Board of directors and president of the naacp Mississippi State conference. , come from my part of the world. Welcome. Mr. Johnson good morning, chairmanon, chairman nadler, Ranking Member johnson, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify. For background i have spent more than two decades in mississippi, which has been front and center in the fight for Voting Rights. Allow me to get to the point. Our democracy is in crisis. There is a frontal assault on the right of people of color to fully participate. We are six years, two months, 16 days into the Shelby County ruling. This was the worst attack on participatory democracy in modern history. The ink wasnt even dry before the floodgates opened. Chief Justice Roberts was dead wrong when he said in Shelby County that our country has changed. Just take a look around. It most certainly has not. Voter suppression depregs has become rampant instead of asking where is it occurring, we should ask where is it not . And congress has the constitutional duty to act. My testimony lays out the problems we face around the country. Id like to make five points here. First, the assault on democracy is conducted by states and local jurisdictions. Much attention is focused on statewide efforts to suppress the vote, but it can happen in every community. Secondly, todays disenfrance chiesment takes many forms. It is adaptive and pervasive. These are just a few stringent voter i. D. Requirements like North Carolinas which we successfully challenged and which a court found targeted africanamericans with surgical precision. Purges of voter rolls like we are seeing in ohio right now. Massive closures of voting places in communities of color. Shortened voting periods, and elimination of sunday voting. Measures make it criminal for groups who register voters like the ones we recently had to challenge intown tfpblet thirdly, there is no defense. Voter suppression is often done in the name of combating voter fraud. Lets be clear, this is not a real problem. Reports of voter fraud is about as common as reports of alien abduction. Even trump had to disband his Voting Commission because fraud does not exist. Fourthly, while voting discrimination was well documented in states subject to preclearance under the Voting Rights act, it has spread like a cancer to other states never subject to coverage. The tragic fact is that no community is immune. Everyone, everywhere must remain vigilant. Finally, we cannot address this alone. My testimony entered into the record discusses the vast efforts of our Legal Department n conjunction with our state and other legal organizations on the ground to combat Voter Suppression. Heres the situation, Shelby County eliminated the preclearance requirement, and Trumps Justice Department is missing in action on any voting right enforcements. Our branches and members are asked to do what used to be the job of the federal government, protect the right to vote. To be clear, we are fighting back when ever and wherever we k this is not sustainable. Congress must step up to combat this nations epidemic. Congress must pass Voting Rights advancement act, make no mistake, congress has simple evidence to restore the Voting Rights act to its full strength. Given the daily experiences of our community with Voter Suppression, and the lead up to and on election day, no one can deny the strong record that supports immediate passage. Congress must also pass for the people act. Voting must be simplified, access to ballots must be expanded this. Bill would make it easier to cast a vote and make sure that vote is counted. Finally, Congress Must pass securing american federal election act. The safe act would help our elections secure and free from foreign intervention. Interference that disproportionately targeted africanamericans. Robert mueller warned this committee about russian interference in our election. He said, they are doing it as we sit here. We must defend our democracy, period. This year the naacp celebrated our 110th anniversary. We have never waivered from demanding an inclusive secure democracy. It is now time for congress to make protecting the franchise the highest priority. In mississippi, what i experienced over the last 20 years, is what im watching across this country. If we do not stand up to protect democracy and make it work today, who will, and how can we ever have a true Representative Government . Thank you for allowing me to testify. I welcome any questions. Mr. Cohen thank you, mr. Johnson. Parenthetically ill mention in memphis the location that houses the Election Commission downtown was dedicated yesterday as the James Meredith building. In honor of his integrating ole miss and fighting for Voting Rights. Mr. Dale ho is director of the Voting Rights at the American Civil Liberties union. He is up advises the litigation and advocation work nationwide. He curm has active cases in dozens of states around the country. Has testified on election issues before this congress and state legislatures. Hes also an adjunct political professor of law, received his j. D. From Yale Law School an under graduate from princeton. Mr. Ho, you are recognized for that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks finets. Thank you. Mr. How chairman commowen, chairman nadlerks Ranking Member johnson, and members of the subcommittee thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. Im director of the aclu Voting Rights project. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg famously warned the supreme striking down a striking down part of the Voting Rights act was like, quote, throwing away yourle umbrella in a rainstorm. Sure enough after the decision a downpour came with a wave of scrim another voting laws. The aclu has been on the frontlines. We have opened more than 60 new Voting Rights investigations and cases since the decision. Some of our recent and ongoing cases include department of commerce, the state of new york, a case i argued before the Supreme Court earlier this year, successfully challenging the add madam speakers attempt to add a Citizenship Question to the 2020 census. Naacp v. Mccrorry along with the naa cr6789 p and others we successfully challenged the sweeping North Carolina bill that sought tea limb nate means of participation used by more than one million voters in the 2012 president ial leaks. And Grover V Barton working with the brennan sent earn others we are challenging a florida law that denies the right of vote to returning citizens with passed felony convictions based solely on their inability to pay outstanding cost, fines, fees, and restitution. My fm today will focus on Current Conditions. And in particular on recent litigation under section 2 of the Voting Rights act. As detailed in my written statement, i think four points stand out. First, recent litigation under section 2 of the vra demonstrates the need for the Voting Rights advancement act. While the Current Administration has not filed a single case under the v. R. A. , private litigants have won more than two dozen section 2 cases since shell bye county was decided. That volume illustrates the continuing problem of Racial Discrimination in voting today. Second, despite those successes, we currently lack the tools necessary to stop discriminatory changes to voting laws before they came to an election. Discriminatory laws we have ultimately succeeded in blocking have remained in effect for months or even years while litigation has proceeded. Time in which elections have been held, and government officials were elected. The North Carolina case you have heard so much about today is ill luss aive. The law we challenged eliminated one week of early voting in which 900,000 people are voted in 2012. Same day registration, which nearly 100,000 voters are used in 2012, and preregistration which 50,000 voters are used before that election. The law also banned the use of many forms of government issued photo i. D. For voting purposes. Including student i. D. Cards, municipal employee i. D. Cards, and public assistance i. D. s. As chairman cohen and mr. Johnson voted noted, the court found this targeted africanamerican voters, with almost surgical precision and found tun constitutional. But that case took 5. 9 million, including expert fees and attorney time, and 34 months to litigate. In the interim, the 2014 general election took place and 190 federal and State Government officials were elected under what was later determined to be an unconstitutional regime. That laws been struck down, but that election cannot be rerun. There is no way now to compensate the voters of North Carolina or our democracy itself for that gross injustice. Thats just one example. My written testimony details 10 section 2 case that is the aclu has litigated since Shelby County which we obtained favorite outcomes for our clients only after a dozen elections were held and 350 federal, state, and local officials were elected under discriminatory laws. The v. R. A. A. Would address this problem in two ways w a new preclearance provision based on a rolling formula accounting for recent Voting Rights violations, and clarified standard for preliminary injunctions in section 2 cases. Both would help prevent discriminatory laws from taking effect before an eex. Third, overall the bulk of section 2 litigation has at the local level where changes to vogt laws are more difficult to monitor and highlights the need for the v. R. A. s transparency and notice requirements. Fourth and finally, a handful of states of formerly covered states under the section 5 preclearance regime account for more than half of successful section 2 cases since Shelby County was decided. Which indicates diverting discrimination remains concentrated in certain areas and particularly strong protections are justified in those places. Congress has a duty to take strong action to fulfill the promise of the reconstruction amendments. That all americans should be free to participate in our democracy on equal terms free from Racial Discrimination. Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you have today. Chairman cohen thank you, mr. Ho. Our next witness is Jay Christian adams. President and general counsel of Public InterestLegal Foundation from 2005 to 2010. He worked in the voting section at the United States department of justice. Prior to his time at the Justice Department he served as general counsel of the South Carolina to the South Carolina secretary of state. Law degree from the university of South Carolina school of law. Mr. Adams, you are recognized for five minutes. Mr. Adam thank you very much chairman nadlerks chairman cohen, Ranking Member johnson. President and general counsely Legal Foundation were dedicated to preserving Election Integrity and the constitutional decentralization of power so states may administer their own elections. Ill im presenting evidence today of two voter disenfranchisement i have about working on. The first was decided by the ninth circuit in july. I represented retired air force general major davis. He served on guam and decided to live there on retirement. Guam is governed by the federal organic act of 1950. The organic act bans Racial Discrimination voting and explicitly incorporates the protections of the 15th amendment. Nevertheless, the legislature of guam passed an election law confining the right to vote in a status pleb bye site to a prefer racial group, socalled native inhabitants. In other words, guam imposed voter qualifications based on blood ancestry, much like the oklahoma grandfather clause struck down by the Supreme Court over a century ago. Now, congress has required guam to adhere to civil rights obligations in the 15th amendment and other federal statutes. But ironically guam also received over 300,000 in federal funds from the department of the interior to conduct education campaigns about this very same racially discriminatory voting process. That is Something Congress can fix. When dave davis sought to register to vote at the government office, his Registration Form was marked void by Election Officials. The form is in my written record, statement. Even in the gym crow south of the early 1960s, southern registrars were not brazen enough to deny the right to vote explicitly on having the wrong racial blood. We filed suit in federal court way back in 2011 and the case is still continuing because guam has been zealots in defending the racially discriminatory laws. It is so blatant that the unDistrict Court in guam granted him Summary Judgment in 2015. It despied this raise brazen Racial Discrimination, not sangle Civil Rights Organization took the case. Not a single Civil Rights Organization offered to help mr. Davis. Despite the long inventory of voting cases we know about, not even a single Civil Rights Organization filed an amicus in this case. Some voting cases such as challenges to South Carolina voter i. D. The same groups managed to duplicate or triply kate each other despite the fact that not a Single Person was disenfranchised by the South Carolina voter i. D. Law. Why is this important . It is important that reauthorization of the Voting Rights act, if it occurs, is not done in a way that affects partisan interests. Because all too often civil Rights Enforcement is also about partisan interests. To add insult to injury, mr. Davis could not even get the United States department of justice to help him in 2011. His pleas were ignored by the civil rights division. No case was filed on his behalf. No amicus was filed to help him. No nothing. Even after the ninth Circuit Court of appeals in 2005 rule that he had a ripe case, the Justice Department failed to act. Oddly, rightness was cited by chief in the voting inspection in an internal Inspector General report as to why the d. O. J. Did not help mr. Davis. Finally on november, 2017, the Justice Department did what it should have done six years earlier and appeared in court seeking to strike down the racially discriminatory voting law. Congress can do something. For one, stop public funding of racially discriminatory election Public Information campaigns. Congress has exclusive power in the territories and can stop this. The second example, which i will briefly mention, involves the commonwealth of virginia canceling citizen registrations. In other words, citizens are having their Voter Registrations canceled in virginia. We found this out when we began to infire about records regarding noncitizens. We found the commonwealth is routinely canceling citizens. In sum, there are Things Congress can do. First of all reexam the interplay between motor voter d. M. V. Laws and Election Officials. The d. M. V. Part of motor voter is hidden from the public because congress hid it. Secondly, congress has shielded state Motor Vehicle departments and that shield should go away. Third, congress should strengthen obligations for Election Officials to be transparent. We are currently suing the state of pennsylvania, North Carolina, and harris county, texas because they are not allowing public inspection of election records in those three places. Fourth, congress should allow states to verify citizenship. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Chairman cohen thank you, mr. Adams. Miss myrna perez is at the breanbrenian center for justice t n. Y. U. Lecture in law at columbia. And served as add juppingt professor at the n. Y. U. School of law. Received her law degree from columbia. Shes also a loanstein Public Interest fellow. Received a lowenstein Public Interest fellow. You are recognized for five minutes. Miss perez im the director of the Voting Rights and Election Program at the brennan certainty of justice at nyu school of law. The Supreme Court in Shelby CountyLeft Congress with a critical challenge, pass a revised coverage formula. Accordingly, we ask this committee to take note. A number of state and local jurisdictions have continued to implement discriminatory voting laws. They have continued to disenfranchise voters of color in our election. In fact, over the past decade, the Brennan Center has documented a wave of new laws and practices burdening the right to vote, especially targeting communities of color. These ongoing problems demand a thoughtful and strong response. Section 5 of the voting right act reflects an important insight. State and local officials looking to suppress the vote have a ride variety of tools and tactics at their disposal. I go through some of these tools and tactics during my written testimony, but the one i will focus on here is that of aggressive voter purges which can aggressively and unfairly target voters of color and disenfranchise large numbers of eligible citizens. Purges refer to the process Election Officials use to try to remove the names of the knowledgeable voters from voting registration lists. Obviously this process is an important part of any Election Officials job. When purges are done right, they ensure that the voter rolls are accurate and up to date. Something we agree is useful. However when purges are done improperly, they disenfranchise legitimate voters and undermine confidence in our democracy processes. Moreover, improper purges can lead to discriminatory results. Sometimes by mistake and sometimes on purpose. For example, reports indicate that new yorks purge leading into the 2016 election disproportionately affected latino voters. So did floridas 2012 purge attempt prior to shelby, jurisdictions were required to preclear changes to their purge practices before implementing them. Not any more. What have we seen . Between 2014 and 2016, states removed almost 16 million voters from the rolls. Thats almost four million more than states removed between 2006 and 2008. That is an increase of 33 . Far outstripping growth in both total registered voters and total population. Our Research Suggests that Shelby County had a notable impact on that growth. Prior to Shelby County, jurisdictions subject to preclearance had purge rates in line with the rest of the country. But for the three election cycles ending in 2014, 2016, and 2018, in other words after Shelby County, preclearance jurisdictions had significantly higher purge rates than other jurisdictions. To put another way, before Shelby County, jurisdictions subject to preclearance looked like the rest of the country when it came to purges. But after, formerly covered jurisdictions increased their purge rates while everyone else remained about the same. We calculated that two million fewer voters would have been purged 2003 2012 and 2016 if jurisdictions previously subject to preclearance had purged at the same rate as other jurisdictions. We have seen several improper purges in shelby. Just this year a federal court stepped in to stop texas officials from purging about 95,000 voters from the rolls. Texas initially claimed these people were noncitizens. But the state relied on bad data. In 2016 new york wrongly deleted more than 100,000 changes from the rolls. That same year the arkansas secretary of state prepared and ncrake gnat list. Voters often dont know they have been purged until they show up to vote. They are below the public radar, it is difficult to address the effects of bad purges until it is too late. That is why section 5s preclearance process is particularly well taylored to tailored to address not only voter discrimination and other forms. But the purge problem specifically. Because a revitalized preclearance regime through required covered jurisdictions should obtain approval through new purge practices. The need for preclearance is particularly urgent in light of development over the last decade. We have new databases popping up which supposedly identify ineligible voters, but they are producing plawed results that can lead to improper purges. States are passing new laws looking for different grounds upon which to purge people. And lee relying on discredited methodology certain groups are pushing localities to increase the aggressiveness of their purchases. Many advocates sitting here will do our very best to protect voters against discriminatory laws and policies including improper purges. Congress can and should also act to protect voters. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed congressional power to enact the coverage formula for section 5 preclearance, including in the Shelby County decision it sefment we urge congress to revitalize the v. R. A. I look forward to questions. Chairman cohen our final wince is natalie landreth, senior staff attorney for native American Life fund. Anchorage, alaska office. Her practice covers a wide variety of federal indian law and election law issues including the v. R. A. Shes been instrumental in establishing key voter protections in alaska through two significant cases and testified in congress in support of renewal of the v. R. A. In 2006. Shes a magna couple laud graduate of harvard university. And received her law degree from harvard as well. Member of the change saw nation. You are recognized for five minutes. Police landreth landreth chairman cohen miss perez, can you help her. Ms. Landreth thank you very much. My name is natalie landreth, citizen of the chick saw nation. Im here in my capacity as staff attorney. I have held my position since 2003 and worked on voting cases since 2006. I thank you for the invitation to speak here today. To speak on ongoing voter discrimination in Indian Country because there is a lot and it is egregious. There is a view that what are called first generation barriers direct impediments to polling places, and access to voting is a thing of the past. That view is wrong. First generation barriers are not gone. And this month . Of this testimony the native American Rights Fund will be submitting a report on nine field hearings we conducted throughout Indian Country that show the extent of these barriers. Including testimony from voters who said they were forced to vote in an abandon chicken coop complete with egg boxes remaining behind. And voters who claimed that they had been forced to vote in a sheriff station with an armed sheriff who ran their plates before they walked inside. I want to address three things in my testimony today briefly. First i want to talk about how the loss of preclearance has affected our work and how its impacting your constituents. Second, i want to talk about what previously discovered covered jurisdictions are now doing. And third, i want to talk a little bit about known practices coverage which is included in this draft of the vraa. First the loss of preclearance means just the burden has shifted from the jurisdictions on to the voters themselves. What i mean is they previously had to submit them to the d. O. J. And now we have to sue to get them undone. It is enormously burdensome and an average voting case, narf alone, a fairly small organization, will spend thousands of hours over several years and over 1 million to stop a sirningle discriminatory voting change. Single discriminatory voting change. What happens is because native americans have brought 95 voting cases approximately, and won 92. 5 of the time, is that these jurisdictions end up paying our attorneys fees and shifting that cost on to the taxpayer so that taxpayers end up subsidizing the discrimination that is occurring by local officials. This tells us the success rate that discrimination is real and it is ongoing. Second, the loss of preclearance means that the previously covered jurisdictions implemented discriminatory changes that had previously been denied. One example of course the arizona ballot harvesting law. The reason that was so critical in Indian Country is that only 18 of native americans outside of fema have home mail delivery. What they would have to do is pool their ballots. Neighbors would collect all your mail and take it to the post office at the same time. And this law turned them into potential felons for handling a voted or unvoted ballot that did not have their name on t the other thing that happened in this jurisdiction after the loss of preclearance was the testimony indicated, this is currently in litigation, there was an astounding step removing polling locations from hundreds down to 60 in 2016. The result according to testimony was lines four to six hours long. This can be found seskly in the arizona field transcripts that we will be providing, complete with locations and names of witnesses. I want to speak briefly the fact there are some bad actors everywhere. We talk about how people feeling like certain states are teargetted. That is not true. The known practices formula in known practices list in this bill will help. Let me give you an example from california. Somebody testified that they were unable to register to vote in Northern California because their local jurisdiction considered a mobile home not to be a permanent residence. People on this i. N. S. Yand reservation were not being allowed to vofmente fortunately the secretary of state was in the audience at the time and we understand this has since received some attention. Another jurisdiction not covered whose practices would be addressed by the known practices component of this bill, north dakota. Very well publicized situation. What some people consider to be a facially neutral law, that is completely false because 24 of native americans have no i. D. The court said it best, you need an i. D. To get an i. D. In north dakota. Most of the elderly native americans were born at home. So they dont have birth certificates from the 20s, 30s, and 40s. They cant get the documents they need, not to mention the significant number of them have no access to transportation to do that. So i would like to close by saying that the known practices section lists these pieces but so does the component bill we have drafted based on our field hearings antifindings therein called the native american Voting Rights act. We encourage this committee in congress to pass the v. R. A. A. And the native american Voting Rights act. Chairman cohen i would like to compliment our panel. First panel i think i have ever witnessed that all got to five minutes and stopped. Great. Well now proceed under questioning which is the fiveminute rule of questions. I will recognize myself for questions. Mr. Ho, you mentioned some jurisdictions where section two case vs. Taken place since cases have taken place since shelby v. Holder. Where are those jurisdictions . Predominantly in particular class of jurisdictions . Mr. Ho there have been 26 successful section 2 cases since Shelby County. I define successful case where a court rule in favor of the plaintiffs or the Party Settled and the plaintiffs got some of the relief, some or all of the relief they sought. I think two things stand out when you look at what kind of jurisdictions those cases arose from. The first is of those 26 cases i think 16 of them, there is a table in my written testimony that sets this out, happened at the local level. So a majority of the successful section 2 litigation that we have seen happens at the city, county, school board level. I think what that speaks to is the importance of the notice and transparency requirements of the vraa because changes to voting laws at the local level are harder to detect. Thats something that we lost with the demise of the preclearance regime. A second it that a majority of these cases arose from a handful of states. Again, its set forth in my testimony, that is covered under 5. Tion the problem with voting discrimination remains concentrated in particular justifies particular congressional attention to those places. Mr. Cohen and if those, if i correctly, that were in the preclearance area, were all the old confederacy for go, is as far as states that not accurate . Mr. Ho i believe those were partially covered states, california, new york, that were not. Mr. Cohen and partially covered because they were local jurisdictions, they happened to state . The mr. Ho thats correct. Mr. Cohen those were the of this ere most section 2 action took place . Mr. Ho thats correct. So the old song a med time dixie may has current rung ring . I think the numbers speak for itself. Ms. Perez, what are the reason for purges . Voter ez we want our rolls to be cleaned because people have died, people have moved. People are no longer eligible because of a conviction. Seeing in we are this country is purges are on the rise. Protections that were once available to let the public and justice know of about purged practices and had changed or no longer available when people are purged, they ften find out on election day its too late. Mr. Cohen is the reason its not s because people have voted . Ms. Perez a number of states have different practices that use. Every state in the country that a subject to the mbra has process by which someone is flagged for a certain reason, for removal, they can be given a notice. Mr. Cohen let me go back to my question. Do some jurisdictions purge you you havent voted within the last two years, four years, six years, whatever . Ms. Perez there are some states that have policies, yes. Mr. Cohen do those states have particular similarities, are they particularly in are earance states or they ms. Perez no, sir. But one of the things that is important about the preclearance provision is that it accounts for changing practices. A state could change its ractice to incaps late more people in the purged process. Mr. Cohen you say since shelby vs. Holder purges have increased in preclearance states than correct. thats states, however, that use a policy like, for example, im suming you are point i am pointing to are ohio, in more places just in the southern states. Mr. Cohen you are familiar with australia where its required by law you have to vote . Ms. Perez thats correct. Mr. Cohen they dont have to purge anybody, do they . S. Perez i am not familiar with how they enact the law. What i think is important in we have a y continuing evidence of discrimination and congress has majority to be able to rectify that pursuant to its 15th ity under the amendment. Mr. Cohen ms. Gupta, since the section suspension of preclearance, holdershelby, whats been the case of noncovered ones . Have you seen the preclearance were in the previous be more activect found in een itigation to have been more active . S. Gupta private litigants have more greater and my ho, the chart shows there is a need for section 2 litigation in that were ns previously precleared or had a with the ce regime Justice Department. I also theres been a stark mark in contrast with the department in under the Trump Administration which as not opened a single Voting Rights investigation. But for the private litigants, he effort now to become aware of hyper local changes which are it n very hard to detect the at the national level, to why were here today urge restoration of the Voting Rights act. Mr. Cohen thank you. Johnson, youre recognized for five minutes. Mr. Johnson thank you, mr. Chairman. Adams, i watched you with a pensive reaction on your face. Do you want to respond to the questions . Apologize not having a poker face. Couple states were left off the ist of states under the old preclearance regime covered. Its not all dixie. Alaska, h dakota, its its new hampshire, its parts of new york were covered, new york city, but that ranslates into new york state when it comes to rules that are assed by in albany related to the elections in new york. Its not just mississippi and South Carolina. Thanks for that clarification. Its not often in this iraa that court finds eals purposeful discrimination based on race in voting. Ninth Circuit Court of appeals did just that. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the significance of that Circuit Decision and how it compares to any other recent rulings ofeals court intentional race discrimination voting . Mr. Adams you have an ancestry test. Form you have to say who your parents are. And it says you have to have the you can vote. Fore and the court in the ninth circuit ruled this is discrimination. Now, we often hear and i Circuit Courts trump District Courts, but we ften hear about the surgical precision quote. We hear that over andover on a loop, but the reality that thely bears some reading is lower court ruling, which i understand was reversed, but it rare many00page factual rare there was a hundredpage factual finding. Mr. Johnson has it ever been country . O vote in this it seems we made a lot of progress on access to voting. Elaborate on ud that. Mr. Adams i think there is wareness at the state level about the importance of making it easier to register to vote. Orestified to this committee maybe the Oversight Committee that it has never been easier to register to vote in america than is in 2019. It has never been easier to vote america than it is in 2019. Mr. Johnson when an illegally negates the fact of a legally cast vote, that counts muchppression of voting as as any suppression of voting. Can you talk about protecting he integrity of the vote are themselves measures designed to protect the vote . Mr. Adams right. Idea that t buy the you cant get it right, right . You can have clean voter rules. Have integrity, and everybody gets a chance to vote. I think, for example, that voter be free and easy to get, and thats why the south should voter i. D. Law never have been objected to by the older Justice Department. In fact, there was a failsafe and in the end we know what the outcome of that was. The District Court. The burdens were reversed, and thats what ection 5 does, reverse the burdens. The District Court still ruled in favor of South Carolina and said, despite the millions of spent by the groups ighting it and saying it was discriminatory, the court ruled that it was not. And an example of how section 5 abused if its reauthorized. Mr. Johnson i think i have time for one more question about the guam case. I noticed it was only the trump Justice Department that was ultimately help major davis in that case. What happened they wouldnt help a retired Service Member protect his right to vote . Mr. Adams there is a great question and there is not a lot except in the Inspector Generals report where they said they didnt think the right. S ninth circuit put that to rest in 2015 and said the case was right. Saw two years of unwillingness, not an amicus brief. If you look at the record of the the Justice Department, obama Justice Department, and the number of cases filed, you ill see very clearly the bush Justice Department was far more active and section 2 i testified and in previous testimony to this Committee Section 2 2009 to 2017 om virtually went to sleep. R. Johnson i got 30 seconds left. Why didnt any of the other groups assembled to the table anything about the cases we mention today . Mr. Adams i caution the committee, if you are reauthorizing the Voting Rights act, not make it partisan. Think that ers, i the Voting Rights act is viewed partisan record. Justice Department Se the Voting Rights act as a partisan weapon. Thats the when you see the Voting Rights act, thats how its viewed. Mr. Cohen thank you. Recognize mr. Nadler, i made the statement about the states that were covered and arizona, exception of which i mentioned, the only tate covered in hold side old confederacy is alaska. The other states are local jurisdictions which i also there are local jurisdictions, other places. Forget apologizing forgetting alaska and for not knowing about guam. Mr. Nadler, youre recognized. Thank you. I will comment on the obvious distraction of the guam case nothing to do with what we are talking about and was pretty egregious. Ask mr. Ho. Memphising last week in the minority witness suggest that congress was restrained in its ability to adopt legislation o reinvigorate section 53 clearance. Essentially because the current level of discrimination is not his opinion, in to justify interference in state and local elections and because at discriminatory effect and not just discriminatory purpose. What is your response . It not within congresss broad Constitutional Authority nder the reconstruction amendments to determine the existence of discrimination and discrimination is severe so as to apply a federal legislative response . That thank you for question, chairman nadler. Think congress has the authority in light of Current Conditions to reinvigorate the Voting Rights act. Security in city of burney creates aecision that rule if Congress Wants to exercise its 14th amendment there must bewers a record of constitutional violations. Here. K we have that 2 i referenced earlier, it does not require a udicial finding of constitutional under the esults test is in fact quite similar to the test that the Supreme Court announced in rogers vs. Lodge for unconstitutional voting discrimination. We heard about the impact standard. Adopted section 2 law by signed into ronald reagan. Liability depends on factors that are similar to the factors of a finding unconstitutional discrimination adopted because congress didnt want to put difficult position of having to call legislators in their counties or in their racists. To have to call out their intent. Intent test. It would be perverse today to look at section 2 violations make it intended to easier for courts to strike down discriminatory laws and say relevant in assessing whether or not constitutional iolations have occurred and whether or not stronger congressional action is necessary. Mr. Nadler thank you. Gupta, we you, ms. Heard testimony at the hearing last week the law through section 2 is time consuming, expensive. You spend 2 million on it and so forth. What would you think of oppose all costs, defendant n the government if it loses a section cost, not plaintiffs just attorneys fees . Gooupt gooupt just to just to start out, its incredibly costly and time consuming. Pernicious effect of the amount of section 2 litigation thats been required county decision has actually been the number of have taken place pursuant to laws that have later been found by federal courts to been violated by other constitutional and federal law. There is no accountability or that seeks that redress because those elections have taken place and voters were penalized unlawfully for that. Ut on this question of cost, its an interesting idea. I think one of the major issues the loss of section 5 has been the inability to hold fficials accountable when they do engage even in intentional discrimination in the enactment laws. So this notion of cost, kind of shifting the burden of cost i interesting interesting remedy to pursue. I dont think its enough, for h, as a substitute preclearance, but certainly to be able to have some deterrent place, such that officials kind of think twice, opefully the constitution is Something Else they think about when theyre enacting these laws be s something to mr. Nadler thank you. I have left, nds would you support amending section 1983 to allow the sue local artment to officials for damages for voting violations . Or dep ration of civil rights under common law . Ms. Gupta congressman, thats an interesting idea. Come back to you with my ideas on it. Used to 983 has been misconduct context. I think on this issue of accountability, it may be tool thats under disposal. As you know, the Supreme Court section 1983swn protections, and i would welcome the opportunity to talk about strengthening of the section 1983 by congress. Very much. Thank you i yield back. Mr. Cohen thank you, mr. Chair. I now recognize five minutes mr. Gohmert of texas. Mr. Gohmert thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the witnesses being here. So that we can inform our full Committee Chairman who said guam information is not relevant to anything here, the this hearing is, according to the democrats, vidence of current and ongoing discrimination. Used in was the form guam. It is relevant. In this decade that we would like this and not one of the groups represented here ould go go stand up and say this is absolutely intolerable and ke somebody go through even down to the mother and certifyingh parents, you are a native in 1950, it is to the groups of pompeian, panese, korean, all those that were not 1950, and i appreciate the looks im getting from some of our witnesses. Really is embarrassing that nobody stepped up. A black tian, i recall panther intimidation case that occurred when you were there at Justice Department. Were you allowed to go ahead and those gment against people that were intimidating at site . Ction mr. Adams i confess, i try to case. About that asking. Ert im just mr. Adams the case was two ssed to, i believe, defendants, corporate defendant. Think the man mr. Jack jackson was dismissed against two of the defendants, right. R. Gohmert and you were not allowed to pursue that, it was dismissed . Mr. Adams there is a long record there. Mentioned this incident in guam where the Justice Department, under the administration, would not go in and say, this is wrong, we forms . Have these kind of it doesnt matter what your race is. Come in to be able to and vote. Who was head of the civil rights 2012 . N at that time in mr. Adams thats a good question. Who was the exactly head of the attorney general. That after the Inspector General questions were taken to sections chief that said ripeness is the barrier. Mr. Gohmert i know tom perez point. Ere at some mr. Adams he may have been the i cant remember. Now . Ohmert where is he mr. Adams d. N. C. Mr. Gohmert hes head of the thats right. They called them draconian voter i. D. Laws. Know hes apparently not aware ut i know i read in 2012 the Democratic National convention ould not allow anyone to come in and vote unless they had, in i. D. Words, a state issued wow national atic convention is using and has used decade a draconian voter i. D. Requirement. Thats incredible. Through john funds book stealing elections, john makes the point that the reatest Election Fraud is the statement that there is no Election Fraud. Gone on for s years for those that dont know. Look at o back and duval county in texas or cook illinois. It has gone on. On. Till goes anytime we allow people to vote evidence owing some vote, heyre allowable to it disenfranchises all of the legally voting people. Nd people that vote more than once. Anyway, there are a lot of roblems that need to be dealt with. Its just amazing to me. This tell you, back when was reauthorized, i wanted to for the the voter v. R. A. It needed to be reauthorized. Of you have brought up it had a formula that punishing states for what had happened 50 years before. Were being punished, and i went to the republican eader at that point in this committee, mr. Sensenbrenner, and as i recall, there was a istrict in wisconsin that had racial disparity, and he said, were not changing that 50yearold formula. Were going to keep punishing the original states. I went to john conyers, and he was very gracious and he me talk to some people. He said, you got a good point, but were going to be able to passed. Lets let it go to the courts. I said, its going to be struck down. Very liberal people, including the dean from the new york law school, just there, and he said, yeah, its got to be struck down. Its unconstitutional. Aware, e that were not we should not be pun irk generations for the since of 50year before generations. Where we ought to be able to come together. Disparity with racial then aelectiallow section 5 and those. Thats where we are here you blaming Shelby County. I yield back. Mr. Cohen thank you. R. Rask{suffix}in mr. Raskin i x}in mr. Heard southern rights were rightsd under the voting act. Was there any punishment in the oting rights act before the Shelby County case . Did anybody go to jail, was imprisoned . There was no punishment in it, ay you described congressman raskin. To congressman gohmerts case. It reflects Current Conditions the Voting Rights act advancement act which is ased on findings of recent Voting Rights violations does precisely that. I hope we can come together and pass something. Mr. Ho i appreciated your support for the Voting Rights act in 2006 and i hope to see support for stronger Voting Rights protections today. Mr. Raskin if somebody robs a bank, they will be prosecuted jail for that, if theyre convicted. The wake of Shelby County vs. Holder, if a state deliberate effort to suppress Voting Rights or to or to ople from voting minority votes of groups, what happens . Said, ta well, as we often getting to those decisions federal courts will actually declare that, takes years of litigation. After years, what will happen to them . Ms. Gupta there is no state ability for the fficials that were found to be discriminatory . Mr. Raskin nobody goes to jail. Yield . He gentleman will mr. Raskin i have four minutes. Be happy to at the end if i have time. Meantime . Ns in the in other words, you go to now in bsence of the preclearance requirement, you go to court many years later, maybe you get ruling, in the meantime, theres been all of these elections that have taken place Voting Rights violation enforced. What can be done retroactively democracy whole . Ms. Gupta there is nothing. Disenfranchised when elections have taken place. The supreme hen court wiped out the preclearance requirement because of the coverage provision, in section essentially what it did is knock the teeth out of the Voting Rights act because to keep a hing jurisdiction now from engaging in a Voting Rights violation because nobody is going to go to it, and even if the people who bring the case, the win, several years later, all you get is an order to stop doing it in the future. In the meantime, you have all these elections that have essentially bin fixed by the of voting essentially fraud of fixed by the voting. Before leading the naacp, you mississippi n the conference, am i right . Ississippi has the highest percentage of africanamericans than any other state in the union. Yet, the state has not elected statewide inerican more than 130 years since reconstruction. The mississippi constitution requires candidates for statewide office to win not of the e than 50 popular vote, or actually a vote, ty of the popular but more than half of the states, 120 legislative 2 3 of which are majority white. Do i have that white . Correct. On that is mr. Raskin ok. If a candidate doesnt meet both of those conditions winning a in the election and then winning more than half of the states legislative the state house chooses the winner regardless of who got the most votes, do i right . Hat mr. Johnson that is correct. Mr. Raskin ok. In is being challenged court right now. Mr. Johnson that is correct. Why was this constitutional requirement put in place in the first place . Historical origin . Mr. Johnson most of ississippis electoral policy is derived out of the constitution of 1890. That constitution was after we redumpings when former onfedderate confederate soldiers took back of government. As a result of that, they put in systems subjugate, not only the grandfather clause but additional barriers because then it is now, mississippi had the highest percentage of africanamericans. In they wanted to keep place mr. Raskin let me ask, how has lack of sponding africanamerican representation statewide affected the social, rights , and political and development of africanamerican communities . Mr. Johnson mississippi is the union. State in the it underfunds much of the basic needs of africanamericans and mississippi as a whole. Poorest education system. The poorest structures. Thats the result of the lack of representation of all citizens of the state because of these electoral barriers. Thank you. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Cohen thank you. Sir. You, before that, what was the was the name that butler . E will aldwell butler is the one i know. Thank you. I am interested in mr. Adams testimony about the events that in virginia and first, i really am shocked to type of activity that occurred in guam is occurring in the 21st century. Mr. Cline just to make it go down the row eally quickly and just yes or no. Ms. Gupta, would you say its in ceptable unacceptable the 21st century in the United States . Ms. Gupta congressman, i cant underto a matter that was education during my full tenure in the Justice Department. Johnson, yes or no, unacceptable . Mr. Johnson i dont know much about the case. If there is grandfather clauses or blood tests, that is something that we oppose. Cline ok. M ho. Mr. Ho they found it appropriate. Cline keep going. S. Perez i am hesitant to answer too definitively given the reimagined of some of the we heard here today. I will say if the facts were a grandfatherests clause we would be oppose to it. Ms. Landreth i am not going to a case i know nothing about. I find it embarrassing that this house doesnt seem equally as disturbed by americans, driving 98 miles one way to register. Id like you to focus on that a while. Mr. Cline i am focused on a orm that is displayed that is blatant loedis cripple in blatantly discriminatory in a territory in the 21st states in century. And it is it is disturbing get nor anonymity. You talk about the voting law, how it contributes to only getting on voter rolls but also the improper elimination of citizens rolls. Irginias voter can you elaborate on that and it . We can do about thank you, mr. Cline. Mr. Adams my organization has datamining the process of noncitizen cancellation and we published and multiple reports in pennsylvania, for example, green , immigrants and cardholders who were inadvertently getting on the voter rolls. Conspiracy. A this is a glitch. In pennsylvanias case it was a affected the entire commonwealth for 20 years. And what is happening is when jeopardize their immigration status. In virginia, the problem was noncitizens an getting on the rolls. It was citizens actually getting canceled through the citizenship process in virginia. Individuals who are american itizens were being declared noncitizens by the state Election Officials. And being removed from the rolls. This is a problem that Congress Needs to address because the broken. Stem is its not working because of Technology Changes in the last motor voter 25 years since it was passed. Believe, mportant, i that only citizens be on the rolls, and theres easy ways to it. Cooperate with state officials. Ederal government, state officials to verify citizenship. Form of tes to do some citizenship verification thats nonintrusive. Its easily solved. Kline yieldine mr. Chairman, i back. Mr. Cohen thank you. Of des perrate have to not i disagree. Scanlon pennsylvania passed a number of Voter Suppression including a strict voter i. D. Law and some wildly electoral maps. Now, this legislation was an ally neutral but it had impact upon voters who were oor, elderly, women, residents of cities, people of color, in words, voters who were overwhelmingly democrats. Would say its the most pernicious kind which is trying of uppress the votes citizens on the basis of their democrats. Dentity as in challenging the voter i. D. Law in particular, advocates ere fortunate in being able to uncover a recording of the house ajority leader bragging to the statewide Republican Committee that his legislative and plishments included this was 2012 quote, voter allow hich is going to governor romney to win the state of pennsylvania, end quote. So i am not so naive to believe those who would suppress the so will always be indiscreet. So id like to ask ms. Perez, address what kind of ence we use to show impact that shows actual discrimination thats occurring cases . E section 2 we a standard whereby congress in is series of forth a factors that is designed to smoke out discrimination because are exactly, as member scanlon noted, a little bit more discreet. That evidence is in fact probe iff of what people are intending to do if they felt like they could get away with it. Addition, we have the continuing evidence of current that would justify section 5 of the Voting Rights would include a coverage formula thats rolling, dynamic, and looks at a number factors. Geographically and problems that cause problems. Taken together, a Voting Rights that has a robust section 5, a strongsection 4, and section 2 will go a very, very long way in rooting out Racial Discrimination. You. Canlon thank ms. Gupta, when acting attorney whitaker was here in february, i i asked him whether the Trump Department of justice rought any Voting Rights enforcement actions, and he was unable to recall that. S it your testimony that the Trump Administration has not acted to protect Voting Rights 2017 . Case since january, correct. f i could respond to something thats galling to something that mr. Adams said. Mr. Adams recently had to enter Settlement Agreement in which he was actually forced to apologize for reports that inaccurate information about specific individuals removed from voter rolls in virginia, the matter he was just talking about allegedly because they were noncitizens. Its important to also put that in the record. Ms. Scanlon thank you. One more followup question. An issuelaces has been in my district. Toward that end we introduced the disability Voting Rights act passed with h. R. 1 and would make it easier for ndividuals with disabilities, including seniors and veterans, to register, obtain absentee in polling places. Can you describe how the ocations of polling stations and the degree that accessibili disabilities hurts in minority communities, and i hink you have it in the new report that just came out. Ms. Gupta there has been a lot f enforcement on the part of both private organizations and the Justice Department in prior administrations around the lack polling places. The and so there is a lot of done thats been a rigorous area of our work. I will say, though, its that closing ote polling places because of a. D. A. Should be ce really something of last resort because there are many ways to actually ake polling places more accessible, including things ike creating parking for temporary signage, you get sameday modifications that can made, building temporary ramps and the like. In a number of instances, thats accessibility has been improved without the need of losing polling places to begin with. Ms. Scanlon thank you. I yield back. Mr. Cohen thank you. Mr. Armstrong, youre recognized sir. Ive minutes, mr. Armstrong thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Adams, i guess if we are to enter stuff on the record id give you an opportunity to i know you talked a little bit about it in testimony, so i give you opportunity to respond. Mr. Adams thank you. Discussed this at some length in my testimony. Assertion that mr. Apologize is d to wrong. Were izens in virginia being removed in the rolls rom the rolls when we discovered therapist citizens. I recognize that ms. Guptas organization has done nothing citizens being removed from the voter rolls whereas our organization is attempting to fix a problem. Of a settlement in the case. Nobody was forced to do anything finding of any liability. Mr. Armstrong thank you. Just want to go into this otor voter issue a little bit primarily because were dealing oftentimes people who english is not their first language and continue to move hrough this and by automatically getting added to the rolls we run into these cycles. They get unbelievably except tiff. Oesnt matter if theyre democrats or republicans. They are running hot. There is another part to this back up and tell a north dakota story in a second. Vote or get ter to into those situations, doesnt their ability to become a citizen later . Mr. Adams absolutely. I. N. F. Stion 12 on the form. Have you ever registered to vote, have you ever voted . Finding through public records requests is that those individuals who are noncitizens, got caught up in the broken motor voter system are eopardizing their immigration status. You would think everybody would care about that, but as weve seen today, thats not the case. What is happening is theyre jeopardizing their immigration noncitizens are getting on the rolls, they are voting. Eve been harvesting sort of their, please take me off the rolls, theyre selfdeportation if you voter rolls, will. Where they thought they were registering for Something Else. They didnt understand the form. In the language in allegany county, pennsylvania, that they spoke, because its by 203. Red and so the system has flaws in it that were attempting to and to fix. Occasionally there are glitches on the way, like relying on virginia, for we would assume not be removing citizens but they are. So my wife is not a citizen. Shes a permanent resident alien, and she comes from norway, and its a little different situation but in a have voter oesnt registration, theyve attempted to deal with this, the state legislature. Her i. D. Looks identical to mine. I mean, it is absolutely no situation that would i mean, it is bsolutely an honor system and we continue to work through it. Married to a hes politician which we can judge her for her in her own right. The laws and we know where its at. She can walk and vote in north the a at any point and election people wouldnt know the difference. I mean, thats a now, were different. We were the only state in the nion that doesnt have Voter Registration. Thats an issue. I end this, and i agree with eed to make it easier im getting a bunch of calls on real i. D. In north dakota right now people wait until the last moment. We need to make it easier for people in situations, whether native americans or elderly in general to be able to and work forr i. D. It. I would also like to say egarding i mean, theres a preliminary injunction issued in the north dakota case. It was overturned by the eighth circuit. Supreme court chose not to take it up. There was a mechanism and timing came out thatsion made it incredibly problematic in the 2018 election. Policy or anything like that, i believe the work zations who went to and activated on the native American Reservations in north did get ensure people i. D. s and vote because they turned out, regardless how they turned was, out in absolute record numbers in 2018. It shouldnt be that hard to get an i. D. We should continue, particularly with older people. Is airth certificate thing real issue. Real issue in rural america. Its exponentially its magnified on the native American Reservations, and i recognize that. Commended. Be i know this full well. Most of them didnt vote for me. Hey should be absolutely commended for what they got done in a short period of time. With that i yield back. Mr. Cohen thank you. Mind, how do you do it in north dakota, if you dont have it in Voter Registration, everybody on the rolls, how do you do it . 30day trong we have a residency requirement. All you have to do is show an i. D. There isconsternation, no Voter Registration. You have to have a valid i. D. And proof of address. For record, i t think we should mention, ive had a lot of constituents be that the new government i. D. Requirement is stopping to do with people from having the right to vote. Thats not an all true, is it . Not true. Ong its were running into a lot of problems. One, i think, in fairness, last wait until the minute to go get their i. D. Theres long delays at the they had the opportunity to do it. Providing the documentation to get the real i. D. Versus your drivers license, i think its same across the ountry, is proving to be cumbersome. Mr. Cohen was it the lemieux were hockey stars . Mr. Armstrong yes. Mr. Cohen does anybody on the the new federal i. D. Law about has anything to do people from voting . Good. Youre recognized. Ms. Dean thank you, mr. Chairman. Times in awfully anxious in our democracy, and so when i i e that fear overcome me, try to remind myself of a quote that i like from Thomas Jefferson. Things go wrong setny time, the people will their right by the peaceable exercise of their elected rights. Gives me some consolation. Except when we have conversations like were having historyd when we have a of what we have seen today. How can the people truly right a elected rights eferred to by Thomas Jefferson are attacked, thwarted in many, many ways . Gupta you mentioned several shelby actics from the decision, cuts to early voting, urges of voter rolls, strict voter identification, lastminute polling place closures. Consolidations. Can you tell us of the frequency of some of these implementations . If we reflect back on 2018, and also your concerns for 2020. Ms. Gupta yeah. Thank you for the questions. Just today actually released report, about number of poll closures around the country since the Shelby County decision 1,066 und that about polling place closures have happened since the Shelby County that on in jurisdictions were previously covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights act. Of the hyper local changes that would have equired preclearance by the Justice Department. Not because they were automatically going to be deemed in acial loedis cripple atory but actually racially iscriminatory but actually analysis of whether it would disparate impact but also to provide notice, advance voters where these places have been moved. Of e is an abundance litigation that my colleagues have mentioned thats taken around really uncover discriminatory practices in election an administration that add to the urrent record of contemporaconongoing ongoing ms. Dean what are some of the other voting problems that weve country that e h. R. 4 would address . Think there is a couple of things. If i am not wrong, depending how you count, it would prevent native american tribes it cover again, we have to check this and depend how you count. Ms. Landreth california has 100 tribes. New york has eight tribes. And the mississippi choctaw protected. Be they have 10 also subjurisdictions for section 203. Prevent ld retroagreeings for 20 of native american tribes. Piece known practices would prevent the vote delusion that we commonly see in indian switch these thee jurisdictions to atlarge in order to make sure you never get represents you and your Community Even if its sizeable. Particularly the polling place closures, because of that, thats one of the things we find unique. N country thats if youf tribes are told, want a polling place you have to that. I want you to they will them, to give us 25,000. Saying that . Is ms. Landreth subject to your limitation. These are cases i believe in montana, is one example. The other would be south dakota cases. Here it had become commonplace to say we dont have enough money for elections. Cases may have been resolved now. This is an issue where if you go say our sdiction and tribe wants a polling place on tribal lands, mostly youll be cost. D on the grounds of and then theyll say, you pay for it, you provide the poll workers, you give the case and well let you have one. So protecting that would be hugely valuable. Ms. Dean incredibly unamerican. Mr. Johnson, i just have a few seconds left. A former member of pennsylvania legislature. Special election in 2012 right after voter i. D. Saw personally the consequences going around my district and trying to help people. People, young the barrier of birth certificates and all of the rest. You please explain how voter identification equirements bar americans from vote . Sing their rights to mr. Johnson sure. In negative 10 seconds. Never found an individual seeking to vote under assumed name. It creates an additional barrier hats not necessary, particularly for southern precincts. Each other. Ws there is a very few case where the workers dont know individuals. On top of the fact there has not been any true evidence of vote under ng to assumed name. So you create an additional you create a Chilling Effect to voting. Dinean thank you, i yield back. Thank you. Waiting, ms. Garcia. My home a disparaging county where i was born, duval suggest e seemed to there was voter fraud there for many, many years and its still is simply not at true. Outh texas, including my birth county and my home county of jim great efforts to and ive not up heard, seen, been witness to oter fraud in any of those two counties, my birth county or my home county. F course, i am elected from harris county, and i am not belabor the point other than to say i believe the mischaracterized a bit of his lawsuit against some county in access to of the materials that he was after. Ut i dont want to get into that because as Lyndon Johnson importante is no more right under the constitution than voting. For then o you vote determines the freedoms and the ties you get from all other constitutional rights. So mr. Chairman, thank you for us together to talk about this topic. S one who has been the recipient of a purging letter, all this is very personal to me. I have been turned away from the polls. ve been gone to a poll that wasnt there. Ive been to a poll where machines werent ready. Me. You can look at you know. I dont look mexican. Based on w its discerning, garcia. So please know that i take this my only as an advocate for district but for myself and my family and my friends. To start with you, ms. Perez, on this purging letter issue. Can we do to stop these letters going, almost threatening, if you dont do something, your names going to purged, or how do we stop this flawed data thats sometimes it was in the texas cited where the information was just wrong and all those people who were thousands of people who were registered or maybe was just not true, so what can we do from here in in our federal laws to make sure those things just stop . Ms. Perez thank you, member garcia. Im also from the great state of texas. I think texas is a ripe example robust eed for a preclearance regime because is one of these jurisdictions that keep popping election s of problems. In addition to making it harder and roups to go out register people to vote, they have a strict voter i. D. Law spend ny of us had to five years challenging. Theres aggressive prosecutions folks who run afoul of some of the election laws. Attempts at voter purges it seems at every step. What can we do . Ms. Perez what we can do with purges is ensure that there is a strong preclearance regime that would require that changes to preclearance process get preclearance so it didnt have a impact. Natory we could have stricter compliance with the National Voter registration act. Have Greater Public education to ensure people check their Voter Registration status. Inform Election Administrators when they receive threatening emails from groups to pressure them into aggressively purging the voter rolls that they know that is there l government to protect them. Ms. Garcia thank you. Some of the testimony hat you presented, i know you talked a lot about some of the litigation. Of you quoted 5 million. Aclu . T an average for also, is there anything else you wanted to respond to, any of the from the gentleman to your left . Mr. Ho sure. Reference to in the Court Ordered award of attorneys fees and costs in the litigation that you heard a lot about today. It was certainly, i think, a ore expensive and timeconsuming case than is average. I dont want the committee to thats the average section 2 case. Its certainly on the more expensive side. To say one thing. Ms. Garcia do you have an average . Mr. Ho i dont. Think the record should be clear that it is very remarkable, i think, that mr. Adams is in here today claiming for credit for virginia. Voters in his group hyped a supposed of noncitizen registration in virginia. The report published the names nd Contact Information of voters who were United States citizens, including a los the esborn employee of u. S. C. I. S. Named luis claiming they were noncitizens and committing m of felonies despite warnings from government officials saying the used contained false positives. Mr. Adams not true. Mr. Ho it takes extraordinary chutzpah to come in here and say e protected United States citizens. Ms. Garcia thank you for clearing the record. I yield back. R. Cohen thank you, ms. Garcia. I appreciate all the witnesses today, and all of the testimony. Is a valuable hearing on the importance of Voting Rights bill we have before us to setup a new tandard in section 4 and reactivate restore section 5 of the Voting Rights act. You. Ank each of this concludes todays hearing. I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing today. Thank the minority for educating me about guam. Its something i didnt know about. Very important. Without objection, all members have five legislative days to submit additional written uestions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record, and the hearing is adjourned. National captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] bask{suffix}in. Wraps while this hearing up and lawmakers get ready to leave the room, the house will gavelling in at noon eastern time. The rule on oil and gas drilling in the u. S. A number of housing and banking measures. The house live here on cspan when members return in just a couple of minutes. The house ter today, Judiciary Committee will be working on a number of gun iolence prevention bills with live coverage at 2 00 eastern on cspan3. You can also watch online at cspan. Org or listen live with the free cspan radio app. 18th nesday is the anniversary of the 9 11 terrorist attacks. Watch our live coverage at 8 30 eastern on cspan3 from the 9 11 Memorial Plaza in new york city. Of silence, the reading of the names, and the ringing of the bell. At 9 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan, from the pentagon, a wreath aying ceremony at the 9 11 memorial. Live coverage of the 18th anniversary of the 9 11 on cspan, tacks cspan3, and online at cspan. Org. Listen live on the free cspan radio app