[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT:
THE EVOLVING LANDSCAPE OF VOTING DISCRIMINATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-431 WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., DARRELL ISSA, California
Georgia KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri
PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS,
AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chair
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina, Vice-Chair
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, Ranking
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Member
Georgia TOM McCLINTOCK, California
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas CHIP ROY, Texas
CORI BUSH, Missouri MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BURGESS OWENS, Utah
JAMES PARK, Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, April 22, 2021
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Steve Cohen, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the State
of Tennessee................................................... 2
The Honorable Mike Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the
State of Louisiana............................................. 4
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of New York........................... 6
WITNESSES
The Honorable Julian Castro, Former United States Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Prepared Testimony............................................. 11
Reverend William J. Barber II, Ph.D., President, Repairers of the
Breach
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Testimony............................................. 16
The Honorable Mark Robinson, Lieutenant Governor of North
Carolina
Oral Testimony................................................. 30
Prepared Testimony............................................. 33
Jacqueline De Leon, Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund
Oral Testimony................................................. 35
Prepared Testimony............................................. 37
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
An excerpt from a Senate Judiciary Committee report submitted by
the Honorable Chip Roy, a Member of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the State
of Texas for the record........................................ 64
An article entitled, ``Texas voting bills target Democratic
strongholds, just like Georgia's new laws,'' Houston Chronicle,
submitted by the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
Liberties from the State of Texas for the record............... 96
An article entitled, ``Here Are The Republicans Who Objected To
The Electoral College Count,'' NPR, submitted by the Honorable
Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the State
of Texas for the record........................................ 114
APPENDIX
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of
the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
Liberties from the State of Texas for the record
Testimony from the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, June 24, 2014...... 122
An article entitled, ``Republicans Target Voter Access in Texas
Cities, but Not Rural Areas,'' New York Times................ 167
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member
of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and
Civil Liberties from the State of Texas for the record
Statement from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee................ 172
An article entitled, ``Here's how Texas elections would change,
and become more restrictive, under the bill Texas Republicans
are pushing,'' Texas Tribune................................. 183
OVERSIGHT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT:
THE EVOLVING LANDSCAPE OF VOTING DISCRIMINATION
----------
Thursday, April 22, 2021
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights,
and Civil Liberties
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Cohen
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cohen, Nadler, Raskin, Ross,
Johnson, Garcia, Bush, Jackson Lee, Johnson, Jordan,
McClintock, Roy, and Owens.
Also Present: Representative Bishop.
Staff Present: David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Doty,
Senior Advisor; Moh Sharma, Member Services and Outreach
Advisor; Jordan Dashow, Professional Staff Member; Cierra
Fontenot, Staff Assistant; John Williams Parliamentarian;
Keenan Keller, Senior Counsel; James Park, Chief Counsel; Will
Emmons, Professional Staff Member; Betsy Ferguson, Minority
Senior Counsel; Caroline Nabity, Minority Counsel; and Kiley
Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
Mr. Cohen. The Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties will come
to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time. I welcome everyone to
today's hearing on Oversight of the Voting Rights Act: The
Evolving Landscape of Voter Discrimination.
Before we continue, I would like to remind Members we have
established an email address and distribution list dedicated to
circulating exhibits, motions, or other written materials that
Members might want to offer as part of our hearing today. If
you would like to do so, [email protected] is the
appropriate place to send them. We will then distribute them to
Members and staff as quickly as possible.
I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Johnson for
unanimous consent request.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask
unanimous consent that our House Judiciary colleague, Mr.
Bishop from North Carolina be able to participate in the
hearing this morning.
Mr. Cohen. He shall be permitted to introduce his favorite
son.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cohen. Hearing no objection, we welcome Mr. Bishop to
participate in today's hearing, recognize and introduce
Lieutenant Governor Robinson. He will be able to question our
witnesses if he is yielded time by a Subcommittee Member.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cohen. You are very welcome. Finally, I would like to
ask all Members and Witnesses, both those in person and those
appearing remotely, to mute their microphones when you are not
speaking. This will help prevent feedback, other technical
issues. You may, of course, unmute yourself any time you seek
recognition.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. The
late beloved and great Representative, John R. Lewis, my hero,
my dear friend, my partner in making good trouble, and my
honored colleague, shed his blood and almost died defending the
right to vote, and seeking the right to vote. He often said, as
he did in 2013, that the right to vote is the most powerful,
nonviolent tool we have in a democracy. I risked my life
defending that right. Some died in the struggle. If we are ever
to actualize the true meaning of equality, effective measures,
such as the Voting Rights Act, are still a necessary
requirement of democracy.
The right to vote is the right that guarantees all other
rights in our democracy. Unfortunately, the voting rights of
African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans,
and other Members of racial and language minorities, have been
threatened and undermined throughout our Nation's history. The
Voting Rights Act with an effective preclearance provision went
a long way towards righting that wrong.
Sadly, since the Supreme Court's effective neutering of the
preclearance provision, voting rights for minorities, once
again, is under sustained assault in many parts of our country.
The Act's preclearance provision requiring certain
jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination against
racial and language minority groups predominantly, though, not
exclusively, in the Deep South, the States of the old
confederacy, to obtain approval of any changes to their voting
laws or procedures from the Department of Justice or the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia before such changes
could take effect.
There were good reasons for that. History repeats itself
often, and, unfortunately, in the Deep South, from where I
hailed, that has gone on pre-Civil War, post-Civil War, pre-
turn of the century, post-turn of the century, pre-election of
2020, and post-election of 2020. This mechanism ensures that
the new voting rules and practices in jurisdictions with a
history of discrimination were fair to all voters.
It rightly prevented potentially discriminatory voting
practices from taking effect before they could harm minority
voters and affect the election. In this way, preclearance
proved to be a significant means of protection for the rights
of minority voters, and for what America's about, everybody
getting a chance to vote.
This is why Congress had repeatedly reauthorized the pre-
clearance provision on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. Most
recently, in 2006, when the House passed reauthorization by a
vote of 390-33, and the Senate by 98-0, a time when there were
George Bush compassionate Republicans, a result due, in no
small part, to the substantial efforts also of then-House
Judiciary Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner, and then
Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court effectively gutted the
VRA's preclearance requirement in 2013 in the case of Shelby
County of Alabama v. Holder, when it struck down the geographic
coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions would be
subject to the preclearance requirement.
As a result, the preclearance provision remains dormant
unless and until Congress adopts a new coverage formula. Last
Congress, I chaired seven hearings of this Subcommittee during
which we gathered substantial evidence establishing extensive
and detailed record of continued and ongoing voter suppression
efforts, particularly by those subjurisdictions that were once
subject to the preclearance.
Old habits don't die easy. Old times, they are not
forgotten. So, the effective absence of preclearance since the
Shelby County decision is gone. For example, in the wake of
Shelby County, North Carolina passed a sweeping voter
suppression law that Federal appeals court ultimately held to
be unconstitutional, finding it intentionally, quote,
``targeted African-Americans with almost surgical precision,''
unquote.
Of course, that was after the election. No preclearance so
the damage had been done. We also heard about recent measures
to make it difficult or impossible for minority voters to
exercise their right to vote. These measures included polling
place closures and relocations, the purging of voter rolls that
disproportionately target racial and ethnic minority voters,
discriminatory photo ID laws, and the restrictions on ex-felon
voting, all of which are designed to make it harder for
African-Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities to
vote.
Things only seemed to have gotten worse in this regard
since the 2020 election, when in response to the widespread but
baseless claims of voter fraud, the big lie, there was no
evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. State
legislators, though, have introduced a slew of measures to
curtail access to the ballot with a disproportionate impact on
minority voters.
Stacey Abrams laid that out clearly and abundantly to
Senator Ted Cruz, when he asked about--excuse me, Senator John
Kennedy, when he asked about racial effects of the Georgia law,
and she went on and she went on and she went on, until he said,
enough. I get it.
I don't think he got it. According to the Brennan Center
for Justice at New York University Law School as of a month
ago, there was pending legislation in 47 States to restrict
voting, and four States had already enacted restricted voting
laws. These States include Georgia, States that have been
subject to preclearance, pre-Shelby County where it is now a
crime to give food or water to someone standing in line waiting
to vote, outside the hundred-foot border, but it makes it a
crime to do it within that 100-foot border food, to give food
or water.
Many of these legislative proposals will limit absentee
voting, and impose stricter voter ID requirements, while others
would make voting registration harder, expand voting roll
purges, or adopt flawed practices that would risk improper
purges, reduce the amount of days for early voting, and cut
back on those early voting periods, according to the Brennan
Center report.
In the absence of effective preclearance regime, it is
unsur-
prising that discriminatory measures that have and will
continue to undermine the voting rights of racial and language
minority voters and erode our democracy. The 2020 election was
an election which we should be proud of because of the output
of the voters, the desire to vote was the greatest ever. This
should be hailed as a great victory of democracy, and, yet we
are looking at it as a failure and trying to retreat.
While section 2 of the Voting Rights Act which prohibits
discrimination of voting remains in effect, it is, by itself,
less effective, significantly more cumbersome, and often
prohibitively expensive way to enforce the Act. Most
importantly, plaintiffs cannot invoke section 2 until after an
alleged harm has taken place requiring discrimination victims
to rely solely on such a remedy effectively neuters the Act.
Even this provision is currently at significant risk in two
pending cases before the Supreme Court that could result in
section 2 being substantially curtailed, or even struck down as
unconstitutional. The onus, therefore, is on Congress to create
a new coverage formula to restore the Act's most important
enforcement mechanism, its preclearance requirement, and to
find other ways to strengthen the Act. Nothing less than the
fairness and integrity of our democracy is at stake.
I thank our witnesses, and I look forward to their
testimony. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Mike Johnson,
for his opening statement.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good
morning and thanks to everybody for being here. Today's hearing
is about the Voting Rights Act, and voting, as we all know and
agree, is a fundamental right in this country and, indeed,
blood has been shed to secure and sustain it.
The election clause of the U.S. Constitution, it is article
I, section 4 gives State legislators the authority to prescribe
the times, places, and manner of holding elections. This means
States are responsible for administering elections within their
respected jurisdictions. This is an important part of our
tradition. Enshrined in the 15th Amendment, it says States must
also ensure that voting is accessible and available to every
American citizen of voting age.
To ensure the integrity of our system, States are also
required to administer elections that are free from fraud and
administrative errors. We had a unique election in 2020, and
everybody knows it. The COVID-19 pandemic presented new
challenges for that election cycle, and as a result of that,
occasioned by the pandemic, there were some pretty dramatic
alterations to how States administered their elections.
For example, despite known vulnerabilities, many States
implemented widespread, all mail-in voting. As a result of the
2020 election, many States have enacted or proposed changes to
change their State election laws now. These changes seek to
enhance election integrity and increase the public's confidence
in the election process.
By any objective measure, all of us can agree, we know by
common experience, we know by talking to our friends and
neighbors and constituents, that there is a lot of concern
about the integrity of our election system. There was a lot of
controversy in 2020, and that has had some dire consequences.
So, the States are trying to address it in a meaningful and
reasonable way. The big example that everyone is seeing, one of
the first out of the gates, is the State of Georgia. They
recently enacted Senate bill 202, which expands early weekend
voting and codifies the use of drop boxes.
In Texas, another example, State lawmakers proposed
legislation that would, quote, ``make it easier to vote and
hard to cheat,'' unquote. I mean, who could oppose that?
In Iowa, recently enacted legislation will provide State
election officials with the revised parameters for Election Day
voting periods, absentee voting, and database maintenance. All
these State measures seek to promote and preserve the sanctity
of the ballot box and our election system.
The majority in this Congress, at least many of them, seem
to be on a quest to mischaracterize the purpose and effect of
these new State laws. Some would rather spread misinformation
to instill fear, and, sadly, division among America's voters.
They would rather pressure corporate America to react and
boycott certain States because of baseless allegations of what
they call voter suppression. It is a misleading narrative, and
that misleading narrative about these changes is also having
dire consequences. It is confusing people, and it is causing
more division. These changes to the election laws, they say,
will cause massive voter suppression or constitute Jim Crow
2.0. Those are wildly inappropriate and unfounded accusations.
We want to be clear: Republicans, all our colleagues, all
Republicans across the country want every legally cast ballot
to count. We know that that is essential to our system. We want
to close the door to fraud, and illegally cast ballots at the
same time, so that all voters of all parties can trust the
outcome and know that every election is free and fair.
My friends, this is the only way we can preserve our
republic. On July 4, we are about to have our Nation's
birthday. It is only going to be the 245th anniversary, or
245th year as a Nation. We are still an experiment on the world
stage. The Founders were clear about this. They were setting up
a new form of government, a constitutional republic like ours
with our democratic principles.
We don't know how long this form of government can last,
but what they were certain about, and what we know today, is
that to preserve it, you have to maintain its foundations, and
one of those critical foundations to have a government of, by,
and for the people as Lincoln said, is that you must have faith
in the election system.
So, I hope today we can have a productive conversation
about the Voting Rights Act, and how we can best assist States
in enhancing voter protections and increase the integrity of
our elections. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I yield back.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I now recognize the
Chair of the Full Committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Nadler, largely responsible for passage of the last Voting
Rights Act. Mr. Nadler, you are recognized.
Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, the Voting Rights Act is rightly regarded by
many as our Nation's most important civil rights law. Many
Americans, including our late beloved colleague John Lewis shed
their blood in support of its passage. The institutions of
government, including this one in which we have the honor of
serving, better reflect our Nation's diversity because of its
vigorous enforcement.
During today's hearing, we will hear about how this
progress remains under threat in the continued aftermath of the
Supreme Court's disastrous 2013 Shelby County v. Holder
decision, and why we need to restore the Voting Rights Act to
its full vitality. Without question, the VRA has been an
unqualified success. It helped to reduce discriminatory
barriers to voting and expanded electoral opportunities for
people of color to Federal, State, and local offices, thereby
opening the political process to every American.
Despite evidence of the VRA's success, however, the Supreme
Court in 2013, Shelby County, substituted its own judgment for
that of Congress in rejecting Congress' conclusion that the
record supported the VRA's reauthorization. This decision
effectively gutted the Act's most important enforcement
mechanism, its section 5 preclearance provision. Specifically,
it struck down the formula for determining which States and
localities are subject to preclearance, which had the effect of
striking down the preclearance provision itself, as there is no
longer a basis for subjecting decisions to its requirements.
Although, it left it up to Congress to pass a valid
preclearance section.
Before the VRA, States and localities passed a host of
voter suppression laws, secured in the knowledge that it could
take many years before the Justice Department could
successfully challenge them in court, if at all. As soon as one
law is overturned another would be enacted, essentially setting
up a discriminatory game of Whack-A-Mole. Section 5 of the VRA
broke this legal log jam by requiring States and localities
with a history of discrimination against racial and ethnic
minority voters to submit changes to their voting laws to the
Justice Department or to a court for approval prior to taking
effect.
In the absence of preclearance, predictably the game of
Whack-A-Mole has returned. Within 24 hours of the Shelby County
decision, both Texas attorney general and North Carolina's
general assembly announced they would reinstitute Draconian
voter ID laws. Both States' laws were later held in Federal
court to be intentionally racially discriminatory, but during
the years between their enactment and the Court's final
decision, many elections were conducted while the laws remained
in place.
Since the Shelby County decision, we have seen a dramatic
rise in the number of voter suppression measures. Burdensome
proof of citizenship laws, significant scale-backs to early
voting periods, restrictions on absentee ballots, and laws that
make it harder to restore the voting rights of formerly
incarcerated individuals, are just a small sample of recent
voting changes that have a disproportionate impact on minority
voters.
Indeed, there is now renewed effort underway in the States
to enact just these types of voter suppression measures. This
time justified under the pretense of addressing the baseless
allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election that have been
promoted by former President Trump and his allies, the big lie.
To be clear, there is simply no evidence that significant voter
fraud or voting irregularities, in any way, affected the
outcome of the 2020 elections, and every single court that has
ruled on that, there were 62 cases, has found the same thing,
unanimously.
Yet, after having promoted these false allegations to the
public, many legislators announced citing a decline in trust in
elections to justify Draconian voter restrictions. The Ranking
Member said that many people doubted the accuracy of our
elections. Sure, because they have been told systemically by
Mr. Trump and his allies that nonexistent voting fraud
occurred.
According to a recent Brennan Center for Justice report
just this year as of March 24, State legislators in 47 States
have introduced 361 bills with restrictive provisions. There
are at least 55 restrictive voting laws currently moving
through the legislative process in 24 States. Four States have
already enacted new restrictive voting laws. One particularly
egregious example is SB202, a Georgia law that imposes numerous
new burdens on voting, including onerous identification
requirements for absentee voting, restrictions for early
voting, and most notoriously, criminal penalties for offering
food or water to voters waiting in long lines to vote.
Notably, Georgia was previously subject to the VRA's pre-
clearance regime. While such actions may violate other
provisions of the VRA, time and experience have proven that it
takes far longer, and is far more expensive to pursue after-
the-fact legal remedies. Once a vote has been denied while the
court proceedings proceed for several years, it cannot be
recast. The damage to our democracy is permanent. Yet, even
section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits voting discrimination
nationwide, after the fact, now may be under threat at the
Supreme Court. In a consolidated case currently before the
Court, the justices are being asked to uphold two Arizona
election laws that were challenged under section 2 as
discriminatory to Native American, Latino, and African-American
voters.
It is quite possible that the Court, in deciding these
cases, could hamstring future plaintiffs' ability to even bring
or prove a section 2 claim by imposing a new legal standard
that may place additional hurdles that many plaintiffs are
unable to meet. The Court could even go so far as to strike
section 2 down as unconstitutional.
Congress cannot continue to let these challenges to the VRA
go unanswered. This landmark law is a bulwark of American
democracy. It is, at its heart, a necessary remedy to cure the
scourge of voting discrimination by preventing our Nation from
backsliding into a time when denying racial and ethnic
minorities the right to vote was a matter of government policy.
Though progress has been made, too many Americans are still
denied the right to vote because of their race, ethnicity, or
language or minority status and, the threat of a backslide is
ever present.
Reauthorization of the VRA historically has been a strongly
bipartisan effort. That is why it is my hope that Members on
both sides of the aisle, and in both Chambers of Congress will
come to together and pass legislation to restore the law to its
full strength.
I thank the Chair for holding this important hearing, which
will provide another opportunity to renew our understanding of
the importance of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the
challenges it continues to face. I look forward to hearing from
the excellent witnesses participating in today's panel.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We welcome our witnesses today. We thank them for
participating in today's hearing. I will recognize each of them
before their statements, and then recognize them for their oral
testimony thereafter. Each of your written statements will be
entered in the record in its entirety, and we ask you to
summarize your statements in 5 minutes.
I understand there are some types of lighting system that
you can see here for those witnesses in the Chamber, in the
Committee room, and if it is green, that means you are on; if
it is yellow, that means you got a minute to go; and if it is
red, that means you should be finished.
On television there is a spot--not television. On
smartphone or your iPhone or iPad or whatever, there is a Webex
view that should show you how much time you have left on the
screen.
Before proceeding with the testimony, I would like to
remind all the Witnesses appearing here that you are under
penalty of the law if your testimony is not truthful, and your
answers to the Subcommittee aren't truthful. Any false
statement would subject you to prosecution under section 1001
of title 18 of the U.S. Code.
Our first witness is Julian Castro. The only thing better
than one Castro is two Castros, and you are shadowed by your
other Castro and we welcome you to the Committee room, Mr.
Congressman Castro.
Mr. Castro served as Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development from 2014 to 2017 during the Obama Administration.
Prior to that, he was the mayor of San Antonio, Texas, from
2009 to 2014, also a candidate for the Democratic nomination
for President in 2020.
Today, he serves on the board of the LBJ Foundation, is an
advocate for the protection of voting rights for Latinos and
other Americans, and he is also known as the twin brother of
our colleague, the honorable, distinguished, erudite leader,
Representative Joaquin Castro.
Secretary Castro received his J.D. from Harvard Law School
and his B.A. from Stanford University, and I suspect his
brother did, too. I think it was kind of a tag team.
Secretary Castro, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JULIAN CASTRO
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to Chair Cohen, to Chair
Nadler, to Vice Chair Ross, Ranking Member Johnson, and all the
Members of the committee. I am honored to address this
Committee on the fundamental and timely issue of safeguarding
the franchise.
Mr. Cohen. The rules say you must have your mask on.
Mr. Castro. Will do.
My testimony this morning, as you noted, Mr. Chair, is a
family affair in more ways than one. My brother, Joaquin, is
your colleague and serves as a Representative of the 20th
Congressional District. Joaquin and I grew up on the west side
of the San Antonio, Texas, a working class, predominantly
Mexican American neighborhood. We were raised by our mother,
Rosie Castro, who was an outspoken activist in the Mexican
American civil rights movement in the 1970s. She became an
activist because she felt her community was being overlooked,
and that the rights of Latinos like her were not being
protected and advanced.
It is fitting that I join you today to discuss the Voting
Rights Act, because just under 50 years ago, my mother was
compiling data and research on behalf of the Mexican-American
legal defense and education fund for a presentation on the
exact same topic that would be used in preparation for
testimony to this very committee.
She and many other advocates believed that there had not
been enough progress on voting rights for Latinos, and that the
1965 Voting Rights Act had left gaps that States and local
communities were exploiting to disenfranchise and suppress
voters. Unfortunately, five decades later, I am here for very
much the same reason.
In my home State of Texas today, there is an all-out
assault on the right to vote. For generations, Texas has been a
testing ground for devious ways to restrict access to the
polls. Since the Shelby decision in 2013, the State has cut
more polling locations than any State in the Nation. Texas
enacted a strict voter ID law that permits firearm licenses to
be used to vote, but prohibits the use of student IDs, and
lawmakers have used things like voter registration deadlines,
restricted voting hours, and limitations on early voting to
chip away at the franchise of millions of people.
In fact, on the very day the 1965 Voting Rights Act was
signed into law, President Lyndon B. Johnson sued his home
State of Texas to block the poll tax, a policy Texas would be
the last to eliminate. Only through a ballot referendum passed
by the voters in 1966, the 24th Amendment, which prohibited the
poll tax, was ratified by the States in 1964, but Texas did not
actually ratify the amendment until 2009.
Today, the legislature in my home State continues to debate
a new round of voting bills that are defended by lawmakers with
the same justification used to defend the poll tax. Under the
guise of voter integrity, lawmakers have introduced legislation
that would slash voting hours and the number of voting machines
at polling locations, make it much more difficult to vote by
mail, and even allow partisan poll waters to film voters as
they cast a ballot. This is nothing new for Texas.
Just hours after the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby decision
effectively eliminated the preclearance requirement of the
Voting Rights Act for States like Texas, State leaders advanced
a photo ID law that had been rejected by the Justice Department
just 1 year earlier. The new law, which is still in place
today, swiftly disenfranchised 600,000 registered voters that
didn't have the requisite ID, a disproportionate number being
Black or Latino.
The elimination of preclearance has allowed Texas to become
the most difficult State to vote in the Nation, as well as one
of the most gerrymandered. More than ever, we need stronger
Federal protections that restore and realize the voting rights
of our citizens. We need an updated Voting Rights Act to make
good on the promise of the 15th amendment that no citizen be
denied the right to vote based on race.
Voting rights shouldn't be a partisan issue. As recently as
2006, the Senate voted unanimously, and the House nearly
unanimously, to renew every section of the Voting Rights Act,
including the preclearance provision. Congress knew in each of
the four times they reauthorized the VRA, that we must protect
the rights of voters and reaffirm the American principle of
antidiscrimination. They knew then this timeless truth: The
right to vote shouldn't depend on the color of one's skin, how
much money one has, or what State one lives in.
It is a right guaranteed to every eligible American
citizen. It is the cornerstone of our democracy, and it is what
the late Representative John Lewis--for whom the new Voting
Rights Act is named--described in his final letter as, quote:
``The most powerful, nonviolent change agent you have in a
democratic society.'' I urge you to pass the John Lewis Voting
Rights Act.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Castro follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much, Secretary Castro. Good to
have you back, and I want you to know that the choice
neighborhood grant that we got when you were there is doing
great. Thank you.
Our next witness is the Reverend William J. Barber, the
second. In a moment, I will recognize Representative Ross who
understandably as the vice chair of this Subcommittee and a
North Carolinian, and a friend who wants to introduce Reverend
Barber.
Before so, I would like to say a few words. Reverend Barber
is an amazing man, who, as a young man, has already consumed
the mantle as, in my opinion, the premier spokesperson in the
United States of America on civil rights issues.
On Saturday, he was in Memphis, Tennessee, stopping off on
his way to Jackson, Mississippi, to start a new Poor People's
Campaign. In Memphis, he spoke about racial environmental
injustice with the Byhalia pipeline going through a minority
neighborhood and potentially threatening our precious aquifer
where we get our drinking water. The previous rally before
Reverend Barber came, Vice-President Gore spoke. He told us it
was racist, it was reckless, and it was a rip-off.
Reverend Barber told us not here, not now, not ever on our
watch. We thank you for coming to Memphis. Believe Memphis.
I now recognize Congresswoman Ross.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I am delighted to have
Reverend Dr. William Barber with us today. I am privileged to
have known, worked with, and worshipped with Reverend Barber
for years, and it is really, truly an honor to introduce him.
Reverend Barber serves as the President of the Repairers of
the Breach. He is Co-Chair of the Poor People's Campaign,
bishop with a fellowship of affirming ministries, visiting
professor at Union Theological Seminary, pastor at Greenleaf
Christian Church, where I have worshipped, and the author of
four books.
Reverend Barber previously served as President of the North
Carolina NAACP, and he currently sits on the national NAACP
Board of Directors. Reverend Barber has made it his life
mission to lift people up. He has been a championing for voting
rights and peoples' rights, both in North Carolina and on the
national stage. He led the charge in securing same-day voter
registration in North Carolina in 2007. While I was the one who
introduced the bill in the general assembly, I know that it
would not have passed without Reverend Barber's advocacy and
leadership.
Reverend Barber is the architect of the moral movement,
which began as a weekly Moral Monday protest at the North
Carolina General Assembly in 2013, and I served in the general
assembly at that time. During these gatherings, which I
witnessed on Monday nights, protesters found themselves locked
out of the general assembly, and arrested for exercising their
First amendment right to petition the government for redress of
grievance, even though, there was never a threat to those
inside. I never felt threatened.
Recently, Reverend Barber helped relaunch the moral
movement as part of the nationwide Poor People's Campaign,
which was famously begun by Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr., and triggered the historic civil rights protest across the
Nation. Reverend Barber is a MacArthur Foundation Genius Award
recipient, with a national following and countless speaking
credits to his name. He continues to lead services at his
modest church in Goldsboro, North Carolina. He is the
embodiment of a life lived in service to others, and I am
honored to welcome him to this committee.
I yield back, Chair Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Congresswoman Ross, for that personal
introduction. Without further ado, Reverend Barber, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
I think you are muted. You are muted.
STATEMENT OF REVEREND WILLIAM J. BARBER II, Ph.D.
Rev. Barber. Thank you, Chair Cohen, for your great work,
and thank you to my dear friend, the Representative
Congresswoman Ross.
The threat of free exercise of the ballot by the Negro and
White masses is what created a segregated society. This is what
happened when the Negro and White masses of the south
threatened to unite and build a great society, a society where
greed and poverty would be done away with. The ballot to
suppress the vote and the ballot to suppress labor rights has
been the tactic used by the southern White aristocracy to hold
on to their money and their power, Martin Luther King, 1968.
In the wake of this moment, an organized coup attempt
emboldened by hate, lies, and racism on January the 6, 2021, at
the U.S. Capitol, the people of America and this Congress set
up the crossroads of a historic moment, calling for us to fight
for the sole of our democracy, and enact full protections of
our sacred right to vote by expanding voting rights and fully
restoring the Voting Rights Act, section 5 preclearance.
As we come together this morning less than a hundred days
since the inauguration of a new American Government, at least
361 deals have been introduced in 47 legislatures to suppress
the right to vote. In my State of North Carolina, we have
labored for over 8 years defending against an all-out attack on
voting rights.
In North Carolina, the majority that gained power in North
Carolina General Assembly in 2010, they quickly redrew both
State legislative districts and U.S. congressional districts in
their favor, illegally, using race as a primary indicator of
voters who opposed their agenda. After years of heroic
fighting, both in the streets and in the courts by the forward
together moral movement, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court would
issue a remarkable per curiam decision, striking down as a
sweeping unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, the maps that
created an unaccountable legislative super majority in the
State House. It was described by one judge as an
unconstitutionally constituted legislature.
This unconstituted legislature that was set in place in
2011, and then in 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting
Rights Act in Shelby v. Holder, by eliminating section 5. In
just a matter of hours after the ruling was handed down, the
unconstitutionally constituted extremist super majority of a
North Carolina General Assembly announced that because Shelby
had rid them of the headache of the Voting Rights Act
preclearance protections, they could now move forward with what
would become to know as the monster voter suppression law.
A sweeping omnibus voter suppression bill that erected a
slate of stringent, racially discriminatory barriers to the
ballot. The law eliminated same-day registration,
preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, out of precinct
ballots, the first week of early voting, and instituted one of
the Nation's most stringent voter ID laws.
This monstrous voter suppression law, the worst of its kind
in the Nation after Shelby, was only possible because
preclearance protection was no longer in place. After years of
organizing and legal battles and even civil disobedience and
arrest, the monster voter suppression law was eventually struck
down as intentionally racially discriminatory.
In July 2016, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit hailed that the law targeted
African-Americans with almost surgical precision and imposed
cures for problems that did not exist.
As we sit here today, North Carolina's legislature is still
trying to implement voter suppression laws, and Republican
persons from our State have refused to push for restoration of
the Voting Rights Act. Today marks for 2,858 days or 7 years, 9
months, and 28 days.
We cannot continue this assault on the right to vote. We
are living in a time when voters of color hold increased
potential for political power, more than 30 percent of
America's eligible voters. We are also living in a time in
which America is home to 140 million poor and low-income
people, over 43.5 percent of the population in the richest
country in the world.
This includes 39 million children, 74.2 million women, 60.4
percent, or 26 million Black people, and over 66 million White
people. Increasing the harm on these 140 million individuals
and people of color in this Nation comes whenever the right to
vote is restricted or undermined. As Dr. King said, it is used
as a tool whenever there is a threat for Black and White, and
we might say today brown, Asian, and indigenous, to come
together and vote in a way that transforms our political power
and economic power in this country.
We must pass and fully restore and expand the Voting Rights
Act, section 5 preclearance, and we must do it now.
[The statement of Reverend Barber follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Amen. Thank you, Reverend Barber.
Our next witness is Mark Robinson. Mr. Robinson is the
Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson of the State of North
Carolina, and I recognize our guest member, Mr. Dan Bishop,
Representative Dan Bishop, to introduce Lieutenant Governor
Robinson.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mark Keith Robinson burst on to the public scene April 3,
2018, in a public comment delivered to the city council of
Greensboro, North Carolina, on the subject of the reflex of
government to diminish Second amendment rights of law-abiding
citizens in response to shootings that occur.
The viral video of that event was well-received, and his
message was powerful on the subject matter he spoke to, but the
real thunderclap was a point in the message when Mr. Robinson
told the city council, it is about time you start listening to
the majority. Let me tell you who that is. I am the majority is
what Mark Robinson said in words that galvanized the public.
Over months that followed, he emerged as a national figure,
and demonstrated himself to be a thoughtful and learned student
of history, and he brought a fresh perspective, and he revealed
himself as a natural communicator. In the ensuing 2 years, the
enthusiastic response to Mr. Robinson led him to run for and he
was elected as the first Black Lieutenant Governor in North
Carolina's history fittingly as a Republican.
No person in public life today better articulates the
essence of our core freedoms and opportunities or more
effectively debunks the absurd wokism that afflicts our
political discourse than Mark Robinson. Lieutenant Governor
Robinson epitomizes the promise of American liberty and
opportunity, and I can think of no one better to cut through
the hyper partisan exaggerations we have heard in recent
discourse over voter integrity, and to provide an honest
assessment of the best ways to ensure that all Americans can
realize the American dream, regardless of their background,
then Lieutenant Government Robinson.
Lieutenant Governor, thank you for being here today and I
look forward to hearing your testimony.
Mr. Cohen. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK ROBINSON
Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Chair Cohen, and Ranking Member
Johnson and all the Members of the Committee for allowing me to
speak today. I am honored to sit before this Committee and
testify before this body on such an important topic, a topic
that hits close to home for me. You see, I am the first Black
Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina, and I hail from
Greensboro, home of the Woolworth's sit-ins, an epicenter for
civil rights movement. I grew up poor as the ninth of 10
children in a home marred by alcoholism, but I had a mother who
was a strong woman of faith and she sustained us. She was also
a woman who lived through the terribleness of Jim Crow and
witnessed, first-hand the sacrifices made by those who ensured
that Black voices would be heard in government. I know right
now, she is up in heaven smiling as she sees her son here
sitting in this Committee hearing. Today I am not here to talk
about myself. I am here to talk about voter discrimination and
election integrity.
The subject of this hearing is the Evolving Landscape of
Voter Discrimination, and it certainly has throughout our
Nation's history. Let me say that I am very proud of the
history in this Nation of my people. My people were put in the
belly of ships, bound in chains, and endured the middle
passage. My people were whipped, beaten, and sold as property
during slavery. During Reconstruction and throughout Jim Crow,
Black people were intimidated, harassed, and even killed to
keep them from having a voice in government. Symbols like
chains, nooses, and burnt crosses are not just symbols of
death; they are symbols of forced and coerced silence.
The sacrifices of our ancestors, so I could have the
opportunity to become the first Black Lieutenant Governor of my
State, to see a Black man sit in the White House for two terms,
and for millions of us to be leaders in business, athletics,
government, and culture, add up to an incredible story of
victory.
Today, we hear Georgia law being compared to Jim Crow, that
Black voices are being silenced, and that Black voices are
being kept out. How? By bullets? By bombs? By nooses? No, by
requiring a free ID to secure the vote. Let me say that, again.
By requiring a free ID to secure the vote. How absolutely
preposterous.
Am I to believe that Black Americans who have overcome the
atrocities of slavery, who were victorious in the civil rights
movement, and now sit in the highest levels of this government
cannot figure out how to get a free ID to secure their votes;
that they need to be coddled by politicians because they don't
think we can figure out how to make our voices heard? Are you
kidding me?
The notion that Black people must be protected from a free
ID to secure their votes is not just insane, it is insulting.
Just a few days ago--excuse me--and let me tell you something
about this. This doesn't have anything to do with justice. This
has everything to do with power. Just a few days ago, the Vice-
President Went to the very place that I mentioned, the
Woolworth's counter in Greensboro. You know who wasn't there?
You know who wasn't invited? My good friend, Clarence
Henderson, who is a civil rights icon. He sat at that counter
and endured the suffering and pain to make sure that Black
voices were heard. Why was he left out? Because he is of a
different political persuasion.
You might ask why this is so? I will tell you plainly, the
goal of some individuals in government is not to hear the
voices of Black Americans at all; it is to hear the voices that
fit their narratives and ultimately help keep power with one
group, and that is what this assault is all about. It is about
power.
Just look at H.R. 1. It is despicable. The entire thing is
designed to keep one party in power and assure they stay there
indefinitely. How do they plan to do that? By taking voter
rights of States given by the Constitution to govern their own
elections, to mandate a partisan wish list that comes down from
that Federal Government.
Some of these items include using government dollars to
fund campaigns to give an advantage to one party, mandating
that felons are allowed to vote, including illegal immigrants
on voter rolls, and, of course, trying to ban States from
having voter ID. The last thing I will say is this: Many people
know that I am a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, and
I always will be. I believe that the right to keep and bear
arms should always be available to law-abiding citizens, but
the first line of defense in maintaining the integrity of the
Second amendment is having an ID to show and requiring that ID
when you purchase that firearm, in the same way I believe that
voter ID is our first line of defense for protecting the
integrity of the right to vote, and that is what this should be
about. It should be about integrity, not power.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Our final witness is Jacqueline De
Leon. Ms. De Leon is the staff attorney with the Native
American Rights Fund, and a member of the Isleta Pueblo. As
staff attorney at NARF, she helped lead field hearings across
Indian Country on Native American voting rights, co-authored
NARF's report, ``Obstacles at Every Turn: Barriers to Political
Participation Faced by Native American Voters,'' and practices
ongoing voter rights litigation. She has testified before
Congress on multiple occasions detailing voting rights issues
in Indian Country. Ms. De Leon received her J.D. from Stanford
Law School and her B.A. from Princeton University. She checked
clerked for Judge William H. Walls of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and Chief Justice
Dana Fabe of the Alaska Supreme Court.
Ms. De Leon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE DE LEON
Ms. De Leon. Good morning, Chair Cohen and Ranking Member
Johnson, and Members of the subcommittee. My name is Jacqueline
De Leon, and I am a member of the Isleta Pueblo, and I am a
staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund known as
NARF, the Nation's largest and oldest nonprofit law firm
dedicated to advancing the rights of Native Americans.
Thank you for having me testify on the pressing need for
Federal action to fully restore the Voting Rights Act. In 2018,
the Native American Voting Rights Coalition completed a series
of nine field hearings across Indian Country, which I co-led.
We heard from approximately 125 witnesses generating thousands
of pages of transcripts about voting in Federal and State
elections. Our findings are extensively documented in a report
I released in June of 2020 and am humbled to be carrying their
stories with me here today. We are updating that report and
will provide the Subcommittee with a copy as soon as it is
completed.
NARF has also successfully brought a number of seminal
Native American voting rights cases in the last 4 years,
including challenges to North Dakota's voter ID law, a
challenge to Montana's ballot collection ban, a challenge to
Alaska's witness signature requirement during a pandemic, and a
2020 lawsuit challenging the refusal to open an in-person
polling location on the Blackfeet reservation.
In that case, county officials were given the option of all
mail-in voting because of the pandemic. Pondera County chose to
keep in-person voting at their county seat, which ensured
access for the over 90 percent White residents, but denied in-
person voting to Blackfeet Tribal Members who do not get mail
delivered to their home, and who would have had to travel 120
miles to vote.
Only after we sued did the county agree to on-reservation
voting access. Relying upon the 14th and 15th Amendments and
the VRA, Native American voters have filed nearly 100 lawsuits
with a success rate of over 90 percent. These cases have been
litigated in front of judges appointed by Republican and
Democratic presidents, and yet, the overwhelming staff pattern
compel relief. In short, the facts are so bad, we nearly always
win.
Today, many Native American reservations are rural, distant
from the nearest off-reservation border town, because of
official policies to forcibly remove, segregate them on remote
and undesirable land. Travel to voting services, DMVs, and post
offices, can be hundreds of miles away. Due to ongoing
discrimination and governmental neglect, many Native Americans
live in overcrowded homes, but do not have addresses, do not
receive mail, and are located on dirt roads that can be
impassable in winter in November.
There are Native Americans today that cannot access basic
government services. The need for Federal action is urgent and
compelling. This year, legislators in States across the country
are capitalizing upon these vulnerabilities and making it
unreasonably difficult for Native Americans to vote.
NARF is monitoring over 100 discriminatory bills introduced
in 14 States with sizeable Native American populations.
Arizona, in particular, has taken advantage of the suspension
of section 5, introducing at least 27 proposed bills that make
it too hard for Natives to vote. A fully functioning Voting
Rights Act would force objective review of these laws. Instead,
NARF is preparing for costly and time-consuming litigation.
Finally, in case there is any doubt that Native Americans
face overt discrimination on the basis of race, NARF has
collected extensive evidence of racism faced by Native American
voters. For example, this past election, the weekend before
election day, a man who won the local costume contest in a town
bordering the Fort Peck Reservation. He was dressed in a Ku
Klux Klan attire.
As a Tribal member like me, this is why satellite voting
sites are so important for our Tribal Members. Not everyone is
comfortable going into places in Glasgow, and not everyone in
Glasgow is going to make our Tribal Members feel welcome. These
racist attitudes are not just the work of private individuals.
Voting officials also discriminate against Native Americans.
Less than 10 years ago in South Dakota, Native Americans were
forced to vote out of a chicken coop. In 2018, a San Juan
County clerk in Utah committed fraud to kick a Native American
candidate off the ballot who was only reinstated after a
Federal Court ordered it.
Overt discrimination remains a present-day problem in need
of present-day solutions. It is no surprise that experiences
like these have provoked a widespread distrust of Federal,
State, and local governments among Native Americans. Today, I
place my trust in the Federal Government, and in this Committee
to provide the protection Native Americans need and deserve, so
they may vote safely and free from racist discrimination.
Despite widespread voter suppression in Indian Country, we do
not have the resources to bring every case. I urge this
Committee to do the necessary work of investigating and
recording these injustices, and to craft a coverage formula
that restores the Voting Rights Act.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Ms. De Leon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you so much. We will now go into our
question phase, and I will first recognize myself for 5 minutes
of questioning.
We have heard a lot to date from the other side and the
other side's witnesses about the State legislators making the
laws, and that is our system. That is the system that gave us
counting beans in a jar. That is the system that gave us a
system where African Americans were denied the right to vote
for many years, and every opportunity in every way possible. We
can't just fold up our hands and give it to the State
legislators because, if we did that, we know we would be back
in Jim Crow times.
Reverend Barber, the entire State of North Carolina was
technically not subject to the Voting Rights Act preclearance
provision. Some of it was, of course. Most of it, I think, but
dozens of individual counties were covered at the time cited
before Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. How have discriminatory
voting practices evolved over time in the State of North
Carolina since the Shelby County decision?
Rev. Barber. Well, thank you, Chair Cohen.
Can you hear me?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir.
Rev. Barber. Thank you so much. Jim Crow like James Crow,
Esquire, that dresses up in a suit today, always claim it to be
benign and nonracial, but when examined under the microscope of
the Constitution, they are always found to be racist. What we
know is, more than 60 times prior to the Shelby decision, that
we in North Carolina have to fight racialize voter
discrimination.
Now, I will admit, we had to fight Democrats and
Republicans, let's be honest about that, since 1965. Since the
case, since Shelby, we have had the worst voter suppression
laws since the days of all-out Jim Crow attempted to be passed
and passed and implemented, and placed on the people of North
Carolina only to later, after extended legal battles, to be
found as the Court said surgical racism, and what is absurd is
for someone to say that a Supreme Court, the majority which
were appointed by Republicans, and the Fourth Circuit, which
was a three panel, two Whites, one African-American, absurd
when they found, under the law, that this was surgical,
surgical racism, and that is the ugliness of it.
If preclearance would have been in place, they would not
have made it. Those laws would not have made it on the books
and undermined the voting rights of African-Americans, Black
people, Brown people, indigenous people, poor people, in North
Carolina.
Lastly, if Republicans are so sure that they are not
engaging in racism, they would have no problem with
preclearance because all preclearance does is checks it out
before it is implemented into law.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Reverend Barber. It was said here by,
I believe, your Lieutenant Governor, that there is nothing
wrong with an ID; that it is not racist at all. It is simple to
get. Personally, I dread the idea of getting a real ID, which
we will eventually have to get because in Memphis, it is a long
way to drive to get to a place to get a real ID, and a long
line, and I don't want to deal with it.
Are there not a lot of people possibly in rural North
Carolina, and even inner-city North Carolina, who might not
have access to cars to make it easy, people born a long time
ago and getting an ID is difficult?
Rev. Barber. Well, it is worse than that. First, this is
not just about an ID. It is about strict photo ID that will
say, for instance, a gun ID is valid, but an ID from a college
or university is not. Even when you claim its free, we have a
restriction. You cannot make someone have to spend money, even
gas money, new form of a poll tax to try to make someone go get
something that is not needed and that is being implemented for
a problem that is not a problem. The problem of fraud, the
claim of fraud is fraudulent in and of itself.
Lastly, Chair Cohen, what we should also recognize is that
Republicans and Democrats in North Carolina long ago settled on
something called ``signature attestation'' with a 5-year
felony. That is what we did in North Carolina. You have to sign
and affirm. When you first--after you get registered, it is
proven that you are who you are. Then when you come, you have
to sign a signature attestation with the penalty of a 5-year
felony, and there was no instances of fraud.
This whole issue of fraud happened after North Carolina
voted for President Obama in 2008, and then there was all these
claims that something went wrong. Nothing went wrong. People
just had the right to expanded vote through same-day
registration and early voting, and they chose to vote. I ask
the question always, Representative Cohen, that the judge asked
when we went to court. He looked at the Republican lawyer and
asked this question: Why is it that you do not want people to
vote? Just answer that for me. Why is it that you do not want
people to vote? That is the fundamental question. That is why
we need the Voting Rights Act preclearance restored.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Reverend Barber. My time is up, but I
will answer your question. A Republican lawyer before the
Supreme Court recently in a case on voting rights said, ``We
can't win if everybody votes.''
Mr. Johnson, you are recognized.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say, Lieutenant Governor Robinson, I think
your testimony this morning was so compelling, and I wish every
American could see it. We will clip that video, and I promise
you we will get it out there, because you are sharing the
truth.
We have just heard in the last 5 minutes, Reverend Barber
has lamented today what he sees as the situation in North
Carolina. Of course, we all agree it is a shame that Democrat-
controlled State governments established Jim Crow laws to
prevent Black Americans from voting and exercising other
freedoms.
North Carolina is your State too, Lieutenant Governor
Robinson. You are the first Black Lieutenant Governor in the
history of the State. You are wildly popular there, and we can
all see why this morning.
I just want to ask you for your perspective. Let me ask
you, is there rampant voter discrimination occurring around
this country and/or specifically in North Carolina.
Mr. Robinson. Absolutely, no, there is not.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is your microphone on? Make sure
that button--there you go.
Mr. Robinson. There absolutely is not. I am confident in
that.
This entire thing goes, again, back to this whole issue--
and it always goes back to the issue--whenever we talk about
this issue, it always goes back to the ID issue. Having that ID
to vote puts up that first firewall to create the integrity
that we need for our elections.
I just can't express--let me just tell you a story. I have
a father-in-law who was in prison for 43 years, a Black man,
imprisoned for 43 years. The very first thing he did when he
got out of prison was get a driver's license.
Where is this ``no access'' to IDs that exists? Why do we
look at poor people and Brown people and think that they are
less than and that they can't figure out how our systems work,
they can't figure out where the DMV is, they can't figure out
where this agency is to go down and get this ID that is being
offered?
I can't express to you how insulting this is, for someone
to look at me and actually say that the reason why we don't
need IDs to vote is because you and your people can't find your
way down to get one, that there are restrictions somehow. The
notion is absolutely asinine and ridiculous.
So, I would say, absolutely, unequivocally not. There is no
rampant discrimination against voters. There is none. There
is--it doesn't exist. I mean, in some corners it might exist,
sure, in some far-off place, and maybe once or twice somewhere
somebody might get in someone's mind. A systematic effort to
suppress the votes of Black people? That is preposterous. It is
just as preposterous as the notion that as a Black American I
can't get a free ID to vote.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you for that clarity and
conviction.
Let me ask you another question. The Election Clause of the
Constitution, Federal Constitution, gives State legislatures
the authority, as you know, to prescribe the times, places, and
manner of holding elections within their jurisdictions. The
Constitution, thus, leaves it to the States to administer
elections within their boundaries.
Let me ask you, from your perspective as a Lieutenant
Governor, are States still best situated to determine how to
run elections, or should we just federalize this whole thing
and put Congress in charge?
Mr. Robinson. Absolutely the States should remain in
charge, because, from my vantage point, we are looking at a
bill here that is 880 pages--some 880 pages of a partisan,
unconstitutional power grab.
The Federal Government--there are a lot of things in here
that they will argue and say, ``Oh, it is just a--it is just--
we are just insinuating this.'' We understand how that works
with the Federal Government. There is an insinuation, and then
there is a request, and then there is a demand.
We need to stop it at the insinuation. We need to stop this
at the insinuation that somehow the people in Washington, DC,
know better than the people in North Carolina. You do not. We
will not tolerate it.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Everybody over here is saying
``amen.''
This is some refreshing common sense, isn't it?
Let me ask you one more question. We only have 40 seconds
or so. When it comes to voting, do you believe we need to give
citizens greater responsibility when exercising their right to
vote?
Mr. Robinson. Absolutely. Again, I said I am a huge
proponent of the Second Amendment, but the very first thing
with the Second amendment is that ID you show when you go to
buy that firearm. There is something I tell everybody. Before
you partake of the Second Amendment, you need to take a look in
the mirror and ask yourself, am I responsible enough to own a
firearm? If the answer is no, don't buy one.
When it comes to voting, you have 4 years for President, 6
years for Senate, and 2 years for House of Representatives. I
have complete confidence in the people of the United States of
America and the people of my State that in those 2, 4, or 6
years they can do due diligence, get that ID, find out where
they are voting, make a date, and be there on the date. I have
full and complete confidence in them that they can do that. I
think the rules should reflect that.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Hallelujah. Thank you for being
here.
I yield back.
Mr. Cohen. Before I recognize Mr. Nadler, I want to correct
myself. I don't like false--what was said before the Supreme
Court by the Republican attorney was not that we cannot win
elections. What he said to Justice Amy Coney Barrett was,
``Because these laws disqualifying, say, out-of-precinct
ballots would put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to
Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote
they get through unlawful interpretation of section 2 hurts us.
It's the difference between winning an election and losing.''
A remarkable moment for the--pivotal moment for voting
rights. State Republicans have advanced a spate of laws trying
to change the law. So, in essence, they said it, but something
different.
Mr. Nadler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Lieutenant Governor Robinson--and briefly, because I have a
lot of questions--how do you justify counting for voting
purposes a hunting license but not a State-college-issued ID?
Mr. Robinson. We can argue about those semantics all day
long, whether or not that hunting license is provided, directed
by the government, whether or not that hunting ID is given on
the basis of a person being a resident of the State--
Chair Nadler. A State college ID, how do you not qualify
that?
Mr. Bishop. Your microphone, Governor.
Mr. Robinson. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Bishop. Yeah.
Mr. Robinson. My microphone was not on.
Again, we could argue about the semantics about what type
of ID should be accepted. That is an open and honest
conversation that we can have, and I don't mind having that
conversation.
From my purview as Lieutenant Governor and if I made the
decision, it would be a State-issued ID only. That is it.
Chair Nadler. Thank you.
Reverend Barber, some of my colleagues would argue that the
Voting Rights Act's success demonstrates that it is no longer
needed, that the U.S. has elected an African-American President
and Vice President, that minority representation in elected
government has increased substantially, and that the minority
vote has played decisive roles in elections and have much
higher turnout rates than when the Voting Rights Act was first
enacted decades ago.
What is your response to that argument?
Rev. Barber. My response is that the facts don't play it
out. Not the facts that somebody said are the facts without
them being facts, but under the microscope of the courts and
the Constitution.
Remember, in North Carolina, the law was tried under the
courts. The Supreme Court, a predominantly Republican Supreme
Court, and a three-panel Federal district court said that what
they did after the Shelby decision was voter suppression--
surgical voter suppression and intentional voter suppression.
This is not hyperbole. This is not about semantics. It is
not just about photo ID. They attempted to eliminate same-day
registration, preregistration of 16- and 17-year-olds, out-of-
precinct ballots, the first week of early voting, and
instituted one of the Nation's most stringent photo ID laws.
We did not have a conversation about it. The courts looked
at it under the microscope of the Constitution after the Shelby
decision and said, ``This is surgical. This is intentional
racism.'' That is what the court said, and that showed that we
need preclearance.
There should be no fear of preclearance. If you are not
discriminating, you would not be afraid of the preclearance
portion of the Voting Rights Act.
Chair Nadler. Thank you, Reverend.
Secretary Castro, many of the so-called election integrity
laws that are currently making their way through State
legislatures are practices that have been shown to suppress
minority voter turnout, such as restrictions on absentee
voting, restrictions on early voting, more stringent voter ID
requirements, or laws that make it easier for officials to
purge voters from voter registration rolls.
How do these proposals for so-called election integrity
laws discriminate against minority voters?
Mr. Castro. That is a great question, Chair Nadler.
They work all together. It is not just about a photo ID
requirement. It is much more than that. They work all together
to have a disparate impact on people of color, whether we are
talking about my home State of Texas or a number of other
States.
Today, in the Texas legislature, for instance, we have
House Bill 6 and Senate Bill 7 that, among other things, limit
the hours of early voting. They prohibit drive-through voting,
which Harris County, as Representative Jackson Lee knows well,
instituted recently. They take other steps like further
criminalizing what can even be innocuous activities of helping
somebody, assisting somebody to early-vote. They allocate a new
formula for--they establish a new formula for allocating how
voting centers in counties with a population over 1 million
people are supposed to be distributed according to State
legislative districts.
So, this is an entire ecosystem of discrimination that goes
into shaving, essentially, off the ability of somebody to
conveniently access the ballot.
This is clear, that in Texas, from closing 750 polling
locations since 2012, to seeing--I believe now we are 47th in--
43rd or 47th in voter turnout. The proof is in the pudding.
They have accomplished what they have wanted to accomplish.
Chair Nadler. Thank you.
My time has expired.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Jim Jordan, the Ranking Member of the
Full Committee.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Lieutenant Governor Robinson, I want to thank you for your
service to your State and for your powerful testimony. We
appreciate all that you do.
I want to yield to your fellow member here from your great
State of North Carolina, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
Lieutenant Governor Robinson, Democrats have characterized
State laws adopting photo ID, like Georgia--which really
liberalized just about everything about its voting system
except to require consistent use of voter ID recently--and
Democrats have characterized that as Jim Crow 2.0.
Mr. Robinson. Right.
Mr. Bishop. You just heard the Chair a moment ago attempt
to draw an equivalence between the old ``beans in a jar, guess
how many there are'' as a means of depriving Blacks of the
right to vote in Jim Crow as the same thing as voter ID.
Mr. Robinson. Right.
Mr. Bishop. What do you make of that?
Mr. Robinson. Again, I am not a--I don't understand the
logic.
A lot of folks are saying that this is not just about voter
ID. Let's go ahead and cut down to brass tacks. Yes, it is.
Yes, it is. It is about voter ID, because we understand that
voter ID is that first line of defense in maintaining election
integrity.
It is the same way if someone came in here and said, ``Hey,
let's get rid of the ID requirement to buy firearms.'' Boy,
this place would go crazy, because we would know that would be
ridiculous. So, it is about that. It is about the voter ID
laws.
That notion that this is somehow Jim Crow, I think some
folks need a history lesson about what happened during Jim
Crow. During Jim Crow, it wasn't just a poll tax. It wasn't
just a jar of beans, guess how many jars of beans in it. If you
stepped outside the line during Jim Crow, you would find
yourself swinging from a tree or buried somewhere behind
somebody's barn or all cut up or burned out of your house.
Requiring an ID to vote is just simple American
responsibility. In our State, I call it commonsense legislation
for the common good. It keeps us all honest. To say that
somehow poor people, Black people can't be involved in that
responsibility, again, is insulting. It is insulting.
So, I completely agree with you that it is not the same
thing, not even close, not even on the same scale. It is not
even in the same arena.
Mr. Bishop. Lieutenant Governor Robinson, in North
Carolina, in 2018, the voters of North Carolina amended our
State constitution by a fairly overwhelming vote to require
photo ID. Since that time, an enabling law passed by the
General Assembly which goes well beyond, sir, what you said you
would consider to be valid ID.
Mr. Robinson. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. It includes student IDs.
Mr. Robinson. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. It even has been amended to include the ID that
someone holds if they receive public assistance--are all
allowed.
Mr. Robinson. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. Judges have delayed the effectiveness of that
law on the grounds that it is racist. What do you say to that,
sir?
Mr. Robinson. I would say to that it is a perfect example
of what is going on here today. We have a few elitists who
believe that they know better than the people of the State of
North Carolina. A few people, two or three judges, that said, I
know that 55-60 percent of the people of North Carolina said
they want voter ID, but I don't think so, and I am a king, and
I know better than you, so I am going to strike that law down.
That is the same thing we see going on in this chamber
right now. That is the same thing we see with H.R. 1. Folks who
sit high, look low, say, I know better than you, I know your
State better than you, I know your people better than you, I am
going to make the decisions for you.
Again, not going to happen. Not going to happen. That old
saying, ``Not going to happen, Captain,'' it is alive and well
in North Carolina. It is not going to happen.
Mr. Bishop. Lieutenant Governor Robinson, Reverend Barber
says in North Carolina there has been a continuous since 2010--
the worst voter-suppression campaign laws have been passed and
implemented.
Sir, how did you become the first Black Lieutenant Governor
elected in this past election if the people of North Carolina,
through their elected representatives, are working to suppress
voters of African-Americans?
Mr. Robinson. It is not about voter suppression. I am going
to tell you what my campaign was about. My campaign was about
suppressing the lies from the left. That is what it was about.
When I told the people of North Carolina the truth, they heard
it, and they came running, and they pushed my name. Not just
White people, but all people that believe in our message.
Again, I am going to reiterate this statement one more
time: What is going on in this room right now is all about this
right here and the power grab that it ensues.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.
Yield back.
Mr. Cohen. I believe Ms. Ross would be next, because Mr.
Raskin is on the floor voting.
Ms. Ross, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Ross. Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Since I have served in the General Assembly during some of
the time of some of these voter suppression laws, it is
justdeja vu all over again.
I have been working on voting rights issues for decades. I
led redistricting cases as a civil rights attorney. I chaired
the Elections Committee in the North Carolina General Assembly.
I joined with Reverend Barber in leading the successful effort
to institute same-day voter registration and early-voting sites
in the State.
Given this experience, I want to begin by correcting a
misunderstanding that Members of both parties have, and that is
that expanding voting rights only helps Democrats at the ballot
box. We have to look no farther than our Lieutenant Governor
here, who won with expanded voting rights in North Carolina, to
see that North Carolina, a very purple State, elects people of
both parties when we expand voting rights.
In 2020, because the courts allowed our laws to stay in
place and struck down voter suppression, North Carolina offered
the longest voting period in the country. The State board of
elections mailed absentee ballots to voters 60 days before the
November 3 election, earlier than any other State; in-person
early voting was open for 19 days prior to the election; and
same-day registration was allowed at all early-voting
locations, despite the efforts of the General Assembly to shut
this down.
Because of this ease, 75 percent of voters in North
Carolina cast ballots, the vast majority of whom voted prior to
election day, in large part because of the coronavirus
pandemic.
Because of, not despite, this ease and access, Donald
Trump, our Lieutenant Governor, and a collection of Republican
judges secured statewide victory in the State, along with
Members of the Council of State. North Carolina's experience
proves that Republicans can and do win with an expanded
electorate if they focus on generating enthusiasm and not
blocking access to the ballot box.
American voters are a lot smarter than many politicians
believe. When candidates run on their records and policies
rather than relying on antidemocratic efforts to shrink the
electorate, they can win big, regardless of party affiliation.
We made that argument when we got same-day voter registration
at early-voting sites.
So, I have a question for Dr. Barber, not about these
voting laws, but about the redistricting process that we are
about to see all over the country, again, without having the
protections of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
So, the Census is coming in late, and we are going to have
to have an abbreviated period for doing redistricting. North
Carolina, as we know, has a history of going to the Supreme
Court over and over again.
Tell me what you think will happen without section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act in North Carolina under this abbreviated
period.
Rev. Barber. What will happen is what happened before, in
2010, where we had racialized voter suppression. That was even
with section 5. Now, certainly, with section 5 gone, we have
seen all evidence that there will be further attempt to use the
redistricting period as another way of voter suppression and
another way of disenfranchisement.
Again, the courts have ruled--and I know my colleague from
North Carolina keeps wanting to say it is just hyperbole, but
the courts have ruled, the Supreme Court ruled, that our
gerrymandering was racialized gerrymandering. Then another
court said it allowed an unconstitutionally constituted
legislature.
Let me say, Representative Ross, just because African
Americans get elected does not mean there is not discrimination
going on, because that is why you examine it under the court--
not just what people say, but under the court. Fact of the
matter is, the courts have said time and time again--even after
the ending of Shelby, it has said that North Carolina has
engaged in intentional and surgical racism.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Congresswoman Ross.
I now recognize Mr. Roy from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
Look, I am always interested when we talk about this
subject that people just sort of gloss over the history, and
they start throwing negative commentary towards the Shelby
County decision.
I know there are a number of Members in this room who were
here for the debate in 2006 leading up to the reauthorization
of Voting Rights Act at that time. I, too, was here, as a
Staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee. So, I lived it. I
lived through and read through all those volumes of papers and
went through all the analysis.
The fact is, as we put into the record in the additional
views in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the fact is, the
formula that was being followed was an outdated formula that
was 40 years old. It was being based on data from 1965, 1968,
1972, and it was not updated for the time in 2006 when this was
passed. That is clearly what the Court said.
Yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to
suggest that somehow this is all about perpetuating racism, it
is about perpetuating the harms that clearly existed--as the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina made very clear in
his review of the history of what the Jim Crow South actually
looked like.
Listening now to my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle--and I saw this happen and unfold in the Senate Judiciary
Committee, where my friend Mike Lee was engaging with Senator
Durbin, talking about Jim Crow 2.0. I was just on the floor of
the House of Representatives, and we were talking about DC
statehood, and we are hearing the same thing about Jim Crow
2.0.
We are talking about comparing the historic wrongs that
occurred, that this country worked hard to reform and fix, that
the Voting Rights Act was so critical in doing in 1965, we are
seeing that being compared now to passing laws trying to make
sure our election system can be believed and trusted and that
voter identification can be used and that mail-in ballots that
have bipartisan agreement that they have higher rates of fraud,
that maybe we should do something to ensure that we have trust
and belief in those mail-in ballots.
The record, when we put it in at the time, in 2006, it is
really important for people to note that, when the Voting
Rights Act was adopted, the average registration rate for Black
voters in the seven original covered States was only 29.3
percent. Today--that was 2006--the voter registration rate
among Blacks, for example, in covered jurisdictions is over 68
percent, higher than the 62 percent found in noncovered
jurisdictions.
There are examples where the counties in Florida, where
there were covered counties and noncovered counties.
Interestingly, we noted in the submission, while Florida has
five counties that are subject to section 5 coverage, none of
these counties were implicated by the accounts of
discrimination submitted to the record in 2006. Yet there were
five noncovered counties in Florida that were pointed out in
the list of accounts that was produced in the record in 2006.
All of this is arbitrary. Everything that is being done is
arbitrary, and that is why the Court kicked it out. That is the
fact, and that is what we know.
Now what do we have? The legislation being put forward now
for voting rights authorization and expansion counts any change
to a State's voter ID law as a mark against it. Thirty-six
States already have voter ID laws. That is what is being done.
It is very specific; it is very purposeful. That is what is
actually happening.
The Voting Rights Act punishes States for improving the
processes they use to clean up and maintain accurate voting
rolls. They are making that an actual element. They are trying
to compare that--making sure that voting rolls, which have
currently massive numbers of dead people registered, people who
aren't in the State, people who have moved, where you can't
have faith in the voting rolls--somehow that is going to be
made equivalent to the Jim Crow South, for which the Voting
Rights Act was so important in 1965.
It undermines the Voting Rights Act to suggest, as Senator
Durbin did, that if you oppose section 5 preclearance and you
opposed the absurdity of basing section 5 preclearance on 40-
year-old data that somehow you are against the Voting Rights
Act. That is what happens. Those are the political talking
points.
I would just ask our witness and Lieutenant Governor from
North Carolina if you could help me understand. Was the 13th,
14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution
passed and moved by Republicans or Democrats?
Mr. Robinson. That would be Republicans.
Mr. Roy. Right. Was the movement to--you might put your
microphone on, sir.
Mr. Robinson. That would be Republicans.
Mr. Roy. Was the move for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and
1965 Voting Rights Act led heavily by Republicans or Democrats?
Mr. Robinson. That would be Republicans.
Mr. Roy. So, as we sit here today and as we are being
accused by many of our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle of wanting to somehow perpetuate the Jim Crow South,
when, in fact, what we are trying to do is perpetuate laws that
you can believe in, that you have so eloquently discussed, do
you see any merit in that whatsoever.
Mr. Robinson. Absolutely not.
If I could have a moment just to add something.
When you talk about that history, that history is clear who
stood on which side. At every turn in history, it is clear. It
is not even in dispute. It is not in dispute now.
What we want is integrity. We don't want power. We want
integrity. We want the right thing to be done. We want to
encourage citizens to be responsible. We want to have the best
election system in the world. Third-World countries, places
like India, where the poverty rate is staggering, they have to
show that finger when they go vote.
It is time that we modernize our election system in this
country and stop playing all these silly games based on race.
Please, stop using me, as a Black man, as your pawn--and, yes,
I said it--to push your agenda. I am sick of it. It happened a
long time ago in this country, and I am tired of it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, I would ask that the witness
answer the question.
Ms. Ross. His time has expired. His time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. His time has expired.
Mr. Roy. Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cohen. Time has expired.
Mr. Roy. Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cohen. I recognize Mr. Hank Johnson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Roy. Mr. Chair? I just have a unanimous consent request
to insert something in the record.
Mr. Cohen. Your 5 minutes has expired.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Unanimous consent to insert
something in the record.
Mr. Roy. It is a consent request.
Mr. Cohen. Five minutes to Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You have already said that we
could enter that in the record. You said it in your opening,
Mr. Chair. What changed?
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson, can you hear me.
Mr. Roy. So, we are not going to insert something in the
record.
Mr. Cohen. --you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, Republicans can't enter
anything in the record? I just need clarification.
Mr. Roy. So, the Chair doesn't want us to be able to insert
stuff in the record.
Mr. Cohen. Maybe in a few minutes but not right now.
Mr. Roy. Oh, because--okay. Because when I had my time
closing, I didn't want to insert it at the time, insert it when
I spoke.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson, we are going to go in proper order.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Roy. Wow, this is a great way to run a hearing.
Impressive.
Mr. Cohen. What is wrong.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I think Mr. Johnson's video is
frozen.
Mr. Cohen. Ms. Garcia, can you hear me? I guess you can't.
Can you hear me?
Ms. Garcia. Yes, I can.
Mr. Cohen. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses who have joined us today.
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Cohen. Ms. Garcia, we cannot hear you. Is your volume--
could you turn your volume up?
Ms. Garcia. Is that better?
Mr. Cohen. That is better.
Ms. Garcia. Okay. Wonderful.
Mr. Cohen. Start the clock over. You are on.
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair, thank you.
It is important to note that the Voting Rights Act was
enacted at a time when many African Americans, Latinos, and
other minorities in southern States had been denied their right
to vote. Even when attempting to register, organize, or even
assist others in their attempt to register to vote, it meant
risking their jobs, homes, and racial violence.
Fast-track years later, and it is appalling to know that
the right to vote remains under constant attack. Last year, the
American people overwhelmingly and undoubtedly voted to elect
President Biden and Vice-President Harris and Democrats to lead
our country. Yet, we witnessed former President Trump's efforts
and his enablers' attempts to discredit the 2020 election
results by publicly promoting baseless claims that the vote was
marred by fraud and irregularities.
While those who insisted there was election fraud were
given ample opportunity to put forth competent evidence and
then trust the American legal system to decide those issues,
those flaming the fans of election fraud were seriously
mistaken.
Even our own Lieutenant Governor in Texas went so far as to
offer a million dollars--a million dollars--as a reward to
anyone who would come forward and prove fraud. Well, I am sure
he still has his million dollars, because no reward was ever
made.
These baseless claims were pushed far enough to lead a mob
to desecrate our U.S. Capitol, threaten Members of Congress
with their lives, and nearly pushed our country to the brink of
destruction. This was not about ``stopping the steal.'' It has
been about stopping the lies that have cost lives.
Yet, we are witnessing State legislators in 47 States that
have introduced over 360 bills with restrictive voting
provisions. I agree with my colleague and friend, Senator
Castro, that, in our home State of Texas, there is an all-out
assault on their right to vote.
I agree with Reverend Barber; these are surgically targeted
to get at the options for voting and methods of voting that
work the best in our minority communities. These discriminatory
bills are not about voter security. They are about voter
suppression, by preserving partisan political advantage by
burdening minority communities.
Let me just say to those who think that it is really simple
to just go out there and get the voter ID as someone who is the
eighth of 10 children, born in my own aunt's house, not by a
doctor but delivered by a midwife I really don't have a birth
certificate. I have a baptismal certificate, because, being
Catholic, they did take me over to get baptized.
So, there are many people still like me, particularly older
Americans, in many rural parts of our States, areas around the
country that can't produce an ID.
I can tell you, I have been through questions when I vote,
that, even as a State Senator, they would not accept my Senate
ID because I had forgotten my driver's license. I had to remind
them that, as a State Senator, one of the qualifications is
that you are born in the State of Texas, that you are a certain
age, that, obviously, if I could stand for election, I could
vote.
There are things that are still happening on the ground,
and we must put them to a stop.
So, my question first goes to Secretary Castro.
Secretary Castro, could you tell me why section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act and the preclearance provisions are just so
important in States like Texas to stop some of the shenanigans
that are going on around the State and that are being
considered? Right now, as you and I sit here, our legislature
is enacting even more restrictive provisions. Can you tell me
why the VRA is just so important?
Mr. Castro. Yes. Thank you for your leadership on this,
Representative Garcia.
Texas has a very strong, clear, consistent pattern of
enacting laws that disenfranchise particularly voters of color.
Before the Voting Rights Act came along, after the Voting
Rights Act came along, and then after the Shelby County
decision in 2013, just since that time, Texas has taken a
number of steps--and some of which I have mentioned: Closing
750 polling locations that tended to be in areas where there
are concentrations of Black and Brown voters; requiring photo
ID. When they did that, right away, there were 600,000 Texans
who were registered to vote that did not have the requisite ID.
They were disproportionately Black and Brown.
On top of that, HB6 and SB7, today, that would absolutely
have a negative impact on the ability of voters, particularly
Black and Brown voters, to cast a ballot.
One of the things I haven't mentioned, but let me just give
you another example, because this really is about far more than
voter ID. If it were only about voter ID, that would be all
that is in the legislation that is being proposed in Texas,
North Carolina, or Georgia. It is way beyond that. We can tell
that.
Harris County, in the last election, allowed for voting
overnight for shift workers. It doesn't matter whether they are
Democrat, Republican, or independent, who they are, but shift
workers to be able to vote, if they had to, at 1:00 a.m., 4:00
a.m. It was wildly successful. This legislation in Texas would
strip the ability of Harris County to do that.
Now, what does it matter whether somebody, if they go
through the same procedures, if they are eligible to vote,
votes at 2:00 a.m. in the morning because that is when they can
most conveniently do it because they have a job that requires
that they do it at that time? What does it matter if they do it
at 2:00 a.m. or they do it at 10:00 a.m. in the morning? It
doesn't. This is part of a consistent pattern Texas has shown
to disenfranchise Black and Brown voters.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Ms. Garcia.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Cohen. I now recognize Mr. Roy for the purpose of
introducing a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Roy. Yeah, Mr. Chair, thank you.
I would ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the
additional views of Senators John Cornyn and Tom Coburn from
2006 from the Committee report from the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. Cohen. Without objection, shall be done.
[The information follows:]
MR. ROY FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Owens--
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chair?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, ma'am?
Ms. Garcia. Could I ask unanimous consent to submit for the
record an article from the Houston Chronicle on ``Texas Voting
Bills Target Democratic Strongholds, Just Like Georgia's New
Laws,'' for the record.
Mr. Cohen. Without objection, that will be done as well.
Thank you, Ms. Garcia.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
MS. GARCIA FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Owens, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the Ranking
Member.
The soft bigotry of low expectations of the 1990s has now
evolved in 2021 to hardcore racism. We now have elected
officials, Black and White, who have no shame, that will State
that being Black--if you are Black and poor, you are incapable
of doing what every other American does to function and
progress. Simply, if you are Black and poor, progress, success,
travel, education, a bank account, visiting this body is not
for you.
Lieutenant Governor Robinson, today's Democratic Party
wants us to believe that your mother's journey from poverty to
a son now sitting as a national leader is impossible. They want
us to believe that my grandfather's journey from poverty to his
son in 1950 getting a Ph.D. is impossible.
Hardcore racism is very simply this. It seems that the
Democratic Party thinks it is impossible for poor and Black
people to get an ID for voting, but it is not even questionable
to get a welfare check or public assistance. I think the next
hearing should probably deal with considering welfare IDs as
Jim Crow.
Lieutenant Governor Robinson, an Atlanta Journal-
Constitution poll found that 63 percent of Black respondents
agreed with requiring voter ID. Why do you think Democrats
allege that it is so difficult for Black people to get an ID,
that will suppress their vote?
Mr. Robinson. As a Republican, I can't speak for Democrats.
Mr. Bishop. Microphone.
Mr. Robinson. So, I don't know why they can do that.
Mr. Bishop. Microphone, Lieutenant Governor. Your mike.
Mr. Robinson. Sorry. I will repeat my prior statement.
As a Republican, I can't speak for how Democrats think, so
I can't actually answer that question.
I can tell you this. For me, what it all boils down to is
responsibility. You mentioned something that people often say,
the soft bigotry of low expectation. I no longer call that soft
bigotry. I call that the hard bigotry of low expectation.
I will go back to my mom. You referred to folks in your
past. The way I saw my mom succeed was to be responsible. My
mom did not wait on the Federal Government to feed her
children. My mom had a fifth-grade education. When my father
died, she had never worked outside the house. She got a job as
a custodian to take care of her children.
I look at my own life. The more responsible I became as a
young man, the more successful I became as a young man.
So, I would say this: I can't say how anyone else thinks,
but certainly for myself and my party, I believe we all believe
it is about responsibility.
Ultimately, responsibility drives freedom. Responsibility
drives excellence. I believe, when you talk about voter
integrity, when you talk about our voting laws and our voting
system, responsibility will drive us towards a perfect or
nearly perfect voting system, where any question of fraud can
be purged and whoever wins, wins fairly.
Mr. Owens. Lieutenant Governor Robinson, thank you for your
life, your message. It is a message that all Americans need to
hear, particularly our race at this particular time. So, thank
you so much for that.
I want to yield my remaining time to the gentleman from
North Carolina.
Mr. Bishop. I thank the gentleman.
Lieutenant Governor Robinson, in your comments, you
mentioned that, in Vice-President Harris's visit to North
Carolina just this past week, she visited the Greensboro
location of the Woolworth's lunch counter, famous site of the
desegregation conflict.
Mr. Robinson. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Our mutual friend, Clarence Henderson, was
omitted--even though he was local, he was omitted from that
event.
Mr. Robinson. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. I want to ask you about yourself. We hear that
this is a lot, about Democrats are solicitous of the
opportunities for people of color and Republicans are not,
which I think you stand as repudiation of just by your office
and what you are doing these days.
Has the Governor of North Carolina, the Democrat Governor,
Roy Cooper, reached out to you to celebrate your election, your
unprecedented election, and integrate you into his
Administration?
Mr. Robinson. Only once. Me and the Governor are
diametrically opposed politically, but I can tell you this. I
made this plain. Just as in the case with Mr. Henderson and the
Vice President, I think those are perfect times when we can
take a step back and realize our common interests as Americans.
Certainly, at that moment, I think that would have been a
unifying message, to have this Republican Black man who
actually sat at the lunch counter there with the Democratic
Vice President, a woman of color, who is the first woman Vice
President. It would have been a unifying moment for the
country. The country could have seen that, despite our
political differences, we can set those political differences
aside to highlight the best of us. What we would have seen
there would have been the best of us.
The same way is true in North Carolina. I desperately want
to work with our Governor in North Carolina. I want to sit down
in his office. I want to share my ideas; I want him to share
his ideas. I want us to highlight the best of us, not the worst
of us. Oftentimes that is very difficult. In our case, it turns
out that the opposite has happened.
Mr. Bishop. Yield back.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Owens.
Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
Voters should not have to jump through hoops or traverse a
cynically complicated obstacle course just to vote. The right
to vote is not a privilege; voting is a fundamental right. The
Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed to enable Black people in
America to exercise that fundamental right that had been
historically denied to us by States like Texas, North Carolina,
and, of course, Georgia.
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the preclearance
provision of the VRA. Having been freed from the restrictions
of section 5, those same jurisdictions that had historically
denied the right to vote to Black Americans immediately sprang
into action into resuming their sordid history of passing laws
to suppress the right to vote.
Georgia legislators used Donald Trump's ``big lie'' as
their justification for passing Senate Bill 202, but the
American people know that it was just a pretext and another big
lie.
When over half the States in the Union are hell-bent on
developing more ingenious ways to suppress the minority vote,
while the other half are endeavoring to make voting easier for
all, we find ourselves with a democracy that is simultaneously
becoming more backward and undemocratic and more progressive.
To quote Abraham Lincoln, ``Our democracy cannot continue half-
slave and half-free.'' The stark contrast between the active
voter suppression going on in States, including the State of
Georgia, with the automatic voting in States like Oregon
illustrates that principle.
It is time that we, as the people's House, rise to this
threat to our democracy and pass the John Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act, which will be reintroduced soon by our
colleague, the gentlelady from Alabama, Congresswoman Terri
Sewell. Congress must make clear once and for all that voting
is a right that must be protected at all costs.
At the time of the Shelby County decision, the entire State
of Georgia was subject to the section 5 preclearance regime of
the Voting Rights Act. After that decision, Georgia kicked its
goal of suppressing Black voters into high gear.
This year, Georgia enacted the latest round of Jim Crow
2.0, an assault on voting rights, some of the most restrictive
in the country.
A Gwinnett County Republican official, a county partly
within my district in Georgia, was quoted earlier this year as
saying that he wants laws that limit no-excuse absentee voting,
quote, ``so we at least have a shot at winning,'' end quote.
Reverend Barber, given your extensive experience with civil
rights, educate us as to why these changes to voting in Georgia
would specifically help Republicans in the State?
Rev. Barber. Well, whether in Georgia, Arizona, or North
Carolina, what we know, when these kinds of laws are examined,
is that they not only hurt Black people, Brown people, and
indigenous people, but they also hurt poor White people.
One of the ways we know this is because, for instance, in
North Carolina, Representative Johnson, this is what the
General Assembly did and probably what they did in Georgia.
They asked for all the data on how early voting, same-day
registration, 16-, 17-year-old voting, so forth and so on,
impacted Black voters, and then they made their decision on
which parts of the law they would create or would erase based
on that data. That is why the Court said that it was surgical
racism. It was not just happenstance.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, Pastor Barber, I know that
the State of Georgia looked critically at the ways in which
voter turnout was accomplished and then endeavored to restrict
those ways to suppress those who voted because of those
tactics.
Rev. Barber. Exactly.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, Lieutenant Governor Robinson,
you said that in America there is no longer an effort to
suppress the votes of Black people. When did we get to that
point?
Mr. Robinson. I am sorry. You were asking me that question?
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes. You are--
Mr. Robinson. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yeah. When did we get to that
point? You--
Mr. Robinson. I can't put my finger exactly on when that
happened, but I know that it is not happening now.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right.
You know that it is no longer happening now.
Would you agree that there was a need for the 1965 Voting
Rights Act?
Mr. Robinson. Absolutely. Democrats made that possible with
their institution of Jim Crow.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, your argument, is that sometime
between 1965 and today that voter suppression went away?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, because--
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Is that what you are telling me.
Mr. Robinson. Because great progress has been made in this
country amongst our Black people and that is obvious.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right.
Okay. Well, thank you, sir. Thank you.
Ms. De Leon, Senate Bill 202, signed into law by Georgia's
Republican Governor, Brian Kemp, last month--
Mr. Cohen. Hank, we are over time, I am afraid.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. All right. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn't realize that.
Mr. Cohen. Do we have voting starting?
We will try to keep going. We have 30 minutes for the vote.
The next person--who on the Republican side who is next?
Everyone has done their questioning?
All right. The next is--Mr. Raskin, are you ready?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, I am.
Mr. Cohen. You are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Then forgive me; we have been debating DC
statehood on the floor. It is a great moment for America when
we get to extend voting rights and self-representation to
712,000 taxpaying, draftable U.S. citizens.
So, those people who are here on both sides of the aisle
who are championing voting rights should presumably be out
there organizing for DC statehood. Unfortunately, we are not
getting any support from across the aisle today on that.
Mr. Chair, thank you for calling the hearing.
I did catch the distinguished Lieutenant Governor of North
Carolina speaking very strongly on behalf of the driver's
license and the photo ID for voting. He said that the reason
that he supported it is because it works--even as a champion of
the Second Amendment, he said it works for the purchase of
firearms.
So, I just want to make sure I have his argument right.
Do you support the use of photo ID for all voters in all
circumstances? Then do you support the use of photo ID,
driver's licenses, for all firearm purchases?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir, in both, I do.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. So, you would support H.R. 8, the
Universal Violent Criminal Voter--rather, firearm purchase law,
which is being opposed by Republicans in Congress? I just want
to make sure you are on our side on that.
Mr. Robinson. Love this--love the bait-and-switch thing
here. Love it. It is great. Fantastic.
Mr. Raskin. Well, where I am--
Mr. Robinson. You are leaving out a myriad of things that
that bill covers, sir, so we are not even going to discuss
that, because you are leaving out a myriad of things. I am
talking about a commonsense issue of making sure we don't sell
guns to people who have been adjudicated legally.
Mr. Raskin. Excuse me--
Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chair.
Mr. Robinson. We are not talking about a bill.
Mr. Cohen. The Congressman has the time.
Mr. Raskin. Reclaiming my time.
The Lieutenant Governor said that he supported the use of
photo ID for all firearm purchases. That is precisely the
purpose of H.R. 8, which says we will close the internet
loophole, we will close the private gun show loophole, and we
will close the private gun sale loophole.
I just want to make sure he is being consistent in his
argument. He wants it--for everybody trying to vote and
everybody trying to get a firearm, he wants a photo ID to be
used, correct?
Mr. Robinson. I believe that all FFLs should have--should
require--all FFLs should require an ID when people are coming
in to purchase a firearm.
Mr. Raskin. No, no. All firearm purchases.
You support--I think the logic of your argument is that we
should have universal use of photo ID for the purchase of
firearms. At least, you based your entire argument about why we
should do voting that way on firearms. So, I just wanted to
make sure that is your position.
Reverend Barber, let me come to you, if I could. Can you
explain why voting is the heart of the American political creed
in a way--we understand it is the right preservative of all
other rights. If you don't have the right to vote, you can't
defend yourself in other ways. Yet, at the same time, there has
been a constant undertow of efforts to deny people their voting
rights, with grandfather clauses; literacy tests; poll taxes;
making people wait in line for 6 hours, 8 hours; rolling back
early voting; rolling back weekend voting.
Why do we have this constant struggle in our country? It
doesn't exist in a lot of democratic countries where it is a
universal commitment to give everybody the right to vote to
make sure everybody is registered. What is different about
America?
Rev. Barber. Well, what is different has been the issue of
race and the issue of economics. Dr. King said it was the very
threat of the possibility of Black masses and White masses
joining together to overcome the White aristocracy that created
voter suppression and segregation in the first place.
There have been a lot of distortions that have been put out
here in this hearing. My grandfather was a Republican, but he
was a Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt Republican. He was not a Strom
Thurmond Republican.
What we have seen is that, ever since the Southern
Strategy, the Strom Thurmond-type Republicans, Jesse Helms-type
Republicans decided that, particularly in the South, they were
going to use that strategy and use ways of implementing voter
suppression.
Whether you call it Jim Crow 2 or Jane Crow or Jane Crow,
Esquire, it is always an attempt to Act benign, to Act like it
does not undermine the right to vote, but, in fact, it does--
Mr. Raskin. Okay--
Rev. Barber. --for Black, Brown, and then it disables our
ability to change the political system and the economic system
in this country for the good of all people.
Mr. Raskin. So, I have one final question I want to ask
you, if I could?
There are more than 350 bills now around the country trying
to roll back people's voting rights and restrict their voting
rights in America today. Explain how a new Voting Rights Act,
an updated Voting Rights Act, would protect people against
their right to vote being impinged on in this--
Rev. Barber. We need those bills to have to be precleared.
The Republicans should not fear them being precleared and
examined before they are implemented and before they are used
in suppressive ways.
Preclear all these decisions under the Voting Rights Act.
Judge them by the 14th amendment and the 15th Amendment. If
they pass that, let them go into law.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Reverend Barber.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen. We only have a few minutes, and we have to vote.
We are going to recognize Ms. Bush for 5 minutes, and then we
are going to recognize Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes, and then
we will wrap up and run and vote.
Ms. Bush, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bush. St. Louis, and I thank you, Chair Cohen, for
convening this crucial hearing.
Our right to vote--and I know it has been said before, but
our right to vote is the foundation of our democracy. The right
to vote is our instrument for change. Who we choose to
represent us is a reflection of our struggles, our hopes, and
our aspirations as a country and as a society. I know because I
am one of those people.
I would be remiss not to start today's remarks by taking
stock of the fact that the Voting Rights Act came into fruition
because of the tireless work of civil rights champions, the
thousands of protesters who took to the streets, and the many
Black men and Black women who showed up and spoke out. They
were bloodied and beaten and brutalized in the movement to
protect and affirm our sacred right to vote. In 1965, they rose
up to demand a say in our democracy. In 2021, we are still
rising up, demanding that our voices be heard.
In the aftermath of the Shelby decision, in my home State
of Missouri, Republicans have passed unnecessary and
restrictive voter ID laws and a notary requirement to deny
Black people and Brown people and people living in poverty
access to the ballot box.
We have seen polling places in our communities close, which
happened all over the place--we have seen it--and roadblocks
put up to prevent currently and formerly incarcerated people
from reclaiming their rights.
We continue to fight. In 2020, we turned out in record
numbers, despite the unprecedented obstacles put in place by a
White supremacist system. Black and Brown voters, organizers
delivered victories up and down the ballot. We know this.
With this Democratic majority, though, we now have the
power to level the playing field by striking down racist laws
that seek only to continue the history of disenfranchisement of
Black, Brown, and indigenous people.
So, I want to ask Reverend Barber--good afternoon, and so
good to have this moment with you. You have been active in the
fight for civil--with the civil rights movement for decades.
How have discriminatory voting practices evolved to be less
overtly racially discriminatory since the 1960s?
Rev. Barber. Well, I think what they do is they don't
actually say, ``We are doing this because it is racist,'' so
you have to investigate the data. You have to look at the kind
of requests they make for data and then how they make those
decisions about what laws they are going to put in place based
on that data.
That is what happened in North Carolina. They asked how
these new voting laws would help Black people, such as same-day
registration and early voting, and then those are the things
they went after.
What they are afraid of is not just Black voters. It is the
Black-White-Brown-Asian-indigenous coalition. Fifty-five
percent of poor and low-wealth people voted in this past
election for the current President that we have. It is that
fusion coalition.
They know, lastly, that it only has to be surgical, and
many times it only has to be a cutting or suppressing 1 or 2
percent of the vote to be fundamental change in who gets
elected.
Ms. Bush. Thank you for teaching, Reverend Barber.
Secretary Castro, many of these so-called election
integrity laws that are currently making their way through
State legislatures are measured--they have been shown to
suppress minority turnout.
How do we make sure that States like Missouri, which were
not part of the preclearance States previously, are still held
accountable for their voter discrimination?
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Representative Bush. Thank you for
your leadership on these issues.
I think that is why this legislation is so fundamentally
important going forward, because it helps ensure that these
kind of discriminatory voting measures are not put in place.
By updating what used to be section 4(b), essentially
States that would be subject to preclearance, by updating that,
it allows for the inclusion of places that may not have been
covered before but may be covered now because of a pattern of
discriminatory practices since the Shelby County decision and
then going forward.
This legislation is one of the best ways that we can ensure
that everybody in our country, regardless of the color of their
skin or their background, who is eligible to vote has
convenient access to the franchise.
Ms. Bush. Thank you, Secretary Castro.
I will close with this. In the words of the late
Congressman John Lewis, when you see something that is not
right, not fair, not just, and you have to speak up, you have
to say something, you have to do something. Today, we honor his
legacy by doing just that.
Thank you for answering my questions.
I yield back.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Bush.
We now recognize for 5 minutes Representative Sheila
Jackson Lee of the great State of Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
The historic record should be clarified that President
Lyndon Baines Johnson initiated the Voting Rights Act of 1965
after the brutal killing of the four little girls and the
Selma-to-Montgomery March and the brutalizing of John Robert
Lewis. We are delighted that moderate Republicans joined in
that vote. Subsequently, however, I am reminded of the fact
that President Johnson said, ``We have lost the South.'' Of
course, the South began to turn Republican. Those were the
oppressors, putting on a different party affiliation.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me--General, I understand in 2020,
former President Trump won North Carolina. Do you believe that
was a legitimate election? Yes or no.
Mr. Robinson. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I would like to offer into the record the
article that says, here are the Republicans who objected to the
electoral college vote in 2020. There were one, two, three,
four, five of our Members here who are now talking about the
issue of voting.
I would like to submit this into the record, and I will
make the point later.
Mr. Cohen. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. Let me go quickly
to Ms. De Leon, and my time is very short. Make your answers
very short. I respect you. Since the Shelby County decision,
some have floated the notion that there is no problem with
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act as it stands, because
there are still adequate remedies under the statute to continue
strong voting rights enforcement.
What is your response? Ms. De Leon.
Ms. De Leon. Thank you so much. Yes, thank you so much for
that question. The Voting Rights Act is key and the
preclearance is key because there is still intentional
discrimination. I believe there has been some confusion and I
would like to clear it up today.
Civil rights advocates are not against photo ID. We are
against manipulating photo ID to cut voters out. In North
Dakota immediately after Native voters flexed their political
power and influenced a race for U.S. Senate, the State
legislature restricted the types of photo ID and required photo
ID with an address on it when they knew there were Native
Americans in North Dakota that do not have addresses on their
home, which, by the way, is a whole other injustice. We took
that case to court, and the Republican-appointed Federal judge
agreed the law was unconstitutional and violated the 14th
Amendment.
The State legislature then passed the law, again, in
defiance of the court, and that is intentional discrimination
happening today, and that case was not resolved until last
year.
Respectfully, no amount of personal responsibility will put
an address on a home. When it is suggested--
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Ms. De Leon. --is accessible that shows an ignorance of the
reality on the ground facing Native Americans. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you for representing
Native Americans. Let me, Lieutenant Governor Robinson, let me
correct that.
Mr. Owens. Will the lady yield.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me also thank you for your service.
Mr. Owens. Will the lady yield.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Reverend Barber, I have a short period of
time. We have been hearing all throughout this session that
race does not matter. Would you briefly--I have to ask
Secretary Castro a question, please, would you briefly
categorize how a race has seen a proliferation of oppressive
voting rights laws, even though, as you said, if we all work
together, we can get equality? How does race, racism impact all
these voting rights laws being written by Republican
legislatures across America.
Rev. Barber. Systemic racism, policy-based racism does
matter. It matters because it is the violation of the 15th
Amendment, 14th Amendment. Let me just read the Supreme Court
in answer to your question about the gerrymandering case in
North Carolina.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a remarkable per curiam
decision striking down as a sweeping unconstitutional racial
gerrymandering, the maps that created an unaccountable
legislative super majority in the State House, therefore,
creating an unconstitutionally constituted legislature.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Reverend. Thank you, Reverend.
I love you and thank you for your service. They are cutting me
off. Thank you so very much. That is powerful what you said.
Secretary Castro, thank you for your mother's work. My
predecessor, who endorsed me, the Honorable Barbara Jordan, was
able to get Hispanics included in the language of the 1965
Voting Rights Act when she came to Congress. I subsequently was
here for the historic reauthorization.
What impact did that making sure that Texas was included,
and Hispanics were actually included in the empowerment of
Hispanic voters, which are racial definition in many instances,
what did it do for this State.
Mr. Castro. Thank you so much. Thank you for the question,
Representative Jackson Lee and for your leadership. That 1975
extension to language minorities was groundbreaking. What it
meant was much greater participation, particularly in the
Mexican American community, Latino community, there in Texas,
greater election, the first-choice candidates from those
communities that changed the face of governance across the
State of Texas and in many other places, it empowered millions
of people.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. There is not enough time, Mr.
Chair, I just want to finish this one sentence, just to say:
This represents all the Republicans who voted against the
legitimacy of the Biden election, included in it are those who
challenged Georgia and Fulton County, in particular, which was
dominated by African-Americans. Someone will, in another
hearing, Mr. Chair, explain to me why this is not all about
race. That is what it is about.
I yield back.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee.
That concludes our hearing today. I want to thank all our
witnesses for appearing today.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions for the witnesses, or
additional materials for the record.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]