Recognizing That Allowing Illegal Immigrants the Right to Vote Diminishes the Voting Power of United States Citizens
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I oppose H. Res. 1071 because it is nothing more than a bald-faced political stunt concocted by the majority in an attempt to stir up its political base ahead of the midterm elections. It also represents just the latest in a long and cynical line of attempts by the majority to denigrate and delegitimize our Nation's immigrant population and to erode public trust in our electoral system, all to bolster short-term political gains.
Let me start out by saying that I can't imagine someone in a foreign country deciding to emigrate to the United States in order to vote in a school board election. That is just absurd.
But the resolution also falls short on its own merits. For example, the resolution states that it is ``of paramount importance that the United States maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them from interference, including interference from foreign threats.''
I agree with the statement as far as it goes, but I question why the resolution makes no mention whatsoever of the greatest foreign threat of electoral interference, namely interference by Russia in an attempt to disrupt our democracy and sow chaos in our political an governmental system.
It is the consensus view of our Nation's intelligence community that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election in order to help Donald Trump become President. Indeed, senior administration officials warned just last month that Russia's attempts to interfere in our electoral system are ongoing and threaten the integrity of both the upcoming midyear elections and the 2020 Presidential election.
At a minimum, the resolution should call attention to this fact. Yet, incredibly, the resolution makes absolutely no mention of it.
The resolution also disrespects States' rights, failing to mention that the Constitution allows States and localities to permit noncitizen voting in local elections, a practice that dates to the earliest days of the Republic. For example, New York City permitted noncitizen voting in local school board elections until elections in local school boards were done away with in New York City about 20 years ago.
Indeed, an earlier version of the resolution's text, obtained by the far-right Breitbart website, included the whereas clause acknowledging these facts stating: ``Whereas, the Constitution allows States and localities to grant noncitizens the right to vote in non-Federal elections.''
Yet perhaps recognizing that this was something of an admission against interest, the introduced version does not include this clause.
The fact of the matter is that local governments have permitted noncitizen voting in various local elections, school board elections, and so forth, through the entire history of the Republic. So why suddenly do we have this expression of terrible concern?
The resolution also speaks to the fact that ``voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy.'' Yet, it fails to address any of the real threats to voting rights that our citizens face.
Five years ago, the Supreme Court effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirement, the act's most important enforcement mechanism, in its decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The Court reached its conclusion notwithstanding Congress' factual findings in 2006 that the act, including its preclearance provision, was still needed in the face of continuing discrimination by some States against minority voters.
In response to the Court's decision, and under Republican control, States that had been subject to the act's preclearance requirement wasted no time in pursuing voting restrictions that once again threatened to undermine the voting rights of African Americans and other racial and ethnic minority groups.
These measures included voter identification requirements, restriction or elimination of early voting or same day registration, and bans on ex-offenders from voting, all of which makes it disproportionately harder for racial and ethnic minorities to vote.
These restrictions, enacted by Republican legislatures, have probably deprived hundreds of thousands--or even several million--of our fellow citizens of the right to vote. They are the real threat to our democracy, not the few noncitizens who may vote in a school board election in some local government that has permitted it through the last 100 years.
Members have introduced various proposals to address these continuing attempts by certain States and localities to suppress voters. For example, H.R. 12, the Voter Empowerment Act, which was introduced by Representative John Lewis and has 183 cosponsors, would reinforce the constitutional right to vote.
The bill includes, among other things, provisions to make it easier to register to vote and to prohibit and criminally punish voter suppression tactics like caging, voter intimidation, and the provision of false and deceptive voting information. The bill would also restore voting rights for nonviolent felons after they have served their sentences.
H.R. 2978, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which was introduced by Representative Terry Sewell and has 192 cosponsors, is a direct response to the Supreme Court's invitation to Congress articulated in the Shelby County decision to revise section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. The bill would amend the Voting Rights Act to protect voters by requiring States with a recent history of voter discrimination to seek approval from the Department of Justice before making any changes to their electoral laws.
Finally, H.R. 5011, the Election Security Act, which was introduced by Representative Bennie Thompson and has 122 cosponsors, would designate election infrastructure as critical infrastructure and provide financial support and enhanced security for the infrastructure to carry out elections so we are not subject to foreign invasion by hackers.
These measures each address critical threats to our electoral system and the right to vote, yet none of them has received a hearing or other consideration by the House.
It is a travesty that the Republicans have chosen to spend what is likely to be the last week of session before the midterm elections to consider this purely symbolic measure. They refuse to consider bills that would actually help ensure the right to vote but will consider this purely symbolic measure, one that in itself seeks to stoke the worst kinds of sentiments in the body politic, instead of devoting time to considering and passing meaningful and substantive protections for the right to vote and to protect us from foreign interference in our electoral system. I cannot support this travesty.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Jackson Lee), ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the ranking member for his leadership and commitment to working on real voter empowerment legislation. Let me acknowledge and thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Goodlatte, and seek an opportunity to really work on legislation that addresses the question.
I have looked at it, and I have no doubt that my friends on the other side of the aisle are sincere. I read the resolution, and I noted that one particular example was utilized, Mr. Speaker. The example happens to be in San Francisco, California.
I live in Houston and my colleague lives in New York. I know that if this was a moment of crisis, we would see Members from the 50 States-- at least 20 States, 35 States--bringing this to the attention of the Judiciary Committee. To date, I have had no complaint from Houston or the State of Texas.
But I do know, when I engage in dialogue with my constituents, they are all aware of the Russian interference in the 2016 election and the constant pounding of emails and the leaks that occurred and the attack on the DNC. Everybody is aware of that.
To my knowledge--help me, those of my colleagues who are on the floor--we have not passed one single legislative initiative or crime bill that addresses the question of preventing Russian interference. We are now at the end of the first crunch of this year of legislation.
So I would ask my colleagues, if they are so concerned about voting, would they help us add back to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in which Dr. King marched and our colleague, John Lewis, was beaten almost to his death, bleeding on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and restore section 5?
Section 5 might even help with this issue, because section 5 provides preclearance to any voting procedure that any State may have that would be unfair and discriminatory. If my colleagues want to argue anything, they can argue that the main bill that they should be putting forward is a restoration of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
We have found throughout the States that we do have violations. We have voter ID laws that are discriminatory. We have voter suppression. We have people being purged off of lists. Interestingly enough, they happen to be poor people, African Americans and Hispanic citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this legislation. I don't like legislation that is ``gotcha'' legislation. I have great respect for my friend from California. I, frankly, believe it is a State matter--it is really a city matter--that could be handled by those who are concerned.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I see that, for the national question of voter empowerment, there is a litany of laws still waiting for this body to pass: voter security, the ballot security, the question of our voting machines, the question of the individuals with the hanging chads, the right kind of voting machines and equipment, and, again, to protect people against purging legitimate registered voters off the registration list. I have faced that in Texas.
I have the Justice Department on notice. I would like to say publicly: Department of Justice, get back to me on that request that I made about being purged in Texas.
For all these reasons, I think we are going in the wrong direction, Mr. Speaker, and I would like us to put back on the floor section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to be abundantly clear that this resolution is nothing more than a political stunt steeped in hypocrisy. The resolution states that it is ``of paramount importance that the United States maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them from interference, including interference from foreign threats. . . .''
Yet, the resolution does not even mention the greatest foreign threat we face: Russian interference intended to disrupt our elections and sow chaos in our political system.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and others have worked all year to undermine and discredit the Mueller investigation into Russian interference with our 2016 election.
To add insult to injury, House Republicans have voted to block needed funding to help States secure their election systems from the ongoing Russian and other efforts to interfere in the 2018 elections, ongoing efforts that have been confirmed by senior administration officials.
In short, this resolution ignores the real threats our elections are facing and, instead, plays political games by trying to stoke the worse kinds of sentiments in the body politic, all focused on local practices that are not sudden and not new but are as old as the Republic and suddenly pose a threat. I cannot vote for this charade.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source