Constitution civil rights and Civil Liberties will come to order. Without authorized to declare recess to the subcommittee at any time. I welcome everyones attendance herein t here and the hearing, Voting Rights act, Shelby County v. Holder. This is the sixth an verniversaf Shelby County v. Holder. Normally what i would do, id give an Opening Statement of five minutes and the Ranking Member would give one of five minutes. Miss clarke, one of of witnesses, has a 3 40 train, which would have been easy to accomplish were it not for the house of representatives schedule. Well go straight to her statement, and go back to the traditional i talk he talk, panel. Miss clarke is the president and executive director of the committee for civil rights law under law, one of the nations leading civil rights organizations. She previously worked for seven years at the naacp Legal Defense and Education Fund where she helped lead the organizations work in the areas of voting rei rights and election law across the country and worked on cases defending the constitutionality of the Voting Rights act. Prior to joining the Legal Defense fund, she worked in the Civil Rights Division in the department of justice serving as prosecu prosecutor. She received her jd from Columbia University and masters degree from another ivy School Called harvard. Id normally give you the warning, give you the warning. Start, you got a green light. Goes off in four minutes. You get a yellow light. That means you got the yellow lights off, you have to go to the train. Youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you, chairman cohen, ranking men johnson and members of the subcommittee on the constitution civil rights and Civil Liberties. My name is Kristen Clarke and i serve as the president and executive director of the Lawyers Committee for civil rights under law, and i thank you for the opportunity to testify today on challenges to Voting Rights. My testimony today is shaped by my experience as an attorney who started off her career enforcing section 5 of the Voting Rights act at the Justice Department. As someone who litigated the Shelby County v. Holder case. And as someone who mass woworke protect Voting Rights their entire career. The Voting Rights act of 1965 transformed american democracy. And the Supreme Courts evisceration of the section 5 preclearance provision of the act coupled with a Justice Department that has abdicated its responsibility for enforcing remaining provisions of the act have placed Voting Rights of our nations most vulnerable communities in peril. These dynamics have created a perfect storm, resulting in the resurgence of voting discrimination and Voter Suppression at levels not seen since the days of jim crow. It is worth underscoring that the Current Administration has not filed a single case under the Voting Rights act. The Justice Departments silence is deafening. The Lawyers Committee for civil rights under law has been at the forefront of the battle for equal Voting Rights since it was created in 1963 at the request of president john f. Kennedy. To enlist the private bars leadership and resources in combatting voting discrimination and more. Today our vast docket of Voting Rights litigation is among the most comprehensive and far reaching, both geographically and in terms of issues raised, as any in the nation and by way of our Election Protection program, nations largest nonpartisan Voter Protection effort anchored by the 866 our vote hotline, we have vetted complaints from tens of thousands of voters since shelby, many revealing systemic voting discrimination. In short, this is how shelby has impacted our democracy. First, weve seen the resurgence of discriminatory voting practices, some motivated by intentional discrimination, and this discrimination has been most intense in the very jurisdictions that were once covered by section 5. They range from the consolidation of polling sites to make it less convenient for minority voters to vote. To the curtailing of early vo voting hours. The purging of minority vote frers t rs from the rolls. Strict photo i. D. Requirements. Abuse of signature match verification requirements to reject absentee ballots. The threat of criminal prosecution and more. Second, weve seen increased levels of rekals trance among officials who institute and reinstitute voting changes with immunity. We wellknown examples come out of nk whe North Carolina where the legislature crafted an omnibus bill. My written testimony includes an appendix that outlines several cases since the shelby decision that evidence this hostility. Third, the loss of Public Notice regarding changes in voting practices that could have a discriminatory effect is significant. Most suppressive actions occur in small towns sprink le d acro the country where constant oversight is difficult, if not impossible. Fourth, the public no longer has the ability to participate in the process of reviewing practices before they take effect, and between 2000 and 2010, doj received between 4,500 and 5,500 submissions capturing between 14,000 and 20,000 voting changes per year. Without section 5, communities are in the dark and unable to share critical information that can help to illuminate the discrimination that sometimes underlies voting changes. Fifth, the preclearance process had an identifiable deterrent effect that is now lost. Sixth, the status quo is not sustainable. Civil rights organizations are stepping up to fill the void created by the shelby decision at insurmountable expense. And finally, this will be the first redistricting cycle in decades if Congress Fails to restore the Voting Rights act. A little over 12 years ago, both chambers of congress reauthorized the act with tremendous bipartisan support. Many members of the house present for that vote are still here today. Bipartisan for the act has been consistent across the decades and should remain so today. The Supreme Court has put the ball in congress court, and this body must undertake action now to help our country safeguard the right to vote for all. Thank you. Youre welcome, miss clarke. Thank you for your testimony. And because youre leaving i want to first thank you and want you to know were going to have the hardest questions for you. You still have to answer questions we give you in writing. Youre going to get the hardest ones. Thank you, chairman. Im sure youll handle them absolutely. Thank you so much. Ill now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. The right to vote is the most fundamental right of democracy. For most of our nations history, too many of our citizens were denied the right to vote. For over a century women were denied a right to vote. For a century and a half, africanamericans were the most brutally attacked denying their rights to vote especially in the deep south. On august 6th of 1965, our nation took a momentous step toward correcting that injustice when president Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights act. That was a result of years of efforts by the civil rites movement led by heroes like our colleague, representative john lewis and dr. Martin luther king and others to get congress to act on protecting Voting Rights for africanamericans. I fear, however, developments of the last several years undermined the acts basic protections. Thats because six years ago in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court effect ifly suspended the acts section 5 preclearance requirement by striking down the coveraugh for in section 4. In essence, they said not necessarily those jurisdictions that had been under preclearance had cleaned up their act but there were other jurisdictions that were maybe equally as bad or had done bad deeds as well so they let the bad actors out because they thought there were new bad actors and kind of opened the door for everybody. Under that preclearance requirement, certain jurisdictions predominantly in the deep south that had a history of discriminatory voting the u. S. District court for the district of columbia for any proposed changes to voting practices or procedures could take effect. The preclearance requirement was crucial to vigorous and effective enforcement of the acts guarantee of equal Voting Rights. The purpose of the preclearance requirement is to ensure the jurisdictions most likely to diskrdis criminate against minority voters changes to voting law were not discriminatory, rather then placing the burden of brief on discrimination victims. Section 5 rightly permitted potentially discriminatory voting practices from taking effect before they could harm minority voters. This way, section 5 proved to be a significant means of protection for the rights of minor voity voters. Section 2 of the Voting Rights act, prohibits discrimination voting, is by itself a less effective cumbersome, expensive way to enforce the act. Thereby, eroding the effectiveness of the act which is to see the harm doesnt ever take place. The result of these factors be that many practices and restrictions, undermined equal Voting Rights, would simply go unchallenged because the harm has been done. These are reasons why congress has repeatedly reauthorized section 5 on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. Most recently in 2006 when the house passed the vra vote 39033, in the senate, 980. So at this time, it wasnt congress fault. We were good. Credibly, the courts majority in Shelby County claimed there was no evidence to support Congress Findings of continued discrimination voting in the then covered jurisdictions, notwithstanding thousands of pages of record evidence compiled by this subcommittee in 2006. This subcommittee then in republican hands, demonstrating the continuing need for this coverage formula. Tellingly, events since the Shelby County decision have proved how wrong the court was at its conclusion. Within hours of the decision, states like texas and North Carolina that had been the subject of the acts p preclearance requirement, announced their intention to impose strict voting identification requirements. Other states that had also been subject to preclearance also wasted in time in pursuing voting restrictions that once again threatened to zwrur ee ee Voting Rights, and restriction or elimination of early voting or sameday registration and bans on exoffenders to vote. It has a disparate impact among about against black voters. AfricanAmerican Voters. Last years georgia governorss race brought into full view the range of Voter Suppression practices in formerly covered jurisdictions that may look subtle when viewed in isolation but pernicious and devastating in their cumulative effect. As miss stacey adams, within of our witnesses, democratic nominee for governor in the race knows from personal experience, her opponent, brian kemp, then the georgia secretary of state, embarked on what were a series of seemingly negative attempt to shrink the electorate which was the job of the secretary on state on those laws but chose to go about it in this particular manner. He also was her opponent. Hes now the governor of georgia. His office purged more than 1. 4 voters from the rolls since 2010 including more than 600,000 georgians in the year 2017 and then another 90,000 that were not purged in 2017 in a cleanup act in 2018. Many of those Voter Registrations were canceled because the voter had not voted in the previous election. Georgia also closed a tenth of its polling places since 2012 with the majority of closings occurring in poor counties and those with significant africanamerican populations. Georgia also enacted a, quote, exact match, unquote, law that resulted in 53,000 more voters being given only pending status on their voting registrations because of minor errors on their registration forms. With more than 70 of those voters being africanamerican. This is exactly the kind of attrition on Voting Rights that preclearance would have stopped from going into effect. Before the Voting Rights act, the state of Voting Rights in the deep south was abysmal. In the mid 50s, only 1 in 4 africanAmerican Voters in the south was registered. With its robust preclearance requirement, the act had dramatic positive effect on black voting registration in the south which increased to 63 just 3 years after the act became law. Yet, these gains and others are at risk because of the shelby decision. The Supreme Court was wrong, in my opinion, to undermine the Voting Rights act. Congress failed to act the last time we had a chance to do it. Hopefully we wont fail again. Congress must now respond. Its imperative that we restore the Voting Rights act preclearance requirement to stay true to the acts purpose of ensuring equal Voting Rights for all. John lewis and many others risked their lives. John lewis was beaten in the head marching for Voting Rights in selma, alabama. Others were killed. Selma and other places in the south looking for Voting Rights. Voting rights are so important and we cant let those peoples deaths, those peoples injuries, those peoples efforts, go for naught. I thank our witnesses for being here. I look forward to their testimony. I now yield for the Opening Statement for the honorable gentleman from west virginia, mr. Johnson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, all, for being here, for your interest today. I appreciate the opportunity to speak again on the duty and honor the congress has to protect the fundamental right to vote in our country. All those sacrifices, blood, sweat, and tears, put in by john lewis and patriots and heroes will not be forgotten. Some raised concerns regarding the Supreme Courts 2013 decision in shelby v. Holder which stock down oruck down one the Voting Rights act. Think if were going talk about that decision today and its implications, it serves us well to articulate what the Supreme Court actually said in that decision. I think the court aptly described just how far this country has come. In its majority decision, the court laid out the constitutional infirmtives of section four of the vra as follows. Im just going to read you an important excerpt. The framers of the constitution intended the states to keep for themselves as ro voided in the tenth amendment the power to regulate elections. Not only do states retain sovereignty under the constitution, theres also a fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states. Indeed, the constitutional equality of the states is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the republic was organized. Section 4 of the Voting Rights act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends all changes to state election law, however innocuous, until they have been precleared by federal authorities in washington, d. C. In 1966, we found these departures from the basic features of our system of government justified. At the time, the coverage formula, the means of linking the exercise, unpress dented authority, with the problem that warranted it, made sense. Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. In the covered jurisdictions, voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. Minority candidates hold office at unpress debited levels. The test and devices that blocked access to the ballot had been forbidden nationwide for more than 40 years. The 15th amendment commands that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race or color ape gi. The amendment is not designed to punish for the past. Itself purpose is to ensure a better future. To serve sthat future, congress if it is to divide the states, must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of Current Conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past. Regardless of how to look at the regard, however, no one can fairly say it shows anything approaching the flagrant, widespread, and rampant discrimination that faced konk congress in 1965. Our country has changed. While any Racial Discrimination in voting is too much, Congress Must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to Current Conditions. E thats what the Supreme Court said. Of course, im sure everyone in this room agrees with those sentiments. I stated it before, mr. Chairman, myself. Of course, we all agree discriminatory treatment is abhorrent. Its prohibited by the constitution as it should be. Its prohibited by federal statute as it should be. Regarding discriminatory treatment in voting thats based on race, section 3 of Voting Rights action, permanent federal statutory law, remains in place and full effect as it should be. Several years ago, for example, u. S. District judge Lee 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 influence by citizens of hispanic descent. The city which the court ruled has a, quote, long history of discrimination against minorities, unquote, was required to have their future future changing rules preclaired by the department of justice the next six years, the federal judge, quote, retains jurisdiction to review before enforcement any change in the election map or plan in effect in pasadena. Unquote. The Justice Department has not objected within 60 days. We support section 3 and its application to proven instances of discriminatory treatment in voting. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses here today. That testimony will include that of the office of the Texas Attorney general, which i understandargued in the Supreme Court 31 times since 2000. The Texas Attorney Generals Office has also argued two of the most important vra cases in recent memory, evan well and perez, and won them both. In those decisions, texas won a total of 13 votes at the court for its position, compared to just four votes against. This is an office with a proven track record of legal acumen and understanding confirmed at the highest levels and by the u. S. Supreme korkts itsecourt, itsel. Thank you, all, again, for your time and testimony. We look forward to hearing from you and i yield back. Thank you, mr. Johnson. Its now my pleasure to recognize the chairman of the full committee who was the chairman of this committee for many years and today i will announce him as the chairman emeritus of this subcommittee, but i chairman i guess is emeritus of all committees. Mr. Nadler. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Voting rights act of 1965 is one of the most effective civil right statutes thats ever been enacted into law. Six years ago today, however, the Supreme Court issued its disastrous decision in Shelby County v. Holder, and thereby, effectively gutted one of the acts central enforcement provisions known as the preclearance requirement. When it struck down as unconstitutional the acts coverage formula which termed which jurisdictions would be subject to the preclearance requirement. Section 5 of the Voting Rights act contains the preclearance provision and requires certain jurisdictions with history of discrimination to submit changes to voting laws or practices to the department of justice for prior approve to ensure they are not discriminatory. To understand why the preclearance requirement was so central to enforcing the vra, it is worth remembering why it was enacted in the first place. Before the Voting Rights act, states and localities passed Voter Suppression laws. Secure in the knowledge it could take many years before the laws could be successfully challenged in court, if at all. As soon as one law was overturned, another would be enacted, essentially setting up a discriminatory game of whackamole. Section 5s preclearance provision broke the legal log jam and helped to stop this discriminatory practice. Indeed, the success of the Voting Rights act with the effective preclearance for instance, registration of africanAmerican Voters more than doubled in the south within just four year of enactment. Similarly, africanamerican voter turnout rose from only 6 to 59 in just 4 years in mississippi and sooared to 92 n tennessee, and 73 in texas in that same period. The voting right acts success can be measured in terms of the number of africanamericans Holding Elected Office. Jumping from barely 100 prior to the vras enactment to more than 7,200 today with 4,800 Holding Elected Office in the south, alone. Were over the number of africanamericans in congress doubled almost immediately after the Voting Rights act was enacted and today there are 56 africanamerican members of congress. And, of course, in 2008, the country elected its first africanamerican president. In short, the Voting Rights act was an unqualified success. Much of that success can be attributed to the ability to enforce it vigorously. Central to the ability to enforce vigorously the act was its preclearance provision. By striking down the formula for determining which states and localities are subject to the preclearance requirement, Shelby County decision effectively suspended the operation of the preclearance requirement, itself. In its absence, the game of whackamole has returned with a vengeance. Within 24 hours of the Shelby County decision, for example, Texas Attorney general and North Carolinas General Assembly announced theyd reinstitute draconian voter i. D. Laws. They were held in federal courts to be intentionally racially discriminatory. During the years between their enactment and the courts final decision, many elections were conducted while the discriminatory laws remained in place. At least 21 other states have enacted newly restrictive statewide voter laws since the Shelby County decision. Restoring the vitality of the Voting Rights act is of critical importance. In 2006 when i was the Ranking Member of this subcommittee, we undertook an exhaustive process to build a record that demonstrated unequivocally the need to reauthorize the Voting Rights act, provisions of which like the preclearance requirement and the coverage formula that undergirded it were expiring. At the time, the Committee Found that a majority of Southern States were still engaged in ongoing discrimination. For instance, these states in the subdivisions engaged in racially discriminatory practices such as relocating polling places for africanAmerican Voters and in the case of localities, certain wards certainly to satisfy white suburban voters who sought to circumvent the ability of africanamericans to have a fair chance of elected office in their cities. Since the Shelby County decision, weve always seen the emergence of other Voter Suppression, like burdensome proof of citizenship laws, significant scaleback of early voting periods, restrictions on absentee ballots and laws that make it difficult to restore the Voting Rights of formerly incarcerated individuals. These kinds of voting practices have a disproportionate negative impact on minority voters. In the most recent elections in november 2018, voters across the country encountered barriers to voting from state and local laws and circumstances that made it hard or even impossible to vote. For example, as our witness, stacey abrams, can attest to in georgia, 70 of africanamericans, placed in pending status by the secretary of state, who was also by happenstance miss abrams election opponent because of minor misspellings on their registration forms. A federal court ultimately put a stop to this practice on november 2nd, 2018, 4 days before the election because of the, quote,ed on a group of individuals who are predominantly minority, closed quote. Time and experience have proven that such an approach takes far longer and is far more expensive than having an effective preclearance regime. Once the vote has been denied, it cannot be recast. Damage tower our democracy is permanent. That is why i hope the members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of congress will come together and pass legislation to restore the Voting Rights act to its full vitality. Supreme court left us instructions on how to enact a new section 4 that would pass constitutional muster. Todays hearing will provide an important opportunity to renew our understanding of the importance of the Voting Rights act and its preclearance provision and to support our efforts to craft a legislative solution to restore, where needed, preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights act. I thank our witnesses and i look forward to their testimony. Thank you, chairman nadler. Its now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins, for his Opening Statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and it is good to be here and good to have a hearing like this, if for no other reason to at least correct the record on things that have already been said. Number one, in georgia, the six counties mentioned, its a reminder in georgia all six of those counties are under local control and where they actually place their voting times when their voting locations, how many they actually use, and that has been that way for a long time. Well get into more discussion about that. Its interesting that we also talk about scaling back early voting a voting in others because as we will find out in this hearing, myself and actually a witness here today voted to scale back three weeks in georgia and add a saturday, and at the time, it was actually attested to that it showed no discriminatory impact. Some of what we found was actually helpful to minority turnout. So as we look at this, this is a reason to have a hearing and im glad to see friends and witnesses who are here today. But the right to vote is paramount importance in a democracy. Its a protection of discriminatory barriers, grounded in federal law since the civil war. More recently through the Voting Rights act of 1965. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a single part of the Voting Rights action, section 4. That provision automatically put certain states and political subdivisions under the act section 5 preclearance requirements. Those preclearance requirements prevented voting rule changes in covered jurisdictions from going into effect until the new rules have been reviewed and approved either following a lawsuit in the d. C. District court or by more often the department of justice. When the Voting Rights act was first enacted, section 4 identified the jurisdictions automatically subject to the special preclearance requirements according to a formula. The first part of the formula provided a state or political subdivision would be covered if it maintained on november 1st, 1964, a test or device restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second piece provided a state or political subdivision would also be covered if the census director determined less than 50 of the persons of voting age were registered to vote on november 1st, 1964, or less than 50 of the voting age voted in the 1964 president ial election. In its Shelby County decision, the Supreme Court struck down these automatic preclearance provisions ruling the original coverage formula was, quote, based on decadesold formula. In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups. And those without those characteristics. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today, we see a different place. And yet the Voting Rights act continued to treat it as if it were still in that time. The courts further criticized section hs formula as relying on decadesold relevant data to deca decadeold problems rather than current data reflecting kus ini needs. Shelby county, the Supreme Court only struck down the single outdated provision of the vra. Significantly, other very important provisions of Voting Rights act remain firmly if place including section 2 and section 3. Section 2 applies nationwide, prohibits voting practices or procedures that dis criminacrim the basis of ratce, color, or ability to speak english. Section 2 is enforced via federal lawsuits. The United States and civil rights organizations have brought section 2 cases in court and still may do so in the future. Section 3 of the Voting Rights act remains in place authorizing federal courts to impose on states and political subdivisions that enacted voting procedures treating people differently based on race in violation of the 14th and 15th amendments. If the court finds a state or political subdivision treated people differently based on race, the court has the discretion to retain supervisory jurisdiction and impose as the court sees fit until a future date. This means a state or political subdivision would have to submit all voting changes to the court, itselfi itself, or department of justice before enacting those changes. Per the code of federal regulations under section 3c of a Voting Rights act, a court in Voting Rights litigation can order as relief that a jurisdiction not subject to the preclearance of section 5 preclearance voting changes by submitting them to the court to the attorney general. Americans continue to safeguard Voting Rights for every citizen. An increased voter turnout reflects that commitment. In my home state of georgia, which has been mentioned many times already, and will probably be again, voter turnout has expanded mightily. Between 2014 and 2018, turnout among hispanic and africanAmerican Voters has soared. Increasing by double digits in a state that more and more americans are choosing to call home. I look forward to discussing more of that and hearing that as we go forward but also look toward to forward to ensuring the ballot box remains open to all eligible voters. I appreciate the witnesses being here. Im sure this will be an interesting discussion in which hearings tend to set facts straight. And with that, i yield back. Thank yurou, mr. Collins. We welcome all of our witnesses. Thank you for your indulgence, allowing miss clarke to testify and make her train. I explained to you about the lights. Four minutes, green. Yellow, you got a minute left. Red, you dont have to go to the train, but you have to stop. Youre all under the statutes that say if you say anything thats false in your testimony, perjury, youre subject to up to five years in prison or both for making such a statement. So all your written and oral statements to the subcommittee shall be truthful and honest. Im sure of that. Our first witness is miss stacey abrams. A found and chair of fair fight action. An organization dedicated to advancing Voting Rights and electoral reform. In 2018, she was the democratic nominee for governor of the state of georgia. First africanamerican woman in u. S. History nominated by a major party as its nominee for governor. In that election, she achieved the highest voter turn yut of any democratic candidate in georgias history. Prior to running for governor, she served in the georgia General Assembly from 2007 to 20121 2017. She became the first woman to lead a party in the georgia General Assembly and first africanamerican leader of a party in the state house of representatives. She received her jd degree from jail law school and her master of Public Affairs from the lbj school of Public Affairs at university of texas at austin. And her b. A. , magna couple laude, from spelman college. Miss abrams, youre recognized for five minutes. We appreciate your attendance. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member johnson, committee members. Thank you for allowing me to address this important hearing today. The shelby decision created a new channel for the troubling practice of Voter Suppression during a time of dramatic demographic change. However, no assault on democracy will ever be limited to its targets. As the franchise is weakened, all citizens feel the effects which is why restoration of the full power of the Voting Rights act must occur. I come today because i was raised in mississippi where my parents joined the civil rite movement as teenagers and instilled in their six children a deep respect for the right to vote. I came of age in georgia where i registered voters while in college, served as georgia louse minority leader and i stood for office as democratic nominee for governor of 2018. Jurisdictions formally covered under section 5 joined with states with raising demographics, reinstate or create new hurdles to Voter Registration, Ballot Access and ballot counting. Among the states, however, georgia has been one of the most aggressive in leveraging the lack of federal oversight to use both law and policy to target voters of color. In 2014, i founded the new georgia project, one of the states largest Voter Registration organizations. Minorities are twice as likely to register through thirdparty registration as are whites. Postshelby legislation, practices in states like georgia, tennessee, North Carolina, texas, wisconsin, and florida, seek to impede these activities. Thengeorgia secretary of state brian kemp who was also responsible for the oversight of local Elections Officials refused to take action to process registration forms in a timely manner. We discov causing delays thatd registrants the right to vote. In 2017, citizens challenged and eliminated the secret policy through the federal court. Due to the volume of new georgia project registrations which we tracked via paper ballots, we also proved the racially dis discriminatory effect of the exact match process, requires perfect data entry by Government Employees to secure a proper registrati registration. In 2009, under preclearance requirement, the Justice Department summarily rejected exact much as presenting, quote, real, substantial, and retrogresive burdens on voters of color. Postshelby, mr. Kemp discredited the policies empowered by a lack of Justice Department preclearance. In 2016, mr. Kemp agreed to process approximately 34,000 suspended applications. Despite this 2016 federal settlement, kemp ushered another iteration of exact match through the state legislature in 2017 leading to 53,000 suspended Voter Registrations in 2018, 70 of whom were black voters who comprised roughly 30 of georgias eligible voters. Remaining on voter rolls also poses challenges. Under kemps postshelby regime, facially neutral rules for removing voters who have died or left the state became tools for voter purges. In total, he removed over 1. 4 million voters from the rolls, including purging half a million voters in a single day in 2017, an 8 reduction in georgias voting population. An estimated 107,000 of these voters were removed through arguably unconstitutional application of the use it or lose it law. One of the most pernicious effects of shelby can be found in the very act of casting a vote. Section 5 provided an effective check against hyperlocal suppressive tactics like excessive poll closures or challenge proceedings against voters of color as occurred in georgia in 2015. Of 159 counties in georgia, 156 counties removed the highest rate of voters in the rolls postshelby which resulted in an increase in the number of voters being forced to cast provisional ballots. Last election cycle, separate federal courts ruled against georgia policies for reject bing absentee ballots and ballot applications under prtrivial pretensipr pretenses. And for improperly disallowing access to translators in the polling booth. While these lawsuits brought remedy to some, thousands more may have faced similar discrimination without the resources or the knowledge to gain relief. Postshelby, Voting Rights groups must too often rely on resourceintensive litigation and advocacy work to protect fundamental right to vote for voters of color. It has the effect of harming taxpayers. States must extend tax dollars to defend Voter Suppression in court. At the end of the 2018 contest, i acknowledged the legal result of an election marred by widespread election irregularities. I also redoubled my commitment to Voting Rights through the creation of fair fight action, which has filed a federal lawsuit against the georgia electoral system asking for georgias preclearance requirement to be reinstated under section 3. The proposed Voting Rights advancement act and Voting Rights Amendment Act represent considerable progress toward restoring the power of the Voting Rights act, including modernday protections that require nationwide preclearance to attack the broad reach of Voter Suppression. I strongly urge congress to take action today, and i thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. Thank you very much, miss abrams. You were perfect on five minutes. Not my first rodeo. Not many other people have been to a rodeo in this committee. You have not been a witness. Okay. Good. Good. Good. Good. Thank you. So by mr. Kyle hawkins whos been to a rodeo, i presume, is the solicitor general of texas. He represents the state in highprofile matters before federal and state Appellate Courts including the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Hawkins previously practiced law in washington, d. C. , in the Dallas Office of the gibson, dunn and krutcher llp. He also served as law clerk to the honorable samuel a. Alito jr. , associate justice of the United States Supreme Court and honorable edith jones of the u. S. Court of appeals for the 5th circuit. Mr. Hawkins is summa cum laude graduate of a law school. Received his degree from harvard. Have you been to a rodeo . I have. Good, youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you very much for inviting me here today to testify about the Supreme Courts decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The Supreme Court held the coverage formula subjecting certain jurisdictions to preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights act was unconstitutional. When congress enacted the Voting Rights act of 1965, it imposed a novel restriction known as preclearance on various Southern States and localities that shared two characteristics. The use of test and devices for Voter Registration and voting rate in the 1964 president ial election, at least 12 points below the national average, congress tailored the original formula to include those states because it found widespread and persistent discrimination in voting in the early 1960s misuse of test and devices and this was the evil for which the remedies were specifically designed. The Supreme Court emphasized in Shelby County the constitutions allocation to power to the federal government and the states preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the states. The court explained that the constitution also incorporates the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states. And the powers reserved to the states by the framers include Broad Authority over the conduct of elections. As the Supreme Court specifically noted in Shelby County, the framers of the constitution intended the states to keep for themselves as provided in the tenth amendment the power to regulatite electio. That is, states have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised. Preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights act is inconsistent with those central pillars of federalism because it forbids states to enforce their duly enacted voting laws until they secure permission from the federal government. Preclearance is thus an extraordinary measure that entails, as the court put it in Shelby County, a drastic departure from the basic principles of federalism. The real question at issue in Shelby County were whether the on the ground conditions justified that dramatic departure. Specifically, it held that preclearance must be reserved for extraordinary situations in which a jurisdiction is guilt of pervasive, flagrant, widespread, and rampant discrimination that cannot be remedied through normal litigation. That is, preclearance is justified only when a state is so determined to evade the commands of the 14th or 15th amendments that its citizens will be unable to protect their Constitutional Rights through traditional litigation under existing law. To be sure, the Supreme Court has recognized past situations sufficient to justify preclearance. The extraordinary burdens of a preclearance regime could be appropriate in a world in which aggrieved citizens are unable to use traditional litigation to secure a leave against a states flagrantly unconstitutional voting laws. In 1965, Congress Found that those conditions existed in the states originally targeted by the preclearance regime and the Supreme Court upheld that use of preclearance in the katsenbaugh case. However, more than 50 years later, recent Voting Rights litigation in texas shows that traditional litigation is more than adequate to identify and prevent violations of the constitution and the Voting Rights act. Courts have not hesitated to identify potential legal violations and the Texas Legislature has acted promptly to address them. For example, in litigation over texas voter identification law, the state agreed to a temporary remedial order to address a claim under section 2 of the Voting Rights act. In the next legislative session, the Texas Legislature amended its voter identification law to incorporate the courtordered remedy which allows individuals who cannot secure a qualifying photo i. D. To cast a regular inperson ballot by executing an affidavit at the polls. The 5th circuit later held that the amended statute provided an effective remedy for the only deficiencies testified to in the preexisting law. Those actions bear no resemblance to the conduct that justified preclearance in 1965 when officials in certain states routinely took steps to evade federal court orders and prolong their resistance to the 15th amendment. Rather than try to stay one step ahead of the courts in an effort to defy the constitution, the state of texas has followed the courts lead in an effort to conform its voting laws to the constitution and the Voting Rights act. Under governing Supreme Court authority, those conditions cannot justify preclearance. Thank you, again, for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, sir. Our next witness is miss leah aden, Deputy Director of litigation at the naacp Legal Defense and Education Fund. She was a member of the Legal Defense funds Litigation Team in Shelby County v. Holder. Since that decision, she successfully led the Legal Defense funds efforts to block the implementation of discriminatory voting changes. Shes also recently authored democracy diminished the state and local threats to voting postShelby County, alabama v. Holder which details state, county and local voting changes proposed or implemented during the more than three years since the Supreme Courts decision in Shelby County and continues to track postShelby County voting changes. She received her jd from Howard University school of law and a b. A. In history in africanamerican studies from Columbia University. She also served as law clerk for the honorable john t. Nixon who was a friend of mine, the u. S. District court of appeals before tennessee. A very great judge. Unusual and a wonderful human being. Miss aden, youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, chairman cohen. Ranking member johnson. And chairman nadler. And other members of the subcommittee. Again, my name is leah aden and i am a Deputy Director of litigation at the naacp Legal Defense and educational fund. Thank you for the opportunity to share information about what the ldf has observed regarding barriers to voting since the u. S. Supreme courts 2013 decision in Shelby County, alabama, versus holder. Since its founding in 1940 by thurgood marshall, the mission is and has always been to promote Racial Justice and equality beginning with smith v. Allright, a case arising out of texas, our successful Supreme Court case challenged the use of all white primary elections in 194 1944. Since then, ldf fought the myriad of obstacles put before black voters to ensure our full, active, equal participation in american life. The right to vote for black people today and other people of color is facing its greatest threat in decades. As you know, the Shelby County decision invalidated the preclearance provision of section 5 of the Voting Rights act. Removing the obligation of jurisdictions with a history and ongoing record of discrimination from submitting proposed voting changes to a federal authority for approval. This process ensured that those changes would not discriminate against africanamerican and other voters. The result of the shelby decision was predictable. As chairmans cohen and nadler have mentioned, within hours of the decision, the Texas Attorney general tweeted out his intention to implement a photo i. D. Law that the state had been forbidden from implementing under section 5. Other jurisdictions including alabama followed suit. Efsh more alarming, Voter Suppression has mestacizied. Adopting laws and practice s which result in Voter Suppression. Since the shelby decision, ldp tracked and recorded discriminatory voting changes in places previously protected by section 5 that we can become aware of and do so in a regularly updated report, democracy diminished and we have provided copies of this report to each member of this committee. Our documentation and examination of the plethora of discriminatory voting changes proposed or implemented since shelby, our annual election day Voter Protection work and our own experience litigating cases, challenging Voter Suppression schemes, enables ldf to state unequivocally that theres a critical and urgent need for congress to act to restore and strengthen the full protections of the Voting Rights act. The genius of Congress Section 5 preclearance mechanism is that it stopped discrimination before the harm occurred. While we still have section 2 as you all have heard that authorizes us to challenge d discriminatory voting practice in federal courts, it is not enough. Even when we are successful litigating these cases, the relief comes too late and at too great of cost in terms of time, money, and time, money and burdens for hundreds of thousands of voters. Millions. One case dramatically illustrates this. We successfully challenged texas voter id law. The trial court found that the law violated section twos results and was enacted intentionally to discriminate against africanamerican and latino voters. The fifth Circuit Court of appeals affirmed that the law violated the Voting Rights act. Texas elected a u. S. Senator, all 36 members of the texas delegation to the u. S. House of representatives. Governor, lieutenant governor, controller, all 150 members of the statehouse, over 175 Trial Court Judges and over 75 district attorneys. Relief simply was too late for bortles, for voters and all the selections. Officials in five different states have passed racially discriminatory laws. Clark mentioned the north case. There is a Voter Suppression crisis in our country. Congers has an obligation to use the Enforcement Powers which was bestowed in the constitution to amend the Voting Rights act, to protect minority voters from Racial Discrimination. They rejected the the court in particular, as you have heard, objected to what it regarded as it a targeting of mostly Southern States. I agree with you, congress got on and shall be substituted its own judgment. The shelby decision is the law. Any effort by this body to amend the Voting Rights act must be undertaken with attention to the court Office Guidance in that case. Hr 4 does precisely that. Proposes a nationwide formula without geographic limitation to submit i look forward to hearing your questions and being able to enter them. Think you, i will proceed first with the five minute rule. First, in your statement, i believe you said congress had it wrong and the court had it right . Did i hear that wrong or did you say it wrong . If i misspoke, i definitely mean that congress had it absolutely right and the Supreme Court had it wrong. I thought thats what it was. Here, Congress Finally got it right. And they got it right multiple times over multiple decades under different administrations. Right after holder case, texas had a photo id law. Just saying, do you know what happened with the attack on that law and what the courts ruled in that, the photo id case i know it quite well because im part of the team. Many members have been litigating the case now for seven or eight years. We have to step back and also remember that the texas photo i the law that, which was recognized as the strictest in the nation at one time was adopted in the context of the legislature that also adopted racially discriminatory voting plans that have been found to be discriminatory for the statehouse and for congress. They adopted a strict photo id law. It was blocked by section 5 because the records then as the record came to show after trial and after several appeals prohibitive up to 600,000 registered texas voters end up to 1 million eligible voters to vote. This was a law that was crafted to allow people with handgun license disproportionately held by white voters to vote, but didnt ids, tribal ids, native American Tribal ids, federal and state employee ids were carved out of that law so that people could not participate in the political process. We went to trial in 2014 and the court found that the law violated the results of section 2 and also violated various provisions of the u. S. Constitution. That case went up and a court of the fifth circuit affirmed that the law, the full panel of the fifth circuit affirmed that the law had discriminatory results and our position is that , and subsequently remanded the case, there was an interim remedy were texas had to be forced to come up with a remedy for the discriminatory photo id law. After people provided testimony that the law was discriminatory, they had to be forced into an interim remedy. That was held up by another threejudge panel. Our position is that the decision did not disturb the intent. Is that the possibly the law that mr. Hawkins said was passed or was it after an election had taken place . It was after many elections had taken place. What happened to those voters . Because millions if not hundreds of thousands of votes were lost. Its not a rodeo, but cattle are out of the barn. Theres nothing you can do at that point that was the genius behind section 5 that congress understood that elections would take place and we need to block before elections take place before the cancer of Racial Discrimination takes root and the victims of discrimination have to than race into court at the cost of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to uproot discrimination. Thank you so much. Mr. Hawkins and has written testimony, Current Conditions that arent so bad that we really have done a great job and it is not like 1965 and we are doing wonderful, good things. The preclearance requirement is inconsistent and not necessary. In other words, he thinks to Supreme Court got it right in shelby sometimes the states go too far and interfere with federal statutes or federal constitutional privileges and then the feds have to come in. What you think of mr. Hawkins position that we do not need preclearance requirement before , anymore . I vehemently disagree. I recently went through a fairly public display of the need for preclearance. Mr. Kemp, the current governors have been denied the ability to impose the exact policy under preclearance. The moment shelby was passed, here instituted this policy. In 2016 he had to enter into a federal settlement because 34,000 voters were denied the right to vote in an election cycle, in fact, 2 . He agreed to the settlement in 2016 and the very next year ushered through a different iteration of the exact same discriminatory policy. In 2018, a third court told him to stop it, a second, sorry, is 53,000 voters were suspended from being able to register to vote. That is a small kernel of an example. The state of georgia has found itself in multiple lawsuits whereupon adjudication, the states have been told that their actions were racially discriminatory. That means people have been denied the right to vote. They will never be able to unring that bell. I believe that preclearance, in fact we know, preclearance would have permitted more voters to cast their ballots because the policy that denies us the right to vote would not have been enacted. Think you, these are things i think about a lot. You say you are from mississippi and i want to say some nice things about nina simone. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, your record is eric thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Hawkins, texas has been up a number of times. Is there anything that has been said here today or submitted in the written record that you would like to respond to as solicitor general of the state . Yes, i would like to do that. Thank you for the opportunity. There has been a lot said about the texas voter id law and litigation. I would like to set the record state, straight on it. No District Court has ever found that any number of voters were disenfranchised. The fifth circuit found that 95 of texas voters already had a qualifying photo id and the ones who did not could simply get a qualifying photo id to comply with the law which has been supplanted by new legislation and is now obsolete. That is not disenfranchisement under any reasonable definition. In any event, the notion that minority voters were targeted by the voter id law was contradicted by the latests own Expert Witness who offer data showing that the small percentage who did not already have a qualifying photo id for the majority of them were white voters. I would also like to speak to the importance of voter id set against the context of Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court held in crawford versus Marion County that voter id laws served the legitimate state interest of protecting the integrity and reliability, reliability and increasing Public Confidence in elections as jimmy carter once explained, the electoral system cannot inspire Public Confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. The Texas Legislature studied the issue and concluded that in person voter fraud is a problem. The legislature concluded in reliance on crawford and on the carterbaker report that a photo id requirement would help combat in person voter fraud. Furthermore, voter id is a key method for detecting in person voter fraud. It is very hard to spot in person voter fraud absent a photo id requirement. Finally, i think the Supreme Courts decision in purcell versus gonzales is very instructive on this point. I would like to briefly read the key portion of the finding analysis. They state indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process. Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory legacy. Voter fraud drives on the citizens out of the voter process and breeds distrust of the government. Of voters who fear their votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will field is enfranchised the right of suffrage can be denied just as effectively as by prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise. That is a quote from purcell versus gonzales. Just a couple other points on the voter id litigation. There were 14 individual plaintiffs in the case. The evidence showed that not a single one of those plaintiffs had been disenfranchised. Nine of them were eligible vote by mail without a photo id. Three had a compliant id. One chose to get a california id instead of a texas id and one had the documents that were necessary to get an id. Finally, voter turnout was unaffected in the elections following the implementation of the senate bill which was the voter id law at issue there. As i indicated, the Texas Legislature passed a new voter id law senate bill 5. That is now law in texas. It has not been challenged. Thank you for clarifying that record that is important today. Could you walk us through how a generic case could be brought . What steps would it proceed . Yes, i would be happy to do that. That raises an important point that section 2 and section 3 of the Voting Rights act remain fully intact, notwithstanding the Supreme Courts decision in Shelby County. I believe all of the witnesses before the subcommittee today agree on that point. When somebody believes that the victim of is the victim of intentional discrimination they can bring this. If indeed the conditions are the conditions that resemble 1965, that justified preclearance in the first place, section 3 c provides a remedy for the process. The billing process is a targeted form of a clearance. They can be set for a certain amount of time. It can cover certain areas. It is a surgical ability to impose a type of preclearance regime on a locality that truly demonstrates the same conditions that existed in the early 1960s that justified preclearance in the first place. Those two parts of the Voting Rights act are still very much in place. They are being litigated to this day, notwithstanding Shelby County six years ago with had nothing to do with those provisions. I am out of time, i appreciate all of you. I now recognize mr. Nadler. Thank you, ms. Abrams, we have seen many challenges since the Shelby County dedication takes years to resolve. In a world that is effectively without a preclearance requirement, how does it cost, how does the cost of private litigation impact it is a crippling burden that has been placed on organizations that have to seek outside Financial Support in order to secure fundamentally guaranteed rights to vote. My organization, the new georgia project had to pursue years of litigation to undo some of the challenges we discovered. As i mentioned earlier, the exact process only came to light because of the 34,000 applications that were sent in. Two years after the initial election, secretary kemp then agreed to restore the right to vote. We had a 90 day rule which created a blackout period during which thousands of applications to register to vote were not processed. That meant at least 20,000 that we know of were held up until after the election. They were not processed because of an unwritten rule that had the clearance been in effect would have come to light. It took us 2 1 2 years of litigation and discovery to discover the problem. In 2017, three years after we uncovered the issue, they finally had a federal court, to essentially emily, eliminate this role. These are only two examples of what has hit organizations. That they are being forced to combat massive state budgets that allow taxpayers to fund Voter Suppression until such time as those who are most vulnerable and most harmed can muster the resources and to defend themselves and to restore the right to vote. Thank you. Based on current pacs, congress could not meet such a standard therefore it may exceed its authority if we now impose a preclearance requirement. How would you respond to that . Thank you for the question. I agreed that section 5 is meant to get at the adaptive discrimination. But, i adamantly disagree that we have to demonstrate that conditions existed like they were in 1965 or before then. Congress survived with the evidence before that discrimination is ingenious. That morphs into the next set of things. I think it is important that we also talk and continue to look at texas because the wreckers, records there is one of many that shows the pervasiveness of discrimination. The fifth circuit has ruled on the law and the merits of that case have been decided so i will not continue to just that the fifth circuit has determined that the law was racially discriminatory. We can look again at what the legislature did with its redistricting plan. They found in 2011 state house plans had been determined to be intentionally discriminatory. I heard members of the commission say that is abhorrent. We have seen abhorrent behavior in texas. If you look not just at id laws, but if you look at the redistricting plans, you can look at the intentional plans where the federal court has ordered that jurisdiction to be subject to bail in, you can see what Wallowa County has done decade after decade trying to discriminate against historically black students at amu. You can see what the legislature tried to do this last session trying to put through a Voter Suppression bill. You can look at that one jurisdiction and ms. Abrams can talk in detail about georgia and we can look across the country and that record exists. Thank you i have one more question before we run out of time. Should the department of justice have asked the court be granted, retroactively invalidate an election when it is proven that there was substantial discrimination that exceeded the margin of victory of a candidate . Before answering that directly, congress is operating at the apex of its power by enforcing the 14th and 15th amendments. What we saw during the section 5, nearly 50 years of section 5 operating is that it was necessary on certain occasions to invalidate an election. In fact, the case that came to the Supreme Court in Shelby County was the result of white voters annexing black voters out of the district. It went from being 80 black to under 30 black in a majority black district. Those annexations were not required. Ultimately, the law required that an election be held under a fair electoral system. I think that is more than the exception to the rule and we need to think about going forward, what mechanism do we have in place so people do not have to marshal the resources to run into court counter to also look at strengthening the preliminary injunction standard because that is another thing which makes it very difficult for the victims of discrimination to be able to stop discrimination before it happens. To your question, i do think there are exceptional circumstances where redoing an election where there has been a racially discriminatory abhorrent practice takes place. Thank you, my time has expired. Thank you mr. Chair. I now recognize mr. Klein. The distinguished member from the far western part of virginia. Thank you. I think the witnesses for being here. In 1965, congress Voting Rights act to combat deep Racial Discrimination in voting. It was immediately challenged in the courts. Between 1965 in 1969, this court issued several key decisions affirming the broad range of voting practices for which preclearance was required. Now we have the decision in shelby where the court ruled section 4b is unconstitutional because it is based on data order, over 40 years old. The Supreme Court decision in shelby is now considered a landmark case regarding the constitutionality of the Voting Rights act. With many questions remaining, i am happy to have this discussion. At first, let me first ask mr. Hawkins if theres anything he would like to respond to that was said. Thank you, representative. Just a couple things in response. My colleagues have referred to purposeful discrimination. Not a single one of them has survived appeal. In a voter id case, the court, the fifth circuit explicitly vacated and reversed the District Courts purposeful discrimination finding. All other findings have met the same fate. As to the claim that texas behavior demonstrates a need for preclearance, i think the opposite is true. What we have seen in their redistricting case and the Voting Rights, the voter id case that we have been talking about today is, texas has responded to that litigation by working to conformance laws to the requirements of the Voting Rights act and the requirements of the constitution. As i discussed earlier, when texas Voting Rights, or excuse me, voter id check law, rather than pursue another appeal to the Supreme Court following the vote, texas changed his law. Likewise in the redistricting case, following the 2010 census , a federal District Court ordered plans into effect because the legislatively enacted plans had not been precleared. Consistent with the Supreme Courts the District Court conducted only a preliminary review against the states plans. The Court Ordered plans made extensive changes. The Texas Legislature repealed its challenge plans and permanently adopted the Court Ordered plans in its next session. What we have seen in the case of texas as a state conforming its laws to the requirements of the constitution, the Voting Rights act and the Supreme Court. That is a far cry from the landscape in 1965 when the covered jurisdictions were deliberately acting in bad faith to evade the review of the Supreme Court, forestall their complaints with the 15th amendment and suppress voters illegally. In fact that is at work, the states responding to the courts direction with affirmative legislation . It is and that is one of the core themes in the Shelby County decision. The states created the federal government and no other context two states have to run their laws by the federal government to get permission in advance of enforcing them. The preclearance regime that the Voting Rights act created was the one exception to that general rule. It was justified only by the extreme conditions on the ground in the early 1960s. That is the core holding of the Supreme Courts Shelby County decision. Absent those extreme concerns, federalism and the coequal sovereignty of the states does not allow congress to impose that type of regime and that is the core holding of Shelby County in 2013. In fact, laws such as regular maintenance of voter rolls and photo id laws are commonplace among states at this point, correct . Absolutely. There is nothing unusual or noteworthy about the state auditing its voter rolls to ensure that only eligible voters are registered to vote. Ive just seen in the news this week reports that california is looking at its own voter rolls to ensure that only eligible voters are registered. The coverage i have seen indicated that in los angeles county, there are four more, are more registered voters than ineligible. I believe Voter Registration is taking a look at that to see what is going on. They have an obligation to do so consistent with federal law to ensure that only eligible voters are voting. Inc. You, i yield back. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The states did not create the union, we the people created the union in the constitution. That is what we fought the civil war about. It was the claim of the confederacy that was a handshake among the states and lincoln explicitly rejected that and said, the people created the union and the constitution and no state could opt out of it. No state could secede. I think we settled that question is injury and a half ago. Disenfranchisement used to be relatively simple. In the first century, the laws simply said that African Americans could not vote. Before the civil war, the states just made it plain that it would not work. Then we had a civil war. We passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments which established that the states could not discriminate on the basis of race. For a period, the constitution worked. That was reconstruction. We had africanamericans voting in huge numbers throughout the former confederacy. Act, africanamericans were getting elected to high offices in the states and getting elected to this body. And then there was a savage assault on reconstruction. Some of it was led by the. And the former confederate. But a long period of subtle legal disenfranchisement disenfranchisement began. Grandfather clauses, white primaries, character exams and the second reconstruction which was the modern Civil Rights Movement targeted all of those practices with the Voting Rights act of 1965. Specifically it was section 5 which ms. Leah aden has elaborated so well. Before the states that engaged in massive disenfranchisement and the extinguishment of peoples local rights, to just could be made to voting practices. They had a first the department of justice because, if we allow them to go in and impose another disenfranchising mechanism and they finally get the court, get to court six or eight months later, it is too late to do anything. It is meaningless. That is what the preclearance requirement is all about. We are living in a period where there is an attack on the second civil rights motion. We got it from a gerrymandered conservative Supreme Court in 2013 in Shelby County versus hobart. It basically decapitated the Voting Rights act. Now, ms. Abrams, it is an honor to have you here for the house judiciary committee. I heard you mention a bunch of new techniques of disenfranchisement. Voter purchases, 90 day blackout period. Refusing to process Voter Registration, exact match process. Can you tell me quickly what are the onetwo, 12 techniques that disenfranchised the people of the state in the last election . Certainly, thank you for the russian. Exact matches the most obvious and elaborate and the strongest proof point for the need for preclearance. It was denied under preclearance and only existed because it appeared. What it is exact match . It requires perfect data entry by Government Employees. If there is amissing, if your last name is spelled with a space and they declined to enter the space, your application can be rejected. In the georgia system, there is no notice to the applicant of what the problem is. So, you received this circular firing squad of receiving information that you have been rejected. You resubmit the information. Likely the Government Employee resubmitted the way they typed it the first time and you never know that the reason your first rejected was a typographical error. Very good. Esther hawkins, let me come to you. Texas put out a voting advisory in january. Alleged that as many as 95,000 noncitizens were on the texas voter rolls. This advisory fell apart within days because it became clear that tens of thousands of people on the states list were actually u. S. Citizens and were wrongfully included on this list. The state pulled the advisory in order to resolve multiple federal lawsuits that were brought against it. Texas county has moved forward with removing people from the rules based on this plot advisory. Texas would have disenfranchised thousands of people and yet presumably you would be here to say that, thats not something that shouldve had to go through the preclearance process. What would you have said to the thousands of people who have been disenfranchised under that situation . Thank you for bringing up that example. The bottom line is that not a Single Person had their registration canceled. Because texas did everything. There was an error and a miscommunication between the department of public safety. I think that is the whole point. Who should bear the burden of the errors of the state. Should be the people who are trying to vote or should be the government officials who should get their hands slapped in a preclearance investigation by the department of justice . Representative, i do not think that the experience that you are referring to implicates that question. The secretary of state does not have the power to remove individuals from the voting rolls. County officials are responsible for maintaining the voting rolls. Those county officials may remove a voter from the full voting rolls only after a number of safeguards have been satisfied including postremoval judicial review which is very much part of the process. Let me ask you this. Our time is over by a minute. Thank you. Do you have to leave for the airport . Yes, i have a flight back. When does your flight leave . My flight leaves at i believe 5 50. You can make in plenty of time. But ms. Abrams fight is my flight is at 5 15 . You can cherry taxi. We have three more you can share a taxi. You will make it. I leave in an hour and i will make it. Five minutes on the nose. Ms. Garcia you are on. I will dispense with any preliminary remarks. I just want to dive into the comment you made in response to my calling mr. Raskin. I am sitting here in disbelief that you are suggesting that texas did a thing. The signatures they submitted, it seems like everyone of them in austin were suggesting that this was not happening that it was really something that they didnt mean to do and it took almost 5 months and the entire senate not voting for the secretary ofs date which he still did not get confirmed because they held tough, to get them to finally admit that they were wrong. And to have you sit here now and say they were doing the right thing just as youre suggesting that texas always is taking the lead . I am telling you, i was there sitting in the texas senate when we voted on the agreement on the Voting Rights act. We were not taking the lead. I did not like some of it. I thought it was not good enough. But, we were pretty much forced to do it because of the fin, ending federal court case. I want to clarify the record that some of the statements you are making are quite misleading. And i take offense to some of them and into characterizations you have made. Having said that because i said i was not going to make a preliminary remark texas really is almost the poster child for Voting Rights violations. I testified before the Senate Judiciary committee back in 2014. As i reflected on the testimony i presented there and then, not much has changed. When i testified back in 2014, between 1982 and 2005 for example, texas had earned 107 section 5 objections to voting policy. Second only number two mississippi. 97 concerned and affected about 33 of texas counties. Home to a disproportionate share. It is true, how many times have federal courts found intentional discrimination . 67eight . I have lost track. There about nine decisions of intentional discrimination since shelby. Since shelby. How many of those have been vacated completely and not sent down before hearing another trial . I believe all of the nine are Still Standing decisions of intentional discrimination under the cost of tuition. They are Still Standing. Now, which one of our redistricting maps are we working under . Is it not true that we are still under the temporary maps because we are still in litigation since the last census . The two decisions from, decisions related to the 2011 map, that forced the interim plans which were in large part held up by the Supreme Court, those early decisions that led to the interim remedy, those were based upon preliminary findings of intentional discrimination. Those have not been disturbed. When this case eventually made it to the Supreme Court while an entire decade had passed and many elections had taken place, the Supreme Court upheld the discrimination in one district. So, it is a very complicated posture, but our position is that there are intent, intentional discrimination rulings in 20 11. That is that advocates are still continuing to urge in District Courts in texas. Texas represents, it is the poster child, but there is also evidence from many other states that this body should examine, that it warrants section 5 preclearance. The only one we have would be the pasadena case which in my district and in working together with we were able to litigate that. In fact, i testified about pasadena at the Senate Judiciary committee. This seems like a lot of that because my district is 77 latino. That is where a lot of stuff happens. That was the only Court Ordered ballot in pasadena. Then in evergreen, alabama, a court found intentional discrimination in the parties agreed to bail in. There are two jurisdiction that have been subject to bail in since shelby. I know im losing my time, but one quick question. This section 5 was meant to, as you said, to get to the harm before it starts. How much did this litigation cost . Some of these cases go on five seven years. Ballpark figure. I know every case is different. But, generally speaking, how much do we have to spend on this . On average, hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions. That includes not just challenges of statewide measures, but even suing one county can cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. That is both taxpayers money to fight discrimination and that is taxpayer money drawn by the discriminators to defend dissemination. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the entire pages miss escobar, five minutes. German collins, thank you so much for holding this hearing. Especially on this very important anniversary. Thank you to all of our panelists for being here, i am grateful for your testimony. I am shocked to hear the opinion that texas has done the right thing when it comes to its Voter Suppression efforts. We all know that the consequences to Voter Suppression completely changed the outcome of elections and changed the publics ability to have true representation in public office. Mr. Chairman, i would like to please enter into the record, an article about my governor who is reportedly, emails show he is behind the effort to purge the voter rolls in texas. An effort that many of us saw as a surreptitious way to change the outcome of elections and to try to circumvent the changing demographics in our state. That objection will be done. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Abrams, you and i share the fact that we both come from a state that, states texas and georgia that were previously covered under the preclearance formula. In your testimony, you illustrate the challenges georgia faces in a post shelby world. I see so many parallels between our two states. Given the example that i just cited. Can you please expand on the voter roll purges in georgia . What are some of the key lessons that you learned that you can share with us through your work with the new georgia project . What can texas learn from georgia . Im going to decline to answer that question but i will answer the larger question. I would say, first of all in the tenure of the secretary of state ryan kent, 1. 4 million voters were purged. In a single day in 2017, half 1 million voters were taken off the roll. A reduction of the georgia roles by 8 . To the credit of the state, we have a version of automatic registration which is added about 681,000 voters to the roles simply by signing up for their drivers license. The challenges that a number of those people who are availing themselves of that were unlawfully purged during the one point 4 million first purged. The challenges that we face not only malfeasance but incompetence. There are people being moved from the roles that should not be, but we have been able to demonstrate that communications from the secretary of States Office has been inadequate to the task. There has been a constant attempt to defer responsibility to the localities to say it was the countys fault for not doing so. There would, the reality is that the secretary of state is the election superintendent. The buck stops with that person. The challenge with the way voter purging happens is that no one is responsible but the voters are losing their right. In the state of georgia, there has been an argument that because we had the highest turnout record in georgia for voter turnout in 2018 that there could not have been Voter Suppression. I would argue that is the moral equivalent of. The reality is that Voter Suppression is adapting to the changing demographics of our country and the reality is that voter purging is one of the tools used. It may be an imperfect tool because people will continue to speak their rights. They believe they have the right to vote. I grew up with parents who instilled in me a respect for that right. There are those who will aggressively pursue it. There are so many others who, when rejected by their state or rejected by their government, they turn away and they do not return. That is what is so pernicious about Voter Suppression. We have people who believe now that they have no voice because of error, because of intentionality and because of Racial Discrimination. Those are challenges that not only affect georgia but they affect the rest of the country. One thing i will say is that i do believe one of the opportunities we have here is to expand the coverage of section 5. I do believe there is a broader need for section 5 to not simply be afforded or to provide coverage to those states who have a history of that action because the reality is more states have joined the party. More states have decided that because they cannot win elections fairly if there is full participation, then the goal is to limit who participates. That is a fundamental flaw in the process. It is dangerous to our democracy and we have to recognize that Voter Suppression while it may target voters of color, it will affect us all. Speak and thank you ms. Abrams. Esther chairman emma i yield back. Ms. Jackson lee is recognized for five minutes. Let me think the committee for holding this very important hearing. For the record, i would like to put the following statement in. After the purging of approximately 98,000 individuals in the state of texas, general hopkins, republican officials were quick to claim that the secretary of states actions were further evidence of widespread far, widespread fraud. In a tweet proclaiming, voter fraud alert. The secretary of state discovered approximately 95,000 individuals identified by dps as noncitizens having a matching Voter Registration record in texas. 58,000 of whom had voted in texas elections. Any illegal vote present trump these numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. All over the country, especially in california. Voter fraud is rampant and must be stopped. First of all, thank you for the work youre doing in your new leadership and certainly everyone watched the numbers of purging that occurred in georgia. I think you made a point, purging oppresses the vote. It creates an aura of fear which happened in my congressional district. Would you expand on that with the aura of fear of purging and also the exaggeration or the tilt when National Leadership takes up the position that voter fraud is rampant across the country . Become certainly. Thank you for the question. I would say first that there is a legitimate purpose to maintaining effective voter rolls. There is a legitimate purpose to laws for the cleaning for people who have moved from the state or who have passed away. I do not believe theres any wellintentioned person who would say that cleaning and maintaining roles is improper but what we argue is that the approach that has been taken has been so egregious and so flawed and sometimes so directly intended to harm voters of color that we have undermined the intention of actually maintaining access to the roles. The state of georgia, 1. 4 Million People were purged between 2010 and 2018. Half 1 million were purged in a single day in the state of georgia. That should raise alarms for anyone. The reality is, when you show up to vote and you are told that you cannot cast a ballot because you have been removed from the roles even though you know you should not have been, you are now called upon to become your own attorney and to argue with who is likely a volunteer that you have the right to vote. If you happen to be in one of those hyper suppressive communities, that ability may be squashed. Georgia relied on an historical number of provisional ballots in the 2018 election. That meant that people cast their votes believing they were allowed to actually make a choice only to have those votes later thrown out. We have found a disturbing number of people were given provisional ballots not because they were not registered but because of the incompetence of the secretary of States Office. Jerald hawkins, would you not argue, could you not support the fact that minority voters are disproportionately affected by purging and as i listen to your argument about having prevailed in the Appellate Court to me your right as a lawyer i understand the chances you take. It is wellknown that the fifth circuit has never been supportive of civil rights legislation through the ages. It is nothing unusual that you would have prevailed. My question again to you is, do you not see the purpose of looking to or the purpose of purging outside of what gubernatorial candidate abrams indicated and that you have seen it being used to purge minority voters, particularly in texas . Thank you for the question. First, i am not familiar with the lay of the landscape in georgia. I am only asking you about texas and the statement that i read about the joy of purging 95,000 individuals through the secretary of States Office in texas. 95,000 individuals were not purged. Only after a lawsuit was filed. Become the secretary of state does not have the power to remove anybody from the voter rolls. Speak and i can tell you, it created hysteria. They may remove individuals from the voter rolls and counties only after number of safeguards have been surpassed. It is important to note the killing effect was already present. Can you answer about section 5, is there any reason for section 5 not to be reimplemented. Yes, the Supreme Courts decision which held the preclearance under the current landscape. Would there be any reason not to have it reinstituted . I understand shelby. Congress should pass legislation that is constitutional. In fact, congress has sworn an oath. Our time is up. Thank you. Mr. Collins want wants to come see here. They want to ask you questions and it is up to you. He is from texas. Ms. Abrams you are free if you want him if you want to split. Mr. Nadler, for brief questions. Thank you, i was intrigued by something that ms. Abrams said a few minutes ago. You said that if i understood you correctly, that the history of discrimination is not sufficient, i dont mean that. Is not the only thing that you justify preclearance. What else in your opinion should justify preclearance . Become we found not only through the work that i have done but through conversations with colleagues in other states that what is currently happening is that demographic changes occur in increasing numbers of color who have the right to vote. We are seeing a concrete decrease in the ability to vote. That has been seen with wisconsin, ohio, North Carolina, across the country we have seen increases and a Chilling Effect on the access to the right to vote. Therefore, any restoration of section 5 what i believe, set a universal standard that disallows any processes that would diminish the ability of people to color to access the right to vote. He not only a historical precedent but also in current activities. We are going to ask everybody to stay seated when we finished so they can get out and get to their taxis. No pictures, no autographs. Mr. Gomer . Thank you, i know youre trying to catch a plane. I had some questions for you, especially with regard to how texas is using section two of the Voting Rights act. Anything based on what you heard you want to add before you have to go . Thank you. I think it is important to underscore that texas has a duty under state and federal law to ensure that is voting rolls are accurate as does every other state in fact, texas has a compelling interest in insuring that ineligible voters do not vote. Why is that so . It is because anytime somebody votes unlawfully come a that suppresses the vote of a lawful voter. That is why we are seeing, not just texas, but many other states including just this week, california, auditing voter rolls to ensure that only registered voters, that only eligible voters are registered to vote. That is the purpose of auditing voter rolls to ensure that the right to vote is protected. If somebody who is ineligible to vote votes, that suppresses the vote of a lawful citizen. I appreciate your efforts so much. I would like to indicate for the record, and i wont have any further questions. I can tell youre trying to get away. But, with regard to the need for this hearing and all, i think it is important to note the facts on the reauthorization of this. I was fairly new here in congress but it seemed very clear to me that section 4 had not been changed for about 40 years. It was still penalizing states for sins and wrongs, decades before by others and grandfathers so to speak. So, i know was pushing hard, he did not want changes, he was not open to my suggestions. But, we looked at a map of areas where there was a very definite problem, a disparity in the numbers based on racial voting and there were some problems around the country that were not included in the states that had to get section 5 clearance. I had an amendment that would require any state that had a significant disparity in racial voting they had to follow under section 5. Lets update that. Section 4, lets get a new standard in there. And chairman said absolutely not. We are not changing it. As i recall, there was a district in wisconsin that had a significant disparity problem if not, it might have fallen under section 5. And, mr. Conyers was much more open to the idea of having an amendment that would require any district, any state in the country with a Racial Disparity problem would have brought them under section 5 and most recently, before the second time i spoke with him he was open to. He said, i have been talking to some of our experts and they say yes, it is a risk, it might get it might get struck down, but why dont we just wait and see what happens. I said, i just talked with the previous dean of New York University law school and he sees a substantial chance that it will be struck down by the Supreme Court when it gets there. But, the bill was done, they would not allow my amendment to be passed and therefore it would continue to punish only those who had engaged in wrongdoing decades before instead of bringing it current to make district states that were failing that have fairness racially have to answer under section 5 and just as i predicted, just as others predicted, it got struck down and we are still here without modification that could have been done back in that reauthorization. Anyway, i am hoping that we will work things out. I am proud of the way texas has been using section two litigation to get problems straightened out without, even without changes to section 4. I appreciate the chance to air these matters. We have two more people who want to ask questions. If either one of you want to leave youre free to leave. Thank you, i have to take off. Thank you so much for your testimony. We have people willing to take you to the cabin and get you out of here. Thank you, sir. Ms. Dean you are recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman and i think all of the witnesses and those who had to leave and those for sharing your views and your expertise. As we know, this is an important subcommittee hearing, this is an important set of issues. Suffrage is as fundamental a right as any in our constitution. The right to vote lies at the very heart of our democracy. A delicate democracy. Benjamin franklin famously noted that the framers left us with a republic but only if we could keep it. Of course, central to keeping it is Public Participation in elections. A government of the people by the people, for the people should mean all the people. So, i was interested, i apologize i stepped out to go to another meeting. If i am being redundant, i apologize. I hope i am not. One of the things i was interested in, under section 5, jurisdictions were required to provide racial impact data to the attorney general as part of the preclearance review process. Including information on the anticipated effect on racial minority groups and also where necessary, information on demographics, maps annexation, election returns, langwood usage, can you tell me, is that kind of data still being collected post shelby . I will defer to ms. Leah aiden. Through the process, the burden was on jurisdictions to shine a light on what they were planning to change in the burden was on them to show what was the impact, was it going to lessen the ability of people of color, native american, African American, asian american, latino, to be able to participate. As it stands, what hr 4 does and what we need is that notice of the voting changes in the burden to show what the impact be placed on the jurisdiction speaking to implement the law. From anecdotal and your personal experience, shine a light on the proposed changes so the public was on notice. The Public Noticed i assume that has now dropped away because we no longer have the section 5 preclearance. It is not only shine a light before changes in the education of voters but also collect data after to see the impact. So, now as a result of shelby, we are not doing either, right . Become right, we filed federal litigation. Among our proofs, we were able to demonstrate that due to the purging of voters and the patterns of purging, the number of people who were forced to cast provisional ballots because of the ineffectiveness and the mouthpieces of that process, there is essentially a racial map of africanamerican communities that were subject to casting provisional ballots with, which has to be remedied. If youre a working person, you might get tuesday off. There is no allocation that gives you wednesday and tuesday to fix something that should never have been broken. We also know that georgia had an extraordinary number of pole closures. Those are largely African American communities. While those pole closures may have been permissible because of some nuance of, what we found is that there is a disproportionate effect on communities of color, largely African American, largely for. If there is no public transportation, the closure of a polling place to miles from your house now being moved to 10 miles from your house is not only a Chilling Effect on your right to vote, it absolutely negates your ability to cast that the. I cannot say it any more eloquently than that. I come from a reviews experience in the pennsylvania legislature. Preshall be before i got there, early 2012. Pennsylvania passed a voter id law which was ultimately struck down. I was a brandnew state representative trying to help people navigate the world of what am i going to do if i need them sort of specified. I will close with this notion. Because i was not here, sometimes i think witnesses have something they wish they could have asked and they did not get the chance to say. May i ask you ms. Abrams, is there something more you wanted to say . In the same to you, ms. Leah aden. I want to reiterate this false connection that is been drawn between voter turnout rates amongst communities of color and Voter Suppression. These are not correlated. One can have intentional laws in practice to discriminate against voters and have an effort by communities that care about these issues to push back and provide access. I am a part of a long legacy of people who have responded to oppression by making certain that we overreact and that we over perform. We cannot ignore the fact that discrimination still exists. Discrimination does not cease to exist simply because there are those who are willing to fight back. That fighting back should demonstrate how important it is to eliminate discrimination at its face. My just want to correct, the reason why we focus on taxes is because we love texas, infect. We love the voters of texas. We want people to participate. I do not want today to be a show just about texas or georgia. As ms. Abrams said, congress can and must hold hearings and look at the landscape of Voter Suppression across the country. Look at what is happening to native American Voters in North Carolina where they are required to have an address on their photo id even though many of on reservations and do not have that. Look at kansas, where one polling place was left open and it was out of town and there is no public transportation. Look at wisconsin which has been. Look across the country, it cannot be that we are happy with the way elections are taking place. It is unacceptable. It is because we love the people who want to participate that is incumbent upon us to fix the problem. Thank you very much. Now we will recognize mr. Colin. Thank you, ms. Abrams, one of the things, im glad you are here. In 2011, back in a different time and effort world for both of us. You voted in favor of a bill to reduce to three weeks. I will enter that into the record. Has been stated early as the chairman of this committee, as of this committee, but a restriction has had a disproportionate impact on minority voters. That was very much the concern for you at the time. You and Mark Hamilton had those conversations and it was shown that there was either no difference in participation or actually there was at least a benefit to minority voters at the time. Would you agree with that . I would agree but it is important to clarify. Georgia at the time had 45 early voting days. The national standard, the Gold Standard was 21 days. Therefore, what georgia did by reducing from 45 to 21 days was to come into conformity with the most appreciated and most accepted roles for early voting. However, since that time there were multiple opportunities and multiple attempts made to actually restrict from 21 to seven days. I vigorously opposed everyone of those bills and fought them back. I was not there, we were there on this one. I think the interesting issue is that when you do carefully calculate to the norm there was not discrimination. In statements from, brought mcat you just admitted, i just saw and we have had the bill passed. In a threeweek period which was part of what was said by the chairman, it did not do that. The 7day, we could probably agree on. You cannot blanket say bring back early voting and that is that. Another issue that has come to mind. He said there are reasons to keep a voter role accurate. As you come into this process, you stated something earlier about exact match that im not sure we actually, i want to make sure we are clear on it. Is go a couple yes nose. Do you believe all of those were purged for wrong reasons . Yes or no . Of course not. Look at that. The question you have also said among the exact match in the 53,000 Voter Registration, the question can you said it is because of government bureaucrats or government workers who mistakenly put information in. That is the only reason you have given that the exact match doesnt work. Is it not true that the person who is inputting information has have Accurate Information to put in so that it is accurate would that be a fair statement . I do not believe that fairly characterizes you do not believe, if i put, if i filled out a form it was half filled out or i did not put my last name i did not put my date of birth or a did not put an address, is that a form that can be used by a local voter registrar when doing exact match . Yes or no . It is impossible to provide a yes or no answer to that question. Exact match is not simply the question of what was put on the form. The challenge of exact match is not the entry on the form, it is the database that has been used to verify the access to that information. Absent, it is an impossibility to give a truthful answer to the question presented. Youre still as good as i remember he. The issue is not this. If it is not right for the exact match to match what they need to match for verification process, if i turned it in, they did not match it up, it was my and put onto the form or the person collecting or the group electing this that did not turn in a form that they could actually use to do exact match, not what they were managing to, but if i did not give them proper match, then that is a problem. There has to be the understanding it is not just the Government Data input problem. We are not throwing all registration people under the bus. That is the problem i have in your answer. It implies a governmental problem which also goes back to a bigger issue i have. That is the implication that the governor of the state of georgia is the person behind all the problems here. This is a better question for the state that you and i love. We have a normal, or a current residual candidate come to georgia and make a statement, in your defense that basically said, ms. Abrams will be governor, would be governor of georgia if georgia was not racist i dont think thats what you want georgia to be looked at. That is not what i want. I have actually talked to the individual. The question is making sure we have accurate voter rolls, making sure that accurate voter rolls are there and that people have the possibility of doing that. The question, one last question i have but i know you have a flight and i will see you again hopefully under different circumstances, one question bugged me the whole time i watch this. There was a clip and you said it even afterwards. When were talking about our voter rolls being there for every person, every citizen, do you believe that noncitizens should vote in the state of georgia . Know and i have never said that noncitizens should be allowed to vote. What did you say . What i said, the blue wave which was neither reference to the right to vote but to the administrations policies that has dehumanized and harmed the ability for people in the United States of america to fully exercise their rights and freedoms, that they change that would come which is referred to as the blue wave would be achieved by people who are documented and undocumented. That did not refer to and it has been proven through political analysis, i never once called for anyone who is not legally eligible to vote to be able to do so. I would prefer you, i would your, refer you to when i have worked with republicans and democrats. With due respect, the reality is that we as a nation stand as an emblem of what democracy can mean and that is diminished when there are irregularities and when there are mel seasons and activities that undermine the right foot. That is what i have called attention to and that is the work im doing. That is exactly what the problem is. Even from groups taking the time is up thank you mr. Colin. I appreciate the panelists coming and your testimony. We will have five days for members to come up with questions. They can submit them in writing. We would ask you to answer them. With that, the hearing is adjourned. Sunday night former new York City Police Deputy Inspector corey talks about his book once a cop. I was young, i grew up on welfare. I was in a family of five girls and myself work my father left after the third grade. It is ironic that in my book i have a picture of me in the fifth grade and im sitting indian style on the front and i am holding my feet because i have holes in the bottom of my shoes. I had cardboard in them so that my socks would not get what. I had a rough upbringing. I got involved in the streets and met some friends who were selling drugs. That was the thing to do. Sunday night at 8 pm eastern. Thank you for coming today for this are ff live event on the Global Energy outlook. I am a richard knew well, im the president and i want to thank you for joining us today. We are research
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.