Transcripts For CSPAN2 House Judiciary Hearing On Voting Rights Shelby County V. Holder 20240714

Act. This is just under two hours. The committee on the judiciary subcommittee on the constitution civil rights and Civil Liberties will come to order. Welcome everyone in attendance. Normally what we would do if i could give an Opening Statementt and the Ranking Member would give one a. Ms. Clark one of the witnesses has a 3 40 train which would have been easy to accomplish if it werent for the house of representatives schedule and with the permission of the member we are going straight to the statement and back to the traditional i talk, he talks, somebody else talks. Ms. Clark and thank you for being here. President and executivpresident r of the civil rights law under the civil rights organizations. Previously worked for seven years at the naacp Legal Defense and Education Fund where she helped lead the Organization Work in the voters rights across the country and worked on cases defending the constitutionality of the Voting Rights act. Prior to joining the Legal Defense fund she worked in the division serving as prosecutor on the division of the Voting Rights and redistricting cases s printed editions voting section. She received her jd from Columbia University and bachelors from another Ivy League School called harvard. I normally give you the warning you start with a green light, goes off at four minutes, yellow white goes off youve got to go to the train. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Ranking Member johnson and members of the subcommittee on the constitution civil rights and Civil Liberties. My name is Kristen Clarke and i service the president and executive director of the committee for civil rights under law. I think you for the opportunity to testify on the challenges to the Voting Rights. My testimony today shaped by my experience as an attorney that started ofthestart of her careeg section five of the Voting Rights act at the Justice Department as someone who predicatelitigated the case to t the Voting Rights their entire career he asked of 1965 transformed american democracy and the Supreme Court section five preclearance coupled with the Justice Department that has abdicated its responsibility for enforcing the remaining provisions of the act have placed Voting Rights of the nations most vulnerable communities in peril. These dynamics have created a perfect storm resulting in the resurgence of the voting discrimination and voting suppression at levels not seen since the days of jim crow. Its worth underscoring the Current Administration hasnt filed a single case or the act. The Justice Department silence is deafening. Its been at the forefront of the battle for equal Voting Rights since it was created in 1963 at the request of president john f. Kennedy and with the leadership and resources combating the voting discrimination and more. Today the docket of the Voting Rights litigation is among the farreaching both geographically and in terms of issues raised as any in the nation the nonpartisan Voter Protection effort anchored by the sixhour voting hotline with be weve ben getting complaints on the voting discrimination. In short, this is how shelby has impacted our democracy. First weve seen the resurgence of discriminatory voting practices. Some motivated by discrimination and discrimination has been most intense and varied jurisdictions that were once covered by section five for the voters to vote for the curtailing of the voting hours the purging of the minority voters from the rope under the pretext of list maintenance and strict photo id requirement and the requirements to reject absentee ballots they reinstitute the discriminatory voting changes with impunity and wellknown examples come out of North Carolina where the legislaturlegislature adopted is bill that the Fourth Circuit found was clashed with surgical precision. Since the shelby decision that is evidence to hostility. Third, the loss of Public Notice regarding changes in the practices that could have a discriminatory effect is significant for the oversight is difficult if not impossible. Fourth, the public no longer has the ability to participate in the process of reviewing practices before they take effect between 2000 and 2010, we receive between 4500 to 5500 submissions capturing between 14,000 to 20,000 voting changes per year. The communities are in the dark unable to share critical information that can help to illuminate the discrimination that sometimes underlies voting changes. The preclearance process had an identifiable deterrent effect that is now lost. Since the status quo is not sustainable for civil rights organizations are stepping up to fill the void created by the decision at insurmountable expense. Finally, this will be the first redistricting cycle in decades if the Congress Fails to restore the Voting Rights act. A little over 12 years ago both chambers of congres of congresse the act with tremendous bipartisan support. Many members of the house were present and are still here today bipartisan for the act has been consistent across the decades and should remain so today. The Supreme Court has put the ball in the congresss court and must undertake action now to help the country safeguard the right to vote for all. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Because you are leaving i want to first thank you and want you to know he will have the hardest questions for you used to answer them in writing. You will get the hardest one. Absolutely. Thank you mr. Chairman. I will now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. The right to vote is the most fundamental right of citizenship and democracy. Its where it all happens. For most of the nations history to many citizens have been denied their right to vote for over a century women were denied the right to vote in for a century and a half,of africanamericans were the most horribly attacked th denying thr right to vote especially in the deep south. August of 1965 the nation took a step towards correcting the injustice and Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights act. That was the result of years led by representatives john lewis and Martin Luther king and others to get congress to act. I fear however the development of the last several years hasnt undermined the act basic protection because six years ago today the Supreme Court effectively suspended the section five preclearance requirement by striking down the formula section four to determine which jurisdictions would be subject to the preclearance. Its not necessarily those that have been under the preclearance cleaned up their act, but there were other jurisdictions that were maybe equally as bad. So they let the bad actors off because they thought there were new bad actors and they kind of opened the door for everybody. Under that preclearance requirement, they were predominantly in the deep south and have a history of discriminatory voting measures with the u. S. District they changed its procedures could take effect. The preclearance was crucial for the enforcement of the guarantee of the Voting Rights. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure the jurisdictions that are most likely to discriminate against minority voters would prove any of the voting walls were not discriminatory. Rather, then placing the burden of proof on the discrimination victims. Placing the burden on them with a history of discrimination to prove their innocence permitted the voting practices from taking effect before they can harm the minority voters and section five proved to be a significant means of protection for the voting. Two of the Voting Rights remained in effect and significantly less cumbersome to enforce the act. Those that would dissuade those with meritorious claims from the enforcement litigation. Most importantly, plaintiffs cannot invoke section two until after the harm has taken place. Thereby hthereby improving the effectiveness of the act that doesnt take place. The result of these will simply go unchallenged. These are Reasons Congress repeatedly authorized section five on an overwhelming bipartisan basis most recently in 2006 when the house passed 390 to 33 and the senate 980 so this time it wasnt congresss fault, we were good. They claimed there was no evidence to support the funding to continue the discrimination notwithstanding thousands of pages of evidence compiled by the subcommittee in 2006 demonstrating the need for the coverage formula. Theyve proved how wrong they were in the conclusion within hours of the decision come states like texas and North Carolina that have been the subject of the preclearance requirement for now there to pose the identification requirements. Other states that have also been subjected to the preclearance it threatens to undermine the minority including practices that the restriction elimination of the early voting with sameday registration all of which make it disproportionately harder for the ethnic minorities to vote. Last years governors race brought into the full view of the range of the suppression practices in the jurisdiction that enabled like the isolation of our pernicious and the effect. The witness is the democratic nominee for governor of georgia in that race does from personal experience the opponent to the secretary of state but he chose to go about it in a particular matter. Including more than 600,000 in the year 2017 and another 90,000 but were not in 2017 and the cleanup act. The registration was canceled because they didnt vote in the previous election. They also closed that its polling places in 2012 with a majority occurring in four counties and those populations. If enacted the law that resultd in 53,000 voters being given because of minor errors on their registration. With more than 70 being africanamerican preclearance would have stopped going into effect. Before the Voting Rights act, it was abysmal. Only one in four africanAmerican Voters in the south were registered with a robust preclearance requirement the act on the registration increased to 62 just three years after the act became law yet these endeavors are at risk because of the decision. Congress failed the last time we had a chance to do it and hopefully we will not fail again. Congress must respond. To stay true to the purpose of ensuring the equal Voting Rights for all. John lewis and many others risked their lives. John lewis was beaten in the head margin for the Voting Rights of South Alabama i think the witnesses for being here and look forward to their testimony and yielded to the Opening Statement the Ranking Member from louisiana mr. Johnson. With sacrifices the blood and sweat and tears that were put in by all those other legends and patriots will not be forgotten while some have raised concerns regarding the 2013 decision in Shelby County before was stricken down one part of Voting Rights act and i would like to quote again from parts of the decision because i think if we are going to talk about that decision today it serves us well to articulate with the Supreme Court actually said in the decision. In the majority decision the court laid out section four as follows and im just going to read the important excerpt. The framers of the constitution intended the states to keep for themselves as providing independent and the power to regulate elections but only do they maintain sovereignty under the constitution but theres also a fundamental principle of sovereignty among the states the act sharply departs from these principles and suspense all changes however innocuous until theyve been cleared. 1966 we found a piece in the basic features of the system of government justified at the time the coverage formula means of linking the exercise beyond the authority with the problem that warrants that it made sense nearly 50 years later things have changed dramatically voter turnout and registration rates now blatantly discriminatory divisions of the federal decrees are rare and minority candidates with office at unprecedented levels to test and place into pt walk the Ballot Access has been for the nationwide for more than 40 years. The 15th amendment commands right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race or color it gives congress the power to enforce that command. The amendment is not designed to punish for the past. The purpose is to ensure a better future. To serve that purpose if it is to divide the jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of Current Conditions it cannot rely simply on the past. Regardless of how to look at the record no one can say that it shows anything approaching a pervasive widespread rampant discrimination based congress in 1965 and clearly distinguished a covered jurisdiction from the rest of the nation at that time. The country has changed and while any Racial Discrimination voting iin voting is too much, s must ensure the legislation that passes to remedy the problem seeks to Current Conditions. Thats what the Supreme Court says and of course im sure everyone in the room agrees with the sentiment and i stated this before. Of course we all agree that discriminatory treatment and voting based on race or sex is a poor and. Its prohibited by the constitution as it should be and by federal statute as it should be based on race should be of the Voting Rights act which is permanent federal statutory law remains in place and in full effect as it should be. Several years ago for example the district judge Lee Rosenthal issued an opinion in the case that required pasadena texas to be monitored by the Business Department because it had intentionally changed the district to decrease influence by citizens of hispanic descent. It is a lon has a long history f discrimination against minorities which required them to have future voting rolls changes he cleared by the department for the next six years during which time the federal judge retains the jurisdiction of the enforcement or plan in effect in pasadena on december 1, 2013. The change to this could be enforced without review if it has been submitted to the attorney general and they havent objected if within 60 days. We support Section Three in its application to prove instances of treatment in voting and i look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. The testimony will include that of the texas general joy understand is argued in the court 31 times since 2000 and theyve completely or substantially won the majority of the cases. They argued two of the most important cases in recent memo memory. This is an office with a proven track record of legal acumen confirmed at the highest levels by the Supreme Court itself. Thank you for your time and testimony we look forward to hearing from you and yield back. For many years and today i will announce him as the chairman emeritus of the subcommittee mr. Nadler. The Voting Rights act of 196 19s one of the most effective ever enacted into law. Six years ago today the Supreme Court issued its decision in Shelby County versus holder and thereby effectively gutting of the coverage formula to determine which would be subject to the preclearance requirement. Section five contains a preclearance condition of certain jurisdictions to submit any changes for the approval to ensure they are not discriminatory. The requirement was central and worth remembering why it was enacted in the first place. Before the act for the voting suppression laws it could take many years before it could be successfully challenging the court if at all and another would be enacted essentially setting up the discriminatory game. It was apparent almost immediately after it went into effect africanamerican voter turnout rose from 6 to 59 in just four years and thought to be crucial to 92 in texas and in that same period. 56 members of congress and in 2008 they elected the first africanamerican president. It can be attributed vigorously with a preclearance provision by striking down the formula for determining which states are subject to the preclearance requirement to Shelby County decision suspended the operation of the preclearance requirement itself and in its absence the game has returned with a vengeance. Within 24 hours of the position for example, Texas Attorney general and North Carolinas General Assembly announced he would reinstitute the draconian voter id laws. During the years between the enacted final decision many were conducted while the discriminatory law remained in place. 21 othethe 21 other states alsod the statewide voter law since the Shelby County decision. 2006 when i was the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, they undertook the process to build the record to demonstrate unequivocally the need to reauthorize the Voting Rights act, the provisions o which like the preclearance requirement had undergirded were expired. At the time, the Committee Found the majority were still engaged in the ongoing discriminations and since then they engage in racial bigots ca, three practics such as relocating and in the case of localities they sought to circumvent the ability of americans to have a fair chance. Since the position weve also seen the emergence of other Voter Suppression measures like burdensome proof and scale backs to the early voting. The most recent elections in november of 2018 the voters across the country and comfort barriers with circumstances that made it hard or impossible to vote. The test in georgia 53,000 voter registered were placed by the secretary of state because of a minor misspelling on the registration forms. They put a stop to the practice and november 2201840s before the election because of the differential treatment on the group of individuals. They can still pursue the remedy without time and experience have proven it takes longer and is more expensive than having the preclearance regime. Onconce the voters denied it cat be recast. It is permanent. Thats why i took the member hos on both sides of the aisle invoke the chambers of commerce for the legislation to restore the Voting Rights act. They left instructions on how to enact the new section. Todays hearing oriented though he knew the solution to restore where needed the provisions of the act. I think the witnesses and look forward to their testimony. Thank you, chairman nadler its my pleasure to welcome the gentleman from georgia for his Opening Statement. Its good to have a hearing at this if not to create the six counties mentioned its reminded all six of the counties are under local control. Its been that way for a long time and we will get into more discussion about that. We also talk about scaling back early voting and others they show no disk of debris impact in fact actually some of what we found were helpful to the minority turnout. So as we look a at this it is a reason to hav have the hearing d im glad to see trends and witnesses here today. With paramount importance that ibecause the protection of the discriminatory barriers grounded in federal law that certain states until the polls have been approved by following the lawsuit in the dc distric dc dit or by often the department of justice. When its first enacted section for identified jurisdictions automatically subject to the preclearance requirement according to the formula the first part of the formula provided a state or Political Survey and would be covered and maintained november 11964 gigabyte 11964 adevice restricte opportunity to register and vote. The second piece provided a subdivision also covered if the census director determined within 50 of the persons of the voting age were registered to vote on november 1, 1964 were less than 50 of the voting age voted in the 1964 president ial election. Shame the Shelby County decisions they struck down these automatic preclearance provisions ruling coverage formula based on the decadesold data and practices. In 1965 the states could be divided into two groups those without the characteristics. They place a formula o placed te distinction and today we see a different place. If it continued to treat it as if it were still in the time they criticize the formula relying on decades of data they struck that provision significantly others in the Voting Rights act remained in place including section two and Section Three. Section two applies nationwide forget the practice or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color or the ability to speak english like other federal civil rights law. Its an force to be a federal lawsuit the United States and civil rights organizations brought the cases into court. Section three of the act also remains in place authorizing federal floor debate concludes if they find a state or subdivision and treat people differently based on race, the court has discretion to maintain supervisory jurisdiction and impose preclearance requirement on the states or the political subdivisions of the court sees fit until a future date. This means a state or political subdivision would have to submit all future voting rules for approval for the court itself or the department of justice before enacting a those changes. For the good of the regulation under Section Three the court is in thcourt isin the voting righn that he jurisdiction not subject to the preclearance section five for every citizen and increase voter turnout reflects that commitment. In my home state of georgia which has been mentioned many times already and will probably be again, the voter turnout has expanded mightily between 2014 and 2018 increasing by double digits in a sea that more and more americans are choosing to call home. I look forward to discussing more of that as we go forward also look forward to make sure that it remains eligible to the voters and look forward to this hearing and i appreciate the witnesses being here and im sure that this will be an interesting discussion which the hearings set the facts straight we welcome all of the witnesses and thank you for your indulgence to budding ms. Clarke testified. I explained about the whites, four minutes green and red you dont have to go to the train, but you have to stop. They should be truthful and honest first ms. Abrams is the founder and chair of an organization dedicated to advancing the Electoral Reform and in 2018 as the democratic nominee for governor of the state of georgia first africanamerican woman in u. S. History nominated by a major party for governor. Running for governor she served in the General Assembly from 2007 until 2017 in the house of representatives. She received her degree from Yale Law School and masters of Public Affairs from the school of Public Affairs at the university of texas at austin. You are recognized for five minutes and we appreciate your attendance. Thank you mr. Chairman, Ranking Member johnson, Committee Members thank you for allowing me to address this important hearing today. Today. The decision created a channel for the troubling practice of the Voter Suppression during the time of dramatic demographic change however no assaults on democracy will ever b for whethe limited its targets of the franchise has weakened all citizens feel the effect which is why the restoration of the full power of the Voting Rights act must occur. I come today because i was raised in mississippi where my parents joined the movement as teenagers and instilled in their six children a deep respect for the right to vote. I came of age in georgia where a registered voters while in college and served the minority leader and as a democratic nominee for governor in 2018. Jurisdictions formerly covered under section five joined now by states with changing demographics have raced through the reinstated hurdles to the Voter Registration Ballot Access and counting among the states however georgia has been one of the most aggressive in leveraging the federal oversight to use up the policy. 2014 i founded the states largest air twice as likely to register through as our whites. Posts shall be the legislation and practices in states like georgia, tennessee, texas seek to impede these activities. Also responsible for the oversight of the local officials refuse to take action to process the forms in a timely manner. Later we discovere discovered ud internal rules such as the blackout period during which no Voter Registration forms were processed causing the delayed right to vote. In 2017 to citizens challenged and eliminated the secret policy through the federal courts. Due to the volume of the new georgia product registration which we tracked via a paper ballot, we also proved tha provl the discriminatory effect of the exact match process which requires perfect data entry by the government and was used to secure the proper registration. In 2009 under the preclearance requirement that Justice Department rejected exact match at the real substantial burden on the voters of color. Posts shall be, he implemented the discredited policies empowered by the lack of Justice Department preclearance. With approximately 34,000 applications despite 2016 settlement, he ushered in another iteration for the match to the state legislature in 2017 leading to 53,000 Voter Registration in 201870 of whom were black voters and comprised roughly 30 of georgias eligible voters. Remaining also poses a challenge under the posts shall be regime neutral rules for removing those who died or left the state became a tool for the voter purges and in total he removed over 1. 4 million including half a million and a single day in 2017 and 8 reduction in the voting population an estimated 107,000 removed through the application of the user loses wall. Some of thone of the most pernis effects can be found in the act of casting a vote section five provided a check against the hyper local tactics like excessive closures were challenge proceedings against voters of color as occurred in 2015. 159 counties in georgia, 156 counties removed the high year three from the role posts shall be which resulted in an increase of the number of voters being cast in the ballot. Last election cycle separate court ruled against torture policies from rejecting the policy from rejecting the absentee ballot applications under trivial pretenses for implementing and inconsistent Ballot System and for improperly disallowing access to translators in the polling business. While they brought remedy to some, thousands more may have faced similar discrimination without the resources or the knowledge to gain relief. Posts shall be they were often relied on resources and intense litigation and advocacy work to protect fundamental rights to vote. The Voting System has an effect of harming taxpayers and states must expend tax dollars to the court. At the end of the 2018 contest i acknowledge the legal result of an election marred by the widespread irregularities. I also redoubled my commitment to the Voting Rights of a creation of the verified action which is filed a lawsuit against the electoral system asking for georgias preclearance requirement to the reinstated under Section Three. The Voting Rights advancement act and Amendment Act represent considerable progress toward restoring the power of the Voting Rights act including modernday protections that require nationwide preclearance to the broad suppression. I urge congress to take action today and thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. You were perfect on five minutes. Not my first rodeo. [laughter] youve not been a witness. Okay, good. Mr. Hawkins has been to a rodeo i assume is the solicitor general of texas who represents the highprofile matters between federal and state Appellate Courts including Supreme Court of the United States had previously practiced law at washington, d. C. In the office of gibson where hes a member of the public and Constitutional Law Practice Group and served as a law clerk to the honorable samuel alito junior associate justice United States Supreme Court and honorable jones of the court of appeals for the fifth circuit. A graduate of the university off minnesota will School Received his undergraduate degree from harvard. Ive been to many rodeos mr. Chairman. You are recognized for five minutes. Members of the subcommittee thank you for inviting me here today to testify at this Court Decision in Shelby County. In Shelby County the Supreme Court held that the covered formulas suggest that jurisdictions for section five Voting Rights act was unconstitutional than the congress enacted the act of 1965 it an and post a novel restrictn known as a preclearance on the e states and localities that shared two characteristics the use of testing devices for the registration and voting rate at least 12 points above the National Average congress tailored to the original formula to include no states because it found widespread and persistent discrimination voting in the early 1960s typically entail that the misuse of the devices and this was the evil for which the committees were specifically designed. It preserves the integrity, dignity and residual sovereignty of the states. The court explains the constitution also incorporates a fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states and the power is reserved to the states by the framers include Broad Authority over the conduct of elections and does the Supreme Court specifically noted in Shelby County, the framers of the constitution intended the states to keep for themselves as provided in the tenth amendment power to regulate and that is the states have broad power to determine the conditions under which the suffrage may be exercised. The preclearance under section five of the Voting Rights act is inconsistent with the central pillars of federalism because it forbids the states to enforce their duly enacted voting laws until they secure permission from the federal government. Pre clearance is an extraordinary measure that entails as the court put it a drastic departure from the basic principles of federalism. So the real question and issue at Shelby County is whether the underground conditions were sufficient to justify that drastic departure. The Supreme Court squarely held no specifically held that the clearance must be reserved for extraordinary situations in which a jurisdiction is guilty of pervasive fragrant widespread and rampant discrimination that cannot be remedied through normal litigation. It is on the status are determined to evade the command of the 14th or 15th amendments to the citizens would be unable to protect the Constitutional Rights and the traditional litigation under existing law. To be sure, the Supreme Court has recognized the situation sufficient to justify the preclearance they are unable to use the litigation to secure against the states unconstitutional voting laws. In 1965, Congress Found that those conditions existed in the states originally targeted by the preclearance regime and the court upheld the use of preclearance in the case. However, more than 50 years later, the recent Voting Rights litigation in texas shows the traditional litigation is more than adequate to identify and prevent violations of the constitution and Voting Rights act. The courts have not hesitated to identify the legal violations and the Texas Legislature has acted promptly to address them. For example, in litigation over texas is voter identification law the state agreed to a temporary remedial order to address a claim under section two of the Voting Rights act. In the next decided section, the Texas Legislature amended its voter identification law to incorporate the work for the remedy which allows individuals who cannot secure the qualifying photo id to cast a regular ballot i executing an affidavit at the polls. The fifth circuit later held it provided an effective remedy for the only positions hes testified to in the preexisting law. Those actions bear no resemblance to the conduct of the justify the preclearance in 1965 when officials in certain states routinely took steps to evade federal court orders and prolonged resistance to the 15th amendment. Rather than try to stay one step ahead of the courts and the effort to defy the constitution, the state of texas has followed the courts lead in an effort to conform the voting walls to the Voting Rights act under the governing Supreme Court authority, those conditions cannot justify the preclearance. Thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your questions. Our next witness the deputy y director of litigation at the Legal Defense Education Fund. A member of the Legal Defense team in Shelby County versus holder and the decision to the defense blocked the implementation of the discount rate changes and also recently offered a democracy to diminishh the state and local right voting post implemented in the more than three years since that decision in Shelby County continues to track posts shall be county voting changes. She received her jd from Howard University school of law and from the studies at Columbia University and also served as the clerk for the honorable friend of mine in the u. S. District court of appeals, a very great judge and a wonderful human being. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon Ranking Member and chairman nadler and other members of the subcommittee, again, i. E. Any Deputy Director of litigation at the naacp Legal Defense and education front. Thank you for the opportunity to share information about what we have observed regarding the barriers since the Supreme Courts 2013 decision in Shelby County alabama versus holder. Since its founding in 1940 by thurgood marshall, they are to promote Racial Justice and equality that may read of obstacles put before the voters to have the full equal participation in american life. The decision invalidated the preclearance provision of section five the changes to the federal authority for the approval process ensures that it wouldnt discriminate against African Americans and other voters. The result of the decision was predictable. The implementation for the photo id law the state has been forbidden from implementing under section five even more alarming Voter Suppression has metastasized in the years since the decision replaces mike wisconsin, north dakota and jurisdiction in kansas weve provided copies of the report for each member of the committee. The documentation and examination of the plethora of the discriminatory voting changes proposed or implemented since shelby are annual election day Voter Protection work and our own experience getting the cases, challenging Voter Suppression schemes enabled them to stay unequivocally that there is a critical and urgent need for congress to act to restore and strengthen the full protection of the Voting Rights act. The mechanism stop the discrimination before the harm occurred. It authorizes us to challenge it is not enough. The release comes too late and at a greater cost and burden from hundreds of thousands of voters, millions. One dramatically illustrates this. We successfully challenged texas is voter id law judicially recognizing that the stringent voter id law in the country, the trial court found that the law violated section two and was enacted to discriminate. Its worth 2 million eligible voters that Circuit Court of appeals affirmed that the law violated the act. During three years which we thee litigated the case in the trial for the voters receive the lease from a texas elected a u. S. Senator all 36 members to the house of representatives and the attorney general controller for the statehouse and t by over 75 district attorneys i75 agood his all of those elections. In five different states they passed the racially discriminate three voting laws and in french only for the purpose of discriminating against black and latino voters to protect the minority voters from the discriminatory voting schemes the Supreme Court an supreme coy rejected the congresss determination despite the extensive record that the process was necessary. The court in particular as the projected to what is regarded as the targeting of mostly southern states. I agree with you the conflict got it wrong in shelby any effort by this body to amend the Voting Rights act must be undertaken with attention to the courts guidance in that case. Hr four does precisely that come its purpos purpose is a nationwe formula without geographic limitation that will require any jurisdiction that is in the systematic discrimination to submit voting changes to a federal authority for the preclearance and i look forward to hearing your questions and being able to answer them. The Supreme Court had it wrong. I thought thats what it was. The Congress Finally got it right. They got it right possible times over multiple decades under different administrations. Texas had a photo id law saying do you know what happened with the attack on that law and what the courts ruled . Im part of the team that has been litigating the case now for seven or eight years. We have to step back and remember that the wall that has been recognized as the strictest nation at one time was adopted in the context of the legislature that also but opted racially discriminatory voting plans that have been found to be discriminatory for the statehouse and for congress. The record again to show after a her trial and several appeals prohibited up to 600,000 registered texas voters and 2 million eligible voters to vote. This is a law that was crafted to allow people handgun license is disproportionately held by white voters to vote, but student ids, tribal ideas, native American Tribal ids, federal and state were carved out of the flaw so that people couldnt participate in the political process. We went to trial in 2014 and the court found that the law violated the result and also violated various provisions of the constitution. That case went up and the fifth circuit affirmed that law, the full panel affirmed it had discriminatory results and our position is that there was an interim remedy after people provided testimony before the law was discriminatory to be forced into the remedy and thats remedy was subsequently upheld by another threejudge panel of the fifth circuit and the decision to conduct his curb the intense is that the wall that they said was passed . Was that after it had taken place . It was after many had taken place. The court said that it was discriminatory. Millions if not hundreds of thousands were lost. Its not a rodeo, but the cattle out of the barn. That was the genius behind section five congress understood that elections would take place and we need to walk to the coup plot before it takes root and people get the benefit of the discrimination into the victimse victims of discrimination after then race into the cost of hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars to uproot discrimination. They were doing wonderful good things and the preclearance requirement wasnt necessary. In other words they got it right. The authority for certain states and localities in the federalism sometimes the states go too far and interfere with federal statutes or federal constitutional privileges they have to come in. I grew up in georgia and recently went through the display of the need for the preclearance in the policy under the preclearance the moment shelby was passed he reinstated the policy she agreed to the settlement in 2016 and at the very next year ushered through a different iteration of the exact discriminate three policy the second part of this 53,000 voters were suspended from being able to register to vote. That is a small kernel of an example. Georgias state of the state of georgia found itself in multiple lawsuits where upon the adjudication states up until their actions were racially discriminatory. That means people have been denied the right to vote and they will never be able to unring the bill and i think the preclearance in fact window of preclearance would have permitted more voters to cast their ballots because the policies that deny them their right to vote wouldnt have been enacted. Today at the day let me ask you if theres anything that has been said here today or submitted if youd like to respond . Yes representative i would like to. Thank you for the opportunity. There is an onset of the texas voter id law and litigation and i like to set the record straight on that. First no court has ever found any number of voters were disenfranchised. The fifth circuit found 94 of texas voters already had a qualifying photo id and the ones who didnt coul could get one b. Which is been supplanted by new legislation is now obsolete. That is not disenfranchisement under any definition. The notion that minority voters were targeted by the voter id law was contradicted by the plaintiffs own Expert Witness who offer data showing the small percentage of texans who do not already have a qualifying photo id and the majority of them were white voters. Id also like to speak to the importance of voter id set against the context of Supreme Court precedents. The Supreme Court held the voter id laws so the predicament state interest of protecting the state integrity and the liability of the electoral process and increasing confidence in elections as former president jimmy carter was explained electoral system cannot inspire a Public Confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. The texas legislator studied the issue and concluded voter fraud is a problem. The legislator concluded in reliance on crawford and on the carter, baker report the voter id requirement would help combat in person voter fraud. Furthermore the voter id is a cave method for detecting inperson voter fraud and it is very hard to spot in person voter fraud after a voter id requirement. The Supreme Court decision is very instructive on this point. I would like to briefly read the key portion of the Supreme Court biting analysis. A state indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of the intellectual process. Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of the democracy. Voter fraud drives citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear the legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised. The right of suffrage can be to my by basement or dilution by the weight of citizens vote just effectively as a holy prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise. Thats a quote from purcell versus gonzales. Just want a little more, there were 14 plaintiffs in that case the evidence showed not a single one of those plaintiffs have been disenfranchised. Nine of them were a eligible to vote without a photo id and three had a compliant id, one chose to get a california id instead of a texas id and one had the documents that were necessary to get an id. Finally, voter turnout was unaffected in the election following the implementation of senate bill 14 which was the voter id law. As indicated the Texas Legislature passed a new butter id law, senate bill five that is a law in texas and has not been challenged. The keeper clarified the record, it is important today. Could you walk us through how a generic case of the Voting Rights act, in other words what steps would they proceed . Yes representative i would be happy to do that. That raises an important point that section two and Section Three of the Voting Rights act remain fully intact notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County. I believe all the witnesses before the subcommittee today agree on that point. When somebody believes the victim of potential discrimination they can bring action under the Voting Rights act section two. If indeed the said conditions are those that resemble the conditions in 1965 that justified preclearance in the first place, section 3c provides a remedy to address that called the build process. The building process is a targeted form of required and big can be set for certain amount of time can cover certain areas, a surgical ability to impose a preclearance regime on a locality that truly demonstrates the same conditions that existed in the early 1960s of justified preclearance in the first place. Those two parts are still very much in place and being litigated to this day notwithstanding Shelby County six years ago which had nothing to do with those provisions. Im out of time and appreciate all of you. I recommend mr. Nadler for five minutes. Thank you. Ms. Abrams weve seen in numerous cases challenging laws since the Shelby County decision, litigation takes years to resolve and cost millions of dollars to for completion. Over discrimination victims can initiate litigation only after theyve been harmed. Meanwhile litigation ongoing continue to advance more restrictions on the right to vote. The world that is effectively without a preclearance requirement, how is the cost of private litigation impact of civil rights voters. Is a complete burden that been placed in organizations that have to seek outside Financial Support in order to secure fundamentally secured right to vote. My organization in the georgia project which he founded in 2014 had to pursue years of litigation to undo some of the challenges we discovered and as i mentioned earlier the exact match process only came to light because of the 34000 applications that were suspended and under sentiment 16 of three years after the initial election, secretary kemp agreed to restore the right to vote. We had a 90 day rule which created a bucket. Which thousands of applications to register to vote were not process. At least 20000 that we know of were held up until after the election. They were not processed because of an unwritten world that had a client effect that wouldve came to light. To have years of litigation and discovery for us to discover this problem in a 2173 years after being covered this issue we finally had a federal court to essentially eliminate the ability to use the 90 day suspension roll. These are only two examples of what is hit organizations, they are being forced to combat nasa state budget that allow taxpayers to fund Voter Suppression and kill time for vulnerable and most harmed can muster the resources to defend themselves and restore the right to vote. Thank you. Ms. Aiden. They argued that Congress Must identify proportional constitution violation. Specifically any state subject the preclearance of widespread dissemination it cannot be adequately addressed by judicial remedy. Nor does it justify federalism with requirement. They also assert that on current tax they did not need such a standard and authority under the 15th amendment that we now impose a preclearance requirement. How would you respond to that . Thank you for the question. I agree that section five is meant to get to the discrimination. I adamantly disagree we have to demonstrate the condition was like the 1965 or before them. Congress survive. With the evidence before the discrimination is ingenious, and marks into the next something. And i think its important that we also talk and continue to look at texas because the record there is one of many that shows the pervasiveness of discrimination. This circuit is ruled on the law and im not going to continue to dispute that the circuit has determined that is discriminatory. We can look again, the legislator did with the redistricting plan. They found 2011 congressional and state houseplants have been determined to be intentionally discriminatory and i heard members of the commission say that intentional discrimination is that warm. We have seen the behavior and texas. If you look not just at the id law but if you look at the redistricting plan and the intentional discrimination found by a District Court in pasadena for the federal court has ordered the jurisdiction to be subject to bailing you can see what Waller County has done decade after decade trying to discriminate against historically black students and amy. You can see with the legislator tried to do in the last session with sb nine trying to put through an ominous Voter Suppression bill. You can look at the one jurisdiction and he could talk in detail about georgia and across the country and that record exist. Thank you ive one more question before we run out of time. Should the department of justice asked the court be granted a new voting rate sector to retroactively invalidate the election in order and election when its proven that there is substantial discrimination that exceeds a margin of victory of the candidate . Before we answer that directly, congress is operating at the apex of its power by enforcing the 14th and 15th amendment. What we saw during section five, nearly 15 years section five of operating it was necessary and certain occasions to validate elections. In fact the case that came to the Supreme Court in Shelby County was a result of white voters annexing black voters out of the district. It went from being 80 black to under 30 black and the majority black district and those annexations over time were not prepared. Ultimately, the law requires that an election be held under a fair electoral system. I do think thats more than the exception to the role and we need to think about Going Forward what mechanism do we have in place so people do not have to find the resources to rent to court and to look at strengthening the preliminary injunction standard because thats another thing that makes it very difficult for the victims of discrimination to be able to stop discrimination before it happens but to your question i do think there are exceptional circumstances that were redoing an election that has been a racial discriminatory and is something that can take place but we need a mechanism where no election takes place under racially discriminatory regime. My time is expired. Ill back. Think mr. Turner i recognized the distinguished member from the far western part of virginia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And the witnesses for being here. In 1965 congress enacted a voting or with a deep rooted racial renter racial voting. It was a most century changed since the recent. In the relationship. The federal government in terms of voting. It was immediately challenged in the krispy kreme 1965 in 1969 they issued several key decisions upholding the constitution with a broad range of outings. With the decision of shelby for the court ruled section 4b is unconstitutional because the report years old and making it no longer responsible for the burden on the constitutional of equal sovereignty of the state. Supreme Court Decision in shelby is considered a landmark case for Voting Rights act. With many questions remaining im happy to have this hearing to discuss the impact of shelby. First, let me first ask mr. Hawkins if theres anything he would like to respond to that was that . Thank you representative. A couple things in response, my colleagues have referred to purposeful determination and findings made by District Courts. Not a single one has survived appeal. The voter id case principal, the fifth circuit supposedly vacated and reversed the District Court purposeful discrimination finding in that case and all of the findings have met the same fate. As to the claim that texas behavior demonstrates the need for plea clearance, i think the opposite is true. What we have seen in the cases in the voter id case that weve been talking about today texas has responded to the litigation by working to conform its laws, to the requirements of Voting Rights act and the requirements of the constitution. As i discussed earlier, when texas Voting Rights, voter id law was challenged, sb 14, rather than pursue another appeal to the Supreme Court following the ongoing vote, texas changed assault. Likewise in the redistricting case, following the 2010 census, a federal District Court ordered plans into effect because the legislatively inactive plans have not been prepared. Consistent with the Supreme Court instructions the District Court conducted only a minority view against the estate plan but this court order made extensive changes. The texas legislator repealed its challenge plan and probably adopted the quarter plan in the next session. What we have seen in the case of texas is estate conforming and falls to the requirement of the constitution, the Voting Rights act in the Supreme Court. That is a far cry from the landscape in 1965 when the cover jurisdiction were deliberately acting to evade the review