John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 601, I call up the bill (H.R. 4) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the criteria for determining which States and political subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the Act, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. 4.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, would revitalize and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to confront the onslaught of discriminatory voting laws and practices that have emerged in recent years across the country.
In 2013, the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, gutted the Voting Rights Act's most important enforcement mechanism, the Section 5 preclearance regime, which required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination against racial and ethnic minority voters to seek approval of any changes to their voting laws before they could go into effect.
Almost immediately after the decision, many of these jurisdictions unleashed a raft of voter suppression measures, knowing that these laws now could only be challenged after the fact and only through a costly and time-consuming process that made such challenges unlikely and when people's votes had already been improperly invalidated.
When the Court struck down the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance, it explicitly invited Congress to devise a new formula to meet the current need to remedy voting discrimination.
H.R. 4 answers that call.
This legislation would create a new geographic coverage formula that is fine-tuned to capture only those places with longstanding and persistent discrimination. At the same time, it targets only recent discrimination and does not leave jurisdictions frozen in time.
The bill also requires preclearance of certain practices that are historically associated with voting discrimination; it responds to the recent Supreme Court decision in Brnovich v. DNC, which severely limited enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and it provides other important tools to strengthen enforcement of the VRA.
H.R. 4 rests on a substantial record that documents the myriad ways that the right to vote, the most fundamental right in a democracy, remains under threat for too many Americans.
I want to thank Terri Sewell for introducing this bill, Steve Cohen for the 13 hearings he held on voting rights in the Constitution Subcommittee, as well as our colleagues on the Subcommittee on Elections and the Committee on House Administration for their work.
I urge all Members to join me in honoring the legacy of our beloved colleague, the late John Lewis, who shed his blood to secure passage of the Voting Rights Act, by supporting this vital legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), the chief sponsor of this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article with breaking news: The Texas Speaker of the House signs arrest warrants for absent Democrats in bid to end chamber's weekslong stalemate to fight against suppression and oppression in S.B. 7. [From the Texas Tribune, Aug. 10, 2021] Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan Signs Arrest Warrants for Absent Democrats in Bid To End Chamber's Weekslong Stalemate (By Cassandra Pollock and Patrick Svitek)
House Speaker Dade Phelan signed arrest warrants Tuesday evening for Democrats who broke quorum to block a controversial GOP elections bill. The warrants will be delivered to the House Sergeant-at-Arms Wednesday. Credit: Jordan Vonderhaar for The Texas Tribune. Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan on Tuesday evening signed civil arrest warrants for 52 House Democrats still missing from the state Capitol as he aimed to regain the quorum needed for the chamber to begin moving legislation during the second special session.
The move was confirmed by Phelan spokesperson Enrique Marquez, who said the warrants ``will be delivered to the House Sergeant-at-Arms tomorrow morning for service.''
The warrants were first reported by The Dallas Morning News. Democrats who may be arrested would not face criminal charges or fines and could only be brought to the House chamber. Dozens of minority party members fled to Washington, D.C., during the first special session to block a GOP voting restrictions bill.
The 52 warrants represent all but 15 Democrats in the lower chamber. There were at least 11 present Tuesday. There were no additional new Democrats on the floor Tuesday after four returned a day earlier--and drew the wrath of some Democratic colleagues still in Washington, and prompted a renewed push inside the party to hold the line.
Earlier Tuesday, the House voted overwhelmingly to authorize law enforcement to track down lawmakers absent from the chamber.
That 80-12 vote came hours after the Texas Supreme Court ordered that those missing Democrats could soon be detained by state authorities. The order by the all-GOP court came at the request of Gov. Greg Abbott and Phelan, both of whom had asked the court Monday to overturn a ruling from a state district judge that blocked those leaders from ordering the arrest of the quorum-breaking Democrats.
In a statement after the warrants were signed Tuesday evening, state Rep. Chris Turner of Grand Prairie, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus, said it is ``fully within our rights as legislators to break quorum to protect our constituents'' and reiterated Democrats' commitment ``to fighting with everything we have against Republicans' attacks on our freedom to vote.''
Since the Legislature gaveled in Saturday for its second special session ordered by Abbott, the House has been unable to make a quorum as dozens of Democrats have remained absent from the chamber.
When the House was unable to meet its 100-member threshold to conduct business Monday, members adopted a procedural move known as a ``call of the House'' in an effort to secure a quorum. That move locks doors to the chamber and prevents members on the floor from leaving unless they have permission in writing from the speaker.
That vote earlier Tuesday marks the second time in recent weeks that the chamber has voted to send law enforcement after Democrats still missing from the House.
