IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 9 

Expressing the sense of Congress that a day should be designated as 

‘‘National Voting Rights Act Mobilization Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2017 

Ms. FUDGE (for herself, Ms. ADAMS, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. 

EVANS, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

HASTINGS, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Ms. JAYAPAL, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE

JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mr. LARSEN of 

Washington, Ms. LEE, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MEEKS, Ms. MOORE, Mr. 

NADLER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. PINGREE, Ms. PLASKETT, Mr. 

QUIGLEY, Mr. RASKIN, Mr. RICHMOND, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. 

RUSH, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SERRANO, 

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. SOTO, Mr. THOMPSON

of Mississippi, Ms. TITUS, Mr. TONKO, Mr. VEASEY, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, 

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. BROWN of Maryland, Mr. CLAY, Mr. 

LAWSON of Florida, Mr. MCEACHIN, and Ms. WILSON of Florida) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that a day should be designated as ‘‘National Voting Rights Act Mobilization 

Day’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 9 IH 

Whereas the affirmation of the Declaration of Independence 

that ‘‘all men are created equal’’ too often has been disregarded throughout our Nation’s history; 

Whereas voting is the fundamental political right because it 

is ‘‘preservative of all rights’’; 

Whereas the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the 

Constitution prohibit racial discrimination in voting by 

the States; 

Whereas when Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 

1965, certain States employed tests and devices that were 

race-neutral on their face but were used to prevent racial 

minorities from registering and voting; 

Whereas when Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 

1965, certain States and their political subdivisions had 

resorted to substituting new discriminatory practices for 

ones that were enjoined by the Federal courts, requiring 

aggrieved plaintiffs to assume the burden of repeated litigation to vindicate their fourteenth and fifteenth amendment rights; 

Whereas Congress enacted section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 

of 1965 to require certain States and political subdivisions to submit new or modified voting practices for Federal review before they can be used; 

Whereas Congress reauthorized section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965 in 1970, 1975, and 1982 after finding a continuing pattern of racial discrimination in voting 

by the covered jurisdictions; 

Whereas the Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld section 5 

against constitutional challenges, and pointed to section 

5 as a model for the appropriate exercise of Congress’ enVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:36 Jan 13, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HC9.IH HC9

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HCON 9 IH 

forcement authority under the Reconstruction Amendments; 

Whereas section 5 has proven to be one of the most effective 

provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in blocking 

and deterring many thousands of discriminatory voting 

practices that would have denied or abridged the ability 

of minority citizens to register, vote, and elect candidates 

of their choice; 

Whereas Congress in 2006 reauthorized section 5 by overwhelming margins based upon an extensive record of continued racial voting discrimination within the covered jurisdictions; 

Whereas section 5 continues to require Federal review for 

changes in all or part of 16 States with histories of official discrimination, where the legislative record showed 

that the bulk of racial voting discrimination has remained 

concentrated; 

Whereas States and political subdivisions that show a clean 

recent record of voting rights compliance can ‘‘bail out’’ 

from section 5 coverage; 

Whereas there are ongoing election problems in both the covered and the non-covered States which urgently require 

the attention of Congress, including voting delays, badly 

designed and executed voter purges, unduly restrictive 

voter identification laws, and deceptive and intimidating 

phone calls, flyers, and billboards, but these problems do 

not necessarily require the non-covered States to comply 

with the section 5 preclearance remedy; 

Whereas section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains 

necessary to protect the hard-won gains in minority electoral participation in the covered States since 1965 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HCON 9 IH 

against the imposition of new racially discriminatory voting practices; 

Whereas the Supreme Court’s holding in Shelby County v. 

Holder severely undermined the effectiveness of section 5; 

Whereas in the wake of this decision voting rights have come 

under increased attack in States across the country; and 

Whereas the first Monday in October would be an appropriate day for the Nation to focus upon the historic and 

continuing importance of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 

in ensuring equality at the ballot box: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that a day 

3 should be designated as ‘‘National Voting Rights Act Mo4 bilization Day’’, to remind all Americans of the critical 

5 role that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 continues to play 

6 in protecting the right to vote, and for them to voice their 

7 support for this landmark civil rights law. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS