IV 
114TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. CON. RES. 153 
Expressing the sense of Congress that a day should be designated as 
‘‘National Voting Rights Act Mobilization Day’’. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 
Ms. FUDGE (for herself, Ms. ADAMS, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. 
BUTTERFIELD, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mr. COHEN, Mr. CONYERS, 
Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. AL GREEN of 
Texas, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. HONDA, Ms. JACKSON LEE, 
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MEEKS, 
Ms. MOORE, Ms. NORTON, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. PINGREE, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. 
RICHMOND, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. SCHA-
KOWSKY, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, Mr. THOMPSON of 
Mississippi, Mr. VEASEY, and Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN) 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 des-
ignated as ‘‘National Voting Rights Act Mobilization 
Day’’. 
Whereas the affirmation of the Declaration of Independence 
that ‘‘all men are created equal’’ too often has been dis-
regarded throughout our Nation’s history; 
Whereas voting is the fundamental political right because it 
is ‘‘preservative of all rights’’; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:12 Sep 16, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HC153.IH
HC153
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HCON 153 IH 
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 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’s 
enforcement 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 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:12 Sep 16, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HC153.IH
HC153
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HCON 153 IH 
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-
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’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 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:12 Sep 16, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HC153.IH
HC153
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HCON 153 IH 
Whereas the first Monday in October would be an appro-
priate 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 
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 Sep 11 2014 
00:12 Sep 16, 2016
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HC153.IH
HC153
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS