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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, in the 40 years since its passage, the Voting Rights Act has guaranteed millions of minority voters the right to vote. As the Supreme Court noted in 1964, ``Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.''

Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act has been effective in eliminating schemes and barriers to the ballot box. But several key provisions of the act are scheduled to expire in 2007. This bill will reauthorize those important provisions. One is section 5, preclearance. It is crucial because it prevents election changes in covered jurisdictions from going into effect before being precleared by the Justice Department as being free from discrimination.

If preclearance expires, an illegal scheme could help somebody win elections. That person would be able to serve until the victims of discrimination come up with the money to file a lawsuit. And then, when the scheme is thrown out, the perpetrator of that crime will get to run with all the advantages of incumbency when they run for reelection. Because of preclearance, illegal plans never go into effect.

All of the States are not covered by section 5, but States which are covered got covered the old-fashioned way, they earned it. They were found to have had a history of implementing barriers and schemes that were effective in denying minorities the right to vote.

Present law has a bailout provision which our hearing record demonstrates works for those who are no longer discriminating.

Another important provision to be reauthorized is section 203 regarding language. It works. When language assistance is available, more people vote. It applies only in jurisdictions when there are enough voters to actually affect an election, so it is important where it applies. The cost of implementation is negligible.

Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act works to ensure the right to vote. We should pass H.R. 9 without amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Section 203 works: when language assistance is available, voter participation goes up. When language assistance is not available, voter participation goes down.

We are talking about citizens. In fact three-fourths of those affected by Section 203 are natural born Americans.

Section 203 only applies where there is a large number of citizens in the jurisdiction with the same language--enough voters to affect the outcome of an election--and enough for those who don't like how the affected community votes to have an incentive to try to depress the vote.

Section 203 is not a burden to communities. The evidence presented in our hearings was that the cost is negligible. For example, the bilingual poll worker will be paid the same amount as any other poll worker who would have been hired anyway.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not result in voters being encouraged to improve their English. Our hearing record revealed voters in affected jurisdictions waiting years to get into adult education classes. A repeal of Section 203 may make it less likely that those education programs will be properly funded in the future, and a repeal will definitely result in lower voter participation.

Mr. Chairman, we should encourage voter participation by defeating the King amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment presents a new process, which was not considered in our exhaustive hearings. In fact, testimony at our hearings showed that the present bailout process is reasonable and inexpensive--all 11 jurisdictions that tried to bailout were able to do so.

Although there is not a problem now--this amendment is a problem.

There are nearly 900 jurisdictions covered nationwide by section 5. This amendment forces the Department of Justice to conduct an investigation in each jurisdiction every year.

This amendment also reverses the longstanding requirement that jurisdictions bear the burden of establishing that they are free from discrimination, and instead places the burden on the Attorney General to determine whether each jurisdiction qualifies for bailout. Voting Section attorneys at the Department of Justice would have to spend time developing the evidence necessary to make these determinations, rather than focusing their efforts on enforcing the act. There is no funding for this additional responsibility.

There is no problem, so let's not make one. We should defeat the Westmoreland amendment.

http://thomas.loc.gov/