Date: 2013-02-26
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Let me thank the gentleman very much. and thank him for convening this historic special order. Its historic because it is led by the Honorable JOHN CONYERS. who has actually walked the historic steps that generated the actual passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I think it is appropriate to put on the record again. as weve done often. that Mr. CONYERS is the only elected official. certainly Member of the United States Congress. that can claim that they were endorsed by Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. I know that the Honorable BOBBY SCOTT and myself admire that and have benefited from the deep knowledge that JOHN CONYERS has on these important issues. And I would offer. in my brief commentary this afternoon. to try to track the vitality of the Voting Rights Act in its series of reauthorizations so that people can actually see that this is not legislation of whiners. this is not a legislation that is not in love with America. does not believe in the freedom of Americas values and choice and being able to vote unencumbered. or not view the integrity of State election officials throughout the country. But it really is. if you will. a testament to the fact that laws can make things better. In actuality. the Voting Rights Act is a codification of the 15th Amendment that no one shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color. That was a necessary amendment and followed in the tradition of the 13th and 14th Amendments. which provide for due process and equal treatment under the law. Then. of course. the 15th Amendment. which says that the vote is precious. Its so precious. and sometimes we forget that it was actually embodied in the Bill of Rights or in the context of the Constitution. that the 15th Amendment was. in fact. protecting the right to vote. So the Voting Rights Act came as the leaders of this Nation watched the deterioration of the right to vote in certain parts of this Nation. And I would argue that that is true even today. We heard on the floor that there is a way to. in essence. move yourself out of the Voting Rights Act by showing 10 years of. might I say with all due respect. good behavior. But as we have watched over the last few years. let me recount for you. Mr. Speaker. that we have had incidences that impact school boards to governorships. if you will. or school boards to statehouses. and school boards to congressional seats. where there have been instances that have required the intervention of preclearance under the Voting Rights Act of section 5. I would venture to say that no one has been hurt by that. that it has only enhanced the opportunity to vote. In the State of Texas. for example. in the last 2 years. there was an issue of purging voters. It so happened that those who were being purged were predominantly Hispanic and African American. In the last election of 2012. the State of Florida was poised to purge some 1 million voters. and through oversight of the Department of Justice that was. in essence. stopped. In addition. weve had a series of what weve called voter ID laws. which came about and were born post. if you will. the election of 2010. Those voter ID laws were determined through preclearance to have a deteriorating effect on the vote of those who were needed to carry forth a vote. And so I would make the argument that the voter ID laws were. in essence. prevented from taking the vote away under the 15th Amendment. the Voting Rights Act. because we had section 5. And so the Texas voter ID law was declared to not meet the standards under section 5 preclearance. that it would hamper people from voting. And. in essence. it hampered people from voting because it did not have the process to get your voter ID in all the counties in the State of Texas. So if you were in a county without a place to get your voter ID. if you didnt have the money. you clearly were prevented from voting. And that covered voters from all different racesvoter ID laws that happened in Mississippi. voter ID laws that happened in Ohio. Some of them were undone through election processes. but the preclearance truly impacts real lives. I remember as a junior member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. which I work for. doing registration in the Deep South. as it was defined in those years. in South Carolina. going onto plantations where sharecroppers worked and the intimidation of the process of not only registering. but voting. We were there to register to vote. The reason why I know there was intimidation is because as I was approaching a voting station. which was a tattered areawhen I say tattered. the voting booth was a tattered cloth from an old general store. My commentary is not to speak of that particular era of voting. but it was to say to you that I was promptly shot at for approaching. I was a stranger. And the next thing I knew we were running for cover. But all I was coming to do was to check the voting process out to ensure that the employees of that plantation. sharecroppers. were coming and could vote unencumbered. So the Voting Rights Act is about unencumbered voting. What person would want to deny that? Tomorrow. we will have a hearing before the United States Supreme Court in the Shelby case. And my argumentIm not making the argument before the Supreme Court as we speak todaybut my argument is that facts will speak for themselves. The courts will address the question of law. and they will listen to the proponents and the opponents. I hope and pray that the Justices will understand that the underpinnings of the argument are based upon fact. And in the last election of 2012. there was an enormous mountain of facts that showed that in the nooks and crannies of America there were voters who were denied the right to vote. In 2008. voters were denied the right to voteissues such as moving various polling places that were in minority neighborhoods. the misrepresentation of the message going out about felons would be arrested at the polls. as if the felons who could not vote would be showing up at the polls. or others being determined to be a felon and not be a felon. the misidentification of voters. sending them away. I would just make the argument that this is a factual basis for which we need this. The fact that we have had these kinds of incidences shows the value of the Voting Rights Act section 5 preclearance. We show the value through 15.000 pages of documentation in the 2006 reauthorization. which was led by this Judiciary Committee. of which those of us on the floor today are members. led by JOHN CONYERS and. of course. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. So let me conclude by thanking the chairman for his very kind yielding. Ill indicate that we can speak about the four corners of section 5. Supreme Court case that has reaffirmed it. but this is a question of fact. Until we eliminate the facts across America that people are denied the right to vote on the basis of their color and/or their race. then we have a reason for section 5 preclearance. With that. I yield back in the name of freedom. in the name of justice. and in the name of those who lost their lives fighting for such and fighting for America. Mr. Speaker. 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 days 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 and of the House Judiciary Committee which has primary jurisdiction over voting matters. 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. Third. 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.