Transcripts For CSPAN House Judiciary Hearing On Voting Discrimination 20240714

Opening statement. Todays hearing of on current and ongoing voting discrimination is part of the house judiciary subcommittee on constitution, civil rights and Civil Liberties over the course of this year to assess the current need for a reinvigoration of the requirement of section 5 of the Voting Rights act. To consider other ways to strengthen that civil rights statue. Im not sure why we say reinvigoration. That seems to be one of the words we tossed around. Section 4 was cut out so we need to have a section 4 to activate section 5. Section 5 has been made dormant by the Supreme Court saying section 4 wasnt adequate so we need to find a new test to awaken the dormant power of section 5. Voting rights act of 65 is widely considered the most effective civil rights statute ever enacted by congress to protect the fundamental right to vote. One of its central enforcement provisions was section 5. The provision required certain jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination against racial minority groups predominantly those that tended to be in the deep south to obtain approval of any changes to the voting laws or procedures from the department of justice or u. S. District court for the district of columbia before those changes could take effect. Purpose of the requirement was to ensure the jurisdictions, as shown by finding of congress, would bear the burden of proving that any changes to voting laws were not discriminatory before such changes could take effect and therefore not discriminate against people that they shouldnt be taking that action against. If provided a mechanism to ensure the rules with a history of discrimination were fair to all voters. We passed the Voting Rights act in there was a list of 1965. Jurisdictions. It was renewed. And then in 2013, our Supreme Court said what we did in the past, chairman of the committee and what the house did by a vote of 390something to 33 and the senate by 980 was not adequate. That a finding by the congress of legislative action was not sufficient, that the court, which is generally kind of says it bears deference to congress was going to jump in and put its opinion above congress. What it did was prevented potentially a discriminatory voting practice. It was the purpose of these laws. In this way it proved to be a significant means of protection of the rights of minority voters. Congress had repeatedly authorized. Most recently in 2006. It was 39033 in the house and the senate was 980. The Supreme Court effectively gutted section 5 in 2013. Shelby county versus holder. Struck down the coverage formula. Section 4. Determined which jurisdictions would be subject to the requirement. As a result, the provision remains dormant unless and until congress adopts this new formula. Weve got to show the court weve taken information and our findings are based on fact. Most recently in memphis, tennessee. Well further learn at todays hearings. Weve seen formally cover voting measures. North carolina for example, passed a sweeping voting suppression law that a federal suppression law that a federal Appeals Court ultimately held to be unconstitutional, finding that it intentionally targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision. Of course by doing it after they put it into effect, they had their desired effect, which was to limit African American voting. The courts could have stopped them from doing it before they did. As mel brooks would say the voodoo they do so well. We also hear about measures that make it difficult or impossible for minority voters to exercise their rights to vote. Polling place closures, purging of voting rolls that disproportionately target minority voters. All of which are designed to make it harder for African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities to vote. Last week in memphis we learned about tennessees third Party Registration law that would item made it a criminal effort for people to do so. Back in may, we learned about a similar law in texas and about many other examples of voting discrimination in that state. Weve seen states engage in racial gerrymandering designed to allude the strength of minority voters. In the absence of an executive preclarence formula, theres almost certainty these discriminatory measures will undermine the Voting Rights of racial and language minority voters. While section 2 of the Voting Rights act remains in effect, it is by itself less effective so definitely more cumbersome and often expensive to enforce the Voting Rights act. Most importantly, plaintiffs cannot invoke section 2 until after alleged harm has taken place, requiring discrimination victims to rely solely on such a remedy. It effectively neutered the act. The acts most important enforcement mechanism. I thank our witnesses, members for being here today. I look forward to a fruitful discussion. Id like to recognize the Ranking Member mr. Johnson, for , his opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Appreciate you all for being here as the Minority Party on this committee. I think theres a couple things that we just want to say at the outset as we begin the hearing. First of all, lets be clear about this. We all agree discriminatory treatment and voting based on race or sex is abhorrent. Its prohibited by the constitution as it should be and prohibited by federal statute as it should be. Too often complaints of discrimination and voting have nothing to do with discriminatory treatment. Instead, rules entirely neutral on their face sometimes claimed to be discriminatory simply because they have a disparate impact on one group or another. Disparate impact claims are a form of identity politics and they contradict, for example, dr. Martin luther kings admonition to focus on consciouses rather than racial groups. Dr. King said famously, quote, when the they were signed a promissory note to which every american was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. That promissory note promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not equality of outcomes. We just believe genuinely that they pervert the language of our founding documents and fail to understand the import of dr. Kings words. Disparate impacts are not proof of discrimination. Indeed, they are statistically inevitable. As thomas has explained, if several criteria need to be met for any given outcome, and this can apply to voting requirements as well, small variations in any groups odds of meeting any of those criteria will produce different outcomes for the group generally. The problem with disparate Impact Theory and voting right context is disparate impact, there are thousands of reasonable reasons and neutral voting rule might have a disparate impact. Reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination. The department of justices letter to preclear South Carolinas voter i. D. Law under the Voting Rights act in 2011. The department claimed in the letter that, quote, minority registered voters were nearly 20 more likely to be effectively disenfranchised by the law because they lacked a drivers license. The difference between white and African American holders of a drivers license was 1. 6 . The Justice Department used the 20 figure because while the states data showed 8. 4 of white registered voters lacked any form of dmv issued i. D. , as compared to 10 of nonwhite registered voters, the number 10 is 20 larger than the number 8. 4 . Its true 20 is larger but the Justice Department rounded up but it clearly distorts the reported difference in drivers license rates and it was used to falsely declare the South Carolina law as objectionable. Lets give another example. Data Shows Younger people across racial groups tend to be the least likely to have drivers licenses. Consequently, if African Americans have proportionately more young people in their demographic group, there will be a disproportionate number without drivers licenses, however, slight, as is indeed the case. As the facts follow, this is due to demographics and not discrimination. The disparate impact approach to civil rights and the assumption that different outcomes are a result of prejudice is fundamentally unsound for the same reason social scientists are trained that correlation does not imply causation. In other words there could be all sorts of correlations between one event and another and that doesnt answer the question as to why the correlation exists. My point is not that voting discrimination as disappeared forever. We know it hasnt. My point is disparate impacts cant be meaningful used to prove voting discrimination. Regarding voting based on race, section 3 of the Voting Rights act, permanent and federal statutory law remains in place and fall of fact. Just a couple years ago, for example, u. S. District court judge rosenthal issued an opinion in a redistricting case that required the city of pasadena, texas to be monitored by the Justice Department because it had intentionally changed its City Council Districts to decrease hispanic influence. The city, which the court ruled, quote, has a long history of discrimination against minorities, unquote, was required to have their future voting rules changes precleared by the department of justice for the next six years during which time the federal judge retains jurisdiction to review enforcement any change to the election map or plan in effect in pasadena on december 1, 2013. A change to the citys election plan can be enforced without review by the judge only if it has been submitted to the u. S. Attorney general and the department of justice has not objected in 60 days. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses here today. I yield back. I now recognize the chairman of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from much of new york, manhattan, eastside west side, eastside, mr. Nadler for his opening statement. Let me express my. Ppreciation to you since the disastrous 2013 decision that effectively gutted the most important Enforcement Division of the Voting Rights act, we have seen a troubling trend. States and localities in particular those that were subjected to the preclearance requirement have engaged in various border suppression tactics, such as partisan proof of citizenship laws, significant scale backs to early voting andods, absentee ballots laws to restore the Voting Rights of incarcerated individuals. These kind of restrictions have a disproportionate negative impact on minority voters. Contrary to what we heard, asparate impact is very much very useful evidentiary tool. In the most recent elections in november 2018, voters across the country experienced barriers to voting because of state and local laws that made it hard or impossible to vote. For example we heard last week in memphis that in georgia under 53,000, 70 of, whom are africanamerican were placed in pending status and at risk of not being counted by the secretary of state, also the republican nominee for governor election, because of minor misspellings on their Registration Forms. Only after a long. Of confusion. Section 5 of the Voting Rights act contains the preclearance requirement requires certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to submit any proposed changes to their voting laws and practices to the department of justice for prior approval to make sure they are not discriminatory. To understand why the preclearance requirement was essential, it is worth remembering white was enacted in the first place. Before the vra, many Voter Suppression laws were enacted. They agnostic it take many laws years before the laws are challenged in court. As soon as one law was overturned another would be enacted, essentially a discriminatory game. Indeed the success of the Voting Rights act with its effective preclearance requirement was apparent after the law went into effect. Registration of africanamerican voters and the number of africanamericans Holding Elected Office froze dramatically in the years after section 5. These successes could not of happened without enforcement of the voters right act. Shelby county decision struck down as unconstitutional. It determined which jurisdictions would be subject to the preclearance requirement effectively suspending the preclearance requirement itself. The game has returned with a vengeance. Not surprisingly within 24 hours of the shelby kind decision, Texas Attorney general announced it would reinstitute for coney and voter id laws. Federal courts held both laws to be intentionally racially discriminatory, not disparate impact, intentionally racially discriminatory. States and localities held many elections over discriminatory laws remained in place and many people were denied the right to vote. In short, before the Racial Discrimination could be stopped, the damage had already been done. At least a one other states enacted statewide voter loss since the Shelby County decision. 2006, when i was the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, we undertook a process to build a record to demonstrate the need to reauthorize the Voting Rights act. Found many, we jurisdictions are still facilitating ongoing discrimination. The states and subdivisions continue to engage in racially selective practices, such as relocating polling places for africanamerican voters. It is true those seeking to enforce the vra can still pursue after the fact legal remedies, times and experience have proven such an approach takes far longer. It is far more expensive than having an effective preclearance for jean. Once the vote has been denied it cannot be recast. Damage to the democracy is permanent. That is what help members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of commerce will come together to pass the vra to its full power. The understanding of the importance of the Voting Rights act and in particular of its preclearance provisions. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses to hear about their findings of ongoing voter discrimination by states and localities. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The Ranking Member has a statement. We welcome our witnesses and thank them for participating in todays hearing. Your written statements will be entered to the record. I ask you each to summarize your statement in five minutes. The light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute left. Time hasns red, your expired. I remind everyone that your statements made to the subcommittee are subject to placement for perjury. Our first witness is the president and chief executive officer of the Leadership Conference on human rights. She was the head of the Civil Rights Division during the obama administration. Her law degree from New York University school of law. She received her undergraduate degree from yale university. Chairman nadler, chairman cohen, Ranking Member johnson, thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you chairman cohen for your leadership. The vra is considered one of the most successful pieces of civil rights legislation and our history. Vra006, we authorized the with sweeping bipartisan support. In 2013, five justices of the Supreme Court gutted the most powerful provision, section 5. It enabled the federal government to block voting restrictions in places with the most pervasive histories of discrimination. It ensured changes to voting rules republic, transparent and evaluated to protect voters against discrimination. When i served in the Justice Department we relied on section 2 of the vra to mitigate the damage made by the shelby kind decision. We challenge discriminatory laws in North Carolina and texas in the immediate aftermath of the decision and we were successful. Courts found intentional discrimination in at least nine federal county courts decisions since the Shelby County decision. But it can take years. Elections are taking place and millions of voters can effectively be disenfranchised with no remedy. Restoring preclearance is all the more important under an administration that refuses to challenge discriminatory voting measures. Not a single case has been opened, including restrictive voter i. D. Requirements and polling place closures which i want to focus on today. Polling place closures and consolidation can be a pernicious tactic for disenfranchising voters, particularly voters of color, older voters, voters with disabilities. Since the shelby decision, jurisdictions are closing polling places at an alarming speed. The Leadership Conference Education Fund released a amocracy diverted, groundbreaking report that analyzing polling places in 750 counties once covered by section 5. We found that 1688 polling places were closed between 2012 and 2018. The report also analyzes polling place reductions in the years before the midterm elections. We found 1,173 fewer polling places in 2018 device a despite a significant increase in voter turnout. Overall texas alone closed 750 polling places. Arizona closed 320. Georgia, 214. Louisiana, mississippi, North Carolina, and alabama trail behind them. This crisis also extends beyond states formally covered by section five. Our campaign identified similar trends in ohio. Between 2016 and 2018, Cuyahoga County eliminated 41 polling locations, the bulk of which happened in majority block wards. Of course there may be valid reasons for polling place closures but its important to recognize these closures are taking a place and its a larger constellation of efforts to prevent people of color from voting. Without preclearance states are under no obligation to evaluate the discriminatory impacts and potential harms of polling place closures. As our report found, closures often mean long lines at polling places, transportation hurdles and mass confusion about where eligible voters may cast their ballots. For many people, these burdens may make it harder and sometimes impossible to vote. Some jurisdiction site voter modernization including vote by mail as a reason to close. The move to mailin ballots is far from racially neutral. In arizona, 96 of nonnative americans live on a u. S. Postal Service Carrier route. While only 26 of native americans live on a u. S. Postal Service Carrier route. Before the shelby decision, scrutiny of voting changes under section five insured polling place reductions did not discriminate. The consequences on voter access are devastating. This is why the Leadership Conference recommends and urges the subcommittee to pass hr 4 to restore the Voting Rights act based on Current Conditions today. While there are justifiable reasons for closing polling places, the sheer scale of closures we identified coupled with other efforts to deny Voting Rights to people of color demand a response and our coalition is committed to protecting and expanding the franchise and we look forward to working with you until the day these reforms are signed into law. Thank you. Thank you very much, ms. Gupta. Derek johnson is the president and chief executive officer of the naacp. He had previously served as vice chairman to the Naacp National board of directors and is president of the naacp Mississippi State conference. Mr. Johnson received his jd from the south Texas College of law, under graduate law from jacksonville, mississippi. Mr. Johnson, you come from my part of the world. Welcome. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to testify. For background, ive 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. Theres an assault on people of color to fully participate. Were six years, two months, 16 days until the Shelby County ruling. This was the worst attack on participatory democracy in modern history. Chief Justice John 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 has become rampant. Instead of asking where is it occurring, we should ask where is it not . Congress has a 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 disenfranchisement takes many forms. Its adaptive and pervasive. These are just a few stringent voter i. D. Requirements like North Carolinas which we successfully challenged and which a court file targeted African Americans with surgical precision. Purges of voter rolls we are seeing in ohio right now. Massive closures of polling places in communities of color. Shortened Voting Periods and elimination of sunday voting. Measures make it criminal for groups to register voters like the ones we recently had to challenge in tennessee. Thirdly, theres no defense. Voter suppression is often done in the name of combatting voter fraud. But 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 in conjunction with our state conferences 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 Rights 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, were fighting back wherever and whenever we can. 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 with 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 will make it easier to cast a vote and make sure that vote is counted. Finally, Congress Must Pass Security federal election act. The safe act would help keep our election free from foreign intervention. Interference that disproportionately targets African Americans. Robert mueller warned this committee about russian interference in our election. He said theyre doing it as we sit here. We must defend our democracy, period. This year the naacp celebrated 110th anniversary. We have never wavered from demanding inclusive secure democracy. Its 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 of government . Thank you for allowing me to testify. I welcome any questions. 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. Next is the director of the Voting Rights project at the american Civil Liberties union. He supervises advocacy work nationwide. Hes testified on election law issues before this congress. Hes also an adjunct clinical professor of law. Received his jd from Yale Law School and his undergraduate degree from princeton. Youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. I am the director of the aclu Voting Rights project. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously warned about the Supreme Courts decision striking down a part of the Voting Rights act was like, quote, throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm. And sure enough, after the decision, a downpour came with a wave of discriminatory voting laws. The aclu has been on the front lines. Weve opened more than 60 new Voting Rights investigations and cases since the decision. Some of our recent and ongoing cases include department of commerce, state of new york, a case i argued before the Supreme Court earlier this year successfully challenging the administrations attempt to add a Citizenship Question to the 2020 census. Naacp and others, we successfully challenged a sweeping North Carolina bill that sought to eliminate means of participation used by more than 1 million voters in the 2012 president ial election. And grover versus barton, we were challenging a florida law that denies the right to vote to returning citizens with past felony convictions based solely on their inability to pay outstanding costs, fines, fees, and restitution. My testimony will focus on Current Conditions with respect to Racial Discrimination in voting and in particular, recent litigation under section 2 of the Voting Rights act. As detailed in my statement, i think four points stand out. First, recent litigation under section 2 of the vra demonstrates the needs for the Voting Rights advancement act. While the Current Administration has not filed a single case , private litigants have won two dozen cases. Since Shelby 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 taint an election. Discriminatory laws that 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 that youve heard so much about today is illustrative. The law that we challenge eliminated one week of early voting in which 900,000 voters have participated. The same registration which nearly 100,000 voters had used in 2012. And preregistration which 50,000 voters used before that election. The law also banned the use of many forms of government issued photo id for voting purposes including student id cards, municipal employee i. D. Cards and public assistance id cards. The Fourth Circuit found that this law targeted African American voters, quote, with almost surgical precision and found it unconstitutional. That case took 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 law has been struck down but that election cannot be rerun. Theres no way now to compensate the voters of North Carolina or our democracy itself for that gross injustice and thats just one example. My written testimony details 10 section 2 cases that the aclu has litigated since Shelby County which we ultimately obtained favorable outcomes for our clients but only after a dozen elections were held and 350 federal, state, and local officials were elected under discriminatory laws. The vlaa would address this problem in two ways. With a new preclearance provision based on a formula accounting for Voting Rights violations and the clarified standard for preliminary injunctions. Both would help prevent discriminatory laws from taking effect before an election. Third, overall the bulk of section 2 litigation happens at the local level where changes to voting laws are more difficult to monitor and highlights the need for the vras transparency and notice requirements. Fourth and finally, a handful of states of formerly covered states account for half of successful section 2 cases since shelby was decided which indicates voting discrimination remains concentrated in certain areas and that particularly strong protections are justified in those places. Congress has the duty to take action to fulfill the promise of the reconstruction america amendments, that all americans should be free to vote free from Racial Discrimination. Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you have today. Thank you. Our next witness is mr. J christian adams, and he has appeared before us before. Prior to his time at the Justice Department, he served as general counsel of the South Carolina secretary of state. He got his law degree from university of South Carolina school of law. Mr. Adams, youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you very much. President general counsel, were dedicated to preserving Election Integrity in the constitutional decentralization of power so states may administer elections. Im presenting evidence today of two instances of voter discrimination and disenfranchisement ive been working on. The first is a case recently decided by the 9th circuit in july. I represented retired air force major dave davis. Major davis served on guam and decided to live there on retirement. Guam is governored by the federal organic act of 1950 which bands Racial Discrimination in voting and explicitly incorporates the protections of the 15th amendment. Nevertheless, the legislature of guam passed a law confining the right to vote to a preferred racial group, so called native inhabitants. In other words, they imposed qualifications based on blood and ancestry. Congress has required guam to adhere to civil rights obligations in 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 sought to register to vote, his Registration Form was marked void by Election Officials. The form is in my written record, my written statement. Even in the jim 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 zealous in defending the racially discriminatory laws. Its so blatant that the United States District Court in guam granted mr. Davis Summary Judgment and in july of this year, the 9th circuit firm. Circuit affirmed. Despite this brazen Racial Discrimination, not a single 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. In some voting cases such as challenges to South Carolina voter i. D. , these same groups managed to duplicate or triplicate each other despite the fact 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 interest. All too often civil Rights Enforcement is about parts and 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, nothing. Even after the 9th circuit of appeals in 2005 ruled he had a case, the Justice Department failed to act. Oddly, rightness was cited by the chief of the voting section as to why the doj did not help mr. Davis. Finally, in 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 laws. Congress can do something. For one, stop public funding of racially discriminatory election Public Information campaigns. Congress has exclusive power and in the territorys and can stop this. The second example, which ill 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 inquire about records regarding noncitizens. We found the commonwealth is routinely canceling citizens. Theres Things Congress can do. Reexamine the interplay between voter laws and Election Officials, the dmv part of motor voter is hidden from the public because congress hid it. Secondly, congresss shield should go away. Third, congress should strengthen obligations for Election Officials to be transparent. Were currently suing the state of pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Harris County, texas because theyre 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. Thank you, mr. Adams. Ms. Perez is, author of several nationally recognized reports and articles including election day long lines resource allocation. She has served as adjunct professor of clinical law at the nyu school of law. She received her law degree from columbia. Received a master of public policy. Under graduate degree from yale. Youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you, committee members, for having me. Im the director of the Voting Rights and election program. The Supreme Court in Shelby County Left Congress with a critical challenge. Pass a revised coverage formula. Accordingly, the ask this committee to take note, a number of state and local jurisdictions have implemented discriminatory voting laws. Theyve continued to disenfranchise voters of color in our elections. 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 Rights act reflects an important insight. State and local looking to suppress the vote have a wide variety of tools and tactics at their disposal. I go through some of these during my written testimony but the one i will focus on here is tools that 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 ineligible voters from Voter Registration lists. Obviously this process is an important part of any Election Officials job. When purges are done right, they ensure the voter roles are accurate and up to date. Something we all agree as useful. When purges are done improperly, they undermine confidence in our democratic processes. Moreover, improper purges can lead to discriminatory results. 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 plea clear changes to their purge practices before implementing them. Not anymore. And what have we seen . Between 2014 and 2016, theyve removed almost 16 million voters from the roles. Thats almost 4 million more than states removed between 2006 and 2008. Thats an increase of 33 , far out stripping 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, jurisdiction 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 they increased purge rates while everyone else remained about the same. We calculated that 2 million fewer voters would have been purged between 2012 and 2016 if jurisdictions previously subject to preclearance had purged at the same rate as other jurisdictions. Weve seen several improper purges in shelby. Just this year, for example, a federal court stepped in to stop texas officials from purging 95,000 voters from the roles. Texas initially claimed these people were noncitizens but the state relied on bad data and methodology. In 2016 new york wrongly deleted names from the roles. Arkansas year the secretary of state prepared a highly inaccurate purge list of nearly 8,000 names. Purges particularly happen behind closed doors with the stroke of a keyboard. Voters often dont know theyve been purged until they show up to vote. Because they are below the public radar, its difficult to address the effects of bad purges until it is too late. Thats why section 5s preclearance process is well tailored to address not only voter discrimination and other reforms, but the purge problem specifically because a revitalized preclearance regime that will obtain approval for new purge practices before they get into place. 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 theyre producing flawed results that can lead to improper purges. States are passing new laws looking for different grounds upon which to purge people and relying on discredited methodology, certain groups are pushing localities to increase the aggressiveness of their purges. Many advocates sitting here will do our very best to protect voters against discriminatory laws and policies under the laws we have, including against improper purges. But congress should and can work to protect voters. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed congressional power to enact, including in the Shelby County decision itself. We urge congress to revitalize the vra and im very much looking forward to the questions. Are finally final witness is senior staff attorney for the native American Rights Fund, based in our anchorage, alaska office. Her practice covers a wide variety of federal indian law and election issues with constitutional protection. She is a magna cum laude graduate of harvard, and received her law degree from harvard as well. You are recognized for five minutes. Can you help her miss perez . We have a faulty machine . Thank you very much. My name is Nathalie Landers from the family here as a staff position since 2003 and worked on voting since 2006. I thank you for the invitation to speak here today to speak ongoing voter discrimination in Indian Country because there is a lot. It is egregious. There is a view that what are called firstgeneration barriers, direct impediments to polling places and access to voting is a thing of the past. That view is wrong. Firstgeneration barriers not gone. This month in support of this testimony, the native American Rights Fund will be submitting a on nine field hearings throughout Indian Country. To show the extent of the barriers. Including testimony from voters who said they were forced to vote in a chicken coop complete with egg boxes running behind. Voters who claim they have been forced to go to the sheriff station with the sheriff that ran 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 it is impacting your constituents. Second, i want to talk about what previously covered jurisdictions are now doing. And third, i want to talk a little bit about known practices covered in this draft. First, the burden has shifted from the jurisdiction onto the voters of themselves. What i mean is they previously had to submit them to the doj and now have to sue to get them undone. It is enormously burdensome and in an average Voting Period of very Small Organization will spend thousands of hours over several years and over 1 million to stop a single discriminatory voting change. What ends up happening is because native americans brought 95 voting cases and won 92 of the time, these jurisdictions end up paying the Attorney Fees and shifting the cost onto the taxpayer, so the taxpayer end up subsidizing discrimination occurring by local officials. This tells us the success rate that discrimination is real and ongoing. Second, the loss of preclearance means the previously covered jurisdictions implemented previous changes recently denied. One example is the arizona ballot harvesting law. The reason it was so critical in Indian Country is only 18 of native americans outside of fema actually have home mail delivery. What they would have to do is pull the ballots and neighbors would collect the mail and take it to the post office at the same time. This law turns it into potential felons for handling and on voting ballot that did not have a name on it. The other thing that happened in the jurisdiction after the loss of preclearance was the testimony indicated in this is currently in litigation, an astounding step removing holding pulling locations from hundreds down to about 60 and 2016. That results . According to testimony lines 4 6 hours long. This can be found specifically in the arizona field transcripts we will be providing, complete with locations and names of witnesses. I want to speak briefly on the fact that there are bad actors everywhere. We talked about how people feeling like certain states are targeted, that is not true. The known practices formula, the known practices list i should say, i give you an example from california. Somebody testified they were unable to register to vote because her local jurisdiction considered a mobile home not to be a permanent residence. Therefore people on the indian reservation were not being allowed to vote. Fortunately the secretary of state was in the audience at the time and we understand since received attention. Another jurisdiction not covered with practices would be the address of known practices component of the bell, north dakota. A very wellpublicized 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. Thank you. I would like to complement 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 2 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. The second thing is that a majority of these cases arose from a handful of states. Again, its set forth in my testimony, that is covered under section 5. The problem with voting discrimination remains concentrated in particular places and justifies particular congressional attention to those places. Mr. Cohen and if those, if i remember correctly, that were in the preclearance area, were all in the old confederacy for arizona as far as states go, is 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 be in the state . Mr. Ho thats correct. Mr. Cohen those were the states where most of this section 2 action took place . Mr. Ho thats correct. Mr. Cohen so the old song time dixie may have a current ring . Mr. Ho i think the numbers speak for itself. Mr. Cohen ms. Perez, what are the reasons for purges . Ms. Perez we want our voter rolls to be cleaned because people have died, people have moved. People are no longer eligible because of a conviction. The problem we are seeing in this country is purges are on the rise. The protections that were once available to let the public and the department of justice know about purged practices and had changed or no longer available and when people are purged, they often find out on election day its too late. Mr. Cohen is the reason its purges because people have not voted . Ms. Perez a number of states have different practices that they use. Every state in the country that is subject to the mbra has a 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 because 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 any particular similarities, are they particularly in preclearance states or are they ms. Perez no, sir. But one of the things that is important about the preclearance provision is that it accounts for changing practices. So a state could change its practice to incaps late more to encapsulate more people in the purged process. Mr. Cohen you say since shelby vs. Holder purges have increased in preclearance states than ms. Perez thats correct. States, however, that use a policy like, for example, im suming you are point i am assuming you are pointing to 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 . Ms. Perez i am not familiar with how they enact the law. What i think is important in this country we have a continuing evidence of discrimination and congress has vast majority to be able to rectify that pursuant to its authority under the 15th amendment. Mr. Cohen ms. Gupta, since the effective suspension of section 5 preclearance, holdershelby, whats been the case of noncovered ones . Have you seen the preclearance states that were in the previous Voting Rights act be more active and have been found in litigation to have been more active . Ms. Gupta private litigants have more greater and my colleague, dale ho, the chart shows there is a need for section 2 litigation in jurisdictions that were previously precleared or had a preclearance regime with the Justice Department. I also theres been a stark mark in contrast with the Justice Department in under the Trump Administration which has not opened a single Voting Rights investigation. But for the private litigants, the effort now to become aware of hyper local changes which are often very hard to detect it the at the national level, its why were here today to urge restoration of the Voting Rights act. Mr. Cohen thank you. Mr. Johnson, youre recognized for five minutes. Mr. Johnson thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Adams, i watched you with a pensive reaction on your face. Do you want to respond to the questions . Mr. Adams i apologize not having a poker face. Couple states were left off the list of states under the old preclearance regime covered. Its not all dixie. Its south dakota, its alaska, its new hampshire, its michigan, parts of new york were covered, new york city, but that translates into new york state when it comes to rules that are passed by in albany related to the elections in new york. Its not just mississippi and South Carolina. Mr. Johnson thanks for that clarification. Its not often in this iraa that a federal Appeals Court finds purposeful discrimination based on race in voting. But the ninth Circuit Court of appeals did just that. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the significance of that ninth Circuit Decision and how it compares to any other recent federal Appeals Court rulings of intentional race discrimination in voting . Mr. Adams you have an ancestry test. Its on the form you have to say who your parents are. And it says you have to have the right blood before you can vote. And the court in the ninth circuit ruled this is intentional discrimination. Now, we often hear and i understand that Circuit Courts trump District Courts, but we often hear about the surgical precision quote. We hear that over andover on a loop, but the reality that really bears some reading is the lower court ruling, which i understand was reversed, but it was a rare many hundredpage factual find there was a rare many00page hundredpage factual finding. Mr. Johnson has it ever been easier to vote in this country . It seems we made a lot of progress on access to voting. I wonder if youd elaborate on that. Mr. Adams i think there is awareness at the state level about the importance of making it easier to register to vote. I testified to this committee or maybe the Oversight Committee that it has never been easier to register to vote in america than it is in 2019. It has never been easier to vote in america than it is in 2019. Mr. Johnson when an illegally cast vote negates the fact of a legally cast vote, that counts as suppression of voting as much as any suppression of voting. Can you talk about protecting the integrity of the vote are themselves measures designed to protect the vote . Mr. Adams right. Look, i dont buy the idea that you cant get it right, right . You can have clean voter rules. You can have integrity, and everybody gets a chance to vote. I think, for example, that voter i. D. Should be free and easy to get, and thats why the South Carolina voter i. D. Law should never have been objected to by the older Justice Department. In fact, there was a failsafe mechanism, and in the end we know what the outcome of that was. The District Court. Even though the burdens were reversed, and thats what section 5 does, reverse the burdens. The District Court still ruled in favor of South Carolina and said, despite the millions of dollars spent by the groups fighting it and saying it was discriminatory, the court ruled that it was not. And an example of how section 5 can be 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 willingly to 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 of answers except in the Inspector Generals report where they said they didnt think the case was right. Ninth circuit put that to rest in 2015 and said the case was right. We still saw two years of inactivity, unwillingness, not an amicus brief. If you look at the record of the bush Justice Department, the obama Justice Department, and the number of cases filed, you will see very clearly the bush Justice Department was far more active and section 2 enforcement and i testified n previous testimony to this Committee Section 2 enforcement from 2009 to 2017 virtually went to sleep. Mr. Johnson i got 30 seconds left. Why didnt any of the other groups assembled to the table today do 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. In some corners, i think that the Voting Rights act is viewed as a partisan record. One said the Justice Department use the Voting Rights act as a partisan weapon. Thats the when you see the South Carolina Voting Rights act, thats how its viewed. Mr. Cohen thank you. Before i recognize mr. Nadler, i made the statement about the states that were covered and with the exception of arizona, which i mentioned, the only state covered in hold side old confederacy is alaska. The other states are local jurisdictions which i also mentioned there are local jurisdictions, other places. I forget apologizing forgetting alaska and for not knowing about guam. Mr. Nadler, youre recognized. Mr. Nadler thank you. I will comment on the obvious distraction of the guam case which has nothing to do with what we are talking about and was pretty egregious. Let me ask mr. Ho. Im hearing last week in memphis the minority witness suggests that congress was restrained in its ability to adopt legislation to reinvigorate section 53 clearance. Essentially because the current level of discrimination is not severe enough, in his opinion, to justify interference in state and local elections and because congress looks at discriminatory effect and not just discriminatory purpose. What is your response . Is it not within congresss broad Constitutional Authority under the reconstruction amendments to determine the existence of discrimination and to assess where discrimination is severe so as to apply a federal legislative response . Mr. Ho thank you for that question, chairman nadler. I think congress has the authority in light of Current Conditions to reinvigorate the Voting Rights act. The security in city of burney issued a decision that creates a the Supreme Court in the city of burney issued a decision that creates a rule if Congress Wants to exercise its 14th amendment Enforcement Powers there must be a record of constitutional violations. I think we have that here. I think section 2 i referenced earlier, it does not require a judicial finding of constitutional under the results 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. This congress adopted section 2 and was signed into law by ronald reagan. Liability depends on factors that are similar to the factors for a finding of unconstitutional discrimination and it was adopted because congress didnt want to put judges in the difficult position of having to call legislators in their counties or in their states racists. To have to call out their intent. It is like an intent test. It would be perverse today to look at section 2 violations which are intended to make it easier for courts to strike down discriminatory laws and say thats not relevant in assessing whether or not constitutional violations have occurred and whether or not stronger congressional action is necessary. Mr. Nadler thank you. Let me ask you, ms. Gupta, we heard testimony at the hearing in memphis last week enforcing the law through section 2 is time consuming, very expensive. You spend 2 million on it and so forth. Even if you win the case. What would you think of legislation to oppose all costs, all costs on the defendant government if it loses a section 2 cost or plaintiffs cost, not just attorneys fees . Ms. Gupta just to start out, its incredibly costly and time consuming. The most pernicious effect of the amount of section 2 litigation thats been required since the Shelby County decision has actually been the number of elections that have taken place pursuant to laws that have later been found by federal courts to have been violated by other constitutional and federal law. There is no accountability or mechanism that seeks that redress because those elections have taken place and voters were penalized unlawfully for that. But on this question of cost, its an interesting idea. I think one of the major issues around the loss of section 5 has been the inability to hold officials accountable when they do engage even in intentional discrimination in the enactment of laws. So this notion of cost, kind of shifting the burden of cost i think is an interesting remedy to pursue. I dont think its enough, though, as a substitute for preclearance, but certainly to be able to have some deterrent mechanisms in place, such that officials kind of think twice, hopefully the constitution is Something Else they think about when theyre enacting these laws but its something to be mr. Nadler thank you. In the 27 seconds i have left, would you support amending section 1983 to allow the Justice Department to sue local officials for damages for Voting Rights violations . For deprivation of civil rights under common law . Ms. Gupta congressman, thats an interesting idea. Id love to come back to you with my ideas on it. Section 1983 has been used to misconduct context. I think on this issue of accountability, it may be another tool thats under disposal. As you know, the Supreme Court has withered down section 1983s protections, and i would welcome the opportunity to talk about the importance of strengthening the section 1983 by congress. Mr. Nadler thank you very much. 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. Just so that we can inform our full Committee Chairman who said the guam information is not relevant to anything here, the subject of this hearing is, according to the democrats, evidence of current and ongoing voting discrimination. And here was the form used in guam. It is relevant. In this decade that we would have form like this and not one of the groups represented here would go go stand up and say this is absolutely intolerable to make somebody go through and even down to the mother and father, both parents, certifying you are a native in 1950, it is prejudiceal to the groups of chinese, japanese, pompeian, korean, all those that were not there in 1950, and i appreciate the looks im getting from some of our witnesses. It really is embarrassing that nobody stepped up. Mr. Christian, i recall a black panther intimidation case that occurred when you were there at the Justice Department. Were you allowed to go ahead and get judgment against those people that were intimidating at an election site . Mr. Adams i confess, i try to forget about that case. Mr. Gohmert im just asking. Mr. Adams the case was dismissed to, i believe, two defendants, corporate defendant. I think the man mr. Jack no mr. Jackson was dismissed against two of the defendants, right. Mr. Gohmert and you were not allowed to pursue that, it was dismissed . Mr. Adams there is a long record there. Mr. Gohmert you mentioned this incident in guam where the Justice Department, under the obama administration, would not go in and say, this is wrong, we cant have these kind of forms . It doesnt matter what your race is. You ought to be able to come in and vote. Who was head of the civil rights section at that time in 2012 . Mr. Adams thats a good question. Im not sure exactly who was the head of the attorney general. I know that after the Inspector General questions were taken to the sections chief that said ripeness is the barrier. Mr. Gohmert i know tom perez was there at some point. Mr. Adams he may have been the i cant remember. Mr. Gohmert where is he now . Mr. Adams d. N. C. Mr. Gohmert hes head of the d. N. C. , thats right. They called them draconian voter i. D. Laws. I know hes apparently not aware but i know i read in 2012 the Democratic National convention would not allow anyone to come in and vote unless they had, in their words, a state issued i. D. Wow the Democratic National convention is using and has used in this decade a draconian voter i. D. Requirement. Thats incredible. Having gone through john funds book stealing elections, john fund makes the point that the greatest Election Fraud is the statement that there is no Election Fraud. It goes its gone on for years for those that dont know. You can go back and look at duval county in texas or cook county in illinois. It has gone on. It still goes on. Anytime we allow people to vote without showing some evidence that theyre allowable to vote, it disenfranchises all of the legally voting people. And people that vote more than once. Anyway, there are a lot of problems that need to be dealt with. Its just amazing to me. Let me tell you, back when this was reauthorized, i wanted to vote for the voter for the v. R. A. It needed to be reauthorized. But none of you have brought up it had a formula that required punishing states for what had happened 50 years before. Generations were being punished, and i went to the republican leader at that point in this committee, mr. Sensenbrenner, and as i recall, there was a district in wisconsin that had Racial Disparity, and he said, were not changing that 50yearold formula. Were going to keep punishing the original states. And i went to john conyers, and he was very gracious and he said, louie, let me talk to some people. He said, you got a good point, but were going to be able to get it passed. Lets let it go to the courts. I said, its going to be struck down. I named some very liberal people, including the dean from the new york law school, just left there, and he said, yeah, its got to be struck down. Its unconstitutional. For those that were not aware, we should not be pun irk punishing generations for the since of 50year before generations. For the sins of 50year before generations. That is where we ought to be able to come together. Lets deal with Racial Disparity where it is and allow section 5 and those. Thats where we are here you blaming Shelby County. I was not allowed to have that as an amendment. I yield back. Mr. Cohen thank you. Mr. Raskin i heard southern rights were punished under the Voting Rights act. Was there any punishment in the Voting Rights act before the Shelby County case . Did anybody go to jail, was anybody imprisoned . There was no punishment in the way you described it, congressman raskin. In respond to congressman gohmerts case. It reflects Current Conditions and i think the Voting Rights act advancement act which is based on findings of recent Voting Rights violations does precisely that. I hope we can come together and pass something. I appreciated your support for the Voting Rights act in 2006 and i hope to see your support for stronger Voting Rights protections today. Mr. Raskin if somebody robs a bank, they will be prosecuted and go to jail for that, if theyre convicted. Today, in the wake of Shelby County vs. Holder, if a state engages in a deliberate effort to suppress Voting Rights or to keep people from voting or to dilute the votes of minority groups, what happens . Ms. Gupta well, as we said, often getting to those decisions federal courts will actually declare that, takes years of litigation. Mr. Raskin after years, what will happen to them . Ms. Gupta there is no accountability for the state officials that were found to be discriminatory . Mr. Raskin nobody goes to jail. If the gentleman will yield . Mr. Raskin i have four minutes. I will be happy to at the end if i have time. What happens in the meantime . In other words, you go to now in absence of the preclearance requirement, you go to court many years later, maybe you get a ruling, in the meantime, theres been all of these elections that have taken place with the Voting Rights violation enforced. What can be done retroactively to make the democracy whole . Ms. Gupta there is nothing. Voters have disenfranchised when elections have taken place. Mr. Raskin when the Supreme Court wiped out the preclearance requirement because of the coverage provision, in section 4, essentially what it did is knock the teeth out of the Voting Rights act because theres nothing to keep a jurisdiction now from engaging in a Voting Rights violation because nobody is going to go to jail for it, and even if the people who bring the case, the plaintiffs 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 fraud of voting essentially have been fixed by the fraud of voting. Before leading the naacp, you were leader in the mississippi conference, am i right . Mississippi has the highest percentage of africanamericans than any other state in the union. Yet, the state has not elected an africanamerican statewide in more than 130 years since reconstruction. In fact, the mississippi constitution requires candidates for statewide office to win not only more than 50 of the popular vote, or actually a plurality of the popular vote, but more than half of the states, 120 legislative districts, 2 3 of which are majority white. Do i have that white . Do i have that right . Mr. Johnson that is correct. Mr. Raskin ok. If a candidate doesnt meet both of those conditions winning a majority in the election and then winning more than half of the states legislative districts, then the state house chooses the winner regardless of who got the most votes, do i have that right . Mr. Johnson that is correct. Mr. Raskin ok. This is being challenged in court right now. Mr. Johnson that is correct. Mr. Raskin why was this constitutional requirement put in place in the first place . What was the historical origin . Mr. Johnson most of mississippis electoral policy is derived out of the constitution of 1890. That constitution was after we call redumpings when former redemption period of when former confedderate confederate soldiers took back of government. As a result of that, they put in place systems subjugate, not only the grandfather clause but additional barriers because then as it is now, mississippi had the highest percentage of africanamericans. And they wanted to keep in place mr. Raskin let me ask, how has the corresponding lack of africanamerican representation statewide affected the social, economic, and Political Rights and development of africanamerican communities . Mr. Johnson mississippi is the poorest state in the union. It underfunds much of the basic needs of africanamericans and mississippi as a whole. We have the 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. Mr. Raskin thank you. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Cohen thank you. Thank you, sir. Before that, what was the gentlemans name that was the called we will butler . Caldwell butler is the one i know. Jim olin came between them. Thank you. I am interested in mr. Adams testimony about the events that were occurring in virginia and first, i really am shocked to hear this type of activity that occurred in guam is occurring in the 21st century. Mr. Cline just to make it clear, let me go down the row really quickly and just yes or no. Ms. Gupta, would you say its unacceptable unacceptable in the 21st century in the United States . Ms. Gupta congressman, i cant speak to a matter that was under education during my full tenure in the Justice Department. Mr. Cline mr. Johnson, yes or no, unacceptable . Mr. Johnson i dont know much about the case. But if there is grandfather clauses or blood tests, that is something that we oppose. Mr. Cline ok. Ho. Mr. Ho they found it appropriate. Mr. Cline keep going. Ms. Perez i am hesitant to answer too definitively given the reimagined of some of the cases we heard here today. I will say if the facts were presented suggests a grandfather clause we would be oppose to it. Ms. Landreth i am not going to opine on a case i know nothing about. I find it embarrassing that almost half this house doesnt seem equally as disturbed by native americans, driving 98 miles one way to register. Id like you to focus on that for a while. Mr. Cline i am focused on a form that is displayed that is blatant loedis cripple in atory blatantly discriminatoy in a territory in the United States in the 21st century. And it is it is disturbing that i cant get nor anonymity. More unanimity that it is unacceptable. You talk about the voting law, how it contributes to noncitizens, not only getting on a voter rolls but also the improper elimination of citizens from virginias voter rolls. Can you elaborate on that and what we can do about it . Thank you, mr. Cline. Mr. Adams my organization has been datamining the process of noncitizen cancellation and we have found and published multiple reports in pennsylvania, for example, frankly, immigrants and green cardholders who were inadvertently getting on the voter rolls. This is not a conspiracy. This is a glitch. In pennsylvanias case it was a glitch that affected the entire commonwealth for 20 years. And what is happening is when they vote, they jeopardize their immigration status. In virginia, the problem was even worse than noncitizens getting on the rolls. It was citizens actually getting canceled through the citizenship process in virginia. Individuals who are american citizens 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 voter system is broken. Its not working because of Technology Changes in the last 30 years since motor voter 25 years since it was passed. So it is important, i believe, that only citizens be on the rolls, and theres easy ways to fix it. Cooperate with state officials. Federal government, state officials to verify citizenship. Allow states to do some form of citizenship verification thats nonintrusive. Its easily solved. Mr. Kline mr. Cline mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Cohen thank you. You are recognized. The Ranking Members adjusted his opening remarks that evidence of disparate impact is not discriminatory and i have to disagree. Ms. Scanlon pennsylvania passed a number of Voter Suppression measures including a strict voter i. D. Law and some wildly gerrymandered electoral maps. Now, this legislation was facially neutral but it had an impact upon voters who were poor, elderly, women, residents of cities, people of color, in other words, voters who were overwhelmingly democrats. I would say its the most pernicious kind which is trying to suppress the votes of citizens on the basis of their political identity as democrats. In challenging the voter i. D. Law in particular, advocates were fortunate in being able to uncover a recording of the House Majority leader bragging to the statewide Republican Committee that his legislative accomplishments included and this was 2012 quote, voter i. D. , which is going to allow governor romney to win the state of pennsylvania, end quote. So i am not so naive to believe those who would suppress the vote will always be so indiscreet. So id like to ask ms. Perez, can you address what kind of evidence we use to show impact that shows actual discrimination thats occurring in these cases . Ms. Perez under section 2 we a standard whereby congress in is wisdom sets forth a series of factors that is designed to smoke out discrimination because folks are exactly, as member scanlon noted, a little bit more discreet. That evidence is in fact probe tiff of what people are intending to do if they felt like they could get away with it. In addition, we have the continuing evidence of Current Conditions that would justify section 5 of the Voting Rights act that would include a coverage formula thats rolling, dynamic, and looks at a number of factors. Both geographically and problems that cause problems. Taken together, a Voting Rights act that has a robust section 5, a modern section 4, and a strong section 2 will go a very, very long way in rooting out Racial Discrimination. Ms. Scanlon thank you. Ms. Gupta, when acting attorney whitaker was here in february, i think, i asked him whether the Trump Department of justice brought any Voting Rights enforcement actions, and he was unable to recall that. Is it your testimony that the Trump Administration has not acted to protect Voting Rights in any case since january, 2017 . Ms. Gupta correct. If i could respond to something thats galling to something that mr. Adams said. Mr. Adams recently had to enter a Settlement Agreement in which he was actually forced to apologize for reports that contained inaccurate information about specific individuals removed from voter rolls in virginia, the matter he was just talking about allegedly because they were noncitizens. I feel lights its important to also put that in the record. Ms. Scanlon thank you. One more followup question. Polling places has been an issue in my district. Toward that end we introduced the disability Voting Rights act which passed with h. R. 1 and would make it easier for individuals with disabilities, including seniors and veterans, to register, obtain absentee ballots in polling places. Can you describe how the locations of polling stations and the degree that accessibility hurts disabilities in minority communities, and i think you have it in the new report that just came out. Ms. Gupta there has been a lot of enforcement on the part of both private organizations and the Justice Department in prior administrations around the lack of accessible polling places. The and so there is a lot of work to be done thats been a rigorous area of our work. I will say, though, its important to note that closing polling places because of a. D. A. Noncompliance really should be something of last resort because there are many ways to actually make polling places more accessible, including things like creating parking for temporary signage, you get sameday modifications that can be made, building temporary ramps and the like. In a number of instances, thats how accessibility has been improved without the need of closing polling places to begin with. Ms. Scanlon thank you. I yield back. Mr. Cohen thank you. Mr. Armstrong, youre recognized for five minutes, sir. Mr. Armstrong thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Adams, i guess if we are going to enter stuff on the record id give you an opportunity to i know you talked a little bit about it in your written testimony, so i give you opportunity to respond. Mr. Adams thank you. I discussed this at some length in my testimony. Mr. Guptas assertion that mr. Adams was asked to apologize is wrong. Noncitizens in virginia were being removed in the rolls from the rolls when we discovered therapist citizens. That those were actually citizens. I recognize that ms. Guptas organization has done nothing about citizens being removed from the voter rolls whereas our organization is attempting to fix a problem. That was part of a settlement in the case. Nobody was forced to do anything and there was no finding of any liability. Mr. Armstrong thank you. I just want to go into this motor voter issue a little bit primarily because were dealing with oftentimes people who english is not their first language and continue to move through this and by automatically getting added to the rolls we run into these election cycles. They get unbelievably except competitive. Doesnt matter if theyre democrats or republicans. They are running hot. There is another part to this and then ill back up and tell a north dakota story in a second. If they register to vote or get into those situations, doesnt that impact their ability to become a citizen later . Mr. Adams absolutely. Its question 12 on the i. N. F. Form. Have you ever registered to vote, have you ever voted . Were finding through public records requests is that those individuals who are noncitizens, who got caught up in the broken motor voter system are jeopardizing 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 status so both noncitizens are getting on the rolls, they are voting. Weve been harvesting sort of their, please take me off the rolls, theyre selfdeportation from the voter rolls, if you will. Where they thought they were registering for Something Else. They didnt understand the form. It wasnt in the language in allegany county, pennsylvania, that they spoke, because its not covered by 203. And so the system has flaws in it that were attempting to catalog 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. Mr. Armstrong 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 state that doesnt have Voter Registration, theyve attempted to deal with this, the state legislature. Her i. D. Looks identical to mine. I mean, it is absolutely there is no situation that would i mean, it is absolutey an honor system and we continue to work through it. So obviously shes married to a politician which we can judge her for her in her own right. We know the laws and we know where its at. She can walk and vote in north dakota at any point and the election people wouldnt know the difference. I mean, thats a now, were different. Were the only state in the union that doesnt have Voter Registration. Thats an issue. I end this, and i agree with need to make it easier im getting a bunch of calls on real i. D. In north dakota right now because people wait until the last moment. We need to make it easier for people in situations, whether theyre native americans or elderly in general to be able to prove up their i. D. And work for it. I would also like to say regarding 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 when that decision came out that made it incredibly problematic in the 2018 election. Regardless of policy or anything like that, i believe the organizations who went to work and activated on the native American Reservations in north dakota to ensure people did get i. D. s and vote because they turned out, regardless how difficult it was, they turned out in absolute record numbers in 2018. It shouldnt be that hard to get an i. D. We should continue, particularly with older people. The birth certificate thing is a real issue. Its a real issue in rural america. Its exponentially its magnified on the native American Reservations, and i recognize that. They should be commended. I know this full well. Most of them didnt vote for me. They should be absolutely commended for what they got done in a short period of time. With that i yield back. Mr. Cohen thank you. If you dont mind, how do you do it in north dakota, if you dont have it in Voter Registration, is everybody on the rolls, how do you do it . Mr. Armstrong we have a 30day residency requirement. All you have to do is show an i. D. Point of consternation, there is no Voter Registration. You have to have a valid i. D. And proof of address. Mr. Cohen just for record, i think we should mention, ive had a lot of constituents be concerned that the new government i. D. Requirement is something to do with stopping people from having the right to vote. Thats not an all true, is it . Mr. Armstrong its not true. Were running into a lot of problems. One, i think, in fairness, people wait until the last minute to go get their i. D. Theres long delays at the they had the opportunity to do it. And providing the documentation to get the real i. D. Versus your regular drivers license, i think its same across the country, is proving to be cumbersome. Mr. Cohen was it the lemieux sisters that were hockey stars . Mr. Armstrong yes. Mr. Cohen does anybody on the panel think the new federal i. D. Law about has anything to do with stopping people from voting . Good. Ms. Dean, youre recognized. Ms. Dean thank you, mr. Chairman. We are in awfully anxious times in our democracy, and so when i have that fear overcome me, i try to remind myself of a quote that i like from Thomas Jefferson. He said, should things go wrong at any time, the people will set their right by the peaceable exercise of their elected rights. So that gives me some consolation. Except when we have conversations like were having today and when we have a history of what we have seen today. How can the people truly right a wrong when their elected rights referred to by Thomas Jefferson are attacked, thwarted in many, many ways . I would like to start with you, you you mentioned several common tactics from the shelby decision, cuts to early voting, purges of voter rolls, strict voter identification, lastminute polling place closures. Or consolidations. Can you tell us of the frequency of some of these implementations . Im thinking if we reflect back on 2018, and also your concerns for 2020. Ms. Gupta yeah. Thank you for the questions. We just today actually released a report, about number of poll closures around the country since the Shelby County decision and found that about 1,066 polling place closures have happened since the Shelby County decision in jurisdictions that were previously covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights act. These are kind of the hyper local changes that would have required preclearance by the Justice Department. Not because they were automatically going to be deemed as racial loedis cripple in as racially discriminatory but actually analysis of whether it would create disparate impact but also to provide notice, advance notice to voters where these places have been moved. There is an abundance of litigation that my colleagues have mentioned thats taken years to really uncover around discriminatory practices in voting in an Election Administration that add to the Current Record of conongoing contemporary ongoing ms. Ms. Dean what are some of the contemporary ongoing Racial Discrimination in voting. Ms. Dean what are some of the other voting problems that weve seen across the country that h. R. 4 would address . I think there is a couple of things. If i am not wrong, depending how you count, it would prevent native american tribes it it would protect over 20 of tribes in the u. S. Because it would cover again, we have to check this and depend how you count. California has 100 tribes. New york has eight tribes. And the mississippi choctaw would also be protected. They have 10 also subjurisdictions for section 203. So it would prevent retroagreeings for 20 of native retrogression for fully 20 of native american tribes. But the known practices piece would prevent the vote delusion that we commonly see in indian the vote dilution that we commonly see in Indian Country where thee switch these jurisdictions to atlarge in order to make sure you never get a seat that represents you and your Community Even if its sizeable. Particularly the polling place closures, because of that, thats one of the things we find in Indian Country thats unique. A lot of tribes are told, if you want a polling place you have to buy that. Id like you to go to constituents around the rest of the country and tell them if you want a polling place you need to , give us 25,000. Ms. Dean who is saying that . Ms. Landreth subject to your perjury limitation. These are cases i believe in montana, is one example. The other would be south dakota cases. Where it had become commonplace to say we dont have enough money for elections. These cases may have been resolved now. This is an issue where if you go to a jurisdiction and say our tribe wants a polling place on tribal lands, mostly youll be refused on the grounds of cost. And then theyll say, you pay for it, you provide the poll workers, you give the case and maybe 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. I am a former member of pennsylvania legislature. I came in a special election in 2012 right after voter i. D. I saw personally the consequences going around my district and trying to help elderly people, young people. The barrier of birth certificates and all of the rest. So could you please explain how voter identification requirements bar americans from exercising their rights to vote . Mr. Johnson sure. In negative 10 seconds. We have never found an individual seeking to vote under assumed name. It creates an additional barrier thats not necessary, particularly for southern precincts. Everyone knows each other. There is a very few case where poll workers dont know the individuals. On top of the fact there has not been any true evidence of someone trying to vote under assumed name. So you create an additional barrier or you create a Chilling Effect to voting. Ms. Dean thank you, i yield back. Mr. Cohen thank you. Now patiently waiting, ms. Garcia. Ms. Garcia disparaging my home county where i was born, duval county, he seemed to suggest there was voter fraud there for many, many years and its still going on and that is simply not true. South texas, including my birth county and my home county of jim wells have made great efforts to clean all that up and ive not heard, seen, been witness to voter fraud in any of those two counties, my birth county or my home county. Of course, i am elected from Harris County, and i am not going to belabor the point other than to say i believe the witness has mischaracterized a bit of his lawsuit against Harris County in access to some of the materials that he was after. But i dont want to get into that because as Lyndon Johnson said, there is no more important right under the constitution than voting. Because who you vote for then determines the freedoms and liberties you get from all the other constitutional rights. So mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing us together to talk about this topic. As 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. Ive been gone to a poll that wasnt there. Ive been to a poll where machines werent ready. And you can look at me. You know. I dont look mexican. So you know its based on discerning, garcia. The data that you are after. So please know that i take this not only as an advocate for my district but for myself and my family and my friends. So i wanted to start with you, ms. Perez, on this purging letter issue. What really can we do to stop these letters going, almost threatening, if you dont do something, your names going to get purged, or how do we stop this flawed data thats sometimes it was in the texas case you cited where the information was just wrong and all those people who were supposedly thousands of people who were registered or maybe registering was just not true, so what can we do from here in washington 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 of the need for a robust preclearance regime because texas is one of these jurisdictions that keep popping up in terms of election problems. In addition to making it harder for groups to go out and register people to vote, they have a strict voter i. D. Law that many of us had to spend five years challenging. Theres aggressive prosecutions of folks who run afoul of some of the election laws. Theres attempts at voter purges it seems at every step. Ms. Garcia 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 the preclearance process get preclearance so it didnt have a discriminatory impact. We could have stricter compliance with the national Voter Registration act. We could have Greater Public education to ensure people check their Voter Registration status. We can inform Election Administrators when they receive threatening emails from groups who are trying to pressure them into aggressively purging the voter rolls that they know that the federal government is there to protect them. Ms. Garcia thank you. Mr. Ho, on some of the testimony that you presented, i know you talked a lot about some of the cases, cost of litigation. You quoted 5 million. Is that an average for aclu . Also, is there anything else you wanted to respond to, any of the testimony from the gentleman to your left . Mr. Ho sure. 5 million was in reference to the Court Ordered award of attorneys fees and costs in the North Carolina litigation that you heard a lot about today. It was certainly, i think, a more expensive and timeconsuming case than is average. I dont want the committee to think thats the average section 2 case. Its certainly on the more expensive side. I just want to say one thing. Ms. Garcia do you have an average . Mr. Ho i dont. I think the record should be clear that it is very remarkable, i think, that mr. Adams is in here today claiming crud for credit for protecting voters in virginia. His group hyped a supposed coverup of noncitizen registration in virginia. The report published the names and Contact Information of voters who were United States citizens, including a Los Angelesborn employee of the u. S. C. I. S. Named luis claiming they were noncitizens and accusing them of committing felonies despite warnings from government officials saying the list he used contained false positives. Mr. Adams not true. Mr. Ho it takes extraordinary chutzpah to come in here and say he protected United States citizens. He was sued by those citizens. Ms. Garcia thank you for clearing the record. I yield back. Mr. Cohen thank you, ms. Garcia. I appreciate all the witnesses today, and all of the testimony. It is a valuable hearing on the importance of Voting Rights bill we have before us to setup a new standard in section 4 and reactivate restore section 5 of the Voting Rights act. So thank each of you. This concludes todays hearing. I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing today. I want to 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 questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record, and the hearing is adjourned. \[captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] \[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] cspan friday on the network, the house returns at 9 p. M. Eastern to take up legislation on forced arbitration on cspan. At 630 p. M. , we will have the white house state dinner for australias prime minister. On cspan2 at 12 30 p. M. , peace activists will be at a climate rally. They will demand lawmakers take action to address climate change. Coming up today on washington journal lawmakers discuss investigations into president trump. At 7 30 a. M. , we will have the arizona congressman and the Natural Resources committee. At 8 30 a. M. , we talk to virginia congressman gerald connolly, member of the oversight and Reform Committee and the Foreign Affairs committee. President morning trump at the center of the latest clash between congress and the white house. Tensions escalated over congressional access to the complaint, which involves an unspecified promise made to a foreign head of state. We begin the washington journal this morning getting your thoughts on the latest controversy and what it means for relations between executives and legislative branches of governments. Give us a call, we want to hear from you. Democrats, 2027488000. Republicans, 2027488001. Independents, 74