Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006
FANNIE LOU HAMER, ROSA PARKS, AND CORETTA SCOTT KING VOTING RIGHTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - July 13, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 9, The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, which I am pleased to cosponsor, and in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Congressman CHARLIE NORWOOD.
Over the last 40 years, efforts to renew and restore the VRA have been accomplished on a bipartisan basis. It is in that spirit that we have all worked together to bring the bill before us to the floor today. I would especially like to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, and Congressmen Mel Watt and Steve Chabot for their leadership on this issue.
Voting is the most important duty and right of Americans. By enacting the VRA, we tore down barriers to equal opportunity for minorities at the ballot box, removing the essential political mechanism that maintained the legal structure of segregation. As ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, the equal right to vote is fundamental because it is ``preservative of all rights.''
It is with this in mind that I express great concern with the amendment proposed by my colleague, Mr. Norwood, as it essentially seeks to undermine the very means by which the VRA has maintained social justice.
Currently, section 5 of the VRA applies to any state or county where a discriminatory test or device was used as of November 1, 1964, and where less than 50 percent of the voting age residents of the jurisdiction were registered to vote, or actually voted, in the presidential election of 1964, 1968, or 1972. The Norwood amendment would change the preclearance formula by using rolling voter registration data and voter turn-out data from the three most recent Presidential elections.
My colleague argues that his amendment will ``modernize'' section 5. I believe that what his amendment really does is change the very focus of the preclearance provision, as it aims to make low voter turnout and registration the issues and not a recorded history of voting discrimination.
In fact, if the Norwood amendment were enacted, it would make my home state of Hawaii--a state without any history whatsoever of voting discrimination--the only preclearance state in our nation. This demonstrates in spades that one cannot reduce discrimination nor the need for federal oversight to so simplistic and mechanistic formula.
Reauthorization of the VRA gives us an opportunity to not only to reflect upon the progress we have made, but to maintain those gains that we have achieved. Adoption of the Norwood amendment would be a giant leap backwards.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Norwood amendment, and all other weakening amendments, and support final passage of H.R. 9, a true bipartisan bill.
Mahalo, and aloha.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for the same reasons as have been articulated otherwise.
But I also rise in opposition because of this amendment's specific impact on my State of Hawaii, because under his amendment, Hawaii would be, per se, subjected to a preclearance requirement solely because of relatively low turnout in recent presidential elections.
Now, I am not proud that we have had a low turnout in recent Presidential elections; but I say to the gentleman very directly, the author of this amendment, that it is not because of any history of discrimination against our citizens with respect to voting, and we should not be subjected, by application of some mechanistic and standardized formula unrelated in any way to the facts to section 5 preclearance.
And that really demonstrates the fallacy of the amendment, the removal from relevancy of applicable conditions in any State, past, present or future in determining who is and is not subject to preclearance. It is and should be relevant, and there are available means to come out from under preclearance.
But this amendment is not that, and I urge its rejection.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/