Transcripts For CSPAN3 House Judiciary Hearing On Voting Discrimination 20240714

We dont have a gavel. Committee on constitution of civil rights and Civil Liberties are called to order. Without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess of this subcommittee at any time. Welcome everybody to todays hearing, hearing on evidence not a field hearing. On evidence of current and ongoing voting discrimination. I recognize myself for an opening statement. Todays hearing on evidence of current and ongoing voting discrimination is part of a series of hearings that the house judiciary subcommittee on constitution civil rights and Civil Liberties will hold over the course of this year to assess the current need for a reinvigoration of the preclearance requirement of the section five of the Voting Rights act 65 to consider other ways to strengthen that landmark civil rights statute. I am not sure why we say wee reinvigoration. Thats one of the words we toss arnold. It is not really a reinvigoration. It is more of a degradation that section four would cut out. We need to have a section four to activate section five. The Supreme Court said section four wasnt adequate before section five. We need to awaken the dormant section of section five. The act was enormously successful in expanding federal authority to protect the fundamental right to vote. One of its central enforcement provisions was section five preclearance provision. The provision required certain jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination against racial and language minority groups predominantly those that tended to be in the deep south to obtain approval of any changes to their voting laws or procedures from the department of justice or the u. S. District court for the district of columbia before those changes could take effect. The purpose of the preclearance requirement was to ensure that jurisdictions that were most likely crime state inningi against minority voters as shown by finding of congress would pair the burden that changes were not discriminatory before changes could take effect and therefore not discriminate in fact dense people they should not be discriminating against. It providing a mechanism to ensure fairness to all voters. We passed the Voting Rights act in 65. There was a list of jurisdictions. It wasry newed. There was a list of jurisdictions. In 2013 in shelby v holder our Supreme Court said what we did in the past, sense enbrenner, the chairman of the committee, a house vote in the senate was not adequate. That finding by the congress of legislative action was not sufficient, in a the court, which is generally kind of says it bears deference to congress who is going to jump in and put its opinion above congress. So what the preclearance requirements did is prevented potentially discriminatory voting practices which was the purpose of these laws. In this way, preclearance proved to be a significant means of the protection of the rights of minority voters. This is why congress reboatedly reauthorized preclearance provision. Overwhelmingly bipartisan voting in 2006. And mr. Sense brenner was the committee at the time and and a great job. Unfortunately, spinningford gutted section five in 2013, shelby versus holder struck down the coverage formula of section four and determined which jurisdictions would be isnt to the preleerns requirement. As a result the preclearance provision remains dormant unless and until congress adapopts thi new coverage formula . We have to have that ergs to show the court that we have taken information and our findings are based on fact. We have heard in the four hearings we have held this year on Voting Rights, most recently in memphis tennessee, and we will further here in todays hearings, North Carolina passed a sweeping voting suppression law that a federal Appeals Court held to be unconstitutional finding it intentionally targeted africanamericans with almost surgical precision. Of course by doing it after they put it into affect, it had their desired effect which was to limit africanamerican voting. If they were under the requirement the couldnt have stopped them from voting. The voodoo that they do so well. All of which are designed to make it harder for africanamericans and other racial and ethnic minorities to vote. Last year we learned about tennessees third Party Registration law like the league of women voters. It made it criminal for African People to do so. Back in law we learned about a similar law in texas and other examples of voting discrimination in that state. We have seen states engage in gerrymandering. In the absence of an effective preclearance formula there is almost certainty that these measures will undermine the voting rates of racial and language minority voters and erode our democracy. While section two of the Voting Rights act remains in effect it is expensive to enforce. And cannot be enforced until after a discriminatory act has happened. The actese most important mechanism is preclearance requirement thank you for being here. I look forward to a fruitful discussion. I would now like to recognize Ranking Member mr. Johnson for his opening statement. Thank you mr. Chairman. And appreciate you all for being here as the Minority Party on this committee i think there is a couple of things that we just want to say at the outset as we again the hearing. First of all, lets be clear about this. We all free that discriminatory treatment in voting based on race or sex is abhorrent. Its prohibited by the constitution, as it should be. And it is printed by federal statute, as it should be. Too often, complaints of discrimination in voting have nothing to do with discriminatory treatment. Instead, rules entirely neutral on their face are sometimes claimed to be discriminatory because they have a disparate exact on one group or another. Disparate impact claims are a form of identity politics and contradict Martin Luther kings focus on consciousness rather than racial groups. He said famously, when the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the constitution and the declaration of independence they were signing a promissory note to which every american was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, unquote. He said it well. It promised life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not equality of outcomes. We believe they pervert the language of our founding documents. Disparate impacts are not proof of discrimination. Indeed, they are statistically inevitable. As thomas sole has explained, if several criteria need to be met for any given out come, and this can apply to voting requirements as well then small variations in any groups odds of meeting those criteria will produce different outcomes for the group generally, the problem with disparate impact is often used to falsely impud racism or discrimination. But there are thousands of reasonable reasons and neutral voting rule might have disparate impact, reasons that might have nothing to do with discrimination. Take for example, the department of justices letter declining to preclear South Carolinas voter id law under the Voting Rights act in 20 1. The department claimed minority registered voters were 20 who likely to be effectively disenfranchised by the law because they lacked a drivers license. But the difference between white and africanamericans was only 1. 6 . The Justice Department used 20 because the data showed 8. 4 of white registered voters lacked any type of voting registration at dmv, the number is 20 larger than 8. 