TO EXAMINE THE IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS

OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 18, 2005

Serial No. 109–70

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

TO EXAMINE THE IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS

OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

24–033 PDF 2006

TO EXAMINE THE IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS

OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 18, 2005

Serial No. 109–70

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

E. STEWART JEFFRIES, Counsel 

HILARY FUNK, Counsel 

KIMBERLY BETZ, Full Committee Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Professional Staff Member 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

OCTOBER 18, 2005

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

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

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

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

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

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

State of Michigan, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution .............. 11

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Jack Kemp, former Member of Congress, former Secretary 

of Housing and Urban Development, Founder and Chairman of Kemp Partners 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6

The Honorable Marc Morial, President and CEO, National Urban League 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 15

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17

Ms. Ann Marie Tallman, President and General Counsel, Mexican American 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20

Mr. Joe Rogers, former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21

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

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Member, Subcommittee on 

the Constitution ................................................................................................... 51

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Melvin L. Watt, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of North Carolina, and Member, Subcommittee 

on the Constitution .............................................................................................. 52

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

in Congress from the State of California ........................................................... 53

Prepared Statement of the Rainbow Push Coalition on Reauthorization of 

the Voting Rights Act, submitted by Mr. Chabot during the hearing, at 

the request of Mr. Conyers .................................................................................. 55

Inserted into the record by Chairman Chabot on October 20, 2005: 

Prepared Statement of Hazel Dukes, President, New York State Conference of NAACP Branches, before the National Commission on the 

Voting Rights Act, June 14, 2005 ................................................................ 59

Prepared Statement of Joseph D. Rich before the National Commission 

on the Voting Rights Act, June 14, 2005 .................................................... 65

Prepared Statement of Dolores Watson, Member, Long Island ACORN, 

before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, June 14, 

2005 ................................................................................................................ 72

Page

IV

Inserted into the record by Chairman Chabot on October 20, 2005—Continued

Prepared Statement of Carlos Zayas before the National Commission 

on the Voting Rights Act, June 14, 2005 .................................................... 73

Prepared Statement of the Honorable William Lacy Clay, Member of 

Congress, submitted to the National Commission on the Voting Rights 

Act, July 20, 2005 ......................................................................................... 79

Prepared Statement of Gwen Carr before the National Commission on 

the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005 .......................................................... 81

Prepared Statement of Carol Juneau before the National Commission 

on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005 ..................................................... 87

Prepared Statement of Stephen Laudig, Attorney, submitted to the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005 ..................... 92

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Gwen Moore, Member of Congress, 

before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 

2005 ................................................................................................................ 125

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Barack Obama, Senator, submitted 

to the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005 ..... 128

Prepared Statement of Mark Ritchie, President, Institute for Agriculture 

and Trade Policy, before the National Commission on the Voting Rights 

Act, July 22, 2005 ......................................................................................... 130

Prepared Statement of Elona Street-Stewart, Chair, St. Paul Board of 

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

July 22, 2005 ................................................................................................. 133

Prepared Statement of Alice Tregay before the National Commission 

on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005 ..................................................... 135

Prepared Statement of Ihsan Ali Alkhatib, Board President, Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, before the National Commission 

on the Voting Rights Act, July 22, 2005 ..................................................... 138

Prepared Statement of Bradford Brown before the National Commission 

on the Voting Rights Act, August 4, 2005 .................................................. 142

Prepared Statement of Marlon Primes before the National Commission 

on the Voting Rights Act, August 4, 2005 .................................................. 145

Inserted into the record by Mr. Scott (as requested during the hearing): 

National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of Southern 

Regional Hearing, March 11, 2005 .............................................................. 148

National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of Southwest 

Regional Hearing, April 7, 2005 .................................................................. 226

National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of Northeast 

Regional Hearing, June 14, 2005 ................................................................. 312

National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of Midwest 

Regional Hearing, July 22, 2005 ................................................................. 370

National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of South Georgia Hearing, August 2, 2005 ........................................................................ 462

National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of Florida 

Hearing, August 4, 2005 ............................................................................... 569

National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of South Dakota Hearing, September 9, 2005 ................................................................ 643

National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Transcript of Western 

Regional Hearing, September 27, 2005 ....................................................... 734

National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Hearing, October 14, 2005 ............................................................................ 818

National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, Mississippi Hearing, 

October 29, 2005 ........................................................................................... 923

Inserted into the record by Chairman Chabot on October 20, 2005: 

Ellen Katz—Documenting Discrimination in Voting: Judicial Findings 

Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Since 1982. Final Report 

of the Voting Rights Initiative University of Michigan Law School ......... 964

Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act, 

1965–1990. (Chandler Davidson & Bernard Grofman, eds., 1994) ........... 1125

Race and Redistricting in the 1990s (Bernard Grofman, ed., 1998) ............. 1358

Text of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended ...................................... 1551

(1)

TO EXAMINE THE IMPACT AND 

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2005

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

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve Chabot 

(Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CHABOT. The Committee will come to order. 

We would like to thank everyone for being here today. This is the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution. I am Steve Chabot, the Chairman of the Committee. We are going to be having a series of hearings over the next 2 weeks. This is the first of eight and will be 

probably be followed up by additional hearings before this Committee on the Voting Rights Act after that. 

This is the first of a series of hearings that the Subcommittee 

will hold examining the Voting Rights Act, also known as the VRA. 

It has been 25 years since Congress last extended the number of 

the temporary provisions of the VRA. Six provisions will expire in 

2007, including sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 203. 

These hearings will examine the impact of the Voting Rights Act 

over the last several decades and its continued role in protecting 

minority voting rights. 

I would also like to add that as Chairman, I will make sure that 

these hearings are as thorough and as exhaustive as they have 

been in the past. I make that commitment because there is no right 

more fundamental than the right to participate in our democratic 

form of Government. 

The ability of our citizens to cast a ballot for their preferred candidate ensures that every voice is heard, most importantly, the 

right to vote safeguards our freedoms and all other rights enshrined in the Constitution. The sacredness of the right to vote is 

reflected in the protection afforded by the 15th amendment which 

States ‘‘the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not 

be denied or or abridged by the United States or by any State on 

account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’’

For too many of our fellow citizens in our history, this has not 

always been the case. Our country has had a troubled history of 

invidious and disparate treatment in the most fundamental process 

of a democracy, namely voting. 

The VRA pushed back against this history and challenged racial 

discrimination from a number of different angles. These hearings 

2

have taken on even greater importance in light of the impact that 

past proceedings of have had on judicial review of the Voting 

Rights Act. Beginning with the Supreme Court’s decision in South 

Carolina v. Katzenbach in 1966, Oregon v. Mitchell in 1970, and 

later in the City of Rome v. the United States in the 1980’s, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of the 

Voting Rights Act based on the record established by Congress. 

Acknowledging the broad power of Congress to remedy racial discrimination under section 2 of the 15th amendment and the appropriateness of the Voting Rights Act in remedying that discrimination, the Supreme Court in Katzenbach held that ‘‘as against the 

reserve power of the States, Congress may use any rational means 

to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination.’’ 

This was clearly a legitimate response to the problem for which 

there is ample precedent under other constitutional provisions. 

In the Oregon case, the Supreme Court held that ‘‘in enacting the 

literacy ban, Congress had before it a long history of the discriminatory use of literacy tests to disenfranchise voters on account of 

race and statistics which demonstrate that voter registration and 

voter participation are consistently greater in States without literacy tests.’’

Finally in the City of Rome case, the Supreme Court upheld the 

continued use of the Voting Rights Act’s temporary provisions finding that ‘‘in considering the 1975 extension, Congress gave careful 

consideration to the propriety of readopting section 5’s preclearance 

requirement.’’

The VRA has become one of the most visible symbols of our Nation’s progress toward becoming an integrated democracy. Its success is reflected in record numbers of African Americans, Asian 

American, Hispanics, Native Americans and Native Alaskans registering and turning out to vote and in the diversity of our local, 

State and Federal governments. In his March 15, 1965 address to 

Congress, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated ‘‘the Constitution 

says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race 

or color. We have all sworn an oath before God to support and defend the Constitution. We must now act in obedience to that oath.’’

We, as elected officials, must continue to uphold that duty and 

ensure that the protections guaranteed in the Constitution are afforded to all citizens. 

We look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel this 

afternoon. 

And before I yield to the gentleman from New York, we generally 

would have all the witnesses testify and then we would question 

them. We are going to go a little bit outside that today because one 

of our distinguished panel, former Secretary Kemp has a plane to 

catch a little later and Mayor Morial is also still en route. So we 

are going to try to accommodate both of those gentlemen. And at 

this time, I will yield to Mr. Nadler for the purpose of making an 

opening statement. 

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

to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses and also thank you 

and Chairman Sensenbrenner for beginning the process of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. Although the sections requiring reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Feb 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\101805\24033.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24033
3

authorization do not sunset until 2007, it is not too early to begin 

consideration. 

The right to vote, the right to have a meaningful vote is fundamental to our system of Government and to our freedoms. Sadly, 

for much of this Nation’s history that principle was honored in the 

breach. Indeed, much of the history of our country can be seen as 

successive efforts to extend to all Americans the promise of the 

principles on which our Nation was founded and we did not really 

begin to approach that until the Voting Rights Act was passed in 

1965 and began to be implemented a year or so later. 

In that long march to freedom, the Voting Rights Act has played 

a central role. No one can deny that the act and its amendments 

has been instrumental in protecting and expanding the right to 

vote. As we consider reauthorization, we will need to examine not 

whether the act is still needed, but what, if any, modifications 

might be appropriate. 

That is why these hearings are so important. 

The Supreme Court has made clear that Congress, in enacting 

legislation, needs to make a clear record supporting its actions. 

I must add at this point, since the Supreme Court has constituted itself and these questions a super legislature especially 

when it comes to protecting individual rights against the actions of 

the States. We have all been elected to public office and so we are 

all intimately familiar with the workings of the electoral process. 

I represent parts of two counties covered by section 5’s 

preclearance requirements, Manhattan and Brooklyn; that is, New 

York and Kings Counties. Our city is also home to main language 

minorities who also need the protections of the act. As the home 

to many new Americans, our board of elections must work with 

multiple language minorities who need assistance to be able to exercise their right to vote. 

My experience has shown that the act is still needed and that to 

the extent that the right to vote is safer now than it was 40 years 

ago, it is because the act is on the books and is working. I look forward to hearing from those who have been on the front lines from 

around the country to hear their stories and their analyses of the 

Nation’s current needs. 

The Voting Rights Act is not simply a benefit to the 

disenfranchised, although they are its primary beneficiaries, but to 

all of society. We are all better off when every citizen has the real 

right to participate freely in the democratic process. As we try allegedly to bring democracy to Iraq, I hope we can all work together 

to ensure that our precious liberty is protected and enhanced at 

home. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony 

of our witnesses. I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much and all Members will have 

the opportunity to offer an opening statement if they chose to do 

so, but we will wait until we have heard from Secretary Kemp. And 

it is the practice of this Committee, Secretary Kemp, to swear all 

the witnesses. So if you wouldn’t mind rising. We will wait for the 

mayor to come for you all to be sworn in as well. 

And if you would please right your right hand. 

[Witness sworn.] 

4

Mr. CHABOT. Witness notes in the affirmative. And we welcome 

you here this afternoon. And you will be our first witness. And if 

I could give you a very brief introduction. Secretary Kemp has had 

a very distinguished career, first as a professional athlete; later as 

a Member of Congress, and also member of the cabinet; and now 

in the private sector where he currently serves on a number of 

Boards and lectures extensively on economic growth, free markets, 

free trade and tax simplification. From 1993 through 2004, Secretary Kemp served as co-director of the public policy institute, 

Empower America. 

Prior to his work in the private sector, Secretary Kemp served 

in both the executive and legislative branches of Government. 

From 1971 until 1989, he represented the Buffalo and Western 

New York district in the House of Representatives. Subsequently, 

he was Secretary under President, former President Bush, as Secretary for Housing and Urban Development. That was from 1989 

to 1993. In 1996, he was nominated to be the Republican Party’s 

candidate for vice-president of the United States. 

Secretary Kemp also finds time to time on various charities and 

boards, including serving as the vice chair of the NFL charities. 

Secretary Kemp, we are very honored to have you here today and 

your recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JACK KEMP, FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FORMER SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN OF KEMP 

PARTNERS 

Mr. KEMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, to all 

my old friends and colleagues, it is a pleasure to be back. I want 

to start where I finished my testimony. You all have a copy of it. 

I said if we are to be American, America, that is, to be that shining city on the hill as an example to the world of liberal democracy 

and equality of opportunity, let us start by recommitting ourselves 

to forging bipartisan solutions to the Nation’s continuing civil 

rights challenges and problems, including this which we are talking 

about today, reauthorizing the special provisions of the Voting 

Rights Act. I want to be on the side of history, I wasn’t there, 

Jerry, if you don’t mind me saying that, on the front lines of the 

civil rights movement. I was playing professional football. But I am 

here today to testify on behalf of this important legislation and 

those sections which guarantee social justice and equality of opportunity. 

Let me say, it is a particular pleasure to be with Ann Marie 

Tallman, the President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, my old friend Joe Rogers, 

former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado, and, of course, Marc 

Morial, the new Chair and President of the Urban League, with 

whom I have been working on a Committee of Dennis Hastert, 

Speaker Hastert’s called Saving America’s Cities with Richard 

Daley, Anthony Williams, Marc Morial among others. 

The most fundamental right, as you said, Mr. Chairman, of our 

democratic system of Government, is the right of people to participate in the political process. As you mentioned, the 15th amendment ensures the right of every American citizen, regardless of 

5

race, color or previous condition of servitude as it was enumerated 

in the 15th amendment, to vote and participate in the electoral 

process. 

As we have seen in previous elections, some local governments 

have actively, and in some cases, very aggressively, attempted to 

disenfranchise African American and people of color and other minority voters. To quote Chairman Sensenbrenner,’’ while we have 

made progress and curtailed injustices, thanks to the Voting Rights 

Act, our work is not yet complete. ‘‘We cannot let,’’ he said, ‘‘the 

discriminatory practices of the past resurface to threaten future 

gains. The Voting Rights Act must exist’’ and exist, and I agree 

with his statement, Mr. Chairman, ‘‘in its current form.’’

Of all the civil rights legislation that the Nation has enacted over 

the past 4 decades, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is arguably the 

most important, other than maybe the Emancipation Proclamation. 

Yes, every major piece of civil rights legislation has helped eliminate injustices such as discrimination in education, employment, 

and what I faced at HUD in housing. 

As Chief Justice Roberts recently said in his testimony before the 

Senate Judiciary Committee last month, the right to vote is fundamental because it is protective of every other right we have as citizens. 

That is why, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is important that 

the Congress renew all three provisions that are set to expire as 

mentioned by Congressman Nadler: Section 5, which requires Federal preapproval for proposed changes in voting and election procedures in areas with a history of discrimination, section 203 which 

requires some jurisdictions to provide assistance in other languages 

to voters who are not literate or fluent in English and the portion 

of section 6 and 9 of the act which authorized the Federal Government to send Federal election examiners and observers to certain 

jurisdictions covered by section 5, where there is evidence of attempts to intimidate people of color and other minority voters. 

In my opinion, Mr. Chair, if section 5 is not extended, I am 

pleased to be here with Wade Henderson of the Leadership Council 

on Civil Rights, an old friend of mine from my congressional days 

and days at HUD, Wade has been a champion of making sure that 

this is done in a bipartisan basis. And he and his staff have made 

it very clear to me that if section 5 is not extended, if covered jurisdictions will not have to submit their voting changes to the Department of Justice, thereby the loss of Federal authority to control voting procedures could enable local governments to easily discriminate against minorities voters. 

For example, some areas have challenged minority black districts 

which changed elected positions to appointed and then transformed 

district elections to at-large elections. These measures are proven 

to weaken, in my opinion, the strength of minorities and are the 

main cause for our joint concern. 

Just close with this thought, Mr. Chairman, it was a Republican 

President, U.S. Grant, who sent Federal troops to enforce the Voting Rights Act of the 15th amendment in the early years of his Administration. It was President Eisenhower who sent Federal troops 

to enforce educational opportunity, Brown v. School Board, and I 

believe Lyndon Johnson deserved tremendous credit for his—not 

6

only his putting Voting Rights Act up in 1965, but to those Americans who did stand on the front lines, walked across Edmund 

Pettis Bridge, suffered dogs biting at them, snarling dogs, 

billyclubs and the violence that occurred over the Edmund Pettis 

Bridge on that first March led by our dear friend John Lewis. 

So renewing the Voting Rights Act is a way for us to renew our 

vows, to make what you said is America’s promise, that every 

American will have confidence that his or her vote not only can 

occur, but actually counts. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kemp follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JACK KEMP

Just forty years ago, on a bridge outside Selma, Alabama, civil rights leaders and 

activists, led by Hosea Williams of SCLC, Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, Ruby Sales 

and others, took to the streets in a peaceful protest for Voting Rights for African 

Americans. As they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the way to Montgomery, 

they were met with clubs, snarling dogs and violence. They were beaten and many 

severely injured, including a young SNCC activist named John Lewis, now Congressman Lewis of Atlanta, GA. But the activists did not march in vain. 

Five days later, President Johnson announced to a joint session of Congress that 

he would bring them an effective voting rights bill. Echoing the spiritual anthem 

of the civil rights movement, Johnson told the chamber that ‘‘We Shall Overcome.’’ 

A few months later, working with a bi-partisan group of members of Congress, 

Johnson made good on his promise and on August 6, 1965 signed into law the Voting Rights Act, hailed by many as perhaps the most effective and important civil 

rights law ever enacted since the Emancipation Proclamation. 

The most fundamental right of our democratic system of government is the right 

of citizens to participate in the political process. The Fifteenth amendment ensures 

the right of every American citizen, regardless of race, color, or ‘‘previous condition 

of servitude’’ to vote and participate in the electoral process. However, as we have 

seen in previous elections, some local governments have actively and in some cases 

aggressively attempted to disenfranchise African American and minority voters. 

To quote Chairman Sensenbrenner, ‘‘while we have made progress and curtailed 

injustices thanks to the Voting Rights Act, our work is not complete. We cannot let 

discriminatory practices of the past resurface to threaten future gains. The Voting 

Rights Act must exist—and exist in its current form.’’

