Date: 2012-05-09
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. one of the proudest moments of my experience here in the House is having worked on a bipartisan basis on the extension of the Voting Rights Act in the 1980s. I had been involved in the extension of the Voting Rights Act several Congresses ago. But also. as attorney general of the State of California. I was involved in the preclearance procedures by the Justice Department with several of the jurisdictions in my home State. The Voting Rights Act has stood as one of the great efforts of progress in this country. but as the U.S. Supreme Court said. as it reviewed the preclearance requirements some years ago. There will come a time when this unprecedented power of the Federal Government versus the sovereignty of the States will end. The preclearance requirement contained in the Voting Rights Act is an anomaly. a necessary anomaly over history. but it is an anomaly. And we should understand that the Court viewed it as such. The problem I have with the current status of the Voting Rights Act is that it gives no opportunity for an escape clause by those jurisdictions that have proven. over the decades. that they have. in fact. changed their practices. There is no means by which a jurisdiction can come forward and show that over a decade. they have not. in fact. discriminated but have acted appropriately and. therefore. this tremendous Justice Department authority will be no more there. But this is not the place to deal with it. I would say. A funding resolution is not the place to deal with it. This is an important issue that ought to be addressed. and I would hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle would recognize that when you have a jurisdiction that has for 10. 20. 30. 40 years followed the law. perhaps we ought to reward them and provide incentives for other jurisdictions to do the same. Also. historically. there is a reasonalmost a historical accident by which some of the jurisdictions in California are covered. It had to do with a low turnout election in which a large percentage of the people who were considered citizens happened to be military folks who didnt vote in that area in that particular election. And theres been a static analysis which has resulted in those jurisdictions continuing to be covered under that section of the law which allows this unprecedented authority of the Justice Department to preclear. And I would hope that we would have the courage to stand up and look at the changes that have taken place and give credit to the consensus of conscience of civil rights that I think has prevailed in this country and has aided us greatly. But I would just say. this is not the time nor the place for us to. within a short period of time on the floor of the House. try to make a significant change in that. And. therefore. with all due respect to my friend from Georgia who points out some of the problems here. I would have to oppose this amendment. But I would hope that we would have the courage to come to the floor and recognize that changes may be necessary. This is an unprecedented authority that is granted to the Justice Department. No other jurisdictions are required to come before the Justice Department and ask for their permission as to whether they could make a change as simple as changing a date or making any change with respect to any election process in that jurisdiction. So I would hope my friends on the other side who have. I think. appropriately opposed the gentlemans amendment would also recognize that there is a large area in which we should discuss the current status. visavis the current fact situations that exist with all jurisdictions. Let us hope that as bad as the conduct has been in the past. that we believe in redemption and that we believe that there can be changed hearts. and we believe that we can change practices and that we believe that. in fact. maybe the good will of our fellow citizens will prevail. And when it has done so. let us recognize that. give them credit for it. and in the law provide incentives for other jurisdictions to also change their ways. So with that. Mr. Chairman. I ask that we not support this amendment. but at the same time recognize the legitimacy of the shortcomings of the law. as applied currently. and the failure of the Congress to make the changes to give credit to those jurisdictions that have. in fact. acted in good faith. I yield back the balance of my time.