of the Supreme Court installed or compliance and suppressed voters illegally. That is federalism at work. The state is responding to the courts direction with affirmative legislative action. It is representative. That is one of the Supreme Court themes in the Shelby County decision. The states created the federal government, and no other context to state have to run their laws by the federal government to get permission in advance of enforcing them. The preclearance regime is a voting attacked created the one exception to the general world and justified only by the extreme conditions on the ground in the south in the early 1960s. That is the holding of the Supreme Court Shelby County decision. Absent those extreme concerns, federalism and the coequal sovereignty states does not allow congress to compose that regime and thats a holding of Shelby County in 2013. Laws such as regular maintenance of voter rolls and voter id laws are commonplace among states at this point. Absolutely. There is nothing unusual or noteworthy about estate auditing voting roles to ensure the only eligible voters registered to vote. I saw in the news this week, reports to california is looking at its own voter rolls the only their register. It indicated in los angeles is county their former register voters then there are eligible voters and i understand that jurisdiction is taking a look at that to figure out what is going on. States and counties do this all the time, they were obligation to do so consistent with federal law to ensure only eligible voters are voting. Thank you mr. German i am back. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The state did not treat the union. We the people created the union and the constitution. Thats what we thought the civil war about. It is a claim of the confederacy that it was a handshake among the states and lincoln rejected that and said the people created the union and the constitution and no state could opt out of it. No state could succeed. I think we settled the question as entry and half ago. Disenfranchisement used to be really simple. In the first century, the law simply said before the civil w war, we passed the 13, 14 to 15 moments which established that the states could not discriminate on the basis of race. In for it. The constitution worked, that was reconstruction in the africanamericans voting huge numbers throughout the former confederacy. That is American Veterans getting elected and getting elected to the spotty. There is a savage result. Some of it was through violence led by the kkk. In the former confederates. But along. Of settled legal disenfranchisement again with literacy whole taxes, grandfather clauses, white primaries, character exams, and the second reconstruction which is the modern Civil Rights Movement targeted all of those practices with the Voting Rights act in 1965 and specifically with section five which was elaborated so well, is said before the states that engage in massive disenfranchisement and extinguishment of political race for decades can make changes to voting practices and they had to first go to the department of justice or to the u. S. District court for the district of columbia. If we allow them to go ahead and oppose another disenfranchising mechanism and they finally get to court sixmonth or eightmonth search moments later it is too late to do anything. That is what section five in the preclearance requirement is all about. We are living in a period where theres an attack on the reconstruction. On the modern Civil Rights Movement in the voting act. We got it from a gerrymandered conservative Supreme Court in 2013 in Shelby County versus over. Which basically decapitated the Voting Rights act. Ms. Abrams, it is an honor to have you here before the house judiciary committee. I heard you mention a bunch of new techniques of disenfranchisement. Voter purges, 90 day blackout. Refusing to process Voter Registration, exact match process. Can you tell me quickly, what are the one or two west techniques the reason george of the disenfranchised the people of the state in the last election. Thank you. Exact match is the most obvious and deliberate in the strongest point for the preclearance because it was denied under plant and only because preclearance appeared. We explain what exact matches. It requires perfect data entry by employees, please submit your application if there is a missing, if the last name is spelled with a space and they declined to enter the space, your application can be rejected and the georgia system there is no notice to the applicant of what the problem is. You received a secular of receiving information that you get rejected, you resubmit the information and likely the government resubmitted with a type of the first time and you never know the reason you are rejected with that graphical air. Thank you very much. Mr. Hawkins, let me come to you. They put out a voting advisor in january, it alleged as many as 95000 noncitizen when the texas voter rolls. This was engaged because it became clear that tens of thousands of people on the state list were actually u. S. Citizens and wrongfully included on this list. The state told the advisory back in april in order to resolve multiple federal lawsuits brought against it, the texas county move forward with removing people from the roles based on this lot advisory, texas would disenfranchised thousands of people and you presumably you here to say that that is not something you had to go through for preclearance process in a happen, they couldve sued later. What would you said to the thousands of people who were disenfranchised under that situation. Thank you for bringing up that example i would like to just the purpose of the question. The bottom line, not a Single Person had Voter Registration cancel. Because of the lawsuit against it. Texas did the right thing, there was an error of miscommunication in the Texas Department safety thats a whole point, is to prove the burden of the heirs of the state the people of the state in the courtroom to vote for the government officials who should get the hand slapped in a preclearance investigation by the department of justice . That is fine. [laughter] i dont think that the experience you are referring to nuppercaseletter question. The secretary of state does not have her remove individuals from voting roles they are responsible for maintaining the voting rolls in each county in those county officials remove water from the voting rolls only after a number of safeguards have been satisfied including removal of judicial review. Let me ask you this. Our time is over by a minute. You have to leave for the airport . Yes at the playback. And when asked for the heck of it, when does your flight leave . My flight leaves at 550. You can make it for plenty of time. I dont want to stop you. The ms. Abrams fight is by 50. 540 you guys can share a taxi. Can you wait 15 minutes youll make it. I leave in an hour and ill make it. Five minutes on the notes this garcia you are on. With any sense of pulmonary marks. Just to die than to the common ages response to th colleague mr. Raskin. Im in disbelief youre suggesting texas did the right thing in this whole order of the 95000 registered voters. The secretary States Office and everyone in austin is suggesting that this was not happening and it was really something that they did not mean to do and it took almost five months in the entire senate not voting for the secretary of state which he still did not get confirmed because they held off, to get them to admit that they were wrong. And to have you say here now and say they were doing the right thing just as youre suggesting that texas is always taking the lead, i tell you, i was there in the texas senate when we voted on the agreement on the voting. We were not taking the lead. I did not like some of it, i thought i was not good enough but we were pretty much forced to do it because the pending federal court case. I want to clarify for the record that the statements you are making and quite frankly are quite misleading. And i take offense to some of them. Texas is really almost a poster child for Voting Rights act violation. I testified before the Senate Judiciary committee back in 2014 and as i reflected on the testimony presented there, not much has changed, when i testified back in 2014 between 1982 in 2005 for example, texas had earned 107 section five objections the voting policy. The second only in mississippi. Ninetyseven concerned local laws and affected about 30 of texas county and hom nearly 72 f the state nonvoting population. How many times in federal court found intentional intent to discriminate to station, is it seven or eight i lost track. Across by state there about nine divisions of discrimination in shelbsent shelby. How many of those have been vacated completely and not set down for another trial . I believe all of the nine of those five states are Still Standing decisions of intentional discrimination under the constitution. There are Still Standing. Which one are we working under . Is it not true that were still under the temporary map because were still in litigation sense the last census . There are decisions related to the 2011 that forced the interim plans that were in large part held by the Supreme Court. Those early decisions that led to the income remedy were basic findings of intentional discrimination and those have not been disturbed. With this case made it to the spring court while an entire decade had passed in many elections had taken place the Supreme Court upheld the discrimination in one district. It is a very complicated posture that our position is there is intentional discrimination ruling from 2011 and that is the basis for the veil and release the advocates are continuing to urge in District Courts in texas and texas represent, it is a poster child but also evident from many other states that this body should examine warrants section five preclearance. The only one we have provision would be the pasadena case which is spent in my district and working together and we were able to litigate that. I testified about pasadena in the Senate Judiciary committee and the Galveston County case. It seems that my district is 77 latino. And thats where a lot of stuff happens. That was the court order built in pasadena but since shelby evergreen Alabama Court found intentional disk termination in the party of greed to bail in. There are two jurisdictions that