This year, all who care about social justice and equal opportunity in America 

share one over riding goal: that Congress needs to renew the provisions of the Voting Rights Act which are coming up for reauthorization next year and which ensure 

that our nation’s government reflects the views, the values, and, most importantly, 

the votes of the people it serves. 

Of all the civil rights legislation that the nation has enacted over the past four 

decades, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is arguably the most important. Yes, every 

major piece of civil rights legislation has helped to eliminate injustices such as discrimination in education, employment, and housing. But it is the Voting Rights Act 

that empowers Americans to take action against injustices by electing those who 

pledge to eliminate it and removing those who perpetuate it. As Chief Justice Roberts said in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, the 

right to vote is fundamental, because it is protective of every other right we have 

as citizens. 

African Americans in the South were prevented from voting by a battery of tactics—poll taxes, literacy tests that were for blacks only, and the crudest forms of 

intimidation. From the Southwest to some urban areas in the Northeast and Midwest, Latinos were discouraged from voting by subtler but also effective techniques 

that exploited the vulnerabilities of low-income newcomers, for whom English was 

a second language. Both groups were also the targets of districting designed to dilute their ability to elect officials of their own choosing—a fundamental freedom 

that all too many Americans take for granted. 

That is why it is so important that the Congress renew all three provisions that 

are set to expire: Section 5, which requires a federal approval for proposed changes 

in voting or election procedures in areas with a history of discrimination; Section 

203, which requires some jurisdictions to provide assistance in other languages to 

voters who are not literate or fluent in English; and the portions of Sections 6–9 

7

of the Act which authorize the federal government to send federal election examiners and observers to certain jurisdictions covered by Section 5, where there is evidence of attempts to intimidate minority voters at the polls. 

The Voting Rights Act was reauthorized in 1970 and 1975. In both of these reauthorizations Congress heard extensive testimony concerning the ways in which voting electorates were manipulated through gerrymandering, annexations, adoption of 

at-large elections and other structural changes to prevent newly-registered black 

voters from effectively using the ballot. Congress also heard extensive testimony 

about voting discrimination that had been suffered by Hispanic, Asian and Native 

American citizens and the 1975 amendments added protections from voting discrimination for minority-language citizens. 

In 1982, in an effort shepherded by Chairman Sensenbrenner, the act was amended and section 5 was reauthorized through 2007. Congress also adopted a new 

standard, which went into effect in 1985, providing how jurisdictions could terminate (or ‘‘bail out’’ from) coverage under the special provisions of Section 4. Furthermore, after extensive hearings, Congress decided that Section 2 should be amended 

to prohibit vote dilution without a requirement of proof of discriminatory purpose. 

If Section 5 is not extended, the covered jurisdictions will not have to submit voting changes to the Department of Justice. Thereby, the loss of federal authority to 

control voting procedures could enable local governments to more easily discriminate against minority voters. For example, some areas challenge majority-black districts, change elected positions to appointive and transform district elections to atlarge elections. These measures have proven to weaken the strength of minorities 

and are the main cause for concern. 

Even now, forty years after the Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress, there 

are communities across the country where these provisions are still necessary. For 

example, the Department of Justice recently objected to a proposed annexation by 

the Town of North in Orangeburg County, South Carolina, because they concluded 

that the town did not provide equal access to the annexation process for white and 

black persons. In its September 16, 2003, objection letter, the Department stated 

that ‘‘race appears to be an overriding factor in how the town responds to annexation requests.’’

In August 2002, DOJ objected to a proposal by the City of Freeport in Brazoria 

County, Texas, to return to using an at-large system of electing members to its city 

council, after Hispanic voters succeeded in electing their candidates of choice utilizing a court-ordered single member district system. A return to at-large council 

elections, DOJ concluded, ‘‘would result in a retrogression of the ability of minorities 

to exercise the electoral franchise that they enjoy currently.’’

And despite requirements under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, no bilingual 

assistance was made available to Vietnamese voters in Harris County, Texas, until 

the Department of Justice and local activists intervened. 

Renew the Voting Rights Act and these problems won’t disappear. But more 

Americans will have confidence that their votes really do count. 

If we are to be that ‘‘shining city on a hill,’’ as an example of liberal democracy 

and equality of opportunity let us start by recommitting ourselves to forging bipartisan solutions to the nation’s continuing civil rights problems—including reauthorizing the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Let’s carry on the historically 

important work that remains to become a ‘‘more perfect union’’ with equal justice 

and a government of, by and for the people.

Mr. KEMP. That may be the first time I have ever been on time 

in my congressional career. 

Mr. CHABOT. We are impressed. And normally we would take the 

testimony here, but again we are going to question Mr. Secretary 

at this time. And I recognize for myself for 5 minutes for that purpose. Secretary Kemp, what has been the direct and indirect impact of the Voting Rights Act on minority voting rights over the 

last 40 years, both in covered jurisdictions and in noncovered jurisdictions in your opinion? 

Mr. KEMP. Well, I am sure that Marc Morial and Ann Marie 

Tallman, and of course, my old friend Joe Rogers can better address that issue. But for instance, the town of North in Orangeburg 

County, South Carolina, concluded that the town did not provide 

equal access to the annexation process for both white and black 

voters. So in September 16th, 2003, in an objection letter, the DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Feb 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\101805\24033.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24033
8

partment of Justice had to state that race has appeared to be an 

overriding factor in how the town was responding to annexation requests. 

There are instances where section 5 would be applicable to problems and challenges like that. So in my opinion, that speaks volumes to the necessity—I am not blaming everything on Orangeburg, South Carolina, or picking on the south. 

There are many places in the North where there are problems, 

or in the West. 

So in my opinion, unless we can come up with a better way of 

doing it, I think section 5 should be extended. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Now some individuals have suggested 

that the Voting Rights Act has outlived its usefulness. And is it—

we have only seen it for 40 years thus far, and obviously there 

were hundreds of years of discrimination that has taken place in 

this country. 

What is your view relative to those that do—their point of view 

is, that as it has outlived its usefulness, it clearly served a useful 

purpose during that time, people have voted in fairly significant 

numbers that weren’t voting before, it shouldn’t be reauthorized. 

What is your opinion relative to that? 

Mr. KEMP. Well, I think the testimony you will hear today will 

strongly object to that predisposition, number one. 

Number 2, I would suggest—and again, I will mention the South 

and there has been tremendous progress. And I know there are 

States and cities and areas of the country that are as bad as some 

of the problems that occurred. But I would ask them to go with 

John Lewis and the Republican co-chair of the annual pilgrimage 

to Selma, Alabama and Montgomery and Birmingham, and find out 

from the people who were on the front lines what it was like then 

40 years ago and what it is like today, and without prejudging anyone or anybody’s motives, I can’t imagine us saying that 40 years 

is enough, we have created nirvana, at least democratically speaking, and we don’t need it. I think we do need it. 

I am glad that Joe Rogers, a Republican, and Jack Kemp, a Republican, are here with distinguished men and women of color and 

minority status to say, emphatically and emotionally, actually, that 

all of my background, all of my life has been but a preparation for 

coming before this Committee and suggesting we have got to right 

these wrongs and make sure that this democracy truly can provide 

an example to the Middle East, to Africa, to Latin America, to Asia 

and the rest of the world. So, I think this is a wonderful attempt 

to, if it need be, modify it, tweak it, but don’t ever lose this Voting 

Rights Act and its importance to the American people. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, and in the interests of time 

constraints here, I am going to yield back the balance of my time 

recognize the gentleman from New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, a couple questions. 

Number one, it has been observed that the United States is pretty 

unique among democratic countries—or many of our States pretty 

unique among democratic countries—restrict some of them for life 

the right to vote for former felons, and that this is a greatly racially disparate impact and, in fact, large segments in some areas 

of the black population and some other populations are denied the 

9

franchise. Do you think that the Federal Government, through 

modification of the Voting Rights Act, should control this or view 

this as a improper restriction of the franchise and should clamp 

down on it? 

Mr. KEMP. My answer is unambiguously yes. It is a restriction. 

It needs to be modified. My wife is on the Board of Prison Fellowship, has been on there for 15 years. This weekend we are going 

to a retreat with prison fellowship Democrats, Republicans, black, 

white, brown. There are many people behind bars who have been 

incarcerated who have served their time and——

Mr. NADLER. They are not behind bars anymore. 

Mr. KEMP. Should, I think, be given a chance to vote in our 

democratic process. Obviously, there have to be restrictions, but 

this panel has been convened for that exact purpose to find out 

what are the modifications that could be made that would bring social justice to the justice system. So I would say yes. They should 

be able to vote under proper restrictions. 

Mr. NADLER. I certainly agree with you. Some of our States, New 

York, for instance says that if you’re sentenced to 5 to 10 years, 

you are released 6 years, you are on probation for 4, when the total 

sentence is over then you get your vote back. 

Some States bar you from voting for life. 

Mr. KEMP. Yes, life. 

Mr. NADLER. I agree with you. I think that is wholly undemocratic and we ought to deal with that in this bill. 

My second question is, the preclearance provisions of section 5, 

they extend to jurisdictions mostly but not entirely in the South. 

Well, I am told you have to catch a plane right now, so I will ask 

somebody else the question. 

Mr. KEMP. There are jurisdictions I think outside of the South. 

Mr. NADLER. Yes, outside the South. My own district, Manhattan 

and Brooklyn. The question I wanted to say is where it is based 

on a history prior to 1965 of either actively restricting the right to 

vote or a combination of illiteracy tests—of having literacy tests, 

and under 50 percent of eligibles being enrolled at that time and 

therefore the presumption that you were using a literacy test. 

Now, do you think that we are to look at either restricting where 

the act is applied or perhaps broadening it, should a test be more 

modern than 40 years old? Are there perhaps districts that ought 

to be subject to preclearance today that aren’t? 

Mr. KEMP. If you’re asking me, my answer would be, Congressman, that would be one of the purposes of these hearings, to find 

out whether it should be ubiquitous, should it be part of the whole 

country? Or should it be restricted to those——

Mr. NADLER. That has been suggested. But the objection to that 

is it would so dilute the effect of the Justice Department oversight 

that it wouldn’t be effective. 

Mr. KEMP. Yes. Well, when I went to the Civil Rights museum 

in Selma, Alabama there is a display of what type of questions 

Alabamans were asked prior to the Voting Rights Act. How many 

bubbles in a bar of soap? I mean, things were used, and are still 

being used to a certain degree, in other jurisdictions. 

10

Mr. NADLER. I am sure we still need this. My question is, should 

we look at perhaps modifying where it is to add or subtract that, 

and if so, on what basis? 

Mr. KEMP. That is up to the wisdom of some other Committee. 

I don’t have the answer to that. It may be that it should be more 

broadly applied. 

Mr. NADLER. It may be. My next question I will ask Ms. Tallman. 

There was an article in the New Republic a couple weeks ago, I forget by whom, in which they said essentially—I just want your reaction to the essential recommendation of that article—and that article said that the preclearance as a practical matter, because in the 

areas where you need preclearance—even moving a voting booth 

across the Street has to be precleared. 

As a practical matter, the only act when they say—they get a list 

of 600 voting booths being moved, and they send it to out to the 

local civil rights organizations and they say any problem? And they 

only really look into it if someone says, yeah, there is a problem. 

Otherwise it is trivial and they only give automatic exemption. I 

don’t know whether that is true. But my question is, would it be 

a good idea or a bad idea to say that if preclearances, should have 

automatic preclearance except where someone making a complaint, 

that everything that is changed should be sent out to everybody, 

and if the Justice Department—if anybody says, hey, wait a 

minute, there may be a problem, then you should have a 

preclearance requirement, otherwise, after a certain period of time, 

it should go into effect automatically so as to remove trivia from 

the burden here, so they can concentrate on real abuses. 

What do you think of that suggestion? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, but you can answer. 

Ms. TALLMAN. Actually, the polling place changes is pretty significant—can be very significant to voters that have been voting for 

40 years in the same location. So what appears on its face—potentially on its face—to be perceived as a small change and ought to 

have automatic preclearance, would actually defeat the purpose of 

section 5. 

Section 5 requires that jurisdiction——

Mr. NADLER. You have to understand my question. Could I have 

an additional minute? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, the Chair, however, would encourage the Members to direct the questions to Mr. Kemp because those folks 

haven’t——

Mr. NADLER. I fully recognize that these can be extremely—a voting booth change can be extremely important or it can be trivial, 

either one. I mean the question is since many of these things can 

be trivial, and since you want the Justice Department to spend its 

resources where they are not, where there is a possibility, does it 

make sense not to have automatic clearance, that wasn’t the suggestion. The suggestion was that if no one either sua sponte the 

Justice Department by itself or somebody, some civil rights organization says that one we ought to look at, that that would go 

through, or is that a bad idea for some reason? 

Ms. TALLMAN. A section 5 jurisdiction has had a history of discrimination. A section 5 jurisdiction has not used the bailout proviVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Feb 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\101805\24033.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24033
11

sion under the Voting Rights Act. A section 5 jurisdiction is a jurisdiction who ought to be scrutinized with regard to any changes in 

voting patterns or practices. So I would argue that section 5 is 

pretty clear. 

Mr. NADLER. That is a bad idea. I appreciate that. Thank you 

very much. 

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

Michigan is recognized for a short period of time to make a statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I couldn’t let this opportunity to go by. Here we are at this historic hearing, beginning 

again to re-examine the importance of extending the Voting Rights 

Act and improving it where necessary. And our first witness is the 

former Member of Congress from New York, Jack Kemp, with 

whom I may be the only one here that has served with him during 

his period in the Congress. And I am very proud of the statement 

that he has made today. 

As usual, he is leading Republicans and Americans alike to join 

in with us at this extremely auspicious beginning of a series of 

hearings of how we continue moving America forward on its most 

important document, the provision for voting, for everybody, to 

have it counted, and to have it be encouraged. 

Mr. KEMP. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. It is good to see you again, Secretary Kemp, and 

I am glad that you started us off in the way that you have. 

Mr. KEMP. Thank you. 

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

gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

And again, we would encourage for the Members on both sides to 

direct questions to Secretary Kemp. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Mr. Secretary, for being here. A lot of us feel like we are standing on your 

shoulders. That is not to suggest that you’re old or anything like 

that. 

Mr. KEMP. 70. 

Mr. FRANKS. We should all like to carry 70 as well as you do, sir. 

Mr. KEMP. Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Secretary, 40 years ago, some of the barriers 

that prevented minorities from participating in the political process 

were things like literacy tests and white primaries and poll taxes, 

and I know some of the things have changed to some degree, but 

what do you think are the primary and most egregious mechanisms 

that prevent minorities from actually participating today? 

Mr. KEMP. Well, one thing that I wanted to mention after the 

support that I have alluded to for section 5 is section 203, which 

requires jurisdictions to provide assistance in other languages to 

voters who are not literate or fluent in English. Let’s face it, you 

can go to Los Angeles County where I grew up and there is probably 60 to 75 different languages spoken from Vietnamese to Korean to Chinese to Russian to Persian, and clearly, people do not 

need Federal assistance if the jurisdiction is not providing them 

with access to voting lists and the information that they deserve 

as American citizens. 

12

Probably very controversial because you know we are somewhat 

xenophobic about people from outside our borders. It is too bad because there are a lot of people that need help. And I think it should 

be given. That is one of the biggest barriers to making this democratic experiment work—for all people, that is. 

Mr. FRANKS. I think it goes without saying that a lot of people 

who are citizens of this country still have not mastered the language in every way so you make a good point. 

Secretary Kemp, you wrote an opinion, an op ed piece that was 

published last August. And it recognized the 40th anniversary of 

the Voting Rights Act and you described the impact that it has had 

in those 40 years. And of course, you advocated for the renewal of 

the act. 

And what could we do to improve or make better the act for the 

next 25 years if you were writing it yourself? 

Mr. KEMP. Oh, wow, I am no longer a legislator. 

I appreciate my friend John Conyers’s comments about the 

friendship that we developed many years ago, even though we differed on some issues, he was the one that came to me and said, 

Jack, Dr. King’s ‘‘I Have a Dream’’ speech is right down your alley 

and Dan Lungren and Jack Kemp were basically the cosponsors in 

the Republican party of the King holiday. I felt very proud about 

that, John, then, and I do so today. 

I think really think the hearings, Congressmen, are going to 

bring out areas that could be changed or reformed or modified or 

made progress on. 

I think—I personally believe that someone who has been incarcerated—and let’s face it, that does impact people of color a lot 

more than anyone else, unfortunately and tragically. I think they 

should be allowed to vote if they perform and meet the standards 

that we would hold them to as New York does, as Jerry Nadler 

pointed out. 

My hope would be that that would be an area that could be improved upon. Perhaps section 5 can be improved upon by a careful—I use the word tweaking, reforming, and I will leave it to my 

expert friend Marc Morial and Ann Marie Tallman and Joe Rogers 

to take it further. 

I would also suggest that you listen to Wade Henderson and his 

leadership conference because I think Wade, probably as far as I 

am concerned, is the expert. I hope I am not putting too much pressure on him. But he understands the need for bipartisanship and 

that was—I think, John, that is what we really need today more 

than anything else. This may be a place where we can rise above 

color and race and ethnicity and political divisions in our country 

and make a statement that would bring hope to the American people that we can work together for the greater good. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, Mr. Secretary, you were one of the few former 

Members that were here the last time this was reenacted, and I 

think this says a great deal for your commitment to human freedom and the American ideal, and I appreciate all that you have 

done. 

Mr. KEMP. I like what the Chairman said, and I like what Chairman Sensenbrenner said to the NAACP convention a few weeks 

13

ago. It was really a powerful statement. If it’s all right with you, 

Mr. Chairman, I have to catch a plane. I apologize. 

Mr. CHABOT. Do any other Members have a very quick question 

they would like to ask? Are you okay? 

Quick question for Secretary Kemp? Anybody on this side that 

has something pressing? 

Yes, Mr. Scott. If you could make it relatively quick. 

Mr. SCOTT. This will be fairly quick, and thank you, Mr. Secretary and thank you Mr. Chairman. 

One of the problems with eliminating the preclearance provision 

is people get an advantage by cheating because by the time you 

remedy it, you have had the opportunity to serve, and if you ever 

remedied it, you would be running as an incumbent. Now you have 

run for public office as an incumbent and against incumbents. 

