•HCON 17 IH 
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 liti-
gation to vindicate their fourteenth and fifteenth amend-
ment rights; 
Whereas Congress enacted section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965 to require certain States and political subdivi-
sions to submit new or modified voting practices for Fed-
eral review before they can be used; 
Whereas Congress reauthorized section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965 in 1970, 1975, and 1982 after find-
ing 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’ en-
forcement authority under the Reconstruction Amend-
ments; 
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 over-
whelming margins based upon an extensive record of con-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:47 Feb 15, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HC17.IH
HC17
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HCON 17 IH 
tinued racial voting discrimination within the covered ju-
risdictions; 
Whereas section 5 continues to require Federal review for 
changes in all or part of 16 States with histories of offi-
cial 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 cov-
ered 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 elec-
toral participation in the covered States since 1965 
against the imposition of new racially discriminatory vot-
ing practices; 
Whereas the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argu-
ments in a constitutional challenge to the 2006 reauthor-
ization of section 5; and 
Whereas February 27 would be an appropriate day for the 
Nation to focus upon the historic and continuing impor-
tance of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in ensuring 
equality at the ballot box: Now, therefore, be it 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:47 Feb 15, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HC17.IH
HC17
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HCON 17 IH 
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that a day 
should be designated as ‘‘National Voting Rights Act Mo-
bilization Day’’, to remind all Americans of the critical 
role that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 continues to play 
in protecting the right to vote, and for them to voice their 
support for this landmark civil rights law. 
Æ 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:47 Feb 15, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HC17.IH
HC17
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS