Date: 2012-01-23
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Id like to thank Dr. CHRISTENSEN. which I enjoy calling her that because she has been of such value and service to this Congress and to this body. the Congressional Black Caucus. and thank her for her leadership in convening this very important discussion on voter protection. Im very delighted to be joined. and I thank him very much. by Congressman BOBBY SCOTT. who has served and we are serving on the Judiciary Committee. And I know that he remembers that in about 2006. 2007. after years of rumors of the Voting Rights Act ending. we clarified it by coming together in a bipartisan manner and over months of hearings. convinced a then. I believe. Republican and moving into a Democratic Congress. but a bipartisan Congress. that the Voting Rights Act was needed. and it needed to be reauthorized in certain sections. And so our stand today is to reinforce that issue. And so I would like to thank. again. Congressman RANGEL. who so movingly told of his long journey and walk to support the Voting Rights Act. Congresswoman FUDGE. who has been a champion in her State in Ohio. Congresswoman LEE. and then Congressman SCOTT. who all bring to the table a personal story about voter protection. But I must make mention of our friend Congressman JOHN LEWIS. who is the epitome of the civil rights movement around the idea of voter protection and enhancement. Many of us are not aware of Mr. FILNER. who was one of the Freedom Riders and celebrated the Freedom Riders in the last year. their 50 years. My colleague Congressman AL GREEN. who led the NAACP in Houston during times when we were under siege as it relates to voting opportunities. And I remember working for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in the South in the aftermath in the 1970s of the Voting Rights Act actually going to many States. from North Carolina to South Carolina to Georgia and Alabama. where African Americans were still not registered. had still not had the full impact. I remember walking miles with Prairie View University students to allow the students to vote. So this is a cause for which we have been on a long journey. and it saddens me that we are here again today fighting for voter protection in the year 2012 as we look to our Presidential elections. I might offer to my colleagues the words of Barbara Jordan. who could not have come to Congress if it had not been for the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Sitting in the Judiciary Committee she offered these words: "I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole. it is complete. it is total." She said that of course during the impeachment hearings of Richard Nixon. but really the point was that she felt that the Constitution breathed life. if you will. into the rights of Americans. and the Constitution spoke to the voting rights of African Americans and others through the 14th and 15th Amendments. But over the years. we had not been protected. And so the Congress. through the leadership and sacrifice of Dr. Martin Luther King. whose monument is magnificent. they passed the Voting Rights Act. The constitutionality was challenged in 1966. It barely got passed. And the Supreme Court said this: Congress has found that casebycase litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting. This is what they found over the years in the Deep South. that it was constant. it was ongoing 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 systemic or systematic resistance to the 15th Amendment. Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of evil to its victims. That was a landmark case in 1966. South Carolina v. Katzenbach. the Attorney General of the United States. to reaffirm the Voting Rights Act of 1966. Here we are now almost 50 years plus where we are fighting this case again. and I might add. in not too friendly a climate. First of all. fraud is offered. and I notice that my colleague mentioned the unfortunate facts or the circumstances in Iowa where one Republican presidential candidate was declared a winner and then now another. And I did not hear voices being raised about whether there was fraud. Maybe it was a miscount. a mistake. But you didnt hear the outrage that we have heard over the seeming increase. or the effort to increase. the votes of poor people and minorities. and in particular Latinos and African Americans. Might I just say with a sense of pride. the Honorable Barbara Jordan added Texas to the Voting Rights Act coverage by adding language minorities in I believe about 1978. But the thought that fraud is bad and should be prosecuted. but a photo ID does not prevent voter impersonation. that it doesnt workrequiring a photo ID amounts to discrimination. Eleven percent of the entire votingeligible population. 2.1 million. do not have a governmentissued photo ID. Youre discriminating against them. Twentyfive percent of eligible African American voters do not have a qualified voter ID. A 2006 nationwide study of votingage citizens by the Brennan Center for Justice of the New York University School of Law found that African Americans are more than three times as likely as Caucasians to lack a governmentissued ID. You talk to many of our seniors and they were born with midwives. My mother. God rest her soul. we could not. as long as we looked for her birth certificate. could not find it. but she did have a voter registration card. Nationwide. 