What are the advantages in running as an incumbent? 

Mr. KEMP. That is a good question. 

To be brutally honest, Congressman Scott, I never even thought 

about it when I was running. I didn’t. It really impacted me emotionally and intellectually when I went to HUD and began to see 

the problems of urban America from a firsthand existential experience. And then the trip I took with John Lewis down to Selma, 

Montgomery and Birmingham for the first time several years ago 

on the civil rights pilgrimage. And I remember vowing at that time 

I was going to be a voice for some who are voiceless. And so I don’t 

have a great answer to your question. 

Mr. SCOTT. My question, though, is just the politics of running 

for election. It is a lot easier to run if you’re the incumbent. 

Mr. KEMP. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCOTT. Could you say a little bit about that? Because we are 

trying to establish a record. If you run as an incumbent, you have 

an advantage. 

Mr. KEMP. Mmh hmm. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if you have cheated and jury-rigged the election 

in a discriminatory fashion and got elected and then they finally 

fixed it, and after they fixed it, you get to run for re-election as an 

incumbent, an advantage you should have not have been able to 

get. And if there was preclearance, you never would have gotten. 

And just to set the record straight, we don’t want people to have 

the advantage not only of serving illegally, but when we finally fix 

it, if the plaintiffs can afford the lawsuit to get it right, we don’t 

want people who have cheated to benefit from their cheating by 

having the advantage of running then subsequentlyas an incumbent. So can you say a word about whether or not there are advantages in running as an incumbent? 

Mr. KEMP. I totally agree with your statement. I was in the Congress from New York’s 41st district. It ended up New York’s 36th 

district after lost population. And I was redistricted several times, 

mostly by Democratic legislatures. 

And, frankly, they just decided they weren’t going to beat me so 

they gave me a very Republican district. I started out in a Democratic district. And I must admit I did everything I could to make 

sure I could run again. But I do understand what you’re saying. I 

agree with it unambiguously, and I applaud your concern for that 

issue of the advantage incumbency gets. But every one of us knows 

14

deep in our hearts that we love the advantage. We love the advantage. 

We use it to every benefit of our own, but I agree with your 

statement and I appreciate it. 

I am going to jump, Mr. Chairman, if you don’t have any questions. 

Mr. CHABOT. One more minute. Mr. Feeney. I thought you had 

a question. 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, I don’t, but the Secretary is a good friend, and 

we are very grateful for your presence here. We want to make sure 

you catch your plane. 

Mr. KEMP. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Secretary Kemp, we appreciate your time here this afternoon. And I would like to at this time 

introduce the rest of the panel. 

Our next witness will be the very honorable Marc H. Morial, current President and CEO of the National Urban League. Prior to 

joining the National Urban League in May 2003, Mr. Morial served 

from 1994 until 2002 as Mayor of New Orleans. 

He also served as President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 

where he developed and advocated a national urban policy, his area 

of expertise. 

Mayor Morial, I know that my colleagues join me in keeping in 

our thoughts and in our prayers the folks in New Orleans right 

now, and I know it hits you particularly hard, having represented 

that city for such a long time. So, we appreciate you being here this 

afternoon. 

And our third witness will be Ann Marie Tallman, President and 

General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Prior to joining the group, Ms. Tallman specialized 

in the area of public finance law for the Denver law firm of—help 

me with the pronunciation——

Ms. TALLMAN. Kutak Rock. 

Mr. CHABOT. In 1993, Ms. Tallman was appointed as Deputy Director of Planning and Community Development Agency in the city 

and county of Denver. In this capacity, Ms. Tallman was responsible for advising the Mayor on housing and community development matters. And we welcome you here this afternoon, Ms. 

Tallman. 

Our fourth and final witness is the former Lieutenant Governor 

of Colorado, the Honorable Joe Rogers. 

Lieutenant Governor Rogers currently serves as Commissioner 

on the National Voting Rights Commission, a bipartisan panel of 

academics, civil rights leaders and governmental and policy officials charged with examining the effectiveness of the Voting Rights 

Act in the past 25 years. 

Since early this year, the National Voting Rights commission has 

held a series of hearings nationwide examining the prevalence of 

discrimination in voting since 1982. The Commission anticipates 

releasing their report in January 2006. Prior to serving on the 

Commission, Lieutenant Governor Rogers served as Colorado’s 

Lieutenant Governor and had the distinction of being the youngest 

serving lieutenant in our Nation’s history, and only the fourth AfriVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Feb 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\101805\24033.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24033
15

can American in the country to be elected as a State’s number 2 

elected official. 

In addition to his work on the Commission, Lieutenant Governor 

Rogers spends his time lecturing and engaging in motivational 

speaking. We welcome you here this afternoon, Lieutenant Governor Rogers. 

And for those who have not testified before the Committee, before, you probably know that we have a 5-minute rule where each 

of you gets to testify for 5 minutes, and we are able to ask questions for 5 minutes. And we have a lighting system there which you 

probably have seen. The yellow light will come on when you have 

1 minute to wrap up. When the red light comes on if you could conclude at about that time or shortly thereafter if at all possible. 

And we also—it is the practice of the Committee to swear in all 

witnesses and we had already sworn in Secretary Kemp, so if the 

3 of you would mind raising your right hand and please stand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

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

and we welcome all three again this afternoon and we will begin 

with you, Mayor Morial. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARC MORIAL,

PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE 

Mr. MORIAL. Thank you very much, Chairman Chabot—in Louisiana, we would say Chabot—and Representative Nadler and 

Members of the Subcommittee. Let me thank you as I begin for the 

support of the Congress in appropriating money to assist with the 

recovery in New Orleans. I appreciate it. And certainly urge your 

continued support. 

Today, I have the opportunity to share with you my thoughts on 

the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the enormously positive impact it 

has had on this Nation. I am gratified to know of your strong support for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and appreciate 

your leadership on this very important subject. The importance of 

the Voting Rights Act and its necessity cannot be overemphasized. 

We have learned through experience what a difference the vote 

make to us. In 1964, the year before President Johnson signed the 

act into law, there were only 300 African American elected officials 

in this Nation. Today, there are more than 9,100 black elected officials in this Nation, including a record for the Republic of 43 serving in both Houses of the Congress of the United States this term. 

As you know, before I took the helm of the National Urban 

League, I was an elected official in Louisiana, proudly serving in 

its State Senate and later serving two terms as Mayor of the City 

of New Orleans. I followed in the foot steps of my late father, Ernest ‘‘Dutch’’ Morial who served as the first African American 

mayor of New Orleans. 

Importantly, he served when he was elected in 1967 as the first 

African American elected official in Louisiana in 1967 since at that 

time the days of reconstruction. So Louisiana went almost 100 

years despite having almost a one third African American population with zero elected officials until the passage of the Voting 

Rights Act in 1965. 

16

It is unlikely that either he nor I nor many of the Members who 

serve in this Congress or the many African Americans who serve 

in State legislatures, particularly in the south, but across the Nation, would have been able to serve their cities, their States and 

this Nation without the passage of the Voting Rights Act. 

Let me be clear. Expanding the opportunity to vote in America 

goes far beyond simply ensuring that minority voters have a voice 

or that African American politicians get elected. The Voting Rights 

Act, I believe, has enhanced the lives of all Americans, not just 

black Americans, not just Americans of color. 

By opening up the political process, the Voting Rights Act has 

made available a broader pool of political talent, greatly improving 

the quality of representation for all Americans and all voters. 

Just as important, the Voting Rights Act has been instrumental 

in moving America closer to its true promise, and thus has significantly benefited every single American regardless of race, color, 

economic status, national origin or political party. 

I have heard it suggested that the Voting Rights Act, or certain 

key provisions, need not be reauthorized because its very success 

has rendered it obsolete. Indeed, not only is this a fallacy, but the 

opposite is true. I urge you in the strongest possible terms not to 

fall for that. The Voting Rights Act must be reauthorized because 

it is an important piece of legislation that works. 

The great strides that we have taken in the last 40 years have 

been possible precisely and only because the Voting Rights Act has 

been in place. 

Unfortunately, while this Nation has made great progress in the 

last 40 years in this area, we certainly aren’t where we need to be 

or where we want to be. 

Across this Nation, African Americans and other minorities continue to face obstacles to exercising their full voting rights. That 

is why Congress must reauthorize the act and its special provisions 

including the section 5 preclearance requirement. 

I have a special interest in and history with preclearance provisions because of the long, tragic and documented history of discriminatory voting practices in my home State, Louisiana. It is one 

of those States required by section 5 to obtain preclearance for any 

proposed change in our election laws or procedures. 

This provision, section 5, has been critical in the curtailment of 

voting rights abuses over the past 40 years. In fact, a bipartisan 

congressional report in 1982 warned that without this section, discrimination would appear overnight. And I believe that this is still 

true today. 

For example—and I think this is important—since 1965, not one 

single Louisiana State House of Representatives redistricting plan 

as initially submitted to the Justice Department for review, has 

been precleared. Not a single one. In other words, in the last 40 

years, every single State House redistricting plan adopted immediately after the census and submitted for preclearance in Louisiana has been found both by Republican and Democratic Attorneys General to abridge the right to vote on account of race or color 

or membership in language in a minority group. 

In case after case, the efforts of the civil rights division of DOJ 

and minority voter advocates prompted Louisiana to withdraw its 

17

original plan and restore districts where African Americans had an 

opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. 

There are, indeed, many African Americans elected officials in 

Louisiana. It is clear that attempts to undermine minority voting 

power in Louisiana continue to show its face from time to time in 

the present day. 

Without preclearance, these and other discriminatory voting 

plans would, without a doubt, be put into place not only in Louisiana, but throughout the country. And we as a Nation would take 

a giant step backward. 

We have come far, as I have said, because of the Voting Rights 

Act and the enforcement of section 5. Five gives full transparency 

to voting procedures. It deters State officials from proposing discriminatory voting changes, and the preclearance process also educates State officials in what the Voting Rights Act requires and 

how to formulate nondiscriminatory policies and redistricting 

plans. 

I am gratified at the degree of support on both sides of the aisle 

for reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. And I think this is a 

moment in history when true bipartisanship can be a beacon of 

hope and a beacon of light and a high point for this Nation. I urge 

you to recognize a continued need for preclearance and other provisions that are so necessary for the progress we must make as a Nation. And I thank you for your attention and I will take your questions. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mayor Morial. I appreciate 

your statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morial follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARC MORIAL

I appreciate having the opportunity to share with you my thoughts on the 1965 

Voting Rights Act and the enormously positive impact it has had our nation. I am 

very gratified to know of your strong support for reauthorization of the Voting 

Rights Act and appreciate your leadership on this important issue of our time. 

The importance and necessity of the Voting Rights Act cannot be over-emphasized. We have learned through experience what a difference the vote makes to us. 

In 1964, the year before President Johnson signed the Act into law, there were only 

300 African American elected officials in the entire country. Today, there are more 

than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of Congress. 

As you know, before I took the helm of the National Urban League, I was an 

elected official in Louisiana—first in the state legislature and then as a two-term 

mayor of New Orleans. I followed in the footsteps of my father, Ernest ‘‘Dutch’’ 

Morial, who was the first African American to serve as Mayor of New Orleans. I 

saw first-hand the tremendous impact that the 1965 Voting Rights Act on my state, 

for without it, it is unlikely that either one of us would have been able to serve the 

city and state we loved so much. 

Let me be clear: expanding the opportunity to vote in America goes far beyond 

simply ensuring that minority voters have a voice or that African American politicians get elected. The Voting Rights Act has enhanced the lives of all Americans, 

not just black Americans, not just minorities. By opening up the political process, 

the Voting Rights Act has made available a broader pool of political talent, greatly 

improving the quality of representation for all voters. Just as important, the Voting 

Rights Act has been instrumental in moving America closer to its true promise and, 

thus, has significantly benefited every single American, regardless of their race, economic status, national origin or political party. 

I’ve heard it suggested that the Voting Rights Act—or certain key provisions—

need not be reauthorized because its very success has rendered it obsolete. This is 

a fallacy—and I urge you in the strongest possible terms not to fall for it. The Voting Rights Act must be reauthorized BECAUSE it works! 

18

The great strides we’ve taken in the last 40 years have been possible precisely 

and only because the Voting Rights Act has been in place. Unfortunately, while our 

nation has made great progress in the last forty years in the area of voting rights, 

we’re not yet where we need to be. Across the country, African Americans and other 

minorities continue to face obstacles to exercising their full voting rights. That is 

why it is Congress must reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and its special provisions, including the Section 5 pre-clearance requirement. 

I have a special interest in and history with the pre-clearance provisions. Because 

of our long, tragic, and documented history of discriminatory voting practices, Louisiana is one of the states required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain 

pre-clearance for any proposed changes in our election laws or procedures. This Section 5 requirement has been critical in the curtailment of voting rights abuses in 

the last 40 years. In fact, a bipartisan Congressional report in 1982 warned that 

without this section, discrimination would reappear ‘‘overnight.’’ That is still true 

today. 

For example, since 1965, not one Louisiana State House of Representatives redistricting plan as initially submitted to the Justice Department for review has been 

pre-cleared. In other words, in the last 40 years, every single State House redistricting plan adopted immediately after the Census and submitted for preclearance 

in Louisiana has been found, both by Republican and Democratic Attorneys General, 

to abridge the right to vote on account of race or color or membership in a language 

minority group. 

In case after case, the efforts of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department 

of Justice and minority voter advocates prompted Louisiana to withdraw its original 

plan and restore a district where African Americans had an opportunity to elect a 

candidate of choice. While there are indeed many African American elected officials 

in Louisiana, it is clear that attempts to undermine minority voting power in Louisiana continue to the present day. 

Without the pre-clearance requirement, these and other blatantly discriminatory 

voting plans would—without a doubt—be put into place throughout the country and 

we would take a giant step backward. 

We have come as far as we have precisely because of the existence and enforcement of Section 5. Section 5 gives full transparency to voting procedures that would 

otherwise be too complex, technical, or hidden for the public to discover. It also deters state officials from proposing some discriminatory voting changes in the first 

place. They now take extra care to involve minority communities in policy-making, 

under threat of Section 5 complaints. The Section 5 pre-clearance process also educates state officials in what the VRA requires and how to formulate non-discriminatory policies. 

I am gratified at the degree of support—on both sides of the aisle—for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. I urge you to also recognize the continued need 

for pre-clearance and other special provisions that are so necessary for the continued progress we must make as a nation. 

Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to take your questions.

Mr. CHABOT. I also have a statement that I have been presented 

here, the Rainbow Push Coalition, it was because we only have 

four witnesses available on the panel, we can’t accommodate another witness. But we would like to put the statement in the record 

and without objection that statement will be submitted for the 

record. 

[The information referred to is printed in the Appendix.] 

Ms. Tallman, you’re recognized for 5 minutes at this time. Thank 

you. 

STATEMENT OF ANN MARIE TALLMAN, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND 

EDUCATIONAL FUND 

Ms. TALLMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify regarding the reauthorization of the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act. 

I am Ann Marie Tallman, President and General Counsel of the 

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 

19

We are a nonpartisan organization that protects the civil rights, 

including the voting rights, of over 40 million Latinos living in the 

United States. 

America’s leadership recognized at home and abroad is defined 

by our democracy. Our democracy is a Government in which the 

sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the citizenry 

through representative Government. Simply put, democracy and 

the right to vote are our country’s competitive advantage. 

Our democracy works best when we have confidence that when 

we exercise our franchised rights, we will be free from harassment, 

unnecessary scrutiny, discrimination, or artificial barriers that may 

be placed in our way to dissuade us or to discourage us from exercising our most fundamental right that preserves all other rights. 

In 1965, Congress passed, and President Johnson signed into 

law, the Voting Rights Act to bring us closer to freedom in the 

United States. Of course, the act, by itself, failed to eliminate persistent discriminatory voting schemes. It required vigorous enforcement not only by the United States Department of Justice, but by 

organizations like MALDEF to make the promise a reality. 

The Voting Rights Act has done more for any other law to ensure 

that we, as a Nation, progress beyond the discriminatory election 

laws that have marred our democratic processes. Although important gains have been made, the VRA remains a necessary tool for 

protecting voting rights. 

Two VRA components are especially important to the Latino 

community, section 5 and the language minority provisions. The 

impact of section 5 encountering discriminatory election laws cannot be overemphasized. 

Section 5 has prevented voting discrimination against Latinos as 

well as African Americans and has fostered the unprecedented 

Latino political participation that we see today at all levels of 

American Government. 

Section 5 prevents covered jurisdictions from changing the rules 

of the game to disadvantaged minority voters. 

By invalidating discriminatory election laws before they are put 

into place, section 5 removes the need for minority voters to bring 

costly litigation to protect their voting rights. 

A recent section 5 challenge bought by MALDEF in Texas demonstrates how section 5 preserves the voting rights of Latinos. In 

2001 where Latinos had reached one-third of the State’s total population, Texas proposed a redistricting plan for its State House of 

representatives that minimized Latino voters influence in State 

elections. Because the plan added only one new Latino majority 

district and eliminated 4 such districts, the United States Department of Justice concluded that it was retrogressive and blocked its 

implementation. 

As a direct result of the DOJ’s section 5 action, Texas kept the 

four Latino majority districts that has afforded Latino voters the 

opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. Had section 5 not 

been in effect, these districts would not have likely existed. 

MALDEF seeks the reauthorization of section 5 for the next 25 

years with language clarification, regarding Congress’s intent to 

prohibit intentionally discriminatory voting changes. 

20

Currently, 4.3 million voting age citizens are limited English proficient. Section 203 allows that these citizens can cast informed and 

effective ballots and is implemented in a very cost-effective basis. 

If Congress does not reauthorize the language minority provisions 

of the VRA, Latino and limited English proficient Asian Americans 

and Native American citizens will be unable to vote. 

A recent challenge brought by MALDEF in Illinois, demonstrates 

the continued need for the language minority provisions. In 2002, 

Cooke County purchased a voting system that did not adequately 

inform Spanish voters, Spanish speaking voters. MALDEF challenged the system, obtained a consent decree for more Spanish 

speaking poll workers, new training and monitoring. 

This would not have been possible without section 203. 

MALDEF seeks reauthorization of the language minority provisions with an adjustment to the coverage formula to section 203 to 

include jurisdictions between 7,500 and 10,000 language minority 

citizens. 