During the first special session in July, and after more than 50 House Democrats flew to D.C., members present authorized state authorities to track down their colleagues-- but the move carried little weight since Texas law enforcement lacks jurisdiction outside the state.
By the time that first 30-day stretch ended last week, Phelan had signed only one civil arrest warrant, for Rep. Philip Cortez, a San Antonio Democrat. But that move came too late since Cortez, who had briefly returned to Austin, had already gone back to the nation's capital.
Intraparty pressure has been mounting on House Democrats since the second special session started. After at least four of them returned to the floor Monday, bringing the chamber within five members of a quorum, some of their Democratic colleagues who were still in Washington unleashed on them. Rep. Ana-Maria Ramos of Richardson tweeted at the returning Democrats that they ``all threw us under the bus today.''
Pressure ramped up Tuesday morning, when a coalition of Democratic-aligned groups released a statement urging House Democrats to hold firm and continue breaking quorum. The 21 groups included Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, the state's Sierra Club chapter, the Texas Organizing Project, Progress Texas, the Communications Workers of America and several groups that advocate for Latino Texans.
``To every pro-democracy Texas lawmaker: the only way to preserve our right to vote and the best way to fight is to stay off the House floor,'' the coalition's statement said.
The group also released a four-page memo arguing that far more was at stake in the second special session than just the elections bill, citing a ``host of radical conservative priorities'' throughout the agenda. The memo was particularly emphatic about a new proposal for the second special session--dropping the quorum threshold to a simple majority-- calling it an ``ominous allusion to reducing or eliminating minority rights in the Legislature, breaking centuries of Texas bipartisanship.''
Meanwhile, a number of House Democrats have returned to Texas but have not come to the House floor to help provide quorum.
One of them is state Rep. Evelina ``Lina'' Ortega, who says she is home in El Paso but not showing up on the House floor until there is already a quorum or a majority of the Democratic caucus decides to be there.
``I pretty much feel that it's a shame that the governor and Republicans . . . are really using the dirtiest tactic available to them,'' Ortega told the Tribune on Tuesday evening after the House's vote to send law enforcement after the absentee Democrats. ``To me it's all about a power grab. I'm glad to stay away and continue to fight them.''
As for whether she is concerned about arrest, Ortega said she believes it would be a ``big mistake'' by Republicans.
``We'll see what happens,'' she said.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is John Lewis, and he says: ``We will stand up for what is right, for what is fair, and what is just,'' and we will ensure that we have courage, the kind of courage that is ``raw courage.''
Today, I ask my Republican colleagues to reject the big lie, to reject the insurrection, and to reject the idea that there is not voter suppression.
I stand with H.R. 4, a bill that is the continuation of the reauthorization that I have done over the years as a member of the Judiciary Committee. I thank Chairman Nadler, Chairman Cohen, Terri Sewell, all those who are part of this great effort, and our whip.
But the real important point is that we give the vote back to the American people, to the disabled, to young people, to senior citizens, and we reject that unfortunate statement. The State of Texas attorney general, the secretary of state, never found any fraud in the election, in particular in 2020.
I am very glad that this will particularly have the look-back. It will protect us against such dilution and diminution.
This is a bill that has to pass, and the Senate has to pass it. Give the vote back to the American people. Have raw courage.
Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and an original cosponsor, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which corrects the damage done in recent years to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and commits the national government to protecting the right of all Americans to vote free from discrimination and without injustices that previously prevented them from exercising this most fundamental right of citizenship.
I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Terri Sewell of Alabama for introducing this legislation, to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and the Democratic leadership, and to the many colleagues and countless number of ordinary Americans who never stopped agitating and working to protect the precious right to vote.
Madam Speaker, in response to the Supreme Court's invitation in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), H.R. 4 provides a new coverage formula based on ``current conditions'' and creates a new coverage formula that hinges on a finding of repeated voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years.
It is significant that this 25-year period is measured on a rolling basis to keep up with ``current conditions,'' so only states and political subdivisions that have a recent record of racial discrimination in voting are covered.
States and political subdivisions that qualify for preclearance will be covered for a period of 10 years, but if they have a clean record during that time period, they can be extracted from coverage.
H.R. 4 also establishes ``practice-based preclearance,'' which would focus administrative or judicial review narrowly on suspect practices that are most likely to be tainted by discriminatory intent or to have discriminatory effects, as demonstrated by a broad historical record.
Under the bill, this process of reviewing changes in voting is limited to a set of specific practices, including such things as:
1. Changes to the methods of elections (to or from at-large elections) in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse.
2. Redistricting in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse.
3. Reducing, consolidating, or relocating polling in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse; and
4. Changes in documentation or requirements to vote or to register.
Madam Speaker, while I am proud to strongly support this bill, I would be remiss if I did not express my disappointment at the decision to not include my amendments to this bill.
