Date: 2013-02-14
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. Ive always had such great respect for this distinguished body. the holder and interpreter of democracy. the institution that proudly protects the Constitution that was written by those who saw in this land this bright and shining sun from sea to shining sea. enormous opportunity for freedom. So many people came to this Nation. and they came in many different ways. We dont carry the way we came into the future. as much as the fact that we are grateful of the opportunity that this Nation has given us. The Nation has been able to turn the tide on embracing democracy in its fullest because of the Constitution and the laws. because we adhere to the three branches of government. So although my ancestors came to this Nation in bondage that lasted for hundreds of years. slavery. that has its remnants continuously as we move throughout society. there are now laws that can ensure. no matter how you came to this country. no matter what language you spoke. you are. in fact. deserving of the protection of the Constitution. And so out of that protection came the 14th and 15th Amendments. Those amendments provided that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. nor shall any State deprive any person of life. liberty or property without due process of law. and not deny any person in the jurisdiction equal protection. The 15th Amendment provides that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of its race. color. or previous servitude. And. finally. each amendment allows this Congress to enforce laws. and that was the basis of the authority of the President that came from Texas. President Lyndon Baines Johnson. who joined with a young. brilliant minister of the gospel. a man who ultimately sacrificed his life. Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr.. to engage in debates and discussion that resulted in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And here we are today with the opportunity for people from all walks of life and all communities to be able to vote and to have. as of September 28. 2011. the upholding of the preclearance provision. a very special provision of the Voting Rights Act by a district court. Federal court in the District of Columbia. Shelby v. The United States now is before the Supreme Court. And my argument. Mr. Speaker. is that this is no time to eliminate preclearance. Im reminded of a letter that I wrote to the U.S. Attorneys Office. Attorney General Eric Holder. just in my city alone. the city of Houston. to report 15 voter abuse cases. Without the preclearance. where would we be? Or the proposal to eliminate the North Forest Independent School District Board of Trustees over a school district that has worked hard to survive which will be subjected to the preclearance to determine whether not only the students will be denied their rights to learn in a school district they love and is fighting for their education. but that elected persons will be denied the right to serve and others denied the right to vote for them. The Voting Rights Act protects all voters. It gives them all the right to voteone vote. one person. And Shelby County has raised issue that they should not be subjected to preclearance. that they are beyond that. The district court. the Federal court decided. in Washington. D.C.. that they were wrong. that preclearance is constitutional. And we know that well because when we had the privilege of reauthorizing section 5 in 2006. building on the leadership of my predecessor. the Honorable Barbara Jordan. who came to the United States Congress only because. along with Andrew Young. the first who came out of the Deep South since Reconstruction. only because America had seen fit to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965. because I can assure you. with personal stories from the Honorable Barbara Jordan told to us in her lifetime. that she ran and ran and ran and ran and could not be elected in Houston. Texas. The Barbara Jordan that was admired by many could not be elected until after the passage of the Voting Rights Act because there were abuses and prohibitions and intimidation of African Americans being able to vote. And so today I believe it is extremely important that. as the Supreme Court takes this case up on February 27. that we stand in the midst of the 15.000 sheets of documentation. when I had the privilege of joining with my Judiciary Committee colleagues to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and. specifically. section 5. and writing amendments to ensure its sanctity and security for a period of years. that we did not do it frivolously. We did it with authority. Mr. Speaker. and I am asking that America stand against the elimination of the Voting Rights Act. Join us on February 27. I rise today to speak about the need to protect democracy. to protect the voice of the American people. and to ensure the right to vote continues to be treated as a right under the Constitution rather than being treated as though it is privilege. If you are a Constitutional Scholar this is an exciting time because the United States Supreme Court has a very active docket this term. deciding on matters which have great import to every American. And pursuant to that. in less than two weeks the Supreme Court will hear the case of Shelby County Alabama v. Holder. The issue in this case is whether Congress decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the preexisting coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution. The challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 in this case was brought by Shelby County. Ala.. which is a majority white suburb of Birmingham. In rejecting the Countys arguments. Judge Bates agreed with an earlier unanimous decision. by a threejudge panel of the D.C. District Court. which likewise upheld the constitutionality of Section 5. in a case brought by a local Texas utility district. which is my home state. That earlier decision. however. was vacated in 2009 when the Supreme Court decided that the utility district could pursue a statutory "bailout" from Section 5 coverage. Unlike the Texas utility district. Shelby County freely admitted that it has a recent history of voting discrimination that disqualified it from "bailing out." I am joined by my colleagues here today to call on all Americans to reject and denounce tactics and measures that have absolutely no place in our democracy. I call on AfricanAmericans. Hispanic and Latino Americans. as well as AsianAmerican voters to band together to fight for their right to vote and to work together to understand their voting rights which are granted to citizens of our nation by our laws and our Constitution. I call on these citizens to stand against harassment and intimidation. to vote in the face of such adversity. The most effective way to curb tactics of intimidation and harassment is to vote. Is to stand together to fight against any measures that would have the effect of preventing every eligible citizen from being able to vote. Voting ensures active participation in democracy. As a Member of this body. I firmly believe that we must protect the rights of all eligible citizens to vote. Over the past few decades. minorities in this country have witnessed a pattern of efforts to intimidate and harass minority voters through socalled "Voter Id" requirements. I am sad to report that as we head into the 21st century. these efforts continue. Never in the history of our nation. has the effect of one person. one vote. been more important. A great Spanish Philosopher. George Santayana once said "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Our history has taught us that denying the right to vote based on race. gender or class is a stain on the democratic principles that we all value. The Voting Rights Act was a reaction to the actions of our passed and a way to pave the road to a new future. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was adopted in 1965 and was extended in 1970. 1975. and 1982. This legislation is considered the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress. Contrary to the prevailing rumor that the Act is due to expire. leaving minorities with no rights. the Act is actually due for reauthorization in the 2nd session of the 108th Congressthere is no doubt about whether it will continue to protect our rights in the future. The VRA codifies and effectuates the 15th Amendments permanent guarantee that. throughout the nation. no person shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color. Adopted at a time when African Americans were substantially disfranchised in many Southern states. the Act employed measures to restore the right to vote to citizens of all U.S. states. By 1965. proponents of disenfranchisement made violent attempts to thwart the efforts of civil rights activists. The murder of votingrights activists in Philadelphia and Mississippi gained national attention. along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism. Finally. the unprovoked attack on March 7. 1965. by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. Alabama. en route to the state capitol in Montgomery. persuaded the President and Congress to overcome Southern legislators resistance to effective voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that would become the Voting Rights Act. Congress adopted this farreaching statute in response to a rash of instances of interference with attempts by African American citizens to exercise their right to votea rash that appears to be manifesting itself again in this nation. Perhaps a legislative measure is needed to respond in a way that the VRA did. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the VRA in 1966 in a landmark decisionSouth Carolina v. Katzenbach. 383 U.S. 301. 32728: Congress had found that casebycase litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting. because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment. Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims. It seems that the "obstructionist tactics" that threatened the aggrieved parties in Katzenbach have returned. The advantages of "time and inertia" that were shifted from bigoted bureaucrats to minority victims are slowly shifting back against their favor when educators. government leaders. and agencies are allowed to contravene the policy and legal conclusions given by the highest court in the country. Several factors influenced the initiation of this civil rights legislation. The first was a large shift in the number of African Americans away from the Republican Party. Second. many Democrats felt that it was a mistake of its Southern members to oppose civil rights legislation because they could lose more of the African American and liberal votes. No right is more fundamental than the right to vote. It is protected by more constitutional amendmentsthe 1st. 14th. 15th. 19th. 24th and 26ththan any other right we enjoy as Americans. Broad political participation ensures the preservation of all our other rights and freedoms. 3 State laws that impose new restrictions on voting. however. undermine our strong democracy by impeding access to the polls and reducing the number of Americans who vote and whose votes are counted.