have since shelby been subject to billing. That is part and sufficient. One quick question. All of this, section five was meant to get to the harm before it starts. How much does this litigation cost . Some of these cases go on five, six, seven years. Just ballpark figure. I know every case is different. But just generally speaking, how much do we have to spend on this . On average, hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions. And that includes not just challenges statewide measures but even suing one county can cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars and that is both the taxpayer money to fight this termination and taxpayer money drawn by the discriminators to defend this termination. Mr. Chairman i would like to ask an animus consent entered the record the entire 20 some pages without objection and send. Chairman thank you so much for holding this hearing especially on this very important anniversary and thank you to all of our panelists for being here. Im grateful for your testimony. I am shocked to hear the opinion that texas has done the right thing when it comes to Voter Suppression efforts because we all know that the consequences to Voter Suppression completely changed the outcome of election and changed the public ability to have true representation in public office. Mr. Chairman, i would like to please enter into the record in article about my governor who is reportedly behind the effort to purge the voter role in texas. What are some of the key lessons that you learned that you can share with us from your work the project and verified action what can texas learn from georgia . A single day in 2017 halfmillion were taken off the rolls for the production take 8 . We have automatic registration which is added about 681,000 simply by signing up for their drivers license. The challenges that a number of the people availing themselves for purged during the 1. 4 million versus. The challenge is we have malfeasance and incompetence and their peoplthere are people beid shouldnt be. It has been inadequate to the task and it has been a constant attempts to divert responsibility to the locality to say that if the countys fault for not doing so but the reality is its the election superintendent that is the person in charge and the challenge with the way that it happens as no one is responsible but voters are losing their rights. Rights. And george others been an argument that because we have the highest turnout record in georgia for 20 team there couldnt have been Voter Suppression. That is the moral equivalent of saying because more people get in the water, there cant be sharks. Its adapting to the demographics of the country and the reality is voter purging is one of the tools used. It may be imperfect because people continue to seek their rights and believe they have the right to vote. I grew up with parents who instilled respect for that and there are those who will pursue it but there are so many others rejected by their state or their government they turn away and do not return and that is what is pernicious about the Voter Suppression we have people who believe now they have no voice because of intentionality and Racial Discrimination and those are challenges that model may affect georgia but the rest of the country. I do believe one of the opportunities we have here is to expand the coverage. I do believe there is a broad need to not simply be afford to provide coverage to those states because more have joined the party and have decided because they cannot win if theres full participation for goal is to limit to limit can participate and that is a fundamental flaw in the process and dangerous to democracy and we have to recognize what it would target voters of color it will affect them all. Let me thank the committee for holding this important hearing. I would like to put the following statement in. The individuals in the state of texas is considered general officials for that to claim thee actions were further evidence of widespread voter fraud claiming the secretary discovered 95,000 individuals identified as having a matching record in texas approximately 58,000 of whom any illegaillegal votes deprive thef their voice and President Donald Trump said there were 95,000 noncitizens and these members are just the tip of the iceberg over the country especially in california voter fraud is rampant and must be stopped. First of all, thank you for the work you are doing in your new leadership. Everyone watched the numbers and we are stuck on that because i think you made a point that if suppresses the vote and creates fear which happened in my Congressional District so would you expand on that width of the order of fear and also the exaggeration or the tilt when National Leadership takes up the position that voter fraud is rampant across the country . Thank you for the question. I would say first that there is a legitimate purpose to maintaining the role and to the wall that allows for people who passed away, people who are no longer eligible to vote, people who moved from estate and there is no wellintentioned person who would say cleaning and maintaining the role is in proper but what we argued is the approach that has been taken has been so egregious and socalled and sometimes so directly intended weve undermined the intention of maintaining access to the role. In georgia as a plaintiff of 1. 4 Million People were perched between 2010 and 2018. Half a million in a single day in the state of georgia. That should raise alarms for anyone because the reality is when you show up to vote and you are told you cant cast a ballot because youve been removed even though you know you shouldnt have been before called upon to do your own attorney to argue with his likely a volunteer that you have the right to vote and if you happen to be in this hyper suppressive communities, that ability may be squashed. Georgia i relies on a number of ballots i is that when people thought that they were actually allowed to make a choice to have them later thrown out and a Founding Member of because they were not effectively registered because of the malfeasance and incompetence of the government. Could you not support the fact that they are disproportionately affected by this and as i listen to your argument about having prevailed in the Appellate Courts i understand for rights that the circuit has never been supportive of the legislation through the ages so its nothing unusual you would have prevailed. My question again do you not see the purpose of which was indicative of cleaning the role that seemed to be utilized in particular in texas. Thank you for the question, representative. Representative. I am not familiar with the landscape in georgia. Im asking about the statement that i read about the joy of purging 95,000 individuals in texas. 95,000 were not perched only after the lawsuit was filed. They do not have the power to remove anybody. They may remove individuals only after a number of safeguards including judicial review has been surpassed. Its important to note of the Chilling Effect was already present. Is there any reason for section five not be implemented quite that decision in Shelby County which hold a preclearance is unconstitutional. Of congress is to reinstitute it, i understand shelby. The congress should pass legislation that constitutional in fact Congress Persons have sworn an oath to the constitution of the United States. Time is up. Mr. Gohmert do you have questions . [inaudible] mr. Nadler for questions and then mr. Gohmert. I was intrigued by something said a moment ago but she said if i understood correctly that the history of discrimination is not sufficient come i didnt mean that, its not the only thing you justify preclearance. What else in your opinion should justify preclearance . We found not only through the work in georgia about but conversations with colleagues in other states what is happening is demographic changes occur and increasing numbers of people of color that have the right to vote we are seeing an increase in the hurdles being placed to diminish their opportunity to vote. Thats been seen in wisconsin, ohio, North Carolina. Across the country come increases in Chilling Effects that are for any restoration of section five i believe should set the universal standard that disallows any process that would diminish the ability for people of color to access the right to vote based on the Current Operations and current activity. Thank you very much. Everybody please stay seated when we finish so they can get out and get to the cab was. No pictures or autographs, they have to catch their tabs. Inode you are trying to catch a plane. Anything you need to respond to i had question have questions fu especially with regards to how texas uses section two of the Voting Rights act that anything based on what youve hear what t funded and you have to go . I think its important to underscore texas has a duty under state and federal law to ensure that rules are accurate as does every other state and texas hastate andtexas has a cot in ensuring that ineligible voters do not vote and why is that so . Anytime somebody votes unlawfully that suppresses the growth of a lawful voter and that is why we are seeing not just texas but many others at just this weejustthis week incla auditing to ensure on the eligible voters are registered and that is the purpose of auditing the role to make sure the right to vote is protected because it somebody that is in eligible to vote that suppresses the vote of a lawful citizen. I would like to indicate for the record and i wont have any further questions but with regards to the need for the hearing its important to know the facts on the reauthorization of this. I was fairly new here and congress that seemed clear to me since section four havent been changed for about 40 years, it was still penalizing states for their wrongs decades before by fathers and grandfathers so to speak and i know that sensenbrenner was pushing hard and didnt want changes it wasnt open to my suggestions, but we have looked at a map of areas where there was a definite problem, disparity in the numbers based on racial voting and if there were some problems around the country that were not included in the states that the tickehadto get a section five c. I had an amendment that would require any state that had a significant disparity in the racial voting they had to fall under section five and update