We have worked for over 37 years to ensure that Latinos’ voting 

rights are protected. On behalf of MALDEF and other civil rights 

organizations that work every day to protect the voting rights of 

minorities in this country, I urge Congress to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act to reflect the original intent of these critical provisions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tallman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANN MARIE TALLMAN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation 

to testify regarding the reauthorization of the temporary provisions of the Voting 

Rights Act (VRA). I am Ann Marie Tallman, President and General Counsel of 

MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. We are a 

nonpartisan organization that protects the civil rights of the over 40 million Latinos 

living in the United States. 

Since our founding in 1968, MALDEF has challenged voting laws that deny 

Latinos an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. In Garza v. 

Smith in 1970, MALDEF won a ruling that permitted illiterate persons, many of 

whom were Latino, to receive assistance in casting ballots. MALDEF also frequently 

sought the elimination of at-large elections that deprived Latino voters of their ability to elect their candidates of their choice. Our first successful single member district lawsuit, White v. Regester in 1973, resulted in the election of three Latinos and 

one African American to the Texas State Legislature and laid the legal groundwork 

for the present interpretation of Section 2 of the VRA. 

In 1976, following the enactment of the language minority provisions of the VRA 

and the extension of Section 5 to the Southwest, MALDEF successfully challenged 

a Texas law that would have had a devastating effect on Latino voting power by 

requiring the annual re-registration of all voters. MALDEF also pressured the city 

of San Antonio to change from at-large to single member districts. In the next election, a record 29 Latino candidates filed and an unprecedented five Latinos were 

elected to the ten-member San Antonio City Council. 

The Voting Rights Act is widely considered one of the most effective pieces of civil 

rights legislation in American history. It has helped to usher in an era in which 

Latinos and other minority groups are generally better able to register, vote, and 

elect their candidates of choice. Prior to 1965, many Latinos, especially in the Southwest, were excluded from full political participation by poll taxes, exclusionary primaries, intimidation by voting officials, and language barriers. Latino votes were 

also routinely diluted through the use of mechanisms like at-large voting and numbered place election systems. The Voting Rights Act has done more than any other 

piece of legislation to ensure that we as a nation progress beyond the discriminatory 

election laws that have marred our democratic processes. Despite these important 

gains, however, the VRA remains a necessary tool for effectively protecting the voting rights of Latinos and other minority groups. 

21

The focus of my testimony today will be upon two areas of paramount concern to 

millions of Latino voters in the United States: Section 5 and the language minority 

provisions Section 203 and 4(f)(4). 

The impact of Section 5 in countering discriminatory election laws cannot be overemphasized. This provision of the VRA, which affects almost as many Latinos as 

it does African Americans, has been essential in stimulating the unprecedented 

Latino political participation that we see today at all levels of American government. Section 5 prevents covered jurisdictions from ‘changing the rules of game’ to 

disadvantage minority voters before these voters can seek redress for the deprivation of their voting rights. Section 5’s effectiveness in protecting minority voting 

rights lies in its shifting the burden of proof from the minority voters who have historically been subject to discriminatory practices to the covered jurisdictions seeking 

to change their election systems. By invalidating discriminatory election laws before 

they are put in place, Section 5 removes the need for minority voters to continually 

bring costly litigation to ensure that their voting rights are protected. 

A recent case brought by MALDEF in Texas demonstrates how Section 5 works 

to preserve the voting rights of Latinos. In 2001, when Latinos had reached onethird of the State’s total population, Texas proposed a redistricting plan for its 

House of Representatives that minimized Latino voters’ impact in three districts 

and completely eliminated a fourth Latino-majority district. Because the plan added 

only one new Latino-majority district and eliminated four such districts, the U.S. 

Justice Department concluded that it was retrogressive and blocked its implementation under Section 5. As a direct result of DOJ’s Section 5 intervention, the current 

Texas House redistricting plan maintains the four Latino-majority districts that 

were dismantled and contains a total of thirty-five districts that afford Latino voters 

the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. If Section 5 were not in effect, 

these districts would likely not exist. 

MALDEF seeks reauthorization of Section 5 with language clarifying Congress’s 

intent to prohibit intentionally discriminatory voting changes as well as to preserve 

‘ability to elect’ as the touchstone of Section 5 review. 

Also of great importance to Latino voters are the language minority provisions 

contained within Sections 203 and 4(f)(4). Currently, 4.3 million Latino voting age 

citizens are limited English proficient. If Congress does not reauthorize the language minority provisions of the VRA, these Latino citizens will be unable to effectively exercise the franchise. 

A recent challenge brought by MALDEF in Illinois demonstrates the continuing 

need for the language minority provisions. In 2002, Cook County, Illinois purchased 

a voting system that used punch-cards with ‘‘voter error notification’’ capabilities 

that was incapable of notifying Spanish-speaking voters of problems with their ballots. This voting system, combined with the county’s failure to provide Spanishspeaking poll workers, left many Latino voters unable to cast effective ballots. 

MALDEF challenged the county’s voting system under the bilingual assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act and negotiated a consent decree on behalf of Latino 

voters in which the county agreed to increase the number of Spanish speaking poll 

workers and implement new training, monitoring, and hotline procedures. This protection of Latinos’ ability to cast an effective ballot would not have been possible 

without Section 203 of the VRA. 

MALDEF seeks reauthorization of the language minority provisions with an adjustment to the coverage formula of Section 203 to include jurisdictions containing 

between 7,500 and 10,000 language minority citizens. 

MALDEF has worked for 37 years to ensure that Latinos’ voting rights are protected. Section 5 and the language minority provisions of the VRA have been and 

continue to be our greatest tools. On behalf of MALDEF and other organizations 

that work to protect minority voting rights, I urge Congress reauthorize the Voting 

Rights Act to reflect the original intent of its crucial provisions.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony 

this afternoon. 

And Lieutenant Governor Rogers, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOE ROGERS, FORMER LIEUTENANT 

GOVERNOR OF COLORADO 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be 

with you. We are delighted to join you as Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you kindly for having us here today. 

22

It was good to see Congressman Watt in particular at our hearing that just took place this past week, as a matter of fact, so it 

is a delight to join you. We’re honored to join you in particular in 

my capacity as the former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado, and 

I’m pleased to serve on the National Commission on the Voting 

Rights Act. 

It is an honor to be before this distinguished Subcommittee as 

it conducts its first hearing related to reauthorization of this seminal piece of legislation. Indeed, major provisions of which are due 

to expire in 2007. 

I am here to discuss the work of the National Commission on the 

Voting Rights Act. The Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under 

Law indeed created the National Commission on the Voting Rights 

Act on behalf of the civil rights community creating indeed this 

nonpartisan national commission. 

The National Commission is comprised of eight leaders whose 

represent our Nation’s diversity. The Honorable Charles Mathias, 

former United States Senator from Maryland, is the Honorary 

Chair. And Bill Lann Lee, the former Assistant Attorney General 

for civil rights, indeed serves as Chairman of our commission. The 

other commissioners are the Honorable John Buchanan, former 

United States Congressman from Alabama; Chandler Davidson, the 

scholar and editor of one of the seminal works on voting rights in 

the United States; indeed Delores Huerta, cofounder of the United 

Farm Workers of America; Elsie Meeks, the first Native American 

Member of the United States Congress; and Charles Ogletree, the 

Harvard Law School professor and noted civil rights advocate; and 

yours truly. 

In January of 2006, the National Commission will release its formal report detailing indeed the existence of discrimination in voting since 1982, the last time there was a comprehensive reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. To date, the National Commission 

has held nine of ten planned field hearings throughout the United 

States. We have heard from approximately 100 elected officials, 

election officials, voting rights attorneys, experts in voting cases, 

community leaders and concerned citizens who indeed have testified regarding their experiences relating to voting discrimination. 

The commission’s report will contain information from the hearings as well as include extensive research culled from many 

sources, including findings, reports, testimony from court cases and 

enforcement records of the Department of Justice. The report will 

not advocate any particular legislative action. Instead, the purpose 

of the report is to detail the facts that will inform your debate and 

the debate throughout the United States regarding reauthorization. 

Because the commission’s research is continuing, it would be premature for me to detail the commission’s findings. Nonetheless, I 

would like to identify a few trends that have emerged from our 

hearings which are discussed in greater detail in my formal written 

statement which you all have. 

First, the problem of discrimination in voting appears to be significant, and it affects virtually every region of the country. In stating this, it is important for me to note that compared to 1965, Mr. 

Chairman, there has been significant progress in our great Nation 

regarding race and voting, and indeed a decrease in blatantly racist 

23

or bigoted activity as it relates to voting in the United States. 

Nonetheless, whether the impetus is bigotry or simply plain old 

power or the idea of enhancing power at the expense in particular 

of minority voters—this sometimes occurs—official discrimination 

in voting remains a problem in the United States. 

Second, in many areas of the country, voting continues to be racially polarized. By that we simply mean, it is a circumstance 

where white voters will simply only vote for white candidates and, 

frankly, in circumstances where minority voters will only vote for 

minority candidates. One consequence of racially polarized voting 

is that minority voters cannot elect candidates of choice or preference perhaps if it is by race or ethnicity. That simply may not 

be an option unless there is a majority or near majority of the electorate. Moreover, when racially polarized voting exists, a desired 

electoral result can be obtained by simply changing the voting procedure or practice that harms minority voters. 

Third, application of the minority language provisions frequently 

result in increased participation of minority language voters and an 

increased ability of such voters to elect candidates of their choice. 

Fourth, the Federal mandate of section 203 enables election administrators throughout the country to provide needed minority 

language assistance without political interference. In a soon-to-bereleased comprehensive survey of section 203, indeed, it is noted 

that 71 percent of election administrators throughout the country 

support reauthorization of section 203. 

Fifth, the existence of section 2 does not obviate the need for section 5 as some have suggested. Section 5 prevents discriminatory 

procedures from being implemented at little or no cost to minority 

voters and civil rights advocates. In contrast to section 2, litigation 

is complicated, often time consuming and frankly plain resource intensive. 

When the commission’s report is complete, this commission indeed is ready, willing and perfectly able to provide the report to 

this Judiciary Committee and frankly to discuss its contents fully 

with you. And we would welcome the opportunity to come back before this commission with the formal findings indeed. 

Thank you so much for this chance today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]

24

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE ROGERS


JR0001.eps
25


JR0002.eps
26


JR0003.eps
27


JR0004.eps
28


JR0005.eps
29


JR0006.eps
30


JR0007.eps
31


JR0008.eps
32


JR0009.eps
33

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

And now the Committee Members will have 5 minutes to ask 

questions, and I yield myself 5 minutes for that purpose. 

Okay. I’ll ask each of the witnesses this question, and you can 

answer it any way you see fit. 

What has been the direct and indirect impact in your view of the 

Voting Rights Act on minority voting rights over the last 40 years? 

And if you could, if you could answer that with respect to both covered and noncovered jurisdictions if you so choose. 

So we will begin with you, Mayor Morial. 

Mr. MORIAL. I stated in my testimony the increase in the number 

of African-American elected officials. But maybe because everyone 

on the panel is an elected official, frankly, before 1965, even though 

there was a small number of African-American voters in New Orleans and in Louisiana, very few candidates for public office even 

bothered to campaign in black communities, show up in black communities, pay attention to the very existence of African-American 

communities. And therefore, it was very visible, you could ride 

through neighborhoods and look at public improvements, the conditions of playgrounds, the conditions of streets and the great disparities that existed. 

The Voting Rights Act, which gave a greater voice to AfricanAmerican communities in the south, forced, quite frankly, even in 

cases where white candidates were running against each other, it 

made the African-American voter a very significant player in the 

electoral process. And so it isn’t just a case of African-Americans 

getting elected to public office, although I think that is a highlight. 

It is also the way in which majority candidates have responded to 

the African-American community, realizing that because they are 

full and complete participants in the democratic process, you have 

to campaign to them, you have to pay attention to them. And that’s 

a real sort of on-the-ground effect. 

It also translates into in the process of governing, to those communities being paid attention to when public benefits, public improvements are, in fact, doled out by a city council, by a State legislature, by a mayor or by a governor. So those are some real, I 

think, impacts beyond—you know, the existence of African-American elected officials is important. But, really, the true impact is 

the power of the voter to have his issues heard, his voice represented in the deliberative process and in the law-making process 

and in the executive process in our cities, States and at the national level. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Tallman, did you want to respond? 

Ms. TALLMAN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There have been significant improvements in the political participation of Latinos as a result of the Voting Rights Act. In 1982, for 

example, there were nine Hispanic Members of Congress. Today, 

there are 25. There are also two Latino U.S. senators. There are 

also approximately 5,000 Latino elected officials at the State and 

local level. 

We believe that those strides would not have been made had the 

voting rights section 5, section 203 been in existence. We have 

made good strides in language provisions where the 5 percent of 

34

the voting population in a jurisdiction that has special language requirements, where voting materials are provided to those individuals so that they understand the ballot and are able to exercise 

their right to vote. I think that those strides have been very good 

in enhancing and improving our democracy and ensuring that 

every single individual who is a citizen can actually exercise their 

right to vote. 

So I think the Voting Rights Act has had profound implications 

for not only us being a better representative form of Government 

as a country with the increased number of Latinos, African-Americans and people of color in jurisdictions at the State and local level 

and at the national level, but I also think that it has done a great 

thing in opening the dialogue on issues that impact all communities, which is very important and critical in our country. 

Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. 

And Lieutenant Governor Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, when you were asking the question, 

the first thought that came to mind, frankly I was 1 year old, I had 

just turned one when this act was passed in 1965. I am 41 years 

old today. I think about the circumstances in terms of the life of 

my own family, sir. I know that you have worked hard to run for 

office, and you have done good things for many years. My grandfather ran for public office in 1960 in Omaha, Nebraska. In 1960, 

the sum total of African-Americans elected in the United States 

was right around 200 or so elected officials in America. When my 

grandfather ran for office, he ran for the school board in Omaha, 

Nebraska. It would have made him the highest elected official in 

the State of Nebraska. 

When my grandfather ran in that election, his campaign theme 

was: Democracy is for everyone. I have never forgotten that, and 

I have kept his campaign card throughout the years as, frankly, a 

source of personal inspiration in terms of my own life. 

I remember that, and I remember his life. He lost that election 

in 1960. Ten years later, in 1970, he was elected to serve the school 

board in Omaha, Nebraska. Change took place in America as a result of the sea of change that occurred right here in this body. 

I know that you all deal with multiple pieces of legislation. You 

all deal with multiple issues, and you all know as well as I do, your 

staffs will be tugging on you to deal with 500 things throughout the 

course of this day and so many things to come. But this act, over 

the course of the last 40 years, as your statement indicated, has 

been seminal in its impact and remarkable in its scope. It shifted 

us as a country. It opened up new possibilities for people. Because 

what it simply said is, this fundamental right, this right to vote, 

to cast your ballot for the person who you hope will represent your 

interest in whatever capacity—whether they are the local city 

council person or a State legislature or in any capacity, perhaps in 

this august body of Congress—that frankly individual votes count 

and make a difference. 

So when I look at the provisions of this act, it is real, and it is 

substantive. When I look at the provisions regarding preclearance 

in section 203, it is clear that the Federal Government just didn’t 

say, you have the right to vote. That was arguably implicit in the 

15th amendment. It was implicit in the 14th amendment. But what 

35

the Congress of the United States said was, we will enforce this 

right to vote, and preclearance gives you the ability to help enforce 

the provisions of the act. And certainly with section 203, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely clear in terms of the data that we have received throughout the country that it has led to a remarkable increase in terms of the number of language minorities that participate in this process. 

Many of you all campaign in bilingual languages. You campaign 

in Spanish. Some of you all might send out something. If you were 

in Louisiana, you might send out something in the French language or otherwise. We are all seeking to appeal to voters, and why 

not appeal to them in the language where they are? This has enabled that to happen. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

My time has expired. 

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

minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start by asking the witnesses the first question I asked 

Secretary Kemp. It has been observed that a number of States in 

the union greatly restrict the right to vote of former felons. Some 

of them, some States—Florida, for example, is one that comes to 

mind—for life. This has a racially disparate impact. Starting with 

Mayor Morial and Ms. Tallman. 

Mr. FEENEY. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. NADLER. Yes. 

Mr. FEENEY. In fairness to Florida, there is a process——

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time. I know, a process that never 

works. Except for Chuck Colson. 

Do you believe that it would be useful in terms of fairness in voting for the Voting Rights Act as we extend it to be amended to put 

some sort of control on this to say that ex-felons, once they have 

served their turn or X number of years after they served their 

term, must have their right to vote restored? 

Mr. MORIAL. Congressman Nadler, I’m glad you raised that. The 

answer without question is, yes. Let me see if I can state the principle here. The idea here is that a person who has in fact served 

their time, paid their dues, ought not be permanently restricted. 

They should not have a lifetime sentence, in effect, or a long sentence in terms of removing their constitutional rights. 

If you put it on another level, would we ever think of restricting 

a person’s right to speak, right to exercise their religion, any other 

of the enumerated constitutional rights for life because they were 

convicted of a felony? My view would be, and I think it is our position at the National Urban League, that a national standard which 

provides an opportunity for those who have paid their dues to society—let’s emphasize that for the record—completed their prison 

term, completed their period of parole, ought to have the right to 

vote again. It is important, certainly, to giving them a chance to 

reintegrate back into society and to feel that they are going to be 

a full part of society. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I would add, it is important, if we’re 

going to call ourselves a democracy, that everybody have the right 

to vote. 

36

Ms. Tallman? 

Ms. TALLMAN. Representative, we applaud Congress’ leadership 

role in ensuring the right to vote for minorities in the United 

States. It has been a very important leadership role that Congress 

has filled, and as a result, there are millions of people in this country whose lives are better for it. 

One of the issues that still remains to be addressed is allowing 

those that have served their time, as Marc Morial has stated, to 

be able to fully reenter into society and to be able to exercise the 

right to vote. By voting, and participating in the voting process, 

people are more likely to engage in other civic endeavors. And so 

there are real benefits to voting and to having ex-felons vote. So 

we believe that it is certainly something that Congress could demonstrate. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Lieutenant Governor Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Congressman Nadler, I can’t take a position on behalf of the commission. We have not——

Mr. NADLER. On behalf of yourself. What do you think of it? 

Mr. ROGERS. I differ, frankly, from my colleagues to some extent 

on this issue. And I think in terms of States, individual States 

have policies that, you know, have varied in terms of what happens 

to felons and the right to vote. And the Supreme Court has upheld 

the ability of individual States to deal with this issue. And I can 

only tell you, in having governed a State, I believe that determination should be left in many respects to Colorado. 

Mr. NADLER. Do you think a State should have a right to say to 

someone who is 17 when they committed a felony, has served 3 or 

4 years in jail, when they are 77 should not be allowed to vote? Or 

is that a fundamental right—such a fundamental violation of civil 

rights that Congress should say to a State that you can’t do that. 

Mr. ROGERS. The Supreme Court has held that it is not——

Mr. NADLER. No, no, Supreme Court has said it is a matter of 

constitutional law. We don’t have to have the Voting Rights Act at 

all as a matter of constitutional law. The question is, we have chosen to have the Voting Rights Act. Should we choose to say to a 

State that you’re State’s right does not extend to depriving a person of the franchise for life because he committed a crime 30 years 

ago? 

Mr. ROGERS. I tend to think in this area, to some extent, a State 

should have the ability to decide this issue and certainly when your 

dealing with people who obviously committed these crimes and otherwise, that that policy in many respects should be left up to the 

individual States to handle. You are talking about, obviously, there 

are a number of complexities that are involved to some extent in 

this issue, and it has varied by State in terms of how it is applied. 

And I am an advocate of the ability and the right of the States in 

their own sovereignty. 

Mr. NADLER. Could I have one additional minute? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman is recognized for 1 additional 

minute. 

Mr. NADLER. I would pose the following question, first to Lieutenant Governor Rogers, in this order. 

Mr. CHABOT. As long as they can answer. 

37

Mr. NADLER. Wait a minute. Doing it as quickly as possible. 

Don’t you think that the fact is, as we have observed, that perhaps 

one of the largest ways, one of the easiest—not easiest, one of the 

major ways of disenfranchising disproportionate numbers of people 

of color, et cetera, is by lifetime prohibitions on the right to vote 

for ex-felons? Isn’t that the way it is used today in certain States? 

Mr. ROGERS. Please forgive me, but I would not agree with that, 

Congressman. Let me tell you why, if I may. The assumption that 

you are making is that you have such a substantial number of minorities, for example African-Americans or Latinos, that are engaged in felonious conduct——

Mr. NADLER. Or that are arrested and convicted in a disproportionate number. 

Mr. ROGERS. The assumption—please forgive me—is that it is 

such a significant number that it has a dramatic impact on the 

people as a whole, when we find in reality is that it is not that. 

You don’t have African-Americans that are overwhelmingly in prison. You don’t have Latinos that are overwhelmingly in prison. You 

are still talking about a significant minority within our peoples as 

a whole. 

Ms. TALLMAN. There are many flaws in the criminal justice system as it relates to racial discrimination and racial profiling. As a 

result, oftentimes there are individuals that are convicted of crimes 

that are innocent, and there are individuals that are convicted of 

crimes and sentenced to tougher standards because of their race or 

ethnicity. 

We believe that disenfranchising permanently individuals who 

have served their time is bad for democracy, and as a result, we 

would suggest that Congress look at the issue. 

Mr. MORIAL. I would offer this. I think if you looked at the practices and laws of all 50 States, you would find the most restrictive 

provisions for the most part with respect to the voting rights of 

those who have been convicted of a felony in the very same States 

that are covered by section 5 and the very same States that have 

large minority populations. 

On the other hand, you would see the least restrictive provisions 

in those States with small minority populations and in States that 

are not covered by the section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for the 

most part. 

The second point I would make, if you looked at the genesis of 

many of these provisions that restrict the right of convicted felons 

to vote, they have their genesis in the post-Reconstruction backlash 

which occurred in the South. So if you look at facts, the facts are 

going to paint a picture in terms of what the—some suggest what 

maybe the motivation of some of these provisions have been, they 

were disenfranchisement provisions. 

And I applaud you for raising this issue, but I think it is so important to keep the perspective that we are talking about people 

who have already served their time. It could be for something such 

as theft of an automobile. It could be a felony of a white collar nature. 

Mr. NADLER. Or smoking marijuana. 

38

Mr. MORIAL. It could be smoking marijuana. It could be something that is treated as a felony and therefore restrictive. I appreciate your raising it. 

Mr. CHABOT. The Chair would note that the gentleman’s 1 

minute expired 3 minutes and 6 seconds ago. 

Mr. NADLER. Appreciate the forbearance of the Chair. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions at this time. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just so that Mr. Rogers will sleep more comfortably in his bed 

at night, the bill that we have introduced which deals with ex-felon 

voting deals only with voting in Federal elections. So they don’t try 

to tell the States what to do, and obviously, the States can’t interfere. And that’s the way we get around the discussion that has 

been raised here. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. David Scott of Georgia has joined us and obviously not a Member of the Committee, but his interest is overriding in this matter. And I just wanted you to know that he was 

present and that he is very welcome to the Committee. 

Mr. CHABOT. I share your sentiments, and Mr. Scott is a very 

distinguished Member of the House. And we welcome him with 

open arms at our meeting, and we appreciate his caring enough to 

be here today. 

Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, the witnesses have been significantly in 

agreement today, which argues well for the first hearing and what 

we have got to go through to get this measure through as quickly 

as we can. Even though it is 2007, we still need to get this measure 

out before this 109th session expires. And so that is why there are 

a number of hearings that have been set up, some two, sometimes 

three in a week, to get us moving along. 

We have talked a lot about the South, but as has been pointed 

out, New York has areas that are covered by the Voter Rights Act 

of 1965. In Michigan, I have two townships in two different counties that are covered by the Voter Rights Act. And so wherever 

there are problems existing, that’s where we go to deal with them. 

And it is very clear that this problem is not over, as every witness 

has testified to. 

And I think is that is very important. I wanted to raise the question that seems important to me, that even over and above the protection of this cornerstone of democracy, the right to vote and have 

your vote counted, are there other benefits that derive to the American system of democracy by having a Voter Rights Act extended, 

by having it strengthened wherever necessary, by having the expired provisions covered again? And I’d like to throw that open for 

the examination of anybody that would like to talk with me about 

it. 

Ms. TALLMAN. Thank you so much, Representative, I applaud 

your leadership in the voting rights arena and the civil rights 

arena, sir. You’re very well regarded, not only in the African-American community among civil rights advocates but the Latino comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Feb 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\101805\24033.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24033
39

munity applauds all the work that you have done, so thank you 

very much for your leadership. 

I think that one of the most important aspects of the Voting 

Rights Act is providing voters the confidence in voting. A democracy works when people, when they go to the voting booth, they 

will be free from harassment. They will not be targeted. They will 

not be discriminated against. They will be able to bring a relative 

or friend with them if they have limited English proficiency, if they 

are disabled, if they need assistance in the voting booth. 

We are willing to protect freedoms in new democracies that are 

emerging around the world. We need to protect our democracy at 

home. And giving people the confidence in voting that they must 

have to know that democracy works has been a critical component 

of the Voting Rights Act. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. MORIAL. I think I would just add on a general basis, and I 

think we have enumerated specifics, but I think one of the key 

things is for our practices to reflect our principles, for the idea that 

democracy and the universality of suffrage is made real by that. 

The nation today has been involved in efforts to, quote, promote democracy abroad. Some of those efforts have been efforts to ensure 

that ethnic or religious minorities in countries a long way away 

from here have the right to freely participate without intimidation 

in the franchise. 

We have to be consistent, and being consistent means ensuring 

that the same practices and the same principles are followed here 

in the United States. 

Mr. ROGERS. Absolutely. And Congressman, I echo those sentiments as expressed frankly by Marc. Clearly, the Voting Rights Act 

sets a standard. It sets a standard for the United States in terms 

of our ability to participate in this notion of democracy, this remarkable gift of democracy. And it helps to clearly espouse that in 

many respects throughout the world as we seek to do so throughout 

the world. 

So is it seminal it its scope? Is it broad in its range? Is it key 

to the fundamental element of who we are? I think clearly, as we 

have indeed received testimony across the United States, the answer to that question seems to be overwhelmingly yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank all of you because we have uncovered, particularly in this Committee, innumerable instances in voting in 

which people have been discouraged, misdirected, given improper 

information, sometimes from the electoral system locally itself. And 

as you said, you cannot believe in democracy if you are not being 

encouraged to choose who is going to govern. 

And so I thank all the witnesses, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. Before recognizing the gentleman from Florida for his 5 minutes, the 

gentleman from Arizona who had yielded back his time I think 

wants to take a minute to make a statement. So I recognize him 

at this time. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And in all respect to the panelists and the Members here, we 

have talked almost to the extent that we have redirected the focus 

of the hearing today on some of the ex-felon disenfranchisement. 

40

And the Voting Rights Act doesn’t really address that at all. And 

I am hoping that the panel will address some of the issues that affect those law-abiding citizens who are indeed being 

disenfranchised in their voting, and I think that is something to 

maintain our focus upon. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that the gentleman from Arizona’s comments are right. 

I hate to get totally sidetracked on voting rights issues on the question of whether or not the problem with American democracy is too 

few convicted felons are determining the outcome of elections. 

I will tell you that, with respect to the constitutional issues here, 

remember, Katzenbach was very narrowly decided, and its determination was, this is an extraordinary exercise of the congressional 

power, dictating to the States based on the 15th amendment, which 

mentions race, color or former condition of servitude. Unless there 

is a direct tie to race, color or former condition of servitude, there 

may no longer be a foundation for Congress to overwhelm and dictate to the States. 

And I would say that, in fairness to Florida, my friend from New 

York said that the application never works. Well, that is just not 

true. We have streamlined the process. And it is true we don’t have 

automatic restoration when your sentence is over, but among other 

things, we ask for restitution, evidence of rehabilitation. The notion 

that a violent rapist ought to have his rights fully restored while 

his victim still has medical bills unpaid offends some Floridians, 

and that, I think, is something that policymakers in the State can 

decide. 

I was really interested, Mr. Rogers, in some of the findings that 

your commission has found. And I’m sorry that a lot of the questioning hasn’t been directed to that, because, remember, in the 

Gingles test, in order to legitimately make a section 2 claim—we 

haven’t asked questions, but you did a good job going over it—there 

has to be some findings. We have to find that we have compact and 

significant numbers of minorities in an area that are underrepresented when it comes to redistricting or opportunities to select 

candidates of their choice. We also have to find that there are cohesive voting patterns among the minorities if they had an opportunity. And finally, the third prong of that test is that there is significant cohesion among the traditional voting patterns of the majority, where minorities are denied their opportunity. 

And that, I think, is the most important thing that has been said 

all day in terms of the importance of the current rationale for any 

Voting Rights Act whatsoever. And I would ask you to elaborate on 

that and, to the extent that there is time, the other two panelists. 

But I think that is the most important thing has been said, and 

I would ask you, as you make that case that the Voting Rights Act 

is still relevant and apparently you have heard testimony that we 

have not heard yet, because this is our first hearing—this is wonderful stuff, and this is what we ought to be focusing on. We have 

got at least two Supreme Court justices that, based on the equal 

protection amendment, you have Thomas and Scalia saying that 

race-based district drawing is always inappropriate. That was a 

41

fair and reasonable rational position. We need to counteract that 

if we are going to have a fair and reasonable rationale for continuing or extending the Voting Rights Act. We have at least two 

justices that think that it is inappropriate. 

Sandra Day O’Conner, who tends to be a swing vote on all these 

issues—we have had a court of one until it is redone on things like 

the Voting Rights Act and redistricting, and O’Connor is the court. 

She decides, as the swing vote, virtually every meaningful case 

that has been decided in the last 15 years. And O’Connor said in 

a separate issue, but related issue—remember the Michigan law 

school preferences case—she said she wants to get to a color-blind 

society and has condemned the Balkanization of America. And she 

has said perhaps in 25 years we can get rid of race-based districts. 

So the debate is between, on the one hand, people who think we 

ought to have permanent race-based voting processes and districts; 

on the other hand, people like Scalia and Thomas and Abigail 

Thernstrom, who said we should never do it; and people like O’Connor and the rest of us who think we need to remedy problems when 

they occur. 

I hope we will get the details of the evidence that you have collected because that is what we need to be focused on in my view 

here. Let’s get back to section 2 and section 5. I wish I had an hour 

to go into the rationale and the basis and the meaning of that. But 

Mr. Rogers, if you would address that question. 

Mr. ROGERS. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman, for your 

thoughts on the same. It is absolutely clear. You are dealing with 

reauthorization as it relates to two provisions, section 5 and section 

203. And those are the provisions that come up for reauthorization 

this coming year. The Supreme Court has made it very clear—and 

when I think about the standard I’m reflecting on the City of 

Boerne v. Flores opinion, in which the court essentially cited Congress and Congress’ example of finding a factual basis for essentially invoking legislation as being key to its constitutionality. 

And in this case here, your establishment of the factual record, 

looking at the patterns or practices as they exist or you might find 

they do not exist throughout the United States is frankly the most 

important determination following this legislative body. Ultimately, 

the Supreme Court will deal with the management of these cases. 

What we have clearly seen throughout the United States is, with 

respect to section 5, which comes up for reauthorization, since 

1982, literally the Department of Justice has had over 600 submissions that have been objected to involving some 2,000 individual 

objections. And that’s just simply since 1982 as it relates to congressional districts throughout United States as a whole. Not to 

mention the private cases, for example, that have been filed 

throughout the United States dealing with the provisions of section 

2, section 5, section 203, for example, by the Department of Justice. 

The factual record in and of itself over the course of the last 23 

years and what we are finding in terms of our determinations—and 

again, I don’t want to be too premature—indicates that there are 

still remaining significant problems. The most fascinating thing 

about this, Congressman, is the nature of the problem in and of 

itself is being articulated. It is kind of different in the way it is 

being articulated today. As you well know, Congressman Conyers, 

42

in that era, the movement the country was in a different mode. 

There were different ways that people talked about issues and 

problems in our society. That was a different language at the time. 

Even though the language may have changed here in the year 

2005, the reality is that we are still seeing, unfortunately, practices 

being engaged. So it is done under a different name. It’s done 

under a different label with, for example, what it is, is a movement 

from district-based elections to at-large elections on whims. It’s the 

elimination wholeheartedly of elected positions saying that we are 

not going to have the elected office anymore. This often takes place 

at the local level in principal part as we are finding around the 

country, and it varies. 

For example, testimony that we heard, what was going on in 

Chicago, for example, or what we heard that was taking place in 

California in Los Angeles, those are not classically southern cities. 

Frankly, what we heard, Mr. Nadler, about New York and heard 

about issues related to problems related to voting or the testimony 

that we received there, all of those issues were of deep concern. 

The factual basis—and we’re delighted to provide this information to the Committee—we believe will give you some information 

upon which you can say we ought to move forward on reauthorization or we ought not to move forward, but at the very least you will 

have the facts upon which to make a decision. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

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

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank our witnesses. They have contributed a great 

deal to our proceedings. And I wanted to start my questioning by 

asking Ms. Tallman, focusing on the preclearance provision, some 

have suggested that since section 2 is sitting up there, why do you 

need section 5? Can you—if the legislature passes an illegal plan, 

what are the costs involved in a section 5 denial of preclearance 

compared to a lawsuit under section 2? 

Ms. TALLMAN. The costs by minority voters to hire a private attorney under section 2, which is the permanent section that allows 

for a private right of action when there has been discrimination in 

voting, the costs associated with hiring private attorneys can run 

in the millions of dollars. There are very significant fact-based findings, facts that need to be gathered as opposed to section 5 

preclearance in jurisdictions where there has been traditional discrimination or a history of discrimination, where there have been 

ongoing suits, litigation brought within those jurisdictions because 

of changes in voting practices that have been viewed, have been 

discriminatory; where nonprofit organizations, civil rights organizations can work on behalf of minority voters who, having identified 

discriminatory practices, raise those practices, it can be brought 

then under consideration by the Department of Justice, which I 

think provides a very good basis in which those that have suffered 

discrimination have a course of action. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Well, you mentioned the cost of gathering all of these facts. If you don’t know whether a plan is discriminatory or not until you have gotten all the facts, who has the 

43

burden of proof under section 5? Who has the burden of proof 

under section 2? 

Ms. TALLMAN. Under section 5, the burden of proof is with the 

jurisdiction. So the jurisdiction that is engaged, under section 5, 

where they are a section 5 jurisdiction who is trying to change voting patterns and practices has that burden. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. And the cost of getting all the facts to 

prove the case is therefore on the jurisdiction? 

Ms. TALLMAN. No, Congressman, there is a significant cost that 

also takes place with regard to a section 5 preclearance action that 

is brought by civil rights organizations on behalf of voters to the 

Department of Justice or by voters who hire a private attorney to 

the Department of Justice. There are still significant costs. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. But that cost, compared to a section 2 

cost—can you compare the cost of getting a plan thrown out under 

section 5 by a civil rights organization protecting the rights of the 

minorities compared to the costs of defeating the plan under section 2? 

Ms. TALLMAN. We will be happy to submit, as the testimony continues over the next several months, in working with other civil 

rights organizations, to be able to provide a comparative analysis 

for the Members of the Committee so that they can determine the 

differential and the costs. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. If you are under section 2, is the plan 

generally implemented and the perpetrators of the fraud, do they 

get to enjoy the fruits of their fraud while the case is going on if 

you are under section 2? 

Ms. TALLMAN. Under section 2, there is a claim that has been 

brought by the Attorney General or of a State or there is a private 

right of action——

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. If there is a change, if there is a change 

and you are trying to defeat it under section 2. 

Ms. TALLMAN. Right. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. The plan has been implemented. 

Ms. TALLMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. And the people who have perpetrated 

the fraud get to enjoy the fruits of their fraud while the litigation 

goes on, as opposed to section 5 where you never get to enjoy the 

fruits of your fraud to begin with because you can’t get it 

precleared. 

Ms. TALLMAN. Yes, sir. There is a difference between 2 and 5 

where, in 5, if there is discrimination, it doesn’t—there is no opportunity for it to be put into place. Yes, that is correct, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Mayor Morial, you have run for public 

office. You have run as an incumbent and not as an incumbent. 

Can you state some of the advantages that there are running as 

an incumbent? 