4. It is true that it is 19 handwritinger. The Justice Department rounded up but distorts the difference in drivers license rates. It was used to falsely declare the South Carolina law as objectionable. What other factors might then explain differences in outcomes money Demographic Groups . Data Shows Younger people across racial groups tend to be least likely to have drivers licenses. Consequently, if africanamericans have more young people in their Demographic Group there will be a disproportionate number of individuals in that ethnic Group Without drivers licenses however slight, as is the case. As the facts follow this is due to demographics and not discrimination. The disparate impact approach to civil rights and the assumption that different outcomes are a result of prejudice jis is fundallyu unsounded for the same reason that social sciences are trained that vettel does not imemploy causation. There can be correlations but it doesnt answer the question why that correlation exists. My point is only that disparate impacts cant be meaningfully used to prove voting crime nation. Regarding discriminatory treatment in voting thats based on race, Section Three in the voting ability remains in place and in full effect. Just a couple years ago for example, u. S. District court judge lee rosen that will expressed an money that required pasadena texas to be monitored by the Justice Department because it intentionally changed its City Council Districts to decrease hispanic influence. The city, which the court ruled has a long history of discrimination against minorities unquote was required to have their voting rule changes precleared for the next six years during which time the federal judge retains jurisdiction to review and approve any change to the map. A change to the citys election plan can be enforced without review by the judge only if it has been submitted to the u. S. Attorney general and the department of justice hasnt objected in 60 days. I support Section Three and i look forward to hearing all of our witnesses here today. I yield back. Thank you mr. Johnson. I recognize the chairman of the full judiciary committee, the gentleman from much of, no, manhattan, east side west side. West side, east side, all about the town. Thank you for hosting us at the field hearing on Voting Rights in memphis last week. Since the Supreme Courts disastrous 2013 decision in Shelby County versus holder custom effectively gutted the Voting Rights act of 1965, the preclearance requirement we have seen a troubling trend. States and localities, in particular those formerly subject to the preclearance requirement enacted or engaged in Voter Suppression tactics such as burdensome proof of citizenship laws, polling place closures, purges of voter rolls. Significant scalebacks to early voting periods. Restrictions in absentee ballots and not restoring Voting Rights of formerly incarcerated individuals. They have a disproportionate impact on language and minority voters. Disparate impact is very much a very useful evidentiary tool. In the most recent elections in november 2018. Voters across the country experienced barriers to voting because of state and local laws and circumstances that made it hard or impossible to vote. For example, last week we heard in memphis that in georgia under that states exact match law 53,000 voter registrants, 70 of whom were africanamerican by pure happen stance were placed in pending status and at risk of not being counted by the secretary of state. Who was also the republican governor because of minor misspelling on their Registration Forms. Thek court put a stop to this treatment because quote the treatme section five of the Voting Rights act or vra contains the preclearance requirement which requires certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to submit any proposed changes to their voting laws or practices to the department of justice for prior approval to ensure they are not discriminatory. To understand why the preclearance requirement was central to enforcing the vra it is worth remembering why it was enacted in the first place. Before the vra many states and localities passed voter impression laws secure in the knowledge it could take many years before the laws could be successful lee challenged in court if at all. As soon as one law was overturned another would be enacted essentially setting up a discriminatory game of whack a mole. Section five stopped the log jam and blocked this practice. The results was apparent almost immediately after the law went into affect. Registration of africanamerican voters and those Holding Office both rose dramatically in the years after enactment of section five. These successes could not have happened without enforcement of the Voting Rights act and the preclearance provision. The decision struck down as unconstitution the vras coverage formula which determined which jurisdictions would be subject to the president clearance requirement effectively suspending the operation of the preclearance requirement itself. In its absence the game of whack a mole returned with a vengeance. Not surprisingly within 24 hours of the Shelby County decision Texas Attorney general and North Carolinas General Assembly announced they would reinstitute draconian voter id laws. The courts were both held to be intentionally racially discriminatory, not disparate impact. Intentionally racially discriminatory. During the years between their enactment and the final decisions states and localities held many actions over the discriminatory laws in place and many people denied their rightful right to vote. In short before the discrimination could be stopped the damage had already been done. 21 other states enacted newly restrictionive statewide voter laws since the decision. Restoring vitality of the Voting Rights act is of critical importance. In 2006, we undertook an exhaustive process to build a record that demonstrated 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 we found many coverage jurisdictions were still experiencing discrimination. For instance these states and the subdivisions continue to engage in racially selective practices such as relocating polling places for africanamerican voters and in the case of localities, setting wards to satisfy white suburban voters to circumstance up vent africanamericans running for office in their cities. The vra can still pursue after the fact legal remedies even without preclearance. Time and experience proves such an approach takes longer and it is more expensive than having an effective preclearance regime. Once a vote has been denied it cannot be recast. The dam to our democracy is permanent. That is why i hope members on both sides of the aisle will come together. Todays hearing will provide the additional opportunity to renew our understanding of the importance of the Voting Rights act and in particular of its preclearance positions and to sport our efforts to craft a legislative constitution solution. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses to hear about their experience of voting discriminations by states and localities. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Collins the Ranking Member has a statement to produce for the record. We welcome our witnesses and thank them for participating in todays hearing. Your written statements will be entered into the record. I ask each to summarize their statement for five minutes. To stay within your time there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow it means you have one minute left just like a traffic like. If it turns red, trouble, five minutes are expired. Remind every witness in a your statements written and oral are subject to the penalties of perjury which could result in the imposition of a fine or imprisonment of to five years. Or both a fine as well. But that will not likely happen. Our first witness is miss gupt at that, the president and ceo of the legal conference on civil rights. And the head of the Civil Rights Department at the department of justice during the Obama Administration. She received her law degree from the New York University school of law, mr. Nadlers district, and received letter undergraduate agree magna cum laude from yale direct which with a sharpie could be in mr. Nadlers district, too. You are recognized for five minutes. Chairman nadler, chairman cohen, Ranking Member johnson, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And thank you chairman for your leadership in calling this hearing to restore the Voting Rights act. The vra is considered one of the most successful pieces of civil lights legislation in our history. Not long ago just in 2006, this very body reauthorized the vra with sweeping bipartisan support. But in 2013, five justices of the Supreme Court gutted the vras most powerful provision, the section five preclearance system. Section five enabled the federal government to block proposed preclearances in places with voting discrimination. Based on race and language. When i served in the Justice Department we relied on section two of the vra to help mitigate the dodge done by the Shelby County decision. We challenged discriminatory laws passed in North Carolina and texas in the immediate aftermath of the decision. And we were successful. The courts found intentional discrimination and have found intentional discrimination in at least Nine Federal Court cases since the Shelby County decision. But section two litigation can take years. While litigations are pending elections are taking place and many voters can be disenfranchised with no ability. The reality is section two simply is no substitute for the need to restore the section five preclearance provision. Restoring preclearance is all the more important under an administration that refuses to challenge discriminatory voting measures. Not a single case has been open, including barriers to Voter Registration, restrictive voter id requirements and polling place closures, which i want to focus on today. Polling place closures and consolidation had been a pernicious tactic for disenfranchising voters, particularly those of color, older voters, and voters with disability. Since shelby polling places are closesing at an alarming speed. This morning a Ground Breaking report analyzed 750,000 cons that were once cover by section five. We found that 1688 polling places were closed between 2012 and 2018. The report also analyzes polling place reductions in the years before the 2018 midterm elections. We found fewer polling places despite a significant increase in voter turnout. Arizona closed 320 polling places. Georgia, 214, louisiana, mississippi, North Carolina, and alabama trail behind them. This crisis also extends beyond states formerly conferred by section five. Our campaign identified similar trends in ohio. Between 206 and 2018, the down home to cleveland eliminated poing locations the bulk of which happened in majority black wards. Of course there may be valid reasons for polling place closures but it is important to recognize that these closures are taking place amidst a larger constellation of efforts to prevent people of explore from voting. Without preclearance states are under no obligation to evaluate the impacts and harms of polling place closures. Our report found closures often mean long lines at polling places transportation hurdles and mass confusion where eligible voters may cast their ballotser r for many people the closures make it harder and sometimes impossible for people to vote. Vote by mail is used as a justification. The move to mail in ballots is far if racially neutral. Before the shelby decision, scrutiny of voting changes under section five insured that polling place reductions did not discriminate against voters of color. This critical protection no longer exists and the consequences on voter access are devastating. This is why the Leadership Conference recommends that the subcommittee, and urges the subcommittee toas pass hr 4 to restore the Voting Rights act based on Current Conditions today. While there are justifiable reasons for closing polling places the number we have seen since shallby coupled with other actions to deny votes to people of color demand a response. Our coalition is committed and we look forward to working with you until the day these forms are signed into law. Thank you. Mr. Derek johnson is our next witness. The president and the chief executive officer of the naacp, a position he has held since october 2017. He previously serve ads the vice chairman of the naacp board of directors and is president of the naacp Mississippi State conference. He received his undergraduate from Tougaloo College in jackson, mississippi. Mr. Johnson. You come from my part of the world. Welcome. Good morning, chairman cohen, chairman in addition le, Ranking Member johnson and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify. For background, i have spent more than two decades in mississippi which has been front and center in the fight for Voting Rights. Allow me to get to the point. Our democracy is in crisis. There is a on the right of people of color to if you willy participate. We are six years, two months, 16 days until the Shelby County ruling. That was the worst attack on par taste paidory democracy in history. Chief Justice John Roberts was dead wrong when he said in Shelby County that our county, our country has changed, just take a loong around. It most certainly has not. Voter suppression has become rampant. Instead of asking where is it occurring we should ask where sit not . Congress has a constitutional duty to act. My testimony lays out the problems we face around the country. I would like to make five points here. First, the sought on democracy is conducted by states and local jurisdictions. Much attention is on statewide efforts to suppress the vote but it can happen in every community. Secondly todays disenfranchisement takes many forms. It is adaptive and pervasive. These are just a few, stringent voter id rirmts like North Carolinas which we successfully challenged and which a court found targeted africanamericans with surgical prosigs, purges of voter rolls like we are seeing in ohio right now. Massive closures of polling places in communities of color. Shortened voting periods, and elimination of sunday voting. Measures make it criminal for groups to register voters like the ones we recently had to challenge in tennessee. Early there is no defense. Voter splegs is often done in the name of come of the abouting voter fraud. Lets be clear, this is not a real problem. Reports of voter fraud are about as common as reports of alien abduction. Even trump had to expand his Voting Commission was fraud does not exist. Four fourthly, while voting jim nation was well documented under theity Voting Rights acts it spread like a cancer. The tragic fact is that no community is immune, everywhe everywhere everyone, everywhere must remain vigilant. My testimony discusses the efforts of our Legal Department in conjunction with state justices on the ground to combat Voter Suppression. Heres the situation, Shelby County eliminated the preclearance requirement and trumps Justice Department is missing in action on Voting Rights enforcements. Our branches are asked to do what used to be the job of the federal government, protect the right to vote. To be clear we are fighting back wherever and whenever we can. This is not sustainable. Congress must step up to combat this nations epidemic. Congress must pass Voting Rights advancement acts. Make no mistake, congress has simple evidence to restore the Voting Rights act to its full strength. Given the daily experiences of our community with Voter Suppression in the lead up to and on election day no one can deny the strong record that supports immediate passage. Congress must also pass for the people act, voting must be simplified. Access to ballots must be expanded. This bill would make it easier to cast a vote and make sure that that vote is counted. Final lesion Congress Must Pass Security federal election act. The safe act would help our election secure and free from foreign intervention, interference that disproportionately targeted africanamericans. Robert mueller warned this community about russian interference in our election. He said they are doing it as we sit here. We must defend our democracy, period. This year the naacp celebrated our 110th anniversary, we have never waved from demanding an inclusive secure democracy. It is now time for congress to make protecting the franchise the highest priorities n. Mississippi what i experienced over the last 20 years is what i am watching across this country. If we do not stands up to protect democracy and make it work today, who will . And who you can we ever have a true representative government. Thank you for allowing me to testify. I welcome any questions. Thank you mr. Johnson. Parenthetically i will mention that in memphis the location that houses the Election Commission downtown was dedicated yesterday as the James Meredith building. In honor of his integrating ol miss and fighting for Voting Rights. Mr. Dale ho is director of the Voting Rights at the american Civil Liberties union. He currently has active cases in dozens of states around the country. He testified on election law issues before this congress. Also an adjunct professional of law. Received his degree from yale and undergraduate degree from princeton. You are recognized for five minutes. Chairman cohen, nadler, Ranking Member johnson and members of the subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am dale ho the direct offer of the aclu Voting Rights project. Ruth ruth warned about the decision in spel shelby v holder was like quote throwing away your umbrella in the middle of a rainstorm. The aclu has been on the front lines. We have opened more than 0 new Voting Rights investigations and cases since the decision. Some of our recent and ongoing cases having department of commerce v state of new york a case i argued before the Supreme Court earlier this year successfully challenges the administrations attempt to add a Citizenship Question to the 2020 census. Naacp v mcrory where along with the naacp and others we successfully challenged a sweeping North Carolina bill that sought to