Remembering Abner Linwood Holton, Jr., and Voting Rights

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak also about the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. This is S. 4.

Listening to my friend from Virginia here describe some of the history that he and his family have been through, again, this is an important part of the discussion and debate when we talk about one of the very cornerstones of our identity as an extraordinary nation, this principle of democracy and freedom and fair and open elections.

The majority leader filed cloture on the motion to proceed on Monday evening, and despite some very real reservations that I have--and it is fair to talk about those reservations--I will be among those who vote to begin debate on this measure when we have this vote in a few minutes here. I will do so because I strongly support and I believe that Congress should enact a bipartisan reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. We have done that. Congress has done that five times since 1965, typically--typically--by an overwhelming margin here in the Senate.

It has been about 15 years now since our last amendment to the Voting Rights Act, and I think it is fair to say that 15 years after passage, it is probably timely and necessary to look at updates.

In order to do that, I think that what we have to do is we have to step back from the partisanship. We have to step back from the politicization that is driving this conversation. I think we should be able to agree to meaningful improvements that will help ensure that all of our elections are free, they are fair, and they are accessible to all Americans.

Now, those who follow this issue know that it is probably no great surprise that I am involved in this discussion here today. I have been the lead Republican cosponsor of the voting rights reauthorization now for the last 6 years. I have worked with my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, as well as with Senator Durbin, Senator Manchin, and others to shape a framework that will allow us to make some progress on some very real and legitimate issues.

At this point, I feel that we have got a good foundation to help provide access to the ballot that is equal, again, for all Americans and free from any form of discrimination. We should all be able to support legislation to assure just that much--that much--because nothing, as my friend from Virginia has said, is more fundamental than the right to vote.

We have all heard that story of Benjamin Franklin being asked at the end of the Constitutional Convention about the type of government that the Framers had designed. His response, at least according to some sources, was, ``A republic if you can keep it.''

I recognize that one of the surest ways to lose our Republic is to allow the public trust in our elections to erode, and I fear that that is where we are--that that trust, that faith, in our own elections is eroding.

I have engaged in voting rights legislation because I want us to continue to reduce those barriers to Americans' ability to voting, whether it is geographic, whether it is logistical--and we certainly know about that in Alaska--whether it is partisan or some other form. I think we recognize that we have come a long way from the 1960s--I would, certainly, hope so--but I think we need to acknowledge that we can continue to build on that through reasonable and well-considered legislation.

The voting rights legislation that I support is not this sweeping overhaul that would take power away from the States in order to federalize the election process. There was a bill earlier on the floor this year, and I voted against that. I didn't like that very detailed, prescriptive approach that, I felt, was moving us toward a federalization.

Instead, the legislation that I support would provide greater transparency for Federal elections so that voters are fully informed, so that they know about the changes in voting procedures. It would protect voters from discrimination in all of its forms and continue to knock down the barriers that we know, in many places, still exist.

It would provide protections for voters, for election workers, and polling places to discourage the efforts to interfere, to intimidate, or to physically harm them.

It would provide for voting materials in relevant areas to be translated in our Native languages. This is very important for us back home in Alaska.

It would require States that have historically been found to discriminate against minority voters to, once again, preclear their changes in their voting laws, and it would uphold the many, many good practices and procedures that we have in States like Alaska, rather than burdening them with new mandates that aren't designed for a place, again, like Alaska where, geographically, logistically, it just might simply not work.

That is the kind of legislation that I can support, but I need to be clear here. That is not the description of S. 4, the bill that is being brought up for debate. I don't support S. 4 as it was written and as it was introduced. What I can support in its place and as a starting point is the substitute amendment that the majority has agreed to lay down should the Senate agree to begin debate. That substitute amendment contains more than a dozen significant changes that my team and I have been working with others to negotiate.

So the question, I think, needs to be asked: Is that enough? And I say: No, it is not enough. Even with those changes, I still have concerns, and I know that many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have concerns. Substantive changes will be needed before this measure is ready to pass the Senate.

So, if this procedural vote fails today, where do I think we go next? We have to go back. We have to consider this legislation through regular order, through the committee process.

In the meantime, I mentioned just the politicization, the partisanship that we have seen with these issues. I think: Let's stop the show votes. Let's give ourselves the space to work cooperatively across the aisle to reach the level of consensus that I think is important. It is important for this issue, and it is important for this country.

The goal here should be to avoid a partisan bill, not to take failing votes over and over for political gain. It really doesn't get us anywhere. It gets us on record. It allows you to weaponize, if you will, a critically important issue. It doesn't go anywhere. It doesn't serve anyone. It, ultimately, accomplishes nothing. Our only real option here is to figure out how we are working together on this. Our goal should be to match what we did in 2006 when the last reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act passed the Senate 98 to 0.

Wouldn't that be a goal for us all? Wouldn't that send a signal to people across this country--from Alaska to Maine--to have faith in our electoral process, in our elections?

Now, some may be wondering why, as a Republican, I am willing to put my name next to this legislation, pretty publicly, and acknowledge that it is not where I want the bill to be right now. But at this point, I think, if we can step back from the political exercise, I think we can do good. I think we need to do good. I believe that those of us who want to find common ground need to be part of the process. We need to be willing to get in, mix it up, and work it out, instead of sitting back on the sidelines and saying: I just don't like your product, and I am not going to offer anything else. I just don't like your product.

So let's get in the arena. Given my role as vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I believe that I have an obligation to help resolve some of the longstanding issues that face our Native peoples in Alaska and around the country.

Finally, I believe it is simply dangerous to let voting rights become a wholly partisan issue, where our divisions just fester and take root in an area that is so central to our system of government.

So the vote in front of us today is procedural in nature on whether to open debate. It is not on final passage or anything close to it. There are even things in the substitute text that I, frankly, don't support and others that I have not been able to fully evaluate. But I also recognize that the framework within the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is the most viable that we have, and it is the best starting point at which to legislate. So I will vote to begin this debate in the hopes that this is a step forward, not a step backward, as we are seeking a bipartisan accord.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source