Mr. MORIAL. Obviously, there are many advantages that an incumbent has. One is the ability to raise money. Two is already established name recognition. Three is a network of relationships. 

The fourth one can be something that cuts both ways, and that is, 

you have a record. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. But the fact, the idea——

44

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, but we will give 

the gentleman an additional minute. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you. The idea is, if you were 

under section 2 and someone is enjoying all of these benefits even 

if you win under section 2, you are now facing an incumbent. 

Mr. MORIAL. I think your point is so instructive and so incisive 

that section 5 prevents in effect the discriminator from continuing—from being able to benefit. Because you’re right. And 

there are probably a number of instances where people had to run 

in a newly created district, but because they were running as an 

incumbent and they had money and they had name recognition and 

they had relationships, even in a district that they could not have 

been elected in originally, they have a significant advantage. 

And I think anyone who has run for public office knows what I’m 

talking about. And I think it could be clearly documented and demonstrated by eminent political scientists, pollsters and others who 

you might invite before this Committee. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may not take 5 minutes. 

But let me start by asking unanimous consent to submit an opening statement that I had prepared for the record. And by asking 

unanimous consent to submit Representative Linda Sa ́nchez’s 

opening statement record. 

Mr. CHABOT. I’m sorry, I was otherwise engaged there. Would 

the gentleman repeat his request? 

Mr. WATT. I was asking unanimous consent to submit my opening statement and Representative Linda Sa ́nchez’s opening statement. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. I apologize to the 

gentleman for not listening intently when he was speaking, as I 

usually do. 

Mr. WATT. Listen intently, because I wanted to associate myself 

with some of the remarks that Mr. Feeney made, which is so unusual in this Committee. 

And the Members on my side may have some dismay about this. 

But I agree with Mr. Feeney that we should try to restrict ourselves to the provisions that we ought to be trying to reauthorize 

or put into the Voting Rights Act. And, while I am a very strong 

supporter and cosponsor of the felon disenfranchisement legislation 

that has been introduced by Mr. Conyers, my support of that does 

not lead me to conclude that we should try to put it into the Voting 

Rights Act. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WATT. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. I merely wanted to associate myself with that, 

which is why we introduced it in separate legislation. 

Mr. WATT. Right. I just want to be clear to the Members of the 

Committee that what we are engaged in here is so important as 

a basic constitutional proposition that we should limit ourselves to 

what we are here to try to deal with. I, in another context, will be 

as strong a supporter of legislation to set a national standard, to 

the extent that we can constitutionally, for felon re-enfranchiseVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Feb 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\101805\24033.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24033
45

ment as anybody on this Committee, but I think that is a subject 

for a different day. 

Having said that, I would like to spend the rest of my time not 

on the substance of the Voting Rights Act, but to basically lay a 

foundation that, if it has not already been laid, for the introduction 

at some point of the entire record that the Voting Rights Act commission is developing and of the Voting Rights Act commission’s 

findings into our record. 

I think this is so important that, despite the fact that I am elated 

that Chairman Sensenbrenner has agreed to hold 8, 10, 12, hearings, that the more hearings are being conducted by the more different sources all over the country and the more exhaustive we can 

make the record for support of the Voting Rights Act, the more 

likely it is that we will meet the constitutional standard that the 

Supreme Court has articulated that Mr. Feeney has made reference to. 

So I would like to ask Lieutenant Governor Rogers just to give 

us a description of where and how often and how methodical the 

commission is being in its process of developing a record. Because 

at some point, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I 

should say up front that it will be my intention to try to put the 

entire record that they are developing into our legislative record 

and make it a part of what we are doing. 

So if you could just give us as exhaustive—I’ve run out of time, 

but they will let you answer the question as long as you want to 

answer the question. Give us as exhaustive a description of what 

you are doing and how your commission is doing it as you can so 

that we get a full appreciation of what the Voting Rights Act commission is doing. 

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

was not going to use his complete 5 minutes and has skillfully acquired additional time for the witness to answer the question. 

Mr. WATT. It takes a lot of time for me to agree with Mr. Feeney. 

Sometimes that is not as easy. I have to couch it and so make sure 

that everybody understands exactly what I am saying. 

Mr. CHABOT. Duly noted. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Watt, so much. I wanted to make 

sure, if I could, to detail with you exactly what has happened. Over 

the course of the past years, there essentially have been a series 

of what are ten hearings that have been held throughout the 

United States. They were all public hearings. Of the ten hearings, 

seven of them are individual State hearings that have been held. 

The seven individual hearings outside of the three—excuse me, I 

don’t want to be confusing. Ten total hearings. Of the ten, three are 

State hearings. Seven of them have been regional hearings 

throughout the entire country where we literally brought in States 

from—representatives from each individual State have either submitted direct testimony that they provided personally or they provided written testimony or they agreed to provide documents, for 

example, to the commission. 

The commission will be responsible for formally writing its report 

based upon its assessment of all of the information received. The 

information we’re taking into account in terms of the factual record 

here include the Department of Justice’s objections, DOJ enforceVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Feb 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\101805\24033.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24033
46

ment actions, DOJ observer coverage, DOJ settlement agreements, 

court opinions and litigation under the Voting Rights Act that includes both State and Federal cases, expert reports on litigation 

under the Voting Rights Act, studies and reports by civil rights organizations throughout the United States, testimony at hearings by 

voting rights practitioners and social scientists throughout the 

country, settlement agreements from cases brought regarding voting rights practitioners throughout the United States as a whole. 

So we are making some effort to be as broad as possible to cover 

every range of thought as it relates to voting rights but not just 

the thought but the facts. What are the facts as they establish conduct as it has occurred throughout the United States? In particular, our reference point has been since 1982. We did not want 

you to simply have to dwell on the past or just to dwell 40 years 

in context but to really look at the substance of what has happened 

from 1982 forward. 

We would hope that we would be able to note, Mr. Watt, significant progress that has occurred in the country. Because there is no 

doubt, as we have been throughout the United States, there have 

been as I mentioned earlier great progress that has occurred in the 

country. But at the same time, the facts do indicate significant 

problems that remain. 

And so, in detail, forgive me for being too much in detail, I didn’t 

mean to do that. We’re making every effort to be as exhaustive as 

possible and would like to provide that full report to the Committee 

along with all supporting documentation. 

Mr. WATT. Can I ask one elaborating question? 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection. 

Mr. WATT. Just to be clear about whether you are stacking the 

deck or not stacking the deck. Are you also at each——

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Watt before you go on, I think——

Mr. MORIAL. I’ve got to run. 

Mr. CHABOT. We would like to thank you, Mayor Morial. 

If he could be excused. 

We want to thank you. 

Mr. WATT. He has covered every base that I anticipated that he 

would cover, and I appreciate it. 

Mr. MORIAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all, thank you. See you. 

Mr. CHABOT. We appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. WATT. At every one of these hearings, are you providing a 

public opportunity for people, not the cast of witnesses who have 

been preselected, to express themselves also? 

Mr. ROGERS. Please forgive me for not making that reference. 

That is probably the most important consideration. Forgive me for 

not referencing that. At every one of our hearings, we have a public 

testimony portion. At each one of these hearings, there have been 

press releases issued in each of the individual communities asking 

members of the public to come, whether you are, frankly, for this 

act, against the act. We haven’t been focused on policy advocates 

necessarily. What we have asked for is people who provide facts, 

can you give us documented facts as they relate to either the existence or nonexistence of discrimination as it relates to voting? 

47

And to some extent, this begs—if I could open up a little bit of 

a can as it relates to Mr. Nadler’s remarks regarding whether or 

not some jurisdictions, for example, ought to be able to opt out of 

or block or be taken out of the provisions of section 5, for example. 

There is no doubt that there is some debate in the United States 

about whether or not all jurisdictions should still remain under the 

provisions thereof, and that may well be the subject of your consideration. 

But at the very least, what we will seek to do is to provide you 

with the facts upon which you can make those determinations, and 

public testimony is critical in that regard. 

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

Mr. WATT. Could I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. David 

Scott to ask at least some questions? He is not a Member of our 

Committee. 

Mr. CHABOT. We generally don’t do that. I will make an exception in this case since Mr. Scott has been here this whole afternoon. I would also like to recognize the presence a little while ago 

of Congresswoman Maxine Waters from California who was also 

here. 

Generally, we don’t unless somebody yields that. We will make 

an exception and yield to the gentleman for 3 minutes. But we 

don’t want to make this, set a precedent of doing this on either 

side. We don’t like to break the rules. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your 

graciousness and kindness in granting me the opportunity, having 

not been on the Committee. I really, really appreciate that, and I 

certainly appreciate the Ranking Member, Congressman Conyers, 

for inviting me and allowing me to participate in this. Thank you 

very much, and I realize that it is an effort and want you to know 

how much I appreciate it. 

And thank you, Chairman Watt, for your generosity as well. 

I believe that this is a very, very tricky, tricky time for the participation, particularly of African-Americans, in the political process. And there is no greater example of that than what is happening in my State right now. We have a glaring example of two 

things: one, why it is tricky; two, why we desperately need the Voting Rights Act reauthorized in all of its parts. And that is, this law 

that was recently passed in Georgia requiring a government-sponsored, sanctioned and approved voter ID before one can vote. And 

it only applies if you go to the polls. It doesn’t matter if you are 

absentee; you don’t need that. 

If there ever was a glaring impediment to those who are elderly, 

those who are poor, those who have a habit—and it is very important to make this a part of the record, because within the AfricanAmerican community, it is sacrosanct to go and exercise your vote 

because it took us so much and had to go through such a struggle 

to get it, that many will still go and will vote and not use the absentee. 

With that in mind, I also want to say, the other side that makes 

this so tricky is that it went through preclearance and was 

precleared, but I am very happy to announce today that just a few 

hours ago, a Federal judge did institute a preliminary injunction 

48

blocking the application of this very, very significant deterrent to 

voting. 

And therein lies the trickiness of what I am talking about and 

why we need it and why we need every recourse. I wanted to get 

your all’s opinion on that and plus the point that there are six sections that will be up for renewal, plus section 203. Much has been 

said here on basically section 5. I want to get your opinions, do you 

not conclude that all of each of these sections needs to be reauthorized? If not, why? 

And what are your thoughts on this requirement of the voter ID? 

Ms. TALLMAN. Congressman, MALDEF was very actively involved in Georgia with the Black Caucus of the State in trying to 

oppose the legislation in Georgia. We are actually also involved in 

the preclearance efforts. So we are very aware of the potential 

chilling effect on voting that that particular piece of legislation has. 

Regarding section 203, the language provisions of the Voting 

Rights Act are very important to the Latino community, to the 

Asian American community as well as the Native American community. And in the Latino community alone, there are 4.3 million 

voting-age citizens that are limited English proficient. Without section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, those individuals would be unlikely to vote. So we believe that, to Congressman Watt’s point and 

the Congress from Florida, that there is much to focus on with regard to voting rights reauthorization; that we should not dilute the 

voting rights reauthorization debate on these very critical and important sections, section 5, section 203 and other language provisions, with a discussion around felony re-enfranchisement. But that 

is something of consideration when looking at the area of voting 

that certainly Congress is taking a lead on, and we applaud that 

lead. 

But we do believe very firmly that 203 does need to be reauthorized because it would have very limited—it would have huge impacts on limited English proficient citizens necessary this country. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Scott. The provisions you may be 

referencing are, sections 6, 8, 9 and 13, have essentially to do with 

the ability of the Department of Justice to send observers in or otherwise engage the mechanism of enforcement related to section 5 

or to section 203. Those provisions are important, and I know they 

are not as—they won’t be talked about on the same level of significance, but they represent part of the substantive tools in terms of 

the ability to really move forward in terms of section 5 as well as 

section 203. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. The only point—and I will conclude with 

this—that is the point I am saying, that everybody here is saying, 

that it will be reauthorized. But if we don’t take those other sections and just dwell on 5 and we happen to not authorize those others, it will have a diluting and weakening effect as well. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Scott, that point is well made. There is no 

doubt, in terms of the legislation, if you looked at the key to the 

Voting Rights Act in substance, again what it effectively does is 

takes the 14th amendment and 15th amendment, and it makes it 

real. Congress essentially said, these provisions have been in place 

for years, but we’re going to enact legislation that will help make 

the substance of the 14th and the 15th amendment a reality for 

49

people in the United States. And you gave it the teeth, if you will, 

the teeth of the provisions are in section 5 and certainly section 

203 to the extent that it allows language minority voters access to 

the polls in new ways. 

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

I would note that Ms. Tallman nodded her head noting in the affirmative as well to the question. 

I would also ask that, without objection, all Members have 5 legislative days to commit additional materials for the hearing record. 

I would also note that we have another hearing on the Voting 

Rights Act coming up in 2 days, on Thursday. It is at 10 o’clock 

in the morning, and we have at least one or two more next week. 

And we will have eight all together through November 3, and there 

will in all likelihood be more to come. 

If there is no further business to come before the Committee, I 

thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony this afternoon. 

And at this point, we’re adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(51)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

THE CONSTITUTION

The importance of the Voting Rights Act is amply demonstrated by its historical 

bipartisan support in Congress. The commitment of Chairman Sensenbrenner, in 

particular, extends back to his support of reauthorization of the Act in 1982. He has 

evidenced his continuing commitment in speeches before the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus and, moreover, has agreed to a robust schedule of hearings 

to support our current reauthorization efforts. I whole heartedly salute his historical 

commitment to the Voting Rights Act and look forward to working with him on 

strengthening and reauthorizing the Act. 

When the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, I was one of six (6) African-American, 

five (5) Latino, and four (4) Asian-American Members of Congress. The civil rights 

era was in full bloom, with sit-ins and marches across the South in response to the 

massive resistance to the call for equal rights. Brave Americans of different races, 

ethnicities, and religions risked their lives to stand up for political equality. 

The pursuit of equal voting rights was most dramatically displayed on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965, a day that would come 

to be known as ‘‘Bloody Sunday.’’ On this day, nonviolent civil rights marchers, like 

John Lewis, were beaten, brutalized, and demeaned. The news media brought home 

to all Americans the horror and violence that propped the system of segregation, 

forcing us to a decision point about our nation’s democratic ideals. Without sacrifice 

by countless individuals in Selma and across the South, the struggle for equality 

could never have been achieved, and this legislation would have failed in Congress. 

Eight days after Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon B. Johnson called for a comprehensive and effective voting rights bill. He would sign that bill into law and the 

Voting Rights Act would come to stand as a tribute to the countless Americans who 

fought for voting rights for all Americans. 

Today, as we commence the process of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, its 

importance to opening the political process to all Americans is beyond doubt or challenge. 

As the Act has evolved over the last 40 years, it has been expanded and refined 

to protect language minority citizens through the 1975 amendments, and disabled 

Americans through the 1982 amendments. Where we had anemic voter registration 

and turnout in many Southern states, such as Mississippi, with just 6 % of African 

Americans registered to vote compared to 70% White voter registration; today, 62% 

of all African Americans and 69% of all Whites are registered to vote. 

Where we had a handful of minority Members of Congress in 1965, today we can 

count 43 African-American, 29 Latino, 8 Asian-American, and 1 Native American 

in the U.S. House and Senate. And the federal government itself is merely the tip 

of the of the iceberg. Across the nation, the number of people of color elected to federal, state, and local offices has increased tremendously in the last forty years, opening the political process to every American. It is not an overstatement to call the 

Voting Rights Act the keystone of our nation’s array of civil rights statutes. 

While there is much to celebrate over the last 40 years, we have not yet reached 

the point where the special provisions of the Act should be allowed to lapse, as some 

might have you believe. Witnesses will bring us testimony over the next several 

weeks and months from around the country, detailing the continuing barriers to 

equal voting rights faced by people of color, language minorities, and the disabled. 

It is these modern day challenges, along with the continuing historical barriers, 

that require us to ensure the continuing vitality of the Voting Rights Act. The reauthorization process is an opportunity to take stock of where we are and, if necessary, 

52

to make adjustments that will protect and strengthen the Act, just as we have done 

in the past. 

I trust that, as a Committee, we will work collectively to protect the vitality of 

the Act. I am also pleased that we will be joined in this process by civil rights 

groups like the Lawyers’ Committee, LCCR, NAACP, ACLU, the Legal Defense 

Fund, MALDEF, People For the American Way, the National Council of La Raza, 

the Native American Rights Fund, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, and many others who support our important work in this area. 

The Voting Rights Act is one of the nation’s most important civil rights victories. 

It memorializes those who marched, struggled, and even died to secure the right to 

vote for all Americans. Through hearings and other dialogue, we will establish a detailed record supporting reauthorization. We owe a deliberative and thoughtful process to those who risked so much in the fight for equal rights. While we must applaud the substantial progress which has been made in the area of voting rights, 

we must also continue our efforts to protect the rights of every American voter. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MELVIN L. WATT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON THE CONSTITUTION

Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this first in a series of very important 

hearings on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Several months 

ago, the Chairman of the Full Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner and I began 

a discussion that continues to this day. Recognizing that several provisions of the 

Voting Rights Act were due to expire in 2007, the Chairman and I fully agreed that 

extensive hearings should be held to sustain any constitutional challenge that may 

come. On September 23, 2005, at my annual Congressional Black Caucus Voting 

Rights Braintrust, Chairman Sensenbrenner announced this series of hearings. He 

noted that, ‘‘[t]his bipartisan effort should educate Members about the complex nuances of the Voting Rights Act and build a solid legislative record towards our goal 

of a long-term Voting Rights Act extension.’’

I share the goal of extending the Voting Rights Act and also believe that the Act 

should be strengthened to ensure that Congress’s intent in protecting the voting 

rights of all Americans is fully realized. In the 40 years since its passage, the Voting 

Rights Act has come to be regarded as one of the most effective civil rights laws 

in our Nation’s history. The Act has safeguarded the right of millions of minorities 

to have their votes counted and therefore, their voices heard. The gains in African 

American, Latino, Asian and Native American elected officials is but one indication 

of the success of the Act. Prior to passage of the Voting Rights Act, there were fewer 

than 300 African Americans in public office in all the southern states. This figure 

rose to 2,400 by 1980, and stands at more than 9,100 today. 

The trends in increased voter registration may also be attributed to some degree 

to the existence of the Voting Rights Act. These gains are a testament to the effectiveness of the Act as well as to its continued necessity. But the success of the Voting Rights Act is not cause for its demise. When something works you run with it 

not away from it! Not to extend and strengthen the Voting Rights Act would be a 

blow to democracy. 

Very briefly, let me just say that each of the expiring provisions of the Voting 

Rights Act serve a vitally important and unique purpose: Section 5 requires those 

jurisdictions with an ongoing record of discrimination to ‘‘pre-clear’’ any voting 

changes to ensure that those changes will not disenfranchise racial, ethnic, and language minority voters. Jurisdictions covered by Section 5 may ‘‘bail-out’’ from coverage by demonstrating compliance with the Voting Rights Act and that they facilitate equal opportunity at the ballot box. 

Section 203 requires bilingual voting assistance for language minority communities in jurisdictions that have a significant population of language minority 

groups, evidence of severe language barriers, high rates of illiteracy, or depressed 

voter registration or turnout. Section 203 extends to American citizens with limited 

English proficiency who pay taxes, serve in the military and embrace all of the other 

obligations of citizenship, equal and meaningful access to the benefits of the ballot 

box. 

Other expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act help ensure that voters are free 

from discrimination on election day. The federal examiner and observer provisions 

are key when effectively utilized by the Department of Justice. Examiners may prepare and maintain lists of eligible voters and receive complaints by phone, while observers are assigned to monitor elections in specific jurisdictions that are suspected 

of discriminatory activity. This federal presence also serves a deterrent effect disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Feb 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CONST\101805\24033.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24033
53

couraging those who might otherwise treat minority voters with hostility and intimidation. 

Based upon a record of evidence demonstrating how gerrymandering, annexations, 

at-large election policies and other political machinations have been employed to 

disfranchise minority voters, Congress has voted three times to extend § 5 coverage: 

in 1970 (for five years), 1975 (for seven years) and 1982 (for 25 years). Notwithstanding the considerable progress in minority voting rights and office holding in 

recent times, I expect that we will see a similar record compiled throughout these 

hearings substantiating the continuing need for the Voting Rights Act and its expiring provisions. Moreover, we must act to strengthen and expand the Voting Rights 

Act by addressing restrictive Supreme Court decisions and providing for adequate 

resources to litigate cases seeking compliance with the Act. 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are conducting these hearings. I welcome 

and look forward to the testimony of our distinguished panel of witnesses, and yield 

back the balance of my time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Chairman Chabot and Ranking Member Nadler for convening this 

hearing, ‘‘To Examine the Impact and Effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act.’’

In my opinion and the opinion of many leaders in the civil rights community, the 

Voting Rights Act has had a tremendous impact on the voting rights of all minority 

groups, including Latinos. 

The Voting Rights Act is one of the most successful and exercised civil rights laws 

in American history, and this landmark legislation has effectively given all Americans political power and voter enfranchisement. 

For Latinos and other communities suffering from long histories of discrimination 

and disenfranchisement, the Voting Rights Act has been key to gaining equality and 

fairness in the electoral process. 

Before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, literacy tests, poll taxes and 

intentionally discriminatory mechanisms were used to keep Latinos and other minorities from the polls. 

Today, many of the advancements and achievement of Latinos in our democracy 

are a direct result of the Voting Rights Act. 

Several current Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus would not be in 

the House of Representatives today without the Voting Rights Act. 

Members such as Congressmen Ed Pastor of Arizona and Jose ́ Serrano of New 

York have districts that were drawn as a direct result of the Voting Rights Act. 

This vital statute also opened the door to empower individuals like Willie Velazquez, whose mission in life was to register Hispanic Americans. 

Today, we all know that his slogan ‘‘Su voto es su voz’’ (’Your vote is your voice’) 

continues to resonate in our community today. 

The positive impact the Voting Rights Act has had on all Latinos is evident. 

For instance, when the VRA was enacted in 1965, about two-and-a-half million 

Latinos were registered to vote. Today there are 9.3 million Latinos registered to 

vote. 

In the past three decades, Latino registration has quadrupled, while our participation in elections has tripled. 

In the 1976 presidential election, about 2 million ballots were cast by Hispanic 

Americans and in 2004 that number climbed to a record 7.5 million. 

In 1974, there were about 1,200 Latino elected officials. Today there are 6,000. 

I am proud that my sister and I are two of those 6,000 Latino elected officials, 

the first sisters ever elected to the United States Congress. 

While we have come a long way from the widespread use of such blatant tactics 

as literacy tests to deny Latinos of their voting rights, more subtle efforts persist. 

For example, in 1988 the Orange County Republican Party hired uniformed security guards to be posted at polling places in heavily Latino precincts. The guards, 

wearing blue uniforms and badges, were removed from polling places after the chief 

deputy secretary of state said their presence was an ‘‘unlawful intimidation of voters.’’ The next year, the Orange County GOP paid $400,000 to settle a lawsuit stemming from their voter intimidation program. 

Many communities still rely on the Voting Rights Act to maintain full participation in local, state, and federal elections. 

I my home state of California in 2004, 26 out of 58 counties are covered by the 

language minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Within those 26 counties, 

there are 26 Hispanic communities, 6 Chinese communities, 3 Filipino and VietVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Feb 22, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CONST\101805\24033.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24033
54

namese communities, and two American Indian communities where language minorities are covered by the Voting Rights Act. 

These protections allow millions of voters to make their voices heard on Election 

Day. 

California is also one of ten states with overlapping coverage under Section 203 

and Section 5, two of the most important provisions of the Voting Rights Act for 

language minorities. 

Section 5 has prevented jurisdictions from redrawing district lines or otherwise 

amending election procedures in a way that discriminates against Latino voters by 

requiring those jurisdictions to get pre-clearance of any changes in electoral practices from the Department of Justice. 

Section 203 is vitally important to Latinos because it requires certain jurisdictions 

to provide bilingual assistance to language minority citizens at all stages of the voting process. 

As the U.S. House of Representatives begins reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, 

we must recognize that Section 5 and Section 203 are not mutually exclusive. 

These two sections have worked together to protect Latinos and must be reauthorized together to permanently preserve voting rights for Latinos and all language minority groups. 

As the Judiciary Committee, the House, and the Senate, work to reauthorize the 

VRA, we must ensure that Section 5, Section 203, and all of the expiring provisions 

are not only reauthorized, but strengthened to preserve and cultivate total participation in the voting process. 

Voting is the one way that every American citizen is able to directly participate 

in our democracy. The Voting Rights Act is invaluable in preserving equal participation for all Americans in our government. This legislation must be reauthorized. 

I look forward to the testimony of the Subcommittee’s distinguished panel of witnesses. I am positive their testimony will begin the process of establishing a thorough Congressional record in support of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.

55

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RAINBOW PUSH COALITION ON REAUTHORIZATION OF

THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, SUBMITTED BY MR. CHABOT DURING THE HEARING, AT

THE REQUEST OF MR. CONYERS


24033.011
56


24033.012
57


24033.013
58


24033.014
59

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HAZEL DUKES, PRESIDENT, NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE

OF NAACP BRANCHES, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING

RIGHTS ACT, JUNE 14, 2005


24033.015
60


24033.016
61


24033.017
62


24033.018
63


24033.019
64


24033.020
65

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH D. RICH BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JUNE 14, 2005


24033.021
66


24033.022
67


24033.023
68


24033.024
69


24033.025
70


24033.026
71


24033.027
72

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOLORES WATSON, MEMBER, LONG ISLAND ACORN, 

BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JUNE 14, 2005


24033.028
73

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARLOS ZAYAS BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE

VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JUNE 14, 2005


24033.029
74


24033.030
75


24033.031
76


24033.032
77


24033.033
78


24033.034
79

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM LACY CLAY, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 

JULY 20, 2005


24033.035
80


24033.036
81

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GWEN CARR BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE

VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005


24033.037
82


24033.038
83


24033.039
84


24033.040
85


24033.041
86


24033.042
87

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL JUNEAU BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005


24033.043
88


24033.044
89


24033.045
90


24033.046
91


24033.047
92

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN LAUDIG, ATTORNEY, SUBMITTED TO THE

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005


24033.048
93


24033.049
94


24033.050
95


24033.051
96


24033.052
97


24033.053
98


24033.054
99


24033.055
100


24033.056
101


24033.057
102


24033.058
103


24033.059
104


24033.060
105


24033.061
106


24033.062
107


24033.063
108


24033.064
109


24033.065
110


24033.066
111


24033.067
112


24033.068
113


24033.069
114


24033.070
115


24033.071
116


24033.072
117


24033.073
118


24033.074
119


24033.075
120


24033.076
121


24033.077
122


24033.078
123


24033.079
124


24033.080
125

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GWEN MOORE, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, 

BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005


24033.081
126


24033.082
127


24033.083
128

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARACK OBAMA, SENATOR, SUBMITTED TO

THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005


24033.084
129


24033.085
130

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK RITCHIE, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE

AND TRADE POLICY, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS

ACT, JULY 22, 2005


24033.086
131


24033.087
132


24033.088
133

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELONA STREET-STEWART, CHAIR, ST. PAUL BOARD OF EDUCATION, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 

2005


24033.089
134


24033.090
135

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALICE TREGAY BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE

VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005


24033.091
136


24033.092
137


24033.093
138

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IHSAN ALI ALKHATIB, BOARD PRESIDENT, ARAB-AMERICAN

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE, BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE

VOTING RIGHTS ACT, JULY 22, 2005


24033.094
139


24033.095
140


24033.096
141


24033.097
142

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRADFORD BROWN BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AUGUST 4, 2005


24033.098
143


24033.099
144


24033.100
145

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARLON PRIMES BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AUGUST 4, 2005