eliminate means of participation used by more than 1 million voters in the 2012 president ial election. And groofr v barton where working with the Brennan Center and others we are challenging a florida law that denies the right to returning citizens with past felony convictions based solely on their inability to pay outstanding costs, fines, fees and restitution. My testimony will focus on Current Conditions with respect to discrimination in voting and in particular on recent litigation under section two of the Voting Rights act. As details in my written same i think four points stand out. First recent litigation under section two of the vra demonstrates the need for Voting Rights advancement act. While the Current Administration has not filed a single case under the vra private litigants have won more than two dozen section 2 litigation since shelby was decided. It highlights the continuing problem in voter discrimination today. Second, we currently look the tools necessary to stop changes to voting laws before they taint an election. Discriminatory laws we succeeded in blocking remained in effect for months or years while litigation has proceeded. Time in which elections have been held and government officials were elected. The North Carolina case that you have heard so much today is illustrative. The law that we challenged eliminated one week of early voting in which 900,000 people voted in 2012. Sameday registration, which nearly 100,000 voters used in 2012. And preregistration which 150,000 voters used before that election. The law also banned many forms of governmentissued photo id including student id carr cards, municipal employee id cards. It was found this targeted africanamerican voters quote with almost surgical precision and it was found unconstitutional. That case took 9. 5 million and 34 months to litigate. In the interim the 2014 general election took place and 190 federal and State Government officials were elected under what was later determined to be an unconstitutional regime. The law has been struck down but that election cannot be rerun. There is no way now to compensate the voters of North Carolina or our democracy itself for that gross injustice, thats just one example. My written testimony details ten section two cases in which we ultimately obtained favorable outcomes for your clients but only after a dozen elections were held and 350 federal, state, and local officials were elected under discriminatory laws. The vraa would address this problem with a new preclearance provision based to an rolling formula accounting for recent Voting Rights violations and a clarified standard for preliminary injunctions in section two cases. Both would help discriminatory laws from taking effect before an election. Third, overall the bulk of section two litigation happens at the local level where it highlights the need for the vraas transparency and notice requirements. Fourth and finally a handful of formerly covered states under the section five preleerns regime account for more than half of the successful section two cases since shelby was decided which indicates voting discrimination remains concentrated in some areas. Congress has a duty to take strong action to fulfill the promise of the reconstruction amendments, that all americans should be free to participate in our democracy on equal terms free from racial inquality or discrimination. Thank you. Our next witness is Jay Christian adams, president general counsel of Public Interest legal foundation. From 2005 to 2010 he worked in the voting section of the United States department of justice. He served as general counsel to the South Carolina secretary of state. Received his law degree from South Carolina school of law. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you very much chairman nadler, chairman cohen, Ranking Member johnson. At our foundation we are dedicated to preserving voting integrity. I am presenting evidence today of two instances of voter discrimination and disenfranchisement i have been working on the first is a case recently decide booed by the 9th circuit in july. I represented major dave davis. Major davis served on guam and decided the live there on requirement. Guam is governed by the organic act. It bans Racial Discrimination voting and incorporates the protections of the 15th amendment. Nevertheless, the legislature of guam passed an election law confining the right to vote unless of the status of a preferred racial group, socalled native inhabitants. In other words, they passed voting requirements based on blood ancestry. Congress has required guam to adhere to civil rights obligations in the 15th amendment and other federal statutes. Ironically, guam also received over 300,000 in federal funds from the department of the interior to conduct education campaigns about this very same racially discriminatory voting process. That is Something Congress can fix. When dave davis sought to register to vote at the Government Office his Registration Form was marked void by Election Officials. The form is in my written statement. Even in the jim crow south of the early 1960s, southern registrars were not brazen enough to deny the right to vote explicitly on having the wrong racial blood. We filed suit in federal court in 2011. The case is still continuing because guam has been zealous in defending the racially discriminatory laws. It is so blatant that the United States District Court in guam not a single Civil Rights Organization offered to help mr. Davis. Despite the long inventory of voting cases that we know about not even a single Civil Rights Organization filed an am cuss in this case. In some voting cases such as challenges to South Carolina voter id these same groups managed to duplicate or triplicate each other despite the fact not a Single Person was disenfranchised by the South Carolina voter id law y. This important . It is important that reauthorization of the Voting Rights act if it curse is not done in a way that it affects partisan interests. Too often voter rights is about partisan interests. To add insult to injury, mr. Davis couldnt even get the department of justice to help him in 2011. His pleas were ignored by the civil rights division. No case was filed on his behalf. No am cuss was filed to help him. No nothing. Even after the 9th Circuit Court of appeals in 2005 ruled that he had a right case the Justice Department failed to act. Oddly, rightness was cited by the chief of the voting section in an internal Inspector General report as to why the d. O. J. Did not help mr. Davis. Finally, in november 2017 the Justice Department did what it should have done six years earlier and appeared in court seeking to strike down the racially discriminatory voting law. Congress can do something. For one, stop public funding of racially discriminatory election Public Information campaigns. Congress has exclusive power in the territories and can stop this. The second example, which i will briefly mention involves the commonwealth of virginia cancelling citizen registrati registrations, in other words citizens are having their Voter Registrations cancelled in virginia. We found this out. We found the commonwealth is routinely cancelling citizens. In sum, there are Things Congress can do. First of all reexamine the interplay between motor voter dmv laws and Election Officials. The dmv part of motor voter is hidden from the public because congress hid it. Secondly, congress has shielded Motor Vehicle departments and it should go away. Third congress should strengthen obligation force election official to be transparent. We are currently suing the state of pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Harris County, texas, because they are not allowing public inspection of election records in those three places. Fourth, congress should allow states to verify citizenship. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Thank you mr. Adams. Ms. Myrna perez is corrector of Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Vernon Center for justice at nyu school of law, author of several reports and article articles. Shes a lecturer in law at columbia and served as adjunct professor of clinical law at the nyu school of law, received her law degree from columbia, also a fellow. Received a master of Public Policy from Harvards Kennedy school of government and an undergraduate degree from yale. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you for having me. Im myrna perez. I am the director of the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the bryna school of justice at the schonew york school of law. We ask this committee to take note. A number of state and local jurisdictions have continued to implement discriminatory voting laws. They have continued to disenfranchise voters of color in our elections. In fact over the past decade the Brennan Center has documented a wave of new laws and practices urd aboutening the right to vote especially targeting communities of color. This programs require a thoughtful and strong response. Section five of the Voting Rights act effects that states and localities have a wide variety of tools and tactics at their disposal. I go into some of these in my written testimony. The one i will focus on here is that of aggressive voter of were which can target voters of color and disenfranchise large numbers of eligible citizens. Purges refer to the process they try to use to remove the games of ineligible voters from registration lists. It is a large part of any Election Officials jobs. When purnls are done right they ensure the lists are accurate and up to date. Something we all agree is useful. However when purges are done improperly they disenfranchise legitimate voters and undermine confidence in our democratic processes. Moreover impressure purges can lead to discriminatory results. For example, reports indicate new yorks purge leading into the 2016 election disproportionately affected voters. As well as floridas purge attempt. Between 2014 and 2016, states removed almost 16 million voters from the rolls. Thats almost 4 million more than states removed between 2006 and 2008. Thats an increase of 3 , outstripping growth in total registered voters and total population. Our Research Suggests shellpy county had a notable impact on that growth. Prior to Shelby County, they had purge rates in line with the rest of the country. For the three election cycles ending in 2014, 2016, and 2018, after Shelby County, jurisdictions formerly covered increased their purge rates and everyone else remained about the same. Wed a vekt 2 million voters would have been purnled if jurisdictions previously subject to preclearance purnled at the same rate as other jurisdictions. We have seen several improper purges since shelby. This year a federal court stepped in to stop texas officials from purging 95,000 voters from the rolls. Texas initially claims these people were noncitizens but the state relied on bad data and methodology n. 2016 new york wrongly removed names from the rolls. That same year the secretary of state prepared a highly inaccurate purge list of nearly 8,000 names. Purges typically happen behind closed doors with the stroke of a keyboard. As a result voters often dont know they have been purged until they show up to vote. It is hard to address the effects of bad purges until it is too late. That is why section fives preclearance process is well tailored to address voter discrimination and other reforms but the purge problem specifically. Because a revitalized preclearance regime would require jurisdictions to obtain approval for new purge practices. The need for preclearance is particularly relevant. We have new databases popping up which identify ineligible voters. But they are tlaud. States are passing new laws looking for different grounds on which to purge people and relying on discredits methodology certain groups are pushing localities to increase the aggressiveness of their purges. Many advocates it issing here will did our very best to protect laws and policies under the laws that we have including against improper purges but congress can and should also act to protect voters. The Supreme Court repeatedly affirm kopgs power to enact a coverage farm la for section five preclearance. We urge congress to revitalize the vra imi am very much looking forward to the questions. Our final witness is natalie land dret senior staff attorney for the native American Rights Fund based in an corpsage alaska office. Her practice covers a variety of federal inland yeah issues. She has been instrumental in establishing key voter protections in alaska through two significant cases and testified in congress in support of the renewal of the vra in 2006. She is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University and received her law degree from harvard as well. Shes a member of the chickasaw nation. You are recognized for five minutes. [ no audio ] miss perez, can you help her . Do we have a faulty machine . Thank you very much. My name is natalie land dret. I am a citizen of the schick saw nation. I am here today in my capacity as a staff attorney at native American Rights Fund. I have held this position since 2003 and worked on voting posit and i thank you for the invitation to speak here today and to speak on ongoing voter discrimination in Indian Country because there is a lot and it is egregious. There are firstgeneration barriers and direct impediments to polling places and access to voting is a thing of the past and that view is wrong. Firstgeneration barriers are not gone and this month in support of this testimony, the nativeamerican rights are submitting a report on nine field hearings we conducted throughout Indian Country that show the extent of these barriers including testimony from voters who said they were forced to vote in an abandoned chicken coop complete with egg boxes remaining behind and voters who claimed that they had been forced to vote with a sheriffs station with an armed station who ran their plates before they walked inside. I want to address three things in my testimony today briefly. First, i want to talk about how the loss of preclearance has affected our work and how its impacting your constituents. Second, i want to talk about what previously covered jurisdictions are now doing, and third, i want to talk a little bit about known practices coverage which is included in this draft of the vraa. First, the loss of preclearance means that the burden has shifted from the jurisdictions on to the voters themselves. What i mean is that they previously had to submit them to the doj and now they have to sue to get them undone. It is enormously burdensome and in an average voting case, narf alone, a fairly Small Organization will spend thousands of hours over several years and over 1 million to stop a single discriminatory voting change, and what ends up happening is because native americans have brought 95 voting cases approximately and won 92. 5 of the time is that these jurisdictions end up paying the attorneys fees and shifting that cost on to the taxpayer or the taxpayers end up subsidizing the discrimination occurring by local officials. This tells us the success rate that the discrimination is real. Second, the loss of preclearance means that the previously covered jurisdictions implement to discriminatory changes that had previously been denied. One example is the arizona ballot harvesting law. The reason that was critical in Indian Country is 18 of native americans outside of pima counties actually have home mail delivery. So what they would have to do is pool their ballot, neighbors would collect all of your mail and take it to the post office at the same time and this turned them into potential felons for handling a voted or unvoted ballot that did not have their name on it. The other thing that happened in this jurisdiction after the loss of preclearance and this is currently in litigation and there was an astounding step from removing polling locations from hundreds down to 60 in 2016. The result, according to testimony was lines four to six hours long and this can be found specifically in the arizona field transcripts that we will be providing complete with locations and names of witnesses. I want to speak briefly of the fact that there are some bad actors everywhere. We talk about where people feeling like certain states are targeted and that is not true. The known practices formula and the known practices list, i should say, in this bill will help. Let me give you an example from california. Someone testified that they were not able to register to vote because their jurisdiction considered a mobile home and not to be a permanent residence and therefore people on the reservation were not being allowed to vote. Fortunately alex padilla was in the audience at the time and we understand this has since received in attention. Another jurisdiction not covered by the component of this bill, north dakota. Very wellpublicized situation, what some people consider to be a facially neutral law that is completely false because 24 of americans have no i. D. The court said it best. You need an i. D. To get an i. D. In north dakota. Most of the elderly native americans were born at home. So they dont have birth certificates from the 20s, 30s and 40s and they cant get the documents they need and not to mention that a significant number of them dont have access to transportation to do that. So i would like to close by saying that the known practices section lists these pieces and so does a component bill weve drafted based on the findings called the native american Voting Rights act. We encourage the committee to pass the vraa and also the native american Voting Rights act. Thank you. Thank you. Firstly, i would like to compliment our panel. First panel i think ive ever witnessed that all got to five minutes and stopped. Great. Well now proceed a questioning which is a fiveminute rule of questions and i will recognize myself for question. Mr. Ho, you mentioned some jurisdictions for section 2 cases have taken place since the holder, where are those jurisdictions . Are they predominantly in any particular class of jurisdictions . So there have been 26 successf successful section 2 cases and i design a successful case where either a court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs or the Party Settled and the plaintiffs got some of the relief, some or all of the relief that they sought. Two themes stand out when you look at what kind of jurisdictions those cases arose from. The first is that of those 26 cases, i think 16 of them and theres a table in mind, written testimony that sets this out happened at the local level. So a majority of the successful section 2 litigation that weve seen happens at the city, County School board level and i think what that speaks to is the importance of the notice and transparency requirements of the vraa because changes to voting laws at the local level are harder to detect and thats something that we lost with the demise of the preclearance regime. The second thing is that a majority of these cases arose from a small handful of states and again, theyre set forth in my testimony that used to be covered by section 5. That provides, i think, some evidence that the problem of voting discrimination remains concentrated in particular cases and justifies particular congressional attention in those cases. And those states, if i remember correctly that were in the preclearance area were all in the old confederacy, but for arizona, as far as states go, is that not accurate . I believe thats right and there were some partially covered states, california and new york that were not. And partially covered because they were local jurisdictions. They happened to be in the state . Thats correct. Right. And then those were the states where most of this section 2 action took place . Thats correct. So the old express and the song dixie, old times there are not forgotten and it has more of a current ring than one would understand. Well, i think the numbers speak for themselves. Yes, sir. Miss perez, on purges, what are some of the reasons for purges . There are a lot of reasons for purges. Some of them are necessary. We want our voter rules to be clean so people are removing them because people have died, people have moved, people are no longer eligible because of a criminal conviction. The problem that were seeing in this country is that purges are on the rise. The protections that were once available to let the public and the department of justice know about a purge practice that had changed or are no longer available and when people are purged they often find out on election day when its too late. Are some of the purges because people havent voted in x amount of elections . A number of states have different practices that they use and every state in the country subject to the mbra has a process by which if someone is flagged for a certain reason for removal, they can be given a notice. Let me go back to my question. Do not some jurisdictions purge you because they were for the last two years, four years, six years or whatever . There are some states that have policies like that, yes. Are those states have any particular similarities . Are they particularly in preclearance states or are they just no, sir, but one of the things that is important about the preclearance provision is that it accounts for changing practices so a state could change its practice to encapsulate more people in the purge process. Did you not say since shelby versus holder, the purchase has increased in that is correct. That is correct. The states, however, that use a policy like, for example, im assuming youre pointing to ohios and the like that use a failure to vote as a trigger for sending a notice and another ones in more places just in the Southern States. Youre familiar with australia where youre required by law that you have to vote. Thats correct. They dont have to purge anybody, do they . Im actually not familiar that they enact the law, but what i think is important in this country is we have a continuing evidence of discrimination and cold front has rapt authority in a ordance to the 13th amendment. With section 5 preclearance holder, what has been the pace of litigation and formerly covered jurs dukzs as opposed to noncovered ones. Have you seen a preclearance states that were in the previous Voting Rights be more active . Private litigants like my colleague sitting here at the table have certainly had to engage in much greater activity in section 2 litigation and my colleague dale ho, the chart really shows the degree to which theres been a need for section 2 litigation in jurisdictions that were previously precleared and had a preclearance regime with the Justice Department, and i also theres been a stark market contrast now with the Justice Department in but for the private litigant, the effort now to become aware of hyperlocal changes which are often very hard to detect at the National Level has become imperative to protect peoples right to vote and it is why we are here to earn restoration of the Voting Rights act. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Adams, ive watched you with a very pensive expression on your face for the last few moments. Is there anything you want to ask after something youve heard. First, my apologies for not having a poker face. A couple of states were left off the list that under the old regime were covered and its not all dixie. South dakota, its alaska, its new hampshire, its michigan, parts of new york were covered and new york city, but that translates into new york state when it comes to rules that are passed in albany related to the elections in new york so its not just mississippi and South Carolina. Thanks for that clarification. Its not often that you would find purposeful discrimination based on race and voting and the ninth Circuit Court of appeals did that in the case you just described. Can you elaborate on the significance of the 9th Circuit Decision and how it is in the federal Appeals Court rulings. Right. The case in guam that i testified about, you literally have on the voter Registration Form a blood ancestry test. Its on the form that you have to say who your parents are, and it says you have to have the right blood before you can vote and the court in the ninth circuit ruled that this is intentional discrimination. You often hear and i understand that Circuit Courts trump District Courts and we often hear about the surgical precision quote and the Lower Court Ruling which i understand was reversed, but it was a rare, many hundredpage factual finding that there was not intentional discrimination. It is not often that an Appeals Court reverses factual findings which they did in this case. Has it ever been easier to vote in this country . In other words, it seems to have made a lot of progress on access to vetting. I employ theres an awareness about the the state revel pt importantance of making it ezier to vote. It has never beeny toe regular it vote in 20en in. Notteeier to vote in america . A legal low cal cast invest wrote, can you describe how the integrity of the boat are themselves a measure to protect the boat. I dont buy the idea that you cant get it right and everybody gets a chance to vote. I think, for example, voter i. D. Should be free and easy to get and thats why the South Carolina voter i. D. Law should have never been objected to by the old Justice Department. In fact, was there a fail safe mechanism and in the end we know what the outcome of that was and the District Court each though the burdens were reversed and thats what section 5 does is reverse the burdens. The court voted in favor of South Carolina and said that it was discriminatory. The court ruled that it was not. Its an example of how section 5 can be abused if its reauthorized. I think i have time for one more question about the guam case. I noticed it was only the trump Justice Department that was willing to ultimately help major davis and his case against guam. What was going on during the Previous Administration that they wouldnt help a retired Service Member protect their right to vet. Thats a great question where the chief of the voting section said they didnt put the case was right and they took that to breast in 2015, and we still saw two years and not even an amicus brief. If you look at the record of the bush Justice Department, the obama Justice Department and the number of cases filed you will see very clearly the bush Justice Department was far more active and ive testified in previous temperature before this committee and in the section in 2009 they virtually went to sleep. I have 30 seconds left. Why didnt those assembled today do anything. Do you have any theer bethat . I caution the committee if youre reauthorizing the voting right act and not make it partisan and in some corn e i thii rue it as a partisan weapon, and even said that the Justice Department should use the Voting Rights act as a partisan weapon obviously against this side of the room, and i think thats the danger when you see the South Carolina i. D. Is being acted. Before i rblg oiz mr. Nadler, id made the state of the states that were is alaska. The other states are local jurisdictions which i also mentioned there are other local jurisdictions of other places. So i apologize for forgetting alaska and for not knowing about guam. I wont comment on the obvious distraction of the guam case which has nothing to do with what were talking about and was pretty egregious. Let me ask mr. Ho, the minority business said it was constrained in its ability to adopt the administration and not withstanding its power into the 14th and 15th amendments. Essentially because the current level is notty isser have enough in his opinion to justify the state and local elections and because congress looks at evidence of a discriminatory effect and not just the discriminatory purpose. What is your response . Is it not under the reconstruction amend wants not only to bring it and it is severe and i require a response. Thank you for that, chairman nadler. I think congress does have the authority to reinvigorate the Voting Rights act. The Supreme Court in the city of birney issued a decision that creates a rule that if Congress Wants to exercise its 14th amendment Enforcement Powers there must be a record of constitutional violations. I have that two althoughs violation of recent liability under section 2s results test is quite similar to the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court had in rogers versus laws for the condition stushl voter discrimination. We heard about the disparate impact standard. I want to Say Something about that. This congress adopted section 2s results standard in 1982 and it was signed into law by president ronald reagan. Its fsht a disparate impact standard and liability is based on factors for a right of a cop stushl int didnt want to be in the difficult position to have to call out their intent, but it functions a lot like an intent test and i think it would be a bit perverse today to look at section 2 violations which are intended to make it easier for courts to strike down discriminatory laws and say thats not relevant in assessing whether or not constitutional violations have occurred and whether or not stronger congressional action is necessary. Thank you. Let me ask you, miss gupta, and we heard testimony last week and enforcing the law through section 2 litigation is time consuming and very expensive and you spend 2 million and so forth. What do you think of legislation to oppose all costs, all costs on the defendant government if it loses the section 2 cost or plaintiffs cost, not just attorneys fees . So just to start out it is indeed an incredibly costly and time consuming. I think the most pernicious effect of the loss of the preclearance regime and the amount of section 2 litigation that has been required since the Shelby County decision has actually been the number of elections that have taken place pursuant to laws that have later been found by federal courts to have been enacted through intentional discrimination as well as violations of federal law and there is no plan to seek redress because those elections have taken place and voters were penalized unlawfully for that, but i on this question of cost its an interesting idea. I think one of the major issues around the loss of section 5 is to hold officials accountable when they do engage in the enactment of laws and so this notion of cost and shifting the burden of cost is an interesting remedy to pursue. I dont think its enough, though, as a substitute for preclearance, but certainly to be able to have some deterrent mechanisms in place such that officials think twice and the constitution is Something Else when theyre enacting these laws and its something to be thank you. In the 27 seconds that i have left, would you support amending section 1983 or use of section 19838 to allow the Justice Department to sue for damages for voting violations for deprivation for the law and effect. Congressman, thats an interesting idea. I would love to come back with my thoughts on that. 1983 is important in the m misconduct context and on the issue of availability it may be another tool. As you know, the Supreme Court has withered down section 1983s protections and i would welcome the opportunity to talk about the importance of strengthening the section 1983 by congress. Thank you very much. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, and i appreciate the witnesses being here. Just so that we can inform our full Committee Chairman who said that guam information is not relevant to anything here. The subject of this hearing is according to the democrats is ongoing voter discrimination and here is the form that was used in guam. It is relevant, in this decade that we would have a form like this and not one of the groups represented here would go to would stand up and say this is intolerable to make someone go through and even down to the mother and father of both parents certifying you are a native in 1950. It is prejudicial to the groups of chinese and japanese, and the korean and all of those that were not there in 1950, and i appreciate the looks im getting from some of our witnesses, but it really is embarrassing that nobody stepped up. Mr. Christian, i recall a black panther intimidation case that occurred when you were there at the Justice Department. Were you allowed to go ahead and get judgment against those people that were intimidating in an election site . I confess, ive tried to forget about that case, but ill do my best. Im just asking were you allowed . The case was dismissed to i believe two defendants and corporate defendant. I think the men mr. Jack no, mr. Jackson was dismissed against two of the defendants, right. And you were not allowed to pursue that. It was dismissed. Yeah. There was a long record there. And you mentioned this incident in guam where the Justice Department, under the Obama Administration would not go in and say this is wrong. We cant have these kind of forms. It doesnt matter what your race is, and you ought to be able to come in and vote. Who was head of the civil rights section at that time in 2012 . Thats a good question. Im not sure exactly who was the head of the assistant attorney general. I know that after the Inspector General who said that rightness was the barrier. I know you testified to that. I know tom perez was there at some point. He may have been. I cant remember. Where is he now . Dnc. Hes chair of the dnc. That is right. Our chairman and full committee called him draconian voter id laws and i know hes apparently not aware, but i know i read in 2012 the Democratic National convention would not allow anyone to come in and vote unless they had in their words a stateissued i. D. Wow the Democratic National convention is using and has used in this decade a draconian voter id requirement. Thats incredible. Having gone through john funds book, stealing elections. John makes the point that the greatest Election Fraud is the statement that there is no Election Fraud. Its gone on for years for those that dont know, you can go back and look at duval county in texas or cook county in illinois. It has gone on in their places and it still goes on and any time we allow people to vote without showing some evidence that theyre allowable to vote, it disen franchisees all of the legally voting people and people that vote more than once. Anyway, there are a lot of problems that need to be dealt with and its just amazing to me. Let me tell you, back when this was reauthorized i wanted to vote for the voter for the vra. It needed to be reauthorized, but none of it had grown up. It had a formula that required punishing states for what had happened 50 years before. Generations were being published and i went to the republican leader at that point in this committee mr. Sensenbrenner and if i recall, was there a district in wisconsin that had Racial Disparity. He said were not changing that 50yearold formula. Were going to dekeep punishing the original states and i went to jon conyers and he was very gracious and he said let me talk to some people. He said youve got a good point and well let it pass, and lets let it go to the court. And i said it would get struck down. And i included the dean of the new York Law School that had just left there and he said yeah, its got to be struck down and its unconstitutional. For those that are not aware we should not be punishing generations for the since of 50 year before generations. That is where we ought to be able to come together. Lets deal with Racial Disparity where it is and then allow section five and those and i was not allowed to have that as an amendment and that is me blaming Shelby County. I yield back. Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. We just heard from my thoughtful colleague about how Southern States were punished under the Voting Rights act. He repeatedly used the word punishment. Was there any punishment in the Voting Rights act before the Shelby County case . Did anybody go to jail . Was anybody imprisoned because of Voting Rights violations . There was certainly no punishment in the way that you describe side congressman raskin, and i want to say in response to the comments. I appreciate the comments about the need to have a preclearance provision that reflects current condition, and i think the Voting Rights act, advancement act which is based on findings of recent Voting Rights violations does precisely that, and i hope we can come together and pass something and i appreciated your support for the votesing rights act in 2006, and i hope it see your support for stronger Voting Rights protections today. Miss gupta, let me come to you. If somebody robs a bank or a gas station theyre going to be prosecuted and go to jail for that if theyre convicted. Today, in the wake of Shelby County versus holder. If a state engages in a deliberate effort to suppress Voting Rights or to keep people from voting or to dilute the votes of a minority group, what happens . Well, as we said, often getting to those decisions are where federal courts declare that and it takes years of litigation. Many years later after the offense has taken place what would happen to them . There is no accountability for the state officials of enacted laws that were found to be racially discriminated. Nobody goes to jail. Theres no punishment and what about the actual Voting Rights violation. Gentleman i only have four minutes and i would happy to do it at the end if i have time left over, but what what happens in the meantime. You go now in the absence of the preclearance requirement and you go to court and many you get a ruling and in the meantime you get all of these elections that have taken place with the Voting Rights violation in force. So what can be done retroactively. There is nothing. The voters have been disenfranchised while elections have taken place. Lets be very clear. When the Supreme Court wiped out the preclearance requirement because of the coverage provision in section 4, essentially what it did was knock the teeth out of the Voting Rights act because theres nothing to keep a jurisdiction now from several years later and all you would get was the future and in the meantime you have these elections that have essentially been fixed by the fraud of Voting Rights suppression dilution, discrimination and so on. Mr. Johnson, let me come to you. Before leading the national naacp you were in the mississippi conference, am i right . Mississippi has the highest percentage of africanamericans in any state in the union. The state has not elected an africanamerican statewide in more than 130 years since reconstruction. In fact, the mississippi constitution requires candidates for statewide was to win more than 50 of the popular vote or actually a plurality of the popular vote, but also more than half of the states 120 legislative diss trikts. Twothirds was which are do i have that right . That is correct. If a candidate doesnt meet both of those conditions winning a majority in the election and then winning more than half of the states legislative districts then the state house chooses the winner regardless of who got the most votes. Do i have that right . That is correct. Okay. This is being challenged in court right now . Thats correct. I assume thats right. Now, why was this constitutional requirement put into place in the first place . What was its historical origin . Much of mississippis electoral policy is derived out of the constitution of 1890. That constitution was after a period we call redemption when former confederate soldiers and politicians took back control of government and as a result of that they put in place the ability of africanamericans to fully participate and not only the grandfather clauses and additional tests and the barriers because then, as it is now, mississippi has the highest percentage of africanamericans and they wanted to keep in place let me just ask you because my time is running out. How has the lack of africanamerican representation affected the social and rights of the africanamerican communities. It underfunds much of the basic needs of the africanamericans and mississippi as a whole. We have the poorest Education Systems and the poorest structures and that is a lack of representation of all citizens of the state because of these electoral barriers. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Klein, a successor and interest, and before that, what was the gentlemans name that was caldwell butler. Joe mullen came between them and he was on your side. Caldwell butler. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I am very interested in mr. Adams testimony about the events that were occurring in virginia, and i want to ask him about that, but first i really am shocked to hear that this type of activity that occurred guam is occurring in the 21st century and to make it clear let me go down the road very quickly and just yes or no. Miss gupta would you agree that that type of discriminatory election is unacceptable in the 21st century in the United States . Congressman, i, unfortunately, cannot speak to a matter that was under investigation during my full tenure in the Justice Department. Mr. Johnson . Yes or no. Unacceptable . I dont know much about the case, but if there is a grandfather clause or blood test, that is something that we oppose. Mr. Ho . The 9th circuit found a violation of the amendment. Appropriate. Keep going. Yes. Miyrna perez. Some of the cases that we have heard here today, but i will say that if the facts as presented suggest a grandfather clause we would be opposed to it. Miss landrith. Im not going to comment on a case, and theyre not disturbed by native americans voting in chicken coops, driving 98 miles to register. I would like you to focus on that for a while. I am focused on a that is blatantly discriminatory for an election in the territory of the United States in the 21st century and it is disturbing that i cant get more unanimity that it is unacceptable. Mr. Williams, you talked about how it contributes to noncitizens and not only getting on the voter rules, but also the improper elimination of citizens from the voter rules. Can you elaborate on that and what we can do about it . Thank you, mr. Klein. My organization has been data mining all around the country. The process of noncitizen cancellation and we have found and published multiple reports in pennsylvania, for example, frankly, if immigrants and green card holders who are inadvertently getting on the voter role voter rolls. This is a glitch. It is the flich thglitch that a virginia for 20 years. They jeopardized immigration status. In virginia, the problems were worse than getting on the rolls. It was cans levelled through the citizenship process in virginia and individuals who were american citizens were being declared noncitizens by the state Election Officials and being