Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019
Floor Speech
Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is of paramount importance in a democracy, and its protection from discriminatory barriers has been grounded in Federal law since the Civil War and, more recently, in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
A Supreme Court decision called Shelby County will be mentioned here many times today.
And, also, I want to say, it has been mentioned many times that the Supreme Court directed or instructed this body to do something. They did not. What they did say in the decision was that, if Congress wants to, they can revisit this. And, as we could on most anything, we are revisiting. But to say that we were directed to is a little bit of an overstatement and just needs to be clarified.
It is important to remember that this Supreme Court decision only struck down one outdated provision of the Voting Rights Act, namely, an outdated formula based on decades-old data that doesn't hold true anymore, describing which jurisdictions had to get approval from the Department of Justice before their voting rules went into effect.
It is important to point out that other very important provisions of the Voting Rights Act remain in place and were not changed, including section 2 and section 3.
Section 2 applies nationwide and prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or the ability to speak English. Section 2 is enforced through Federal lawsuits, just like other Federal civil rights laws. The United States and civil rights organizations have brought many cases to enforce the guarantees of section 2 in court, and they may do so in the future.
Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act also remains in place. Section 3 authorizes Federal courts to impose preclearance requirements on States and political subdivisions that have enacted voting procedures that treat people differently based on race in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments.
If a State or political subdivision is found by the Federal courts to have treated people differently based on race, then the court has discretion to retain supervisory jurisdiction and impose preclearance requirements on the State or political subdivision, as the court sees fit, until a future date, at the court's discretion.
This means that such a State or political subdivision would have to submit all future voting rule changes for approval to either the court itself or the Department of Justice before such rule changes could go into effect.
As set out in the Code of Federal Regulations: ``Under section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act, a court, in voting rights litigation, can order as relief that a jurisdiction not subject to the preclearance requirement of section 5 preclear its voting changes by submitting them either to the court or to the Attorney General.''
Again, section 3's procedures remain available today to those challenging voting rules as discriminatory. Just a couple of years ago, for example, U.S. District Court Judge Lee Rosenthal issued an opinion in a redistricting case that required the city of Pasadena, Texas, to be monitored by the Justice Department because it had intentionally changed its city council districts to decrease Hispanic influence.
The city, which the court ruled has a ``long history of discrimination against minorities,'' was required to have their future voting rules changes precleared by the Department of Justice for the next 6 years, during which time the Federal judge ``retains jurisdiction . . . to review before enforcement any change to the election map or plan that was in effect in Pasadena on December 1, 2013.''
A change to the city's election plan can be enforced without review by the judge only if it is submitted to the U.S. Attorney General and the Department of Justice and has not objected within 60 days.
Voting rights are protected in this country, including in my own State of Georgia, where Latino and African American voter turnout has soared. Between 2014 and 2018, voter turnout increased by double digits, both for men and women in both of these communities, and we are committed to ensuring the ballot box is open to all eligible voters.
We are committed to ensuring constitutional means are used to accomplish that. We are committed to protecting the value of every American voice by securing our elections from fraud. These are our priorities and our principles.
Full protections are afforded under current Federal law for all those with valid claims of discrimination in voting. Unfortunately, the bill before us today would turn those Federal shields that protect voters into political weapons. This bill would essentially federalize State and local election laws when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that those States or localities engaged in any discriminatory behavior when it comes to voting.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that this type of Federal control over State and local elections is unconstitutional because Congress can only do that when there is proof of actual discrimination, which is what the bill is supposed to be about.
House Democrats continue their breakneck speed of everything else that we have going on, and now, today, a partisan bill comes to the floor to prevent States from running their own State and local elections when we are dealing with this very issue of impeachment and discussing elections at the same time.
When can we stop and ask: What is best for the United States? What is best for our voters?
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Collins, for yielding today.
Today, I rise in opposition of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019.
I fully support the bipartisan Voting Rights Act, which is still in place today. However, the bill we are debating today, H.R. 4, is not a reauthorization of the important, historically bipartisan Voting Rights Act that has helped to prevent discrimination at the ballot box since 1965.
It has only been since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder that Democrats have decided to politicize the Voting Rights Act. This landmark decision left the vast majority of the Voting Rights Act in place today.
The only thing that was struck down from the VRA was the formula that was using 40-year-old data to determine which States were placed under the control of the Department of Justice, this process known as preclearance. The Supreme Court deemed this data and formula was no longer accurate nor relevant for our country's current climate.
Chief Justice Roberts said: ``The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem.''
He went on to say that: ``Regardless of how to look at the record, no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the `pervasive,' `flagrant,' `widespread,' and `rampant' discrimination that faced'' this ``Congress,'' this institution, ``in 1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the Nation.''
So what does H.R. 4 do? It doubles down on federalizing elections and would attempt to put every State and jurisdiction in this country under preclearance.
The majority has been unable to determine the number of States or jurisdictions that would be covered by this preclearance if H.R. 4 were to become law. Apparently, we have to pass this bill before the American people would know if they would or would not be subjected to it.
The majority knows H.R. 4 is bad policy that will cripple thousands of local election officials across the country if it were ever to become law.
Let me be clear: H.R. 4 is not a Voting Rights Act reauthorization bill. H.R. 4 is about two things: placing the unnecessary preclearance requirements on to States, and the Democrats giving the Department of Justice control over all election activity.
My committee, the Committee on House Administration, has jurisdiction over Federal election policy, but it does not have jurisdiction over the Voting Rights Act. That goes to the Judiciary Committee. Despite that lack of jurisdiction, our Subcommittee on Elections held seven field hearings and one listening session across this great country on the Voting Rights Act, encompassing eight different States and over 13,000 miles of air travel.
Even with this gargantuan effort to gather evidence to reinstate the struck-down formula from the VRA that we are discussing today, the Democrats were still unable to produce a single voter who wanted to vote and was unable to cast a ballot.
This isn't a bad thing. It is a fantastic thing. It ought to be celebrated. We should be celebrating that Americans who wanted to vote were able to do that, and credit should be given to the Voting Rights Act for helping to achieve that.
The 2018 midterm election produced the highest voting turnout in four decades--and that is according to data from our Census Bureau-- especially among minority voters.
The sections of the Voting Rights Act that are currently in effect are continuing to help safeguard the public from discrimination at the ballot box. Every eligible American who wants to vote in this country's elections should be able to cast a ballot. That is why we have the Voting Rights Act, a great example, until today, of a bipartisan solution that is still working today to help Americans and protect from voter discrimination.
I have now seen four election-related bills from the majority come to this floor, and all of them have the same common theme: catchy titles and federalizing elections, a responsibility the Constitution gives to our States.
H.R. 4 is simply more of the same. It is a solution in search of a problem. That is why I cannot support this legislation.
I ask my colleagues to join me in making sure States maintain control of their elections.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
A final statement of something I am about to submit for the Record, it is a Statement of Administration Policy. It says this: ``In sum, several provisions of H.R. 4 violate principles of federalism and exceed the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, and these provisions would likely be found unlawful if challenged. Accordingly, the administration opposes H.R. 4.''
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this Statement of Administration Policy. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 4--Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019 (Rep. Sewell, D-AL, and 229 cosponsors)
The Administration opposes passage of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019. H.R. 4 would amend the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 by imposing a new coverage formula and transparency obligations on States and local jurisdictions regarding their elections. These amendments raise serious policy concerns because the Federal Government would be granted excessive control over State and local election practices. Additionally, the Supreme Court has already held similar restrictions imposed by Congress on States and localities to be unconstitutional.
No individual should be denied or deterred from exercising his or her right to vote. Federal law protects against voting discrimination, allows judicial review of State and local voting laws, and establishes preclearance requirements. H.R. 4 would overreach by giving the Federal Government too much authority over an even greater number of voting practices and decisions made by States and local governments without justifying the current needs for such policies.
Section 3 of H.R. 4 would amend the VRA by setting forth a new coverage formula that subjects certain States and local subdivisions to Federal preclearance requirements before undertaking certain election activities. For example, the coverage formula would place restrictions on States with ``15 or more voting rights violations [that] occurred in . . . the previous 25 calendar years.'' Once a State or locality is covered by the formula, it would need permission from the Attorney General or Federal courts before conducting certain election activities prescribed by the bill.
In striking down the VRA's prior coverage formula, the Supreme Court held that although ``[o]ur country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.'' Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 557 (2013). Accordingly, the coverage formula set forth in section 3 of H.R. 4 that ``imposes substantial federalism costs'' on States must therefore be tailored to ``current needs.'' Id. at 540, 553 (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, section 3 continues to permit reliance on potentially decades-old data--incidents dating as far back as 25 years--as a justification for imposing a preclearance requirement.
Additionally, section 4 of H.R. 4 would create a new ``Practice-Based Preclearance'' standard, which would automatically subject certain election laws to Federal preclearance, thereby raising significant policy concerns. This section would, among other things, prejudice Federal law against State and local voter integrity efforts, such as voter ID laws, and even impose requirements on routine administrative actions that include changing voting locations.
Finally, H.R. 4 would amend the VRA by imposing additional transparency requirements regarding certain election activities in Federal, State, and local jurisdictions. Section 5 of H.R. 4 raises constitutional concerns because its broad language would interfere with State and local elections beyond the powers afforded by the Elections Clause. Specifically, section 5 would require notice of demographic information related to ``any change in the constituency that will participate in an election for Federal, State, or local office.'' This broad language would impose notice requirements on States that make redistricting changes despite no Federal election involvement. By doing so, H.R. 4 would impermissibly grant Congress authority beyond what is authorized by the Elections Clause, and therefore section 5 would likely be found unconstitutional.
In sum, several provisions of H.R. 4 violate principles of federalism and exceed the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, and these provisions would likely be found unlawful if challenged. Accordingly, the Administration opposes H.R. 4.
If H.R. 4 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he veto it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind those of us voting, we can like this bill or not like this bill, but this is not a reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. This is in addition to, and it is something we have talked about on our side.
We appreciate the debate going on, but just as a clarification, we are not reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. The sections that are already there are still going to be there, they are permanently enshrined, and we are not going to be changing that. This is a different part of that, and we would just like to make that clear.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have made my statements very clear on this, and I will continue to do so. For people who have really struggled with and want to be a part of this, I am also going to say that this is a time when we can reach out occasionally across the aisle, and I can help my chairman with a little bit of time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity at the time we have laid this out. There have been exhaustive hearings on this.
Our objection to this is not about anything else except that we feel the wording of this and the way this bill is laid out is not good for our country, much of it will not be held up and will not have its intended consequences.
I am one who believes and has a State that has been very active in seeing our minority rolls and our minority voting participation increase dramatically over the last 4 or 5 years, after, even, the Shelby decision.
That is an undisputed fact; although, many times, it has been disputed in many public speeches saying Georgia is going backwards. We are not. Georgia is going forward and had many, many successes over the last little bit encouraging minority voting. From my perspective, that is exactly what we are supposed to be doing.
So, simply, as we have looked at it, we must move forward with ways that we make sure every person who wants to vote has the ability to vote and does so in a proper and legal way. That has never been a discussion from our side. My only objection here is the way this goes about it.
And there have been many other issues that we have brought up on numerous, numerous occasions about how this could actually have adverse effects across the country, especially if people wanted to really mess with our voting system and play it for political gain. That is not a discussion that we are having right here because we have had this in multiple hearings up to this point.
So I think, for the voter who looks today, this is something that is going forward with a good-hearted attempt. I will never question the motivations of what is happening here. I just question the very fact of what words are on paper.
We do not, in this body, vote on ideas. We do not vote on thoughts. We vote on words on paper. And the words on paper here do not fulfill what is being said about this bill.
With that said, I would ask that we vote ``no.'' There are plenty of opportunities for us to continue to work on this, just not in this current situation. I respectfully request that people would vote ``no'' and that we move forward with something that actually possibly could work at a future date.
But from the majority side, this has nothing to do with people voting or not voting. We want everyone to vote and everyone to participate, but we want to do so in a fair and legal way.
This is something that we actually think would actually hurt that in the long run as we go forward. That is why we are asking that this be voted down, will not support it today, and, along with the administration, who has said that it will be vetoed if it does reach his desk, this is something we would rather find a way to have a bill that could suffice or could make the provisions of this bill even stronger. This is not happening today.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a ``no'' vote when this comes forward, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source