```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 846 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 846

Calling on Congress to enact a new preclearance formula for the Voting 
Rights Act and condemning voter suppression laws enacted by States and 
                        political subdivisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 6, 2016

 Ms. Norton submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Calling on Congress to enact a new preclearance formula for the Voting 
Rights Act and condemning voter suppression laws enacted by States and 
                        political subdivisions.

Whereas the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870 affirms that voting 
        rights cannot be denied to citizens on the basis of race;
Whereas post-Reconstruction Jim Crow laws severely restricted minorities' voting 
        rights, particularly those of African-Americans;
Whereas the Voting Rights Act of 1965 contributed to a significant increase in 
        voter registration and participation by African-Americans and other 
        minorities;
Whereas the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder struck down 
        section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, the coverage provision of the law 
        that identified States and political subdivisions with a chronic history 
        of passing restrictive voting laws;
Whereas the Shelby County decision effectively immobilized section 5 of the 
        Voting Rights Act of 1965, which allowed the Department of Justice and 
        Federal courts to ``preclear'' any proposed changes to voting rules, 
        allowing a preemptive strike of unjust and discriminatory voting laws in 
        the regions identified by section 4(b);
Whereas the absence of this preclearance requirement has allowed for voter 
        suppression laws to proliferate by permitting States and political 
        subdivisions to pass restrictive voting laws without Federal 
        preclearance determining if the laws are racially discriminatory;
Whereas 15 States will implement new voting restrictions such as burdensome 
        government-issued photo identification requirements and reduced early 
        voting hours for the 2016 general election for the first time;
Whereas more than 21 million Americans lack government-issued photo 
        identification and a disproportionate number of those Americans are low-
        income, elderly, or people of color;
Whereas African-Americans are between 108 percent and 305 percent, and Latinos 
        are between 58 percent and 195 percent, more likely than Whites to lack 
        acceptable identification required to vote;
Whereas 10,800 eligible Latino voters in Alabama, 4,700 eligible Latino voters 
        in Mississippi, 45,600 eligible Latino voters in Virginia, and many 
        eligible Latino voters elsewhere will find it more difficult to vote in 
        2016 than in 2012 due to voter identification laws;
Whereas since the Shelby County decision, four States (Nebraska, North Carolina, 
        Ohio, and Wisconsin) have reduced early voting access;
Whereas restricting early voting disproportionately affects low-income citizens, 
        people of color, and the elderly, who often rely on flexible, early 
        voting periods;
Whereas since the Shelby County decision, four States (Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, 
        and Tennessee) have passed laws requiring voters to provide proof of 
        citizenship to vote;
Whereas many voting-eligible, low-income Latino voters are naturalized United 
        States citizens who lack proof of citizenship and cannot afford a 
        Certificate of Citizenship or a Replacement Certificate of 
        Naturalization, which cost $600 and $345, respectively;
Whereas since the Shelby County decision, two States (Virginia and Wisconsin) 
        have imposed more stringent requirements on nongovernmental 
        organizations that help to register and engage citizens in voter 
        participation;
Whereas restricting nongovernmental voter participation organizations directly 
        affects low-income citizens, people of color, and the elderly, as these 
        organizations are particularly likely to reach and engage these 
        populations;
Whereas since the Shelby County decision, five States (Arizona, Arkansas, New 
        Jersey, Texas, and Utah) have passed laws making it more difficult to 
        vote by absentee ballot;
Whereas reducing absentee voting disproportionately affects low-income minority 
        voters, who are more likely than other citizens to have inflexible work- 
        and childcare-related schedules;
Whereas since the Shelby County decision, three States (Florida, Iowa, and South 
        Dakota) have maintained voter laws denying returning citizens or former 
        felons the right to vote;
Whereas in addition to State-level voter suppression laws, political 
        subdivisions have also passed new laws that suppress minority voters, 
        including reducing the number of polling places and offering 
        insufficient language-assistance for non-English-speaking voters;
Whereas reducing the number of polling places disproportionately affects 
        minority communities; for example, in Maricopa County, Arizona, a county 
        that is 30-percent Latino, election officials reduced the number of 
        polling places to one polling place for every 21,000 voters, compared to 
        one polling place for every 2,500 voters in the rest of the State for 
        the 2016 primary;
Whereas insufficient language assistance at polling places could possibly 
        threaten eligible Latino voters in the 2016 election, as local 
        jurisdictions in Florida and Texas have limited language-assistance 
        programs;
Whereas in the last month, courts have struck down restrictive voting laws in 
        four States (Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Ohio), demonstrating 
        the discriminatory nature of voting restrictions that have proliferated 
        post-Shelby County;
Whereas had a preclearance formula been in effect, the Department of Justice and 
        Federal courts would have been able to prevent discriminatory voter 
        suppression laws from being passed; and
Whereas many unjust voter laws that were passed or went into effect after the 
        Shelby County decision threaten to affect a significant number of 
        minority voters on election day, November 8, 2016: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) calls on Congress to enact a new preclearance formula 
        for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, based on the Voting Rights 
        Amendment Act (H.R. 3899, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress) and 
        the Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 2876, One Hundred 
        Fourteenth Congress); and
            (2) condemns the use by States and political subdivisions 
        of the voter suppression laws and techniques described in the 
        preamble of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```