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 -- (Senate - July 20, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I add that I share the views of my colleague from Arizona. Like he, I represent a State that is covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which is one of the sections that is being reauthorized today, hopefully. I thus paid close attention to the changes being made in that section.

Like my colleague from Arizona, I supported the provision that effectively instructs the Justice Department to refuse to preclear a voting practice that is motivated by a discriminatory, unconstitutional purpose. I also agree this is all this change does. It does not authorize the Justice Department to define for itself what is a ``discriminatory purpose.'' The Constitution and the courts have already done that, and it is that constitutional definition that is being incorporated in this legislation.

That standard bars discrimination against a racial group, and it does not require discrimination in favor of any racial group. Thus, it does not require those drawing electoral maps to create misshapen districts simply in order to create as many majority-minority districts as possible. Nor does it require that minority voters be placed as often as possible in districts where candidates of the party they support will prevail.

The equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution does not say all citizens are equal, but that some are more equal than others. Nor should the Voting Rights Act say that. The Voting Rights Act should not be read to require creation of so-called coalition districts that produce a Democratic or a Republican representative, as the case may be. I think that would raise serious constitutional questions if we adopted a free-flowing definition of purpose--or authorized the U.S. Department of Justice to invent one--that is untethered from the Constitution itself. I think this is sufficiently clear from the bill's incorporation of constitutional terms of art that I am confident this is how the provision will be applied by the Justice Department and by the courts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would simply add to the comments of the assistant majority leader that I, too, am glad that we have eliminated any risk in Georgia v. Ashcroft, and section 5 would be applied to require preservation of anything other than districts that allow naturally occurring minority-group majorities to elect minority candidates. Locking into place so-called coalition or influence districts would wreak havoc with the redistricting process and would stretch the Voting Rights Act beyond the scope of the Congress's authority under the 14th amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have some additional remarks that I would like to make on this important legislation.

Forty-one years ago, when signing the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law, Lyndon Johnson, the President of the United States, a former member of the Senate whose seat I am privileged to hold, described the act's passage as ``a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that has ever been won on any battlefield.'' President Johnson's words captured the importance of the act's passage. It was a hard-fought victory at a tense time in American history.

It is no secret why the Voting Rights Act was necessary. It was adopted at the height of the civil rights movement, when numerous jurisdictions throughout the United States had intentionally, systematically disenfranchised Blacks and other minorities from the electoral process.

As a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee noted, a Senate report from 1965 found that in every voting discrimination suit brought against Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, both the district court and the Court of Appeals found ``discriminatory use of tests and devices''--devices such as literacy, knowledge, and moral character tests. The Senate concluded that these were not ``isolated deviations from the norm'' but, instead, ``had been pursuant to a pattern or a practice of racial discrimination.'' Such practices had driven down to 29.3 percent the average registration rate for Black citizens in these States--29.3 percent.

Worse yet, violence and brutality were common. In 1961, a Black voter registration drive worker in McComb, MS was beaten by a cousin of the sheriff; a worker was ordered out of the registrar's office at gunpoint and then hit with a pistol; a Black sympathizer was murdered by a State representative; another Black who asked for Justice Department protection to testify at the inquest was beaten and killed 3 years later; a White activist's eye was gouged out; and, finally, 12 student nonviolent coordinating committee workers and local supporters were fined and sentenced to substantial terms in jail. And those were just some of the many terrible incidents that occurred.

This type of bigotry and hatred at the polls, coupled with escalating violence and even the murder of activists, is the backdrop against which the Voting Rights Act was adopted--permanently enshrining into law the long-unfulfilled promise of citizenship and democratic participation for all Americans as guaranteed by the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The permanence of the Voting Rights Act is something that I am afraid is sometimes misunderstood or misstated in the popular press. The act's core provision found that section 2 prohibits the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color.

That provision is permanent. That provision will never expire, and we are not addressing this permanent provision by the reauthorization that we will vote on today.

Instead, we are addressing what at the time was a temporary, 5-year period where provisions were adopted to subject certain jurisdictions to Federal oversight of the voting laws and procedures until the intent of the Voting Rights Act was accomplished. This provision, section 5, along with later-added provisions designed to protect voters from discrimination based upon limited English proficiency, has been renewed several times since it was originally passed and will expire in the summer of 2007. Those are the provisions which we are addressing here today and which this vote today will reauthorize.

Today, we are considering the renewal of these provisions at a time when we can look back with some pride as a country and say that the Voting Rights Act has fulfilled its promise. It worked.

Today, we live in a different--albeit still imperfect--world. Today, no one can claim that the kind of systemic, invidious practices that plagued our election systems 40 years ago still exist in America. Today, the voter registration rates among Blacks, for example, in the covered jurisdictions is over 68.1 percent, as this chart indicates, higher than the 62.2 percent found in noncovered jurisdictions.

Let me repeat that, Mr. President, because I think it is important. Earlier, you heard me say that as a result of the violence and the discrimination against Black voters in three Southern States before the Voting Rights Act was passed, voter registration rates for African Americans was about 29 percent. But today, 40 years later, as a result of the fact that the Voting Rights Act has accomplished its purpose, we now see voting registration rates nationwide at 62.2 percent. Perhaps the most amazing thing is that the rate of voter registration in those areas that were covered by section 5, because they had a history of discrimination and violation of the voting rights of minority voters, is actually higher than the rest of the country--68.1 percent--as opposed to 62.2 percent for the noncovered jurisdictions.

A review of the voter registration data since the act's original passage shows that the covered jurisdictions have demonstrated equal or higher voter registration rates among Black voters as noncovered jurisdictions since the mid-1970s.

I realize, though, this is not the only measure of the performance of the act. Another important indicator of its success is the continual decline--almost to the point of statistically negligible numbers--of objections issued by the Department of Justice to plans submitted under section 5 for pre clearance. You can see on this chart that I have demonstrated here, going back to 1982, to 2005--and again, this is for the nine covered jurisdictions--this is what we are focusing on with this reauthorization. In those nine covered jurisdictions that were required under section 5 to submit their election changes for preclearance, you see that in 1982, for 2,848 submissions, there were 67 objections to those changes or a rate of roughly 2.32 percent. But if you jump down to 2005--let's go to 1995--it shows that this is really a bipartisan success under both Republican and Democrat Presidential administrations. In 1995, you can see that out of 3,999 submissions, requests for pre clearance under section 5, there were only 19 objections as required through the required procedures.

So you see actually the number of objections dropping from 2.32 percent to, in 1995, under one-half of 1 percent. And the good news is, it just keeps getting better. In 2005, there were 3,811 submissions, and only 1 objection for preclearance of a change in voting practices or procedures in the covered jurisdictions. So I would submit that both the voter registration rates for African American voters in the covered jurisdictions, and the plummeting, really, of objections sustained to submissions requesting preclearance under section 5, are strong and compelling evidence that, in fact, the Voting Rights Act has achieved--largely achieved--the purposes that Congress had hoped for and that no doubt millions of people who had previously been disenfranchised had prayed for.

The evidence demonstrates the continued improvement of access to office for minorities. The statistics in the House record indicate that hundreds of minorities are now serving--not just getting to vote, they are actually serving in elected office, accomplishing again one of the important purposes of the Voting Rights Act. Indeed, in Georgia, minorities are elected at rates proportionate to or higher than the numbers proportionate to the general population would otherwise indicate. While Georgia's population is 28.7 percent African American, 30.7 percent of its delegation to the United States House of Representatives, and 26.5 percent of the officials elected statewide are African American, a remarkable accomplishment.

Black candidates in Mississippi have achieved similar success. The State's population is 36.3 percent African American, and 29.5 percent of its representatives in the State House, and 25 percent of its delegation in the United States House of Representatives are African American.

In light of this strong indication that the act has largely achieved the purposes that Congress had intended, of course, the logical question before us is whether these provisions under section 5 should be reauthorized. The Judiciary Committee hearings were enlightening on this point, and I want to congratulate Chairman Specter for readily ceding to requests that were made to have a complete record so that not only Congress but the courts that may later examine this record can see what the facts are.

Senator Specter worked hard to hold a sufficient number of fair and balanced hearings, but given our busy schedule on the Senate floor, that was not always easy to accomplish. However, I think it might have been beneficial for the long-term viability and success of the Voting Rights Act had we engaged in serious, reasoned deliberation over some of the suggested possible improvements, some suggested by our witnesses--improvements that would underscore the act's original purpose. It would modernize it to reflect today's reality. It would possibly expand the coverage of section 5 to jurisdictions where recent abuses have taken place or, perhaps, have improved the so-called bailout procedures for those jurisdictions that had a successful record of remedying, indeed eliminating, discrimination when it comes to voting rights.

One idea that was offered was to update the coverage formula. I don't know if that is a good idea, but I would like to know. Some suggest that such an update would gut the act. I, for one, certainly don't want to see that happen. I don't want to see the act gutted. But I am skeptical that this would be the result. The amendment that was voted on in the House, for example, would have updated the coverage trigger to the most recent three Presidential elections from the current point, or trigger, of 1964, 1968, and 1972 elections.

As I understand it, the map, after an update to cover the most recent three Presidential elections, would look something like this. In other words, rather than the nine covered jurisdictions, you would see jurisdictions around the country, both at the State and local level--primarily at the local level--that would focus on the places where the problems really do exist and where the record demonstrates with some justification for the assertion of Federal power and intrusion into the local and State electoral processes.

If this is an accurate reflection of the effects of updating the trigger to the most recent three Presidential elections, it certainly changes the map. But I suggest, just looking at this, it hardly guts it.

It would have also been beneficial for us to have had a full discussion of ways to improve the act to ensure its important provisions were applied in a congruent and proportional way, something the Supreme Court will take into consideration when it considers the renewed act.

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted overwhelmingly to extend the expiring provisions of the act and adopt several substantial revisions included by the House, so I think it is important to comment on the House revisions to the act. In other words, we are not just reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act as it existed previously, there have been changes made. So I think it is important for us to identify those changes and reflect on them for a moment.

There has been some debate about the meaning of these provisions. My understanding is that the purpose of these provisions is fairly straightforward, and I think the House legislative history reflects this; that is, the purpose is to ensure minorities are not prevented from holding elected offices in bodies such as Congress and ensure that no intentional, unconstitutional discrimination is allowed to proceed. It is important that our understanding about these provisions be clear so that their application will be likewise clear.

I think the colloquy that we had on the Senate floor just a few moments ago helps to make that as clear as we possibly can.

In short, the Voting Rights Act is simply the most important and most effective civil rights legislation ever passed, bar none. The extension of the expiring provisions is important for the continued protection of voting rights, even though it would have been preferable and even possibly constitutionally advisable for us to review the application of the act's preclearance and other provisions.

Unfortunately, the act's language was a bit of a foregone conclusion, prohibiting the kind of debate and discussion and perhaps amendment process that might have been helpful to protect the act against future legal challenges.

Few issues are as fundamental to our system of democracy and the promise of equal justice under law as the Voting Rights Act. I support reauthorization of the expiring provisions because the purpose of the Voting Rights Act is genuine, its goals are noble, and its success, as I hope to have demonstrated, is unparalleled.

But I do want to say in conclusion that I share the concerns expressed by Chief Justice Roberts in the most recent redistricting case that has been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. I hope the day will come when we will no longer, to use his words, be ``divvying us up by race.''

It is my sincere hope that we will move beyond distinctions based on race in our policymaking, lest we, in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, make ``the offensive and demeaning assumption that voters of a particular race, because of their race, think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls.

The question in the end is, Is this bill that we will vote on today the very best possible product?

I would have to say the answer to that is, apparently not.

In response to the question, is this the very best that we can do at this time?'' I would have to conclude, yes, it is. And I support it for that reason.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov