SR295.136
201 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 here SR295.137
202 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 here SR295.138
203 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 here SR295.139
204 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 here SR295.140
205 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 here SR295.141
206 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 here SR295.142
207 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 here SR295.143
208 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 here SR295.144
209 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 here SR295.145
210 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 here SR295.146
211 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 here SR295.147
212 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 here SR295.148
213 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 here SR295.149
214 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 here SR295.150
215 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 here SR295.151
216 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 here SR295.152
217 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 here SR295.153
218 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 here SR295.154
219 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 here SR295.155
220 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 here SR295.156
221 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 here SR295.157
222 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 here SR295.158
223 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 here SR295.159
224 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 212 here SR295.160
225 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 here SR295.161
226 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 here SR295.162
227 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 here SR295.163
228 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 here SR295.164
229 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 here SR295.165
230 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 here SR295.166
231 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 here SR295.167
232 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 here SR295.168
233 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 221 here SR295.169
234 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 222 here SR295.170
235 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 223 here SR295.171
236 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 224 here SR295.172
237 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 225 here SR295.173
238 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 226 here SR295.174
239 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 227 here SR295.175
240 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 228 here SR295.176
241 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 229 here SR295.177
242 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 230 here SR295.178
243 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 231 here SR295.179
244 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 232 here SR295.180
245 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 233 here SR295.181
246 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 234 here SR295.182
247 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 235 here SR295.183
248 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 236 here SR295.184
249 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 237 here SR295.185
250 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 238 here SR295.186
251 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 239 here SR295.187
252 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 240 here SR295.188
253 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 241 here SR295.189
254 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 242 here SR295.190
255 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 243 here SR295.191
256 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 244 here SR295.192
257 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 here SR295.193
258 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246 here SR295.194
259 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 247 here SR295.195
260 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 here SR295.196
261 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 249 here SR295.197
262 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 250 here SR295.198
263 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 251 here SR295.199
264 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 252 here SR295.200
265 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 253 here SR295.201
266 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 254 here SR295.202
267 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 255 here SR295.203
268 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 256 here SR295.204
269 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 257 here SR295.205
270 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 258 here SR295.206
271 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 259 here SR295.207
272 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 260 here SR295.208
273 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 261 here SR295.209
274 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 262 here SR295.210
275 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 263 here SR295.211
276 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 264 here SR295.212
277 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 265 here SR295.213
278 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 266 here SR295.214
279 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 267 here SR295.215
280 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 268 here SR295.216
281 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 269 here SR295.217
282 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 270 here SR295.218
283 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 271 here SR295.219
284 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 272 here SR295.220
285 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 273 here SR295.221
286 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 274 here SR295.222
287 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 275 here SR295.223
288 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 276 here SR295.224
289 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 277 here SR295.225
290 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 278 here SR295.226
291 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 279 here SR295.227
292 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 280 here SR295.228
293 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 281 here SR295.229
294 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 282 here SR295.230
295 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 283 here SR295.231
296 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 284 here SR295.232
297 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 285 here SR295.233
298 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 286 here SR295.234
299 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 287 here SR295.235
300 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 288 here SR295.236
301 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 289 here SR295.237
302 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 290 here SR295.238
303 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 291 here SR295.239
304 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 292 here SR295.240
305 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 293 here SR295.241
306 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 294 here SR295.242
307 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 295 here SR295.243
308 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 296 here SR295.244
309 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 297 here SR295.245
310 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 298 here SR295.246
311 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 299 here SR295.247
312 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 300 here SR295.248
313 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 301 here SR295.249
314 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 302 here SR295.250
315 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 303 here SR295.251
316 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 304 here SR295.252
317 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 305 here SR295.253
318 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 306 here SR295.254
319 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 307 here SR295.255
320 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 308 here SR295.256
321 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 309 here SR295.257
322 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 310 here SR295.258
323 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 311 here SR295.259
324 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 312 here SR295.260
325 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 313 here SR295.261
326 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 314 here SR295.262
327 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 315 here SR295.263
328 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 316 here SR295.264
329 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 317 here SR295.265
330 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 318 here SR295.266
331 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 319 here SR295.267
332 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 320 here SR295.268
333 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 321 here SR295.269
334 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 322 here SR295.270
335 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 323 here SR295.271
336 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 324 here SR295.272
337 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 325 here SR295.273
338 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 326 here SR295.274
339 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 327 here SR295.275
340 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 328 here SR295.276
341 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 329 here SR295.277
342 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 330 here SR295.278
343 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 331 here SR295.279
344 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 332 here SR295.280
345 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 333 here SR295.281
346 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 334 here SR295.282
347 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 335 here SR295.283
348 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 336 here SR295.284
349 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 337 here SR295.285
350 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 338 here SR295.286
351 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 339 here SR295.287
352 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 340 here SR295.288
353 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 341 here SR295.289
354 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 342 here SR295.290
355 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 343 here SR295.291
356 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 344 here SR295.292
357 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 345 here SR295.293
358 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 346 here SR295.294
359 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 347 here SR295.295
360 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 348 here SR295.296
361 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 349 here SR295.297
362 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 350 here SR295.298
363 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 351 here SR295.299