that. Section four was given a new standard and general sensenbrenner said absolutely not and as i recall there was a district in wisconsin that had his second disparity problem that might have fallen under section five. Mr. Conyers was much more open to the idea of having an amendment that would require any district, any state in the country with a Racial Disparity problem would have brought them under section five and i said most recently before the second time i talked to him he said ive been talking to some of our experts and they say its if ty risk it might get struck down but why dont we wait and see what happens and i said i just talked to the previous dean of the University Law school and he said he has a substantial chance it will be struck down by the Supreme Court, but the bill was done. They wouldnt allow my amendment to the past and therefore it would continue to punish only those that have engaged in the wrongdoing decades before instead of bringing its current to the district states that were failing to have fairness. Have to answer under section five just as i predicted and others predicted it got struck down and we are still here without modification that could have been done under that reauthorization so in a way, i am hoping that we will work things out. Im proud of the way texas has been using delegation to get this straight, to get the problems straightened out without changes to section four and i appreciate the chance to air these matters and yield back. We have two more people that want to ask questions. If you want to leave you are free to leave. After takeoff. Thank you for your testimony. We have people willing to take you out of here. Thank you mr. Chairman and i think all of the witnesses that had to leave and of those four sharing your views and expertise. As we know, this is an important subcommittee hearing and important set of issues as fundamental a right as any in the constitution and the right to vote lies at the heart of our democracy. Benjamin franklin noted that they left us with a republic but only if we could keep it and of course central to keeping it is public participation. Government of the people, by the people, for the people should mean all the people so i was interested i apologize i stepped out to go to another meeting. If im being redundant ipod is. One of the things i was interested in under section five, jurisdictions for required to provide racial impact data to the attorney general as a part of the preclearance review process including information on the anticipated effect of the racial minority groups and also on demographic maps and language usage. Can you tell me is that kind of data still being referred to . You ar you are correct through the process it was on the jurisdiction to shine a light and what is the impact wasnt going to lessen the ability of people of color are native american, asian american, latino to be able to participate and as it stands what it does and what we need is to go to sicken of the changes and the burden to show the impact placed on the jurisdiction seeking to implement the law. Thats the other piece of it and from your experience the other piece is what you said shed a light on the proposed changes i assumed that ha assumw dropped away because we no longer have the section five preclearance also collect the data after to see the impact cinema as a result we are not doing either. We filed several petitions and among our proof we were able to demonstrate due to the purging of the voters and pattern of purging and those that were forced to cast a ballot because of the malfeasance of the process, there is a racial map of africanamerican communities that were subject to testing provisional ballots that have to be remedied and if you are a working person you might get tuesday off. There is no allocation you get wednesday anunitwednesday and to back and fix something that never should have been broken bn and we also know georgia had a number of closures. We had 214 closeout of 3,000. Largely africanamerican communities and while they may have been permissible because of some nuance of the law what we found that there is a disproportionate effect of communities of color largely africanamerican particularly poor. If you dont own transportation and there is no Public Transportation the closing of a station 2 miles now being 10 miles from your house is not only a Chilling Effect but it absolutely negates your ability to cast a vote. I come from previous experience in the pennsylvania legislature. Early 2012 the voter id law was ultimately struck down as unconstitutional device is a brandnew state representative trying to help people navigate the world of what am i going to do if i need a specified identification we know what that was intended to do and i would close with this notion because i want to hear sometimes i think witnesses have something they could have been asked and they didnt get the chance to say it so may i ask you is there something more you want to say . I want to reiterate the false connection being drawn between voter turnout rates in the communities of color and Voter Suppression. These are not correlated. One can have intentional laws and practices to discriminate and have a committed effort by the communities that care about the issues to push back and provide access. Im part of a legac the legacy e responded to oppression by making certain we overreact and over performed but we cant ignore the fact it still exists. It doesnt cease to exist simply because there are those that are willing to fight back. That should demonstrate how important it is to eliminate the discrimination on its face. The reason why we focus on texas is because we love texas in fact we love the voters of texas and want people to participate so i dont want it to be a show just about texas or georgia. Congress can and must hold hearings and look at the landscape of the Voter Suppression across the country, look at what is happening to the native American Voters in North Carolina where they are required to have an address on their photo id even though many live on reservations and do not have that, look at kansas where one polling place was left open and was out of town with no Public Transportation captain wisconsin, look across the country it cannot be the case we are happy with how they are taking place in the country. Its unacceptable and its because we love the people who want to participate but its incumbent upon us to work to fix the problem. In 2011 in a different time in total for both of us, you voted in favor of a bill to reduce early voting is that correct . Correct. Will enter that into the record. As the chairman of the committee restricting earlier voting actually had a disproportionate impact on minority voters and i know there was a concern for you at the time and you and representative Mark Hamilton showed there was no difference in participation or a benefit to the voters at the time would you agree with that statement flex i would agree that i think its important to clarify. Georgia had an outside number, 45 early voting days. The National Standard copper Gold Standard was 21 days therefore what george did by reducing from 45 to 21 days was to come into conformity with the most appreciated and accepted role for early voting however since that time there were multiple opportunities and attempts made to restrict from 21 to seven days. When you do carefully calculate it cant be used all the time because it leads to bad decisions. In the threeweek period it was part of this and did not do th that. You cant say bringing back early voting does that and another mission that comes to mind im glad you said there are reasons to keep the voter roll accurate. My question though is you come into the process and said something earlier about exact match. 1. 4 million do you believe all of those were purged for wrong reasons yes or no . Of course not. You said its because of government bureaucrats to government workers mistakenly put information and thats the only reason youve given that it doesnt work would be a fair statement . Do you believe a significant and if i put half filled out or i didnt put my date of birth or an address is that a form that can be used to fill out a form that would do an exact match clicks its not the entry on the form but the database to verify the act the issue here is i a citizens right to match what they need for the verification process it was my input if i didnt give them a proper match that at least is to be the understanding its not the data problem thats the problem i have in your answer because it implies a governmental problem that goes back to a bigger issue i have here and that is the implications when you have a candidate come to georgia and make a statement that basically says if georgia wasnt racist. I dont think thats what you want torture to be looked at what i want and i talked to this individual. The problem is making sure we have accurate groups making sure that the role is there and people have a possibility of doing that. One question bugged me from the whole time i watched this and decided afterwards when we are talking about the role being there for every person, every citizen to do believe that they should vote in the state of georgia . Ive never said that they shouldnt be what i said is that the blue wave is a reference to the resistance of the administrations policies that have disenfranchised, dehumanized and harmed the ability for people in the United States to fully exercise their rights to freedom but the change would come which is referred to as the blue wave would be achieved by people that are documented and undocumented butt the country for two and has been proven through the public fact analysis i never called for anyone who isnt eligible to vote to do so and i would refer you worked with democrats and republicans together it has been my practice as an adult since my time in college and with due respect, the reality is we as a nation stand as an emblem of what democracy can mean and that is diminished when there are malfeasance activities that undermine the right to vote and thats the work im doing. I appreciate the panelists coming in your testimony we will have five days to come up with questions. With that, the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the house passed a spending bill to provide important debate over. 5 billion humanitarian assistance to u. S. Southern border. The measure ide