Jackson Lee Amendments #6, #7, and #8 are easy to understand and vitally important--they simply protect state legislators who, in keeping with their sacred oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, refuse to perform unconstitutional acts under the guise of legislative process.
Specifically:
Jackson Lee Amendment #6 allows for federal judicial review of any warrants issued for the arrest of a state legislator where said state legislator refuses to engage in the state legislative process due to a reasonably held belief that doing so would infringe on the right to vote.
Jackson Lee Amendment #7 inserts a Sense of the Congress stating that a state's power to arrest a duly elected representative of a constituency for refusal to engage in a state's legislative process should be subject to federal judicial review where such elected representative's refusal is premised upon a reasonable belief that participation would result in the suppression of voting rights or other violations of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Jackson Lee Amendment #8 privileges against arrest any member of a state legislature for any reason except treason or murder while the legislature of that state is debating or voting on legislation relating to redistricting or election practices or legislation relating to the right to vote in federal, state, or municipal elections.
These amendments would have critically strengthened H.R. 4 because state legislatures across the country are utilizing every weapon in their arsenal to curtail voting rights; and no one should fear arrest due to fighting for the Constitutional rights of their constituents.
This includes my home state of Texas, where earlier this month officers of the Texas House of Representatives delivered civil arrest warrants, signed by the Texas state Speaker of the House, for more than 50 absent Democrats in an attempt force a vote on the naked attempt at voter suppression known as Texas S.B. 7.
This is the latest Republican attack on these brave state legislators, which began on May 30, where after a night of impassioned debate and procedural objections, these Democratic lawmakers in Texas took action to block passage of this massive overhaul of the state's election laws.
With little more than an hour before the voting deadline, these Democrats staged a walkout, depriving their Republican colleagues of the 100-member quorum needed to pass the measure.
And when Governor Abbot called a special session in Texas for the purpose of passing horrific voter suppression legislation, those brave Texas Democrats rose to the challenge again and broke quorum.
Under the threat of arrest, those heroes fighting for voting rights have escaped to Washington, D.C.
Since the arrest warrants were issued, it is my understanding that mass intimidation of the Texas House Democrats has occurred.
State officials came to their homes with the purpose of dragging them back to eviscerate the voting rights of thousands of Texas.
These elected Texas Representatives have had to hide away from their friends, their families, and their loved ones, all to ensure that Texans retain their most sacred of rights.
They are risking their freedom to ensure every Texan has full access to their constitutional right to vote.
Although the Republicans have tried to spin this in many different ways, let's be clear--Texas Democrats are taking a righteous stand for our democracy.
Breaking quorum isn't an easy choice--legislators must leave family, friends, constituents, and their important work for days or weeks.
But by making this choice, these Texas Democrats are fighting for all of us, because voting is not a partisan issue.
Access to the ballot is a sacred cornerstone of our democracy, and we must protect it at all costs.
Last month marked one year since we lost a champion for voting rights, and the namesake of H.R. 4, Congressman John Lewis.
In his final words, he reminded us that, ``the vote is the most powerful nonviolent change agent [we] have in a democratic society,'' and that ``Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe.''
We may no longer have John Lewis with us, but in his absence, the Texas Democrats are following his example, and stirring up good trouble, necessary trouble, for our right to vote.
They have followed the truth in his words and have sacrificed much to follow the highest calling of their hearts.
Texas Republicans seek to pass voting regulation laws focused on diverse, urban areas, by setting rules for the distribution of polling places in only the handful of counties with a population of at least 1 million--most of which are either under Democratic control or won by Democrats in recent national and statewide elections.
These bills would limit extended early voting hours, prohibits drive- thru voting and makes it illegal for local election officials to proactively send applications to vote by mail to voters, even if they qualify.
These bills are at the forefront of Texas Republicans' crusade to further restrict voting in Texas, which saw the highest turnout in decades in 2020, with Democrats continuing to drive up their vote counts in the state's urban centers and diversifying suburban communities.
Standing between all of this and the voting rights of thousands of Texans are those brave state legislators who currently have a warrant out for their arrest.
No elected representative in this great nation should fear that he or she will be locked away for simply standing up for justice and ensuring that America's citizens have the right to vote.
For this reason, I believe that H.R. 4 would have been greatly strengthened by the inclusion of my amendments in the Rule.
Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage all Members of Congress to support this bill, because it is the responsibility and sacred duty of all members of Congress who revere democracy to preserve, protect, and expand the precious right to vote of all Americans by passing H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
It is useful, Madam Speaker, to recount how we arrived at this day. Madam Speaker, fifty-six years ago, in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of heroic souls risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final, completed march from Selma to Montgomery.
Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women, boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to bring it even closer to its founding ideals.
The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to vote.
On that day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights demonstrators, including our beloved colleague, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia for whom this important legislation is named, were brutally attacked by state and local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of the right to vote.
``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American.
No one who witnessed the violence and brutally suffered by the foot soldiers for justice who gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge will never forget it; the images are deeply seared in the American memory and experience.
On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol President Johnson addressed the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act:
The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was critical to preventing brazen voter discrimination violations that historically left millions of African Americans disenfranchised.
In 1940, for example, there were less than 30,000 African Americans registered to vote in Texas and only about 3 percent of African Americans living in the South were registered to vote.
Poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence were the major causes of these racially discriminatory results.
After passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which prohibited these discriminatory practices, registration and electoral participation steadily increased to the point that by 2012, more than 1.2 million African Americans living in Texas were registered to vote.
In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress.
Few, if any, African Americans held elective office anywhere in the South.
Because of the Voting Rights Act, in 2007 there were more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest number ever.
Madam Speaker, the Voting Rights Act opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Hispanic public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including more than 275 at the state or federal level, 32 of whom serve in Congress.
Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly.
The crown jewel of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is Section 5, which requires that states and localities with a chronic record of discrimination in voting practices secure federal approval before making any changes to voting processes.
The preclearance requirement of Section 5 protects minority voting rights where voter discrimination has historically been the worst.
Between 1982 and 2006, Section 5 stopped more than 1,000 discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107 discriminatory changes right here in Texas.
Passed in 1965 with the extraordinary leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, the greatest legislative genius of our lifetime, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was bringing dramatic change in many states across the South.
But in 1972, change was not coming fast enough or in many places in Texas.
In fact, Texas, which had never elected a woman to Congress or an African American to the Texas State Senate, was not covered by Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the language minorities living in South Texas were not protected at all.
But thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Barbara Jordan was elected to Congress, giving meaning to the promise of the Voting Rights Act that all citizens would at long last have the right to cast a vote for person of their community, from their community, for their community.
Madam Speaker, it is a source of eternal pride to all of us in Houston that in pursuit of extending the full measure of citizenship to all Americans, in 1975 Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who also represented this historic 18th Congressional District of Texas, introduced, and the Congress adopted, what are now Sections 4(f)(3) and 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, which extended the protections of Section 4(a) and Section 5 to language minorities.
We must remain ever vigilant and oppose all schemes that will abridge or dilute the precious right to vote.
Madam Speaker, I am here today to remind the nation that the need to pass this legislation is urgent because the right to vote--that ``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice''-- faces grave threats.
The threats stem from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements.
Not to be content with the monument to disgrace that is the Shelby County decision, the activist right-wing conservative majority on the Roberts Court, on July 1, 2021, issued its evil twin, the decision in Brnovich v. DNC, 594 U.S. __, No. 19-1257 and 19-1258 (July 1, 2021), which engrafts on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act onerous burdens that Congress never intended and explicitly legislated against.
Madam Speaker, were it not for the 24th Amendment, I venture to say that this conservative majority on the Court would subject poll taxes and literacy tests to the review standard enunciated in Brnovich v. DNC.
According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was that ``times change.''
Now, the Court was right; times have changed.
But what the Court did not fully appreciate is that the positive changes it cited are due almost entirely to the existence and vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
And that is why the Voting Rights Act is still needed and that is why we must pass H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Let me put it this way: in the same way that the vaccine invented by Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 eradicated the crippling effects but did not eliminate the cause of polio, the Voting Rights Act succeeded in stymieing the practices that resulted in the wholesale disenfranchisement of African Americans and language minorities but did not eliminate them entirely.
The Voting Rights Act is needed as much today to prevent another epidemic of voting disenfranchisement as Dr. Salk's vaccine is still needed to prevent another polio epidemic.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in Shelby County v. Holder, ``[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.''
Madam Speaker, in many ways my home state of Texas is ground-zero for testing and perfecting schemes to deprive communities of color and language minorities of the right to vote and to have their votes counted.
Consider what has transpired in Texas in recent past, let alone the noxious voter suppression bill, SB7, it is currently trying to ramrod through the legislature.
Only 68 percent of eligible voters are registered in Texas and state restrictions on third party registration, such as the Volunteer Deputy Registrar program, exacerbate the systemic disenfranchisement of minority communities.
These types of programs are often aimed at minority and underserved communities that, for many, many other reasons (like demonization by the president, for example) or mistrust of law enforcement are afraid to live as openly as they should.