24033.101
146


24033.102
147


24033.103
148

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF SOUTHERN

REGIONAL HEARING, MARCH 11, 2005


24033.104
149


24033.105
150


24033.106
151


24033.107
152


24033.108
153


24033.109
154


24033.110
155


24033.111
156


24033.112
157


24033.113
158


24033.114
159


24033.115
160


24033.116
161


24033.117
162


24033.118
163


24033.119
164


24033.120
165


24033.121
166


24033.122
167


24033.123
168


24033.124
169


24033.125
170


24033.126
171


24033.127
172


24033.128
173


24033.129
174


24033.130
175


24033.131
176


24033.132
177


24033.133
178


24033.134
179


24033.135
180


24033.136
181


24033.137
182


24033.138
183


24033.139
184


24033.140
185


24033.141
186


24033.142
187


24033.143
188


24033.144
189


24033.145
190


24033.146
191


24033.147
192


24033.148
193


24033.149
194


24033.150
195


24033.151
196


24033.152
197


24033.153
198


24033.154
199


24033.155
200


24033.156
201


24033.157
202


24033.158
203


24033.159
204


24033.160
205


24033.161
206


24033.162
207


24033.163
208


24033.164
209


24033.165
210


24033.166
211


24033.167
212


24033.168
213


24033.169
214


24033.170
215


24033.171
216


24033.172
217


24033.173
218


24033.174
219


24033.175
220


24033.176
221


24033.177
222


24033.178
223


24033.179
224


24033.180
225


24033.181
226

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF SOUTHWEST

REGIONAL HEARING, APRIL 7, 2005


24033.182
227


24033.183
228


24033.184
229


24033.185
230


24033.186
231


24033.187
232


24033.188
233


24033.189
234


24033.190
235


24033.191
236


24033.192
237


24033.193
238


24033.194
239


24033.195
240


24033.196
241


24033.197
242


24033.198
243


24033.199
244


24033.200
245


24033.201
246


24033.202
247


24033.203
248


24033.204
249


24033.205
250


24033.206
251


24033.207
252


24033.208
253


24033.209
254


24033.210
255


24033.211
256


24033.212
257


24033.213
258


24033.214
259


24033.215
260


24033.216
261


24033.217
262


24033.218
263


24033.219
264


24033.220
265


24033.221
266


24033.222
267


24033.223
268


24033.224
269


24033.225
270


24033.226
271


24033.227
272


24033.228
273


24033.229
274


24033.230
275


24033.231
276


24033.232
277


24033.233
278


24033.234
279


24033.235
280


24033.236
281


24033.237
282


24033.238
283


24033.239
284


24033.240
285


24033.241
286


24033.242
287


24033.243
288


24033.244
289


24033.245
290


24033.246
291


24033.247
292


24033.248
293


24033.249
294


24033.250
295


24033.251
296


24033.252
297


24033.253
298


24033.254
299


24033.255
300


24033.256
301


24033.257
302


24033.258
303


24033.259
304


24033.260
305


24033.261
306


24033.262
307


24033.263
308


24033.264
309


24033.265
310


24033.266
311


24033.267
312

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF NORTHEAST

REGIONAL HEARING, JUNE 14, 2005


24033.268
313


24033.269
314


24033.270
315


24033.271
316


24033.272
317


24033.273
318


24033.274
319


24033.275
320


24033.276
321


24033.277
322


24033.278
323


24033.279
324


24033.280
325


24033.281
326


24033.282
327


24033.283
328


24033.284
329


24033.285
330


24033.286
331


24033.287
332


24033.288
333


24033.289
334


24033.290
335


24033.291
336


24033.292
337


24033.293
338


24033.294
339


24033.295
340


24033.296
341


24033.297
342


24033.298
343


24033.299
344


24033.300
345


24033.301
346


24033.302
347


24033.303
348


24033.304
349


24033.305
350


24033.306
351


24033.307
352


24033.308
353


24033.309
354


24033.310
355


24033.311
356


24033.312
357


24033.313
358


24033.314
359


24033.315
360


24033.316
361


24033.317
362


24033.318
363


24033.319
364


24033.320
365


24033.321
366


24033.322
367


24033.323
368


24033.324
369


24033.325
370

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF MIDWEST

REGIONAL HEARING, JULY 22, 2005


24033.326
371


24033.327
372


24033.328
373


24033.329
374


24033.330
375


24033.331
376


24033.332
377


24033.333
378


24033.334
379


24033.335
380


24033.336
381


24033.337
382


24033.338
383


24033.339
384


24033.340
385


24033.341
386


24033.342
387


24033.343
388


24033.344
389


24033.345
390


24033.346
391


24033.347
392


24033.348
393


24033.349
394


24033.350
395


24033.351
396


24033.352
397


24033.353
398


24033.354
399


24033.355
400


24033.356
401


24033.357
402


24033.358
403


24033.359
404


24033.360
405


24033.361
406


24033.362
407


24033.363
408


24033.364
409


24033.365
410


24033.366
411


24033.367
412


24033.368
413


24033.369
414


24033.370
415


24033.371
416


24033.372
417


24033.373
418


24033.374
419


24033.375
420


24033.376
421


24033.377
422


24033.378
423


24033.379
424


24033.380
425


24033.381
426


24033.382
427


24033.383
428


24033.384
429


24033.385
430


24033.386
431


24033.387
432


24033.388
433


24033.389
434


24033.390
435


24033.391
436


24033.392
437


24033.393
438


24033.394
439


24033.395
440


24033.396
441


24033.397
442


24033.398
443


24033.399
444


24033.400
445


24033.401
446


24033.402
447


24033.403
448


24033.404
449


24033.405
450


24033.406
451


24033.407
452


24033.408
453


24033.409
454


24033.410
455


24033.411
456


24033.412
457


24033.413
458


24033.414
459


24033.415
460


24033.416
461


24033.417
462

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF SOUTH GEORGIA

HEARING, AUGUST 2, 2005


24033.418
463


24033.419
464


24033.420
465


24033.421
466


24033.422
467


24033.423
468


24033.424
469


24033.425
470


24033.426
471


24033.427
472


24033.428
473


24033.429
474


24033.430
475


24033.431
476


24033.432
477


24033.433
478


24033.434
479


24033.435
480


24033.436
481


24033.437
482


24033.438
483


24033.439
484


24033.440
485


24033.441
486


24033.442
487


24033.443
488


24033.444
489


24033.445
490


24033.446
491


24033.447
492


24033.448
493


24033.449
494


24033.450
495


24033.451
496


24033.452
497


24033.453
498


24033.454
499


24033.455
500


24033.456
501


24033.457
502


24033.458
503


24033.459
504


24033.460
505


24033.461
506


24033.462
507


24033.463
508


24033.464
509


24033.465
510


24033.466
511


24033.467
512


24033.468
513


24033.469
514


24033.470
515


24033.471
516


24033.472
517


24033.473
518


24033.474
519


24033.475
520


24033.476
521


24033.477
522


24033.478
523


24033.479
524


24033.480
525


24033.481
526


24033.482
527


24033.483
528


24033.484
529


24033.485
530


24033.486
531


24033.487
532


24033.488
533


24033.489
534


24033.490
535


24033.491
536


24033.492
537


24033.493
538


24033.494
539


24033.495
540


24033.496
541


24033.497
542


24033.498
543


24033.499
544


24033.500
545


24033.501
546


24033.502
547


24033.503
548


24033.504
549


24033.505
550


24033.506
551


24033.507
552


24033.508
553


24033.509
554


24033.510
555


24033.511
556


24033.512
557


24033.513
558


24033.514
559


24033.515
560


24033.516
561


24033.517
562


24033.518
563


24033.519
564


24033.520
565


24033.521
566


24033.522
567


24033.523
568


24033.524
569

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF FLORIDA

HEARING, AUGUST 4, 2005


24033.525
570


24033.526
571


24033.527
572


24033.528
573


24033.529
574


24033.530
575


24033.531
576


24033.532
577


24033.533
578


24033.534
579


24033.535
580


24033.536
581


24033.537
582


24033.538
583


24033.539
584


24033.540
585


24033.541
586


24033.542
587


24033.543
588


24033.544
589


24033.545
590


24033.546
591


24033.547
592


24033.548
593


24033.549
594


24033.550
595


24033.551
596


24033.552
597


24033.553
598


24033.554
599


24033.555
600


24033.556
601


24033.557
602


24033.558
603


24033.559
604


24033.560
605


24033.561
606


24033.562
607


24033.563
608


24033.564
609


24033.565
610


24033.566
611


24033.567
612


24033.568
613


24033.569
614


24033.570
615


24033.571
616


24033.572
617


24033.573
618


24033.574
619


24033.575
620


24033.576
621


24033.577
622


24033.578
623


24033.579
624


24033.580
625


24033.581
626


24033.582
627


24033.583
628


24033.584
629


24033.585
630


24033.586
631


24033.587
632


24033.588
633


24033.589
634


24033.590
635


24033.591
636


24033.592
637


24033.593
638


24033.594
639


24033.595
640


24033.596
641


24033.597
642


24033.598
643

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

HEARING, SEPTEMBER 9, 2005


24033.599
644


24033.600
645


24033.601
646


24033.602
647


24033.603
648


24033.604
649


24033.605
650


24033.606
651


24033.607
652


24033.608
653


24033.609
654


24033.610
655


24033.611
656


24033.612
657


24033.613
658


24033.614
659


24033.615
660


24033.616
661


24033.617
662


24033.618
663


24033.619
664


24033.620
665


24033.621
666


24033.622
667


24033.623
668


24033.624
669


24033.625
670


24033.626
671


24033.627
672


24033.628
673


24033.629
674


24033.630
675


24033.631
676


24033.632
677


24033.633
678


24033.634
679


24033.635
680


24033.636
681


24033.637
682


24033.638
683


24033.639
684


24033.640
685


24033.641
686


24033.642
687


24033.643
688


24033.644
689


24033.645
690


24033.646
691


24033.647
692


24033.648
693


24033.649
694


24033.650
695


24033.651
696


24033.652
697


24033.653
698


24033.654
699


24033.655
700


24033.656
701


24033.657
702


24033.658
703


24033.659
704


24033.660
705


24033.661
706


24033.662
707


24033.663
708


24033.664
709


24033.665
710


24033.666
711


24033.667
712


24033.668
713


24033.669
714


24033.670
715


24033.671
716


24033.672
717


24033.673
718


24033.674
719


24033.675
720


24033.676
721


24033.677
722


24033.678
723


24033.679
724


24033.680
725


24033.681
726


24033.682
727


24033.683
728


24033.684
729


24033.685
730


24033.686
731


24033.687
732


24033.688
733


24033.689
734

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, TRANSCRIPT OF WESTERN

REGIONAL HEARING, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005


24033.690
735


24033.691
736


24033.692
737


24033.693
738


24033.694
739


24033.695
740


24033.696
741


24033.697
742


24033.698
743


24033.699
744


24033.700
745


24033.701
746


24033.702
747


24033.703
748


24033.704
749


24033.705
750


24033.706
751


24033.707
752


24033.708
753


24033.709
754


24033.710
755


24033.711
756


24033.712
757


24033.713
758


24033.714
759


24033.715
760


24033.716
761


24033.717
762


24033.718
763


24033.719
764


24033.720
765


24033.721
766


24033.722
767


24033.723
768


24033.724
769


24033.725
770


24033.726
771


24033.727
772


24033.728
773


24033.729
774


24033.730
775


24033.731
776


24033.732
777


24033.733
778


24033.734
779


24033.735
780


24033.736
781


24033.737
782


24033.738
783


24033.739
784


24033.740
785


24033.741
786


24033.742
787


24033.743
788


24033.744
789


24033.745
790


24033.746
791


24033.747
792


24033.748
793


24033.749
794


24033.750
795


24033.751
796


24033.752
797


24033.753
798


24033.754
799


24033.755
800


24033.756
801


24033.757
802


24033.758
803


24033.759
804


24033.760
805


24033.761
806


24033.762
807


24033.763
808


24033.764
809


24033.765
810


24033.766
811


24033.767
812


24033.768
813


24033.769
814


24033.770
815


24033.771
816


24033.772
817


24033.773
818

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT,

MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL HEARING, OCTOBER 14, 2005


24033.774
819


24033.775
820


24033.776
821


24033.777
822


24033.778
823


24033.779
824


24033.780
825


24033.781
826


24033.782
827


24033.783
828


24033.784
829


24033.785
830


24033.786
831


24033.787
832


24033.788
833


24033.789
834


24033.790
835


24033.791
836


24033.792
837


24033.793
838


24033.794
839


24033.795
840


24033.796
841


24033.797
842


24033.798
843


24033.799
844


24033.800
845


24033.801
846


24033.802
847


24033.803
848


24033.804
849


24033.805
850


24033.806
851


24033.807
852


24033.808
853


24033.809
854


24033.810
855


24033.811
856


24033.812
857


24033.813
858


24033.814
859


24033.815
860


24033.816
861


24033.817
862


24033.818
863


24033.819
864


24033.820
865


24033.821
866


24033.822
867


24033.823
868


24033.824
869


24033.825
870


24033.826
871


24033.827
872


24033.828
873


24033.829
874


24033.830
875


24033.831
876


24033.832
877


24033.833
878


24033.834
879


24033.835
880


24033.836
881


24033.837
882


24033.838
883


24033.839
884


24033.840
885


24033.841
886


24033.842
887


24033.843
888


24033.844
889


24033.845
890


24033.846
891


24033.847
892


24033.848
893


24033.849
894


24033.850
895


24033.851
896


24033.852
897


24033.853
898


24033.854
899


24033.855
900


24033.856
901


24033.857
902


24033.858
903


24033.859
904


24033.860
905


24033.861
906


24033.862
907


24033.863
908


24033.864
909


24033.865
910


24033.866
911


24033.867
912


24033.868
913


24033.869
914


24033.870
915


24033.871
916


24033.872
917


24033.873
918


24033.874
919


24033.875
920


24033.876
921


24033.877
922


24033.878
923

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, MISSISSIPPI HEARING, OCTOBER

29, 2005


24033.879
924


24033.880
925


24033.881
926


24033.882
927


24033.883
928


24033.884
929


24033.885
930


24033.886
931


24033.887
932


24033.888
933


24033.889
934


24033.890
935


24033.891
936


24033.892
937


24033.893
938


24033.894
939


24033.895
940


24033.896
941


24033.897
942


24033.898
943


24033.899
944


24033.900
945


24033.901
946


24033.902
947


24033.903
948


24033.904
949


24033.905
950


24033.906
951


24033.907
952


24033.908
953


24033.909
954


24033.910
955


24033.911
956


24033.912
957


24033.913
958


24033.914
959


24033.915
960


24033.916
961


24033.917
962


24033.918
963


24033.919
964

ELLEN KATZ—DOCUMENTING DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING: JUDICIAL FINDINGS UNDER

SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT SINCE 1982. FINAL REPORT OF THE VOTING

RIGHTS INITIATIVE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL


24033.920
965


24033.921
966


24033.922
967


24033.923
968


24033.924
969


24033.925
970


24033.926
971


24033.927
972


24033.928
973


24033.929
974


24033.930
975


24033.931
976


24033.932
977


24033.933
978


24033.934
979


24033.935
980


24033.936
981


24033.937
982


24033.938
983


24033.939
984


24033.940
985


24033.941
986


24033.942
987


24033.943
988


24033.944
989


24033.945
990


24033.946
991


24033.947
992


24033.948
993


24033.949
994


24033.950
995


24033.951
996


24033.952
997


24033.953
998


24033.954
999


24033.955
1000


24033.956
1001


24033.957
1002


24033.958
1003


24033.959
1004


24033.960
1005


24033.961
1006


24033.962
1007


24033.963
1008


24033.964
1009


24033.965
1010


24033.966
1011


24033.967
1012


24033.968
1013


24033.969
1014


24033.970
1015


24033.971
1016


24033.972
1017


24033.973
1018


24033.974
1019


24033.975
1020


24033.976
1021


24033.977
1022


24033.978
1023


24033.979
1024


24033.980
1025


24033.981
1026


24033.982
1027


24033.983
1028


24033.984
1029


24033.985
1030


24033.986
1031


24033.987
1032


24033.988
1033


24033.989
1034


24033.990
1035


24033.991
1036


24033.992
1037


24033.993
1038


24033.994
1039


24033.995
1040


24033.996
1041


24033.997
1042


24033.998
1043


24033.999
1044


240331.000
1045


240331.001
1046


240331.002
1047


240331.003
1048


240331.004
1049


240331.005
1050


240331.006
1051


240331.007
1052


240331.008
1053


240331.009
1054


240331.010
1055


240331.011
1056


240331.012
1057


240331.013
1058


240331.014
1059


240331.015
1060


240331.016
1061


240331.017
1062


240331.018
1063


240331.019
1064


240331.020
1065


240331.021
1066


240331.022
1067


240331.023
1068


240331.024
1069


240331.025
1070


240331.026
1071


240331.027
1072


240331.028
1073


240331.029
1074


240331.030
1075


240331.031
1076


240331.032
1077


240331.033
1078


240331.034
1079


240331.035
1080


240331.036
1081


240331.037
1082


240331.038
1083


240331.039
1084


240331.040
1085


240331.041
1086


240331.042
1087


240331.043
1088


240331.044
1089


240331.045
1090


240331.046
1091


240331.047
1092


240331.048
1093


240331.049
1094


240331.050
1095


240331.051
1096


240331.052
1097


240331.053
1098


240331.054
1099


240331.055
1100


240331.056
1101


240331.057
1102


240331.058
1103


240331.059
1104


240331.060
1105


240331.061
1106


240331.062
1107


240331.063
1108


240331.064
1109


240331.065
1110


240331.066
1111


240331.067
1112


240331.068
1113


240331.069
1114


240331.070
1115


240331.071
1116


240331.072
1117


240331.073
1118


240331.074
1119


240331.075
1120


240331.076
1121


240331.077
1122


240331.078
1123


240331.079
1124


240331.080
1125

QUIET REVOLUTION IN THE SOUTH: THE IMPACT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 1965–

1990. (CHANDLER DAVIDSON & BERNARD GROFMAN, EDS., 1994)


240331.082
1126


240331.083
1127


240331.084
1128


240331.085
1129


240331.086
1130


240331.087
1131


240331.088
1132


240331.089
1133


240331.090
1134


240331.091
1135


240331.092
1136


240331.093
1137


240331.094
1138


240331.095
1139


240331.096
1140


240331.097
1141


240331.098
1142


240331.099
1143


240331.100
1144


240331.101
1145


240331.102
1146


240331.103
1147


240331.104
1148


240331.105
1149


240331.106
1150


240331.107
1151


240331.108
1152


240331.109
1153


240331.110
1154


240331.111
1155


240331.112
1156


240331.113
1157


240331.114
1158


240331.115
1159


240331.116
1160


240331.117
1161


240331.118
1162


240331.119
1163


240331.120
1164


240331.121
1165


240331.122
1166


240331.123
1167


240331.124
1168


240331.125
1169


240331.126
1170


240331.127
1171


240331.128
1172


240331.129
1173


240331.130
1174


240331.131
1175


240331.132
1176


240331.133
1177


240331.134
1178


240331.135
1179


240331.136
1180


240331.137
1181


240331.138
1182


240331.139
1183


240331.140
1184


240331.141
1185


240331.142
1186


240331.143
1187


240331.144
1188


240331.145
1189


240331.146
1190


240331.147
1191


240331.148
1192


240331.149
1193


240331.150
1194


240331.151
1195


240331.152
1196


240331.153
1197


240331.154
1198


240331.155
1199


240331.156
1200


240331.157
1201


240331.158
1202


240331.159
1203


240331.160
1204


240331.161
1205


240331.162
1206


240331.163
1207


240331.164
1208


240331.165
1209


240331.166
1210


240331.167
1211


240331.168
1212


240331.169
1213


240331.170
1214


240331.171
1215


240331.172
1216


240331.173
1217


240331.174
1218


240331.175
1219


240331.176
1220


240331.177
1221


240331.178
1222


240331.179
1223


240331.180
1224


240331.181
1225


240331.182
1226


240331.183
1227


240331.184
1228


240331.185
1229


240331.186
1230


240331.187
1231


240331.188
1232


240331.189
1233


240331.190
1234


240331.191
1235


240331.192
1236


240331.193
1237


240331.194
1238


240331.195
1239


240331.196
1240


240331.197
1241


240331.198
1242


240331.199
1243


240331.200
1244


240331.201
1245


240331.202
1246


240331.203
1247


240331.204
1248


240331.205
1249


240331.206
1250


240331.207
1251


240331.208
1252


240331.209
1253


240331.210
1254


240331.211
1255


240331.212
1256


240331.213
1257


240331.214
1258


240331.215
1259


240331.216
1260


240331.217
1261


240331.218
1262


240331.219
1263


240331.220
1264


240331.221
1265


240331.222
1266


240331.223
1267


240331.224
1268


240331.225
1269


240331.226
1270


240331.227
1271


240331.228
1272


240331.229
1273


240331.230
1274


240331.231
1275


240331.232
1276


240331.233
1277


240331.234
1278


240331.235
1279


240331.236
1280


240331.237
1281


240331.238
1282


240331.239
1283


240331.240
1284


240331.241
1285


240331.242
1286


240331.243
1287


240331.244
1288


240331.245
1289


240331.246
1290


240331.247
1291


240331.248
1292


240331.249
1293


240331.250
1294


240331.251
1295


240331.252
1296


240331.253
1297


240331.254
1298


240331.255
1299


240331.256
1300


240331.257
1301


240331.258
1302


240331.259
1303


240331.260
1304


240331.261
1305


240331.262
1306


240331.263
1307


240331.264
1308


240331.265
1309


240331.266
1310


240331.267
1311


240331.268
1312


240331.269
1313


240331.270
1314


240331.271
1315


240331.272
1316


240331.273
1317


240331.274
1318


240331.275
1319


240331.276
1320


240331.277
1321


240331.278
1322


240331.279
1323


240331.280
1324


240331.281
1325


240331.282
1326


240331.283
1327


240331.284
1328


240331.285
1329


240331.286
1330


240331.287
1331


240331.288
1332


240331.289
1333


240331.290
1334


240331.291
1335


240331.292
1336


240331.293
1337


240331.294
1338


240331.295
1339


240331.296
1340


240331.297
1341


240331.298
1342


240331.299
1343


240331.300
1344


240331.301
1345


240331.302
1346


240331.303
1347


240331.304
1348


240331.305
1349


240331.306
1350


240331.307
1351


240331.308
1352


240331.309
1353


240331.310
1354


240331.311
1355


240331.312
1356


240331.313
1357


240331.314
1358

RACE AND REDISTRICTING IN THE 1990S (BERNARD GROFMAN, ED., 1998)


240331.315
1359


240331.316
1360


240331.317
1361


240331.318
1362


240331.319
1363


240331.320
1364


240331.321
1365


240331.322
1366


240331.323
1367


240331.324
1368


240331.325
1369


240331.326
1370


240331.327
1371


240331.328
1372


240331.329
1373


240331.330
1374


240331.331
1375


240331.332
1376


240331.333
1377


240331.334
1378


240331.335
1379


240331.336
1380


240331.337
1381


240331.338
1382


240331.339
1383


240331.340
1384


240331.341
1385


240331.342
1386


240331.343
1387


240331.344
1388


240331.345
1389


240331.346
1390


240331.347
1391


240331.348
1392


240331.349
1393


240331.350
1394


240331.351
1395


240331.352
1396


240331.353
1397


240331.354
1398


240331.355
1399


240331.356
1400


240331.357
1401


240331.358
1402


240331.359
1403


240331.360
1404


240331.361
1405


240331.362
1406


240331.363
1407


240331.364
1408


240331.365
1409


240331.366
1410


240331.367
1411


240331.368
1412


240331.369
1413


240331.370
1414


240331.371
1415


240331.372
1416


240331.373
1417


240331.374
1418


240331.375
1419


240331.376
1420


240331.377
1421


240331.378
1422


240331.379
1423


240331.380
1424


240331.381
1425


240331.382
1426


240331.383
1427


240331.384
1428


240331.385
1429


240331.386
1430


240331.387
1431


240331.388
1432


240331.389
1433


240331.390
1434


240331.391
1435


240331.392
1436


240331.393
1437


240331.394
1438


240331.395
1439


240331.396
1440


240331.397
1441


240331.398
1442


240331.399
1443


240331.400
1444


240331.401
1445


240331.402
1446


240331.403
1447


240331.404
1448


240331.405
1449


240331.406
1450


240331.407
1451


240331.408
1452


240331.409
1453


240331.410
1454


240331.411
1455


240331.412
1456


240331.413
1457


240331.414
1458


240331.415
1459


240331.416
1460


240331.417
1461


240331.418
1462


240331.419
1463


240331.420
1464


240331.421
1465


240331.422
1466


240331.423
1467


240331.424
1468


240331.425
1469


240331.426
1470


240331.427
1471


240331.428
1472


240331.429
1473


240331.430
1474


240331.431
1475


240331.432
1476


240331.433
1477


240331.434
1478


240331.435
1479


240331.436
1480


240331.437
1481


240331.438
1482


240331.439
1483


240331.440
1484


240331.441
1485


240331.442
1486


240331.443
1487


240331.444
1488


240331.445
1489


240331.446
1490


240331.447
1491


240331.448
1492


240331.449
1493


240331.450
1494


240331.451
1495


240331.452
1496


240331.453
1497


240331.454
1498


240331.455
1499


240331.456
1500


240331.457
1501


240331.458
1502


240331.459
1503


240331.460
1504


240331.461
1505


240331.462
1506


240331.463
1507


240331.464
1508


240331.465
1509


240331.466
1510


240331.467
1511


240331.468
1512


240331.469
1513


240331.470
1514


240331.471
1515


240331.472
1516


240331.473
1517


240331.474
1518


240331.475
1519


240331.476
1520


240331.477
1521


240331.478
1522


240331.479
1523


240331.480
1524


240331.481
1525


240331.482
1526


240331.483
1527


240331.484
1528


240331.485
1529


240331.486
1530


240331.487
1531


240331.488
1532


240331.489
1533


240331.490
1534


240331.491
1535


240331.492
1536


240331.493
1537


240331.494
1538


240331.495
1539


240331.496
1540


240331.497
1541


240331.498
1542


240331.499
1543


240331.500
1544


240331.501
1545


240331.502
1546


240331.503
1547


240331.504
1548


240331.505
1549


240331.506
1550


240331.507
1551

TEXT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED


240331.508
1552


240331.509
1553


240331.510
1554


240331.511
1555


240331.512
1556


240331.513
1557


240331.514
1558


240331.515
1559


240331.516
1560


240331.517
1561


240331.518
1562


240331.519
1563


240331.520
1564


240331.521
1565


240331.522
1566


240331.523
1567


240331.524
1568


240331.525
1569


240331.526
1570


240331.527
1571


240331.528
1572


240331.529
1573


240331.530
1574


240331.531
1575


240331.532
1576


240331.533
1577


240331.534
1578


240331.535
1579


240331.536
1580

Æ


240331.537