18 percent of eligible voters over 65 lack an ID. Voter ID laws are costly and add to the deficit. Missouri estimates that the ID law would cost the State over $20 million to implement. and it goes on to say North Carolina. $14 million. This is a shame on us. This is a pox on our House. And it is a pox on our House because fraud cannot be documented. As my colleague indicated how ironic it is that a student ID. students at State colleges. private colleges. historically black colleges. Hispanicleaning colleges cant use a credible ID that colleges take great pride or great efforts to secure. Photo ID. Young people who we want to see cherish the democracy of this country can not in fact use their ID. But yet a gun ID can be used. Just a few weeks ago in the Judiciary Committeesomewhat relatedwe were trying to pass legislation that says if you have a gun ID in Georgia. you can use your gun permit in another State. Were willing to give all of these rights to those carrying a gun ID. which may in fact jeopardize our law enforcement officers in all of the different States by not knowing whos in there carrying a gun permit. But yet the sacred and simple act of being able to vote for a person of your choosing causes the ire of so many State legislatures who. after the 2010 election and the misrepresentation that there was fraud in the 2008 election. maybe because we elected the first African American President. or some crisis generated this response. we have this kind of map that shows practically 40 States. it looks like. all but 11. that require photo ID. that photo ID is requested. that photo ID legislation is proposed. Congresswoman. I ask on what basis have we now taken the Constitution. the Voting Rights Act. and the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act to do it? Let me just share these points as I come to a close and ask that we continue the efforts. I look forward to a voter protection meeting by the Congressional Black Caucus in Houston. The State of Texas has the voter ID law that is now being precleared. I understand that all of my colleagues are in the middle of redistricting. but let me just say this is not in any way promoting Texas. but I believe that we may be the singular case that is going to ascertain the integrity of the Voting Rights Act and voter protection. Right now Texas is in three courts: the Supreme Court. the District Court of Appeals here in the District of Columbia. and the San Antonio Federal Court. We are fighting on three different levels. I might say this without any punitive comments intended. We had an interim plan. and this is under the Voting Rights Act. that one person. one vote. And Congresswoman. I think it is important to note that the Voting Rights Act protects all Americans. Its premise is one vote. one person. Its premise is not fraud but opportunity. So when we have the redistricting and some sections of the Voting Rights Act protect the idea of one person. one vote. we take these cases not for personal promotion. meaning Members of Congress and State legislators. but to ensure the integrity of the vote. So when the court ruled in San Antonio just briefly that the plan did not work. that the State of Texas wrote and gave us a new plan. the State of Texas went to the Supreme Courtnot the individuals trying to protect the right of voterswent to the Supreme Court to stay that plan. Well. the Supreme Court did render a decision. Were still in the midst of our confusion. But I just have to put this on the record. The Supreme Court assessed us. the ones who did not appeal. $18.000 to pay for printing. For those of us who are lawyers. we are simply questioning in wonderment how you can charge individuals who did not take the case up to the Supreme Court. who were being guided by the Federal Court. who had a plan and assessed us $18.000. I simply say here is another way that you can not protect voting. because inevitably. those who are on the side of the Voting Rights Act are not rich. We inevitably in many instances are not the State. Its the State coming against those who are trying to say. "One vote. one person." I bring this up just as I close. Let me just say that. in the course of the hearings that we had in reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. we discovered that there were problems with voting across the country. In 2004. nearly 4.500 people reported problems with ballots that were coming to them. 1.000 people reported voting intimidation. 7.000 reported registration problems. Also. as you well know. the status of voting laws now. meaning the voting ID or voter identification. limits the kind of voter ID you can use. It excludes the most common forms of identificationstudent IDs. Social Security cardsand they offer no alternatives. There are changes requiring proof of citizenship as a condition for voter registration. limitations or the outright elimination of early voting opportunities. and barriers to firsttime voters by suggesting that there is no sameday registration. So I would simply argue that this is an important Special Order that you have tonight. What I feel in my heart is that we have to educate the public. They have to raise their level of. not anxiety. but of cause. in that they have a cause. Theyve got to get their marching shoes on again. Theyve got to get their shoes of being the carriers of justice as those civil rights legends and heroes did. Theyve got to get like the movie "The Help" when those domestics. those people who work for others. walked in the Montgomery Bus Boycott because they were trying to do for others. So I want to thank you for allowing me to share with you this evening. I also want to indicate that this very fine letter that was sent by Members of Congress to the Attorney General on July 25. 2011. should be upheld. that of these voter ID laws that may suppress the vote. we want to have voter protection by having a vigorous review of all of these laws. and one of them happens to be the voter ID requirement in the State of Texas. Thank you for allowing me to participate in an opportunity to share and in an opportunity to tell a message to our colleagues that the justice of voting is justice for everyone and that the protection of voting is the protection of voting for everyone.