In Harris County, we had a system where voters were getting purged from the rolls, effectively requiring people to keep active their registrations and hundreds of polling locations closed in Texas, significantly more in number and percentage than any other state.
In addition, the Texas Election Code only requires a 72-hour notice of polling location changes.
Next, take what happened here in Texas in 2019 when the Texas Secretary of State claimed that his office had identified 95,000 possible noncitizens on the voter rolls and gave the list to the Texas State Attorney General for possible prosecution--leading to a claim from President Trump about widespread voter fraud and outrage from Democrats and activist groups.
The only problem was that list was not accurate.
At least 20,000 names turned out to be there by mistake, leading to chaos, confusion, and concern that people's eligibility vote was being questioned based on flawed data.
The list was made through state records going back to 1996 that show which Texas residents were not citizens when they got a driver's license or other state ID.
But many of the persons who may have had green cards or work visas at the time they got a Texas ID are on the secretary of state's office's list, and many have become citizens since then since nearly 50,000 people become naturalized U.S. citizens in Texas annually.
Latinos made up a big portion of the 95,000-person list.
Texas Republicans adopted racial and partisan gerrymandered congressional, State legislative redistricting plans that federal courts have ruled violate the Voting Rights Act and were drawn with discriminatory intent.
Even after changes were demanded by the courts, much of the damage was already done.
Reversing the position by the Obama administration, the Trump Department of [in]Justice represented to a federal court that it no longer believed past discrimination by Texas officials should require the state to get outside approval for redistricting maps that will be drawn in 2021.
In addition to affirmative ways to making it harder to vote, we also know face other odious impediments in Texas.
Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical of voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll taxes and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability of seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast their votes.
This is the harm that can be done without preclearance, so on a federal level, there is an impetus to act.
Consider the demographic groups who lack a government issued ID:
1. African Americans: 25 percent
2. Asian Americans: 20 percent
3. Hispanic Americans: 19 percent
4. Young people, aged 18-24: 18 percent
5. Persons with incomes less than $35,000: 15 percent
And there are other ways abridging or suppressing the right to vote, including:
1. Curtailing or eliminating early voting.
2. Ending same-day registration.
3. Not counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day will not count.
4. Eliminating adolescent pre-registration.
5. Shortening poll hours.
6. Lessening the standards governing voter challenges thus allowing self-proclaimed ``ballot security vigilantes'' like the King Street Patriots to cause trouble at the polls.
The malevolent practice of voter purging is not limited to Texas; we saw it in 2018 in Georgia, where then Secretary of State and now Governor Brian Kemp purged more than 53,000 persons from the voter, nearly the exact margin of his narrow win over his opponent, Stacy Abrams in the 2018 gubernatorial election.
Voter purging is a sinister and malevolent practice visited on voters, who are disproportionately members of communities of color, by state and local election officials.
This practice, which would have not passed muster under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, has proliferated in the years since the Supreme Court neutralized the preclearance provision, or as Justice Ginsburg observed in Shelby County v. Holder, ``threw out the umbrella'' of protection.
Madam Speaker, citizens in my congressional district and elsewhere know and have experienced the pain and heartbreak of receiving a letter from state or local election officials that they have been removed from the election rolls, or worse, learn this fact on Election Day.
That is why I am very pleased that H.R. 4 includes language that I worked hard to include in the Manager's Amendment to the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019 that strengthens the bill's ``practice-based preclearance'' provisions by adding specifically to the preclearance provision, voting practices that add a new basis or process for removing a name from the list of active registered voters and the practice of reducing the days or hours of in-person voting on Sundays during an early voting period.
For millions of Americans, the right to vote protected by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things.
Madam Speaker, it is the responsibility and sacred duty of all members of Congress who revere democracy to preserve, protect, and expand the precious right to vote of all Americans by passing H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Bourdeaux).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, critical legislation that confronts the crisis facing our democracy.
In Florida, we witnessed a Republican legislature attempting to cling to power through voter suppression, taking special aim at Black and Brown voices. The blatantly antidemocratic legislation signed by Governor DeSantis this year makes voter registration harder, limits voting by mail, and curbs the use of secure ballot drop boxes. Similar suppression tactics took root across the Nation, with at least 18 States making it harder to vote this year.
To honor our dear friend and colleague, Congressman Lewis, we must stand up to this assault on our constitutional rights. This bill would stop those who want to shape the electorate to help them win elections because they can't win on their losing agenda.
At this moment in history, bold action is necessary to protect the right to vote. After we pass this bill, we must ensure it moves through the Senate. Our very democracy depends on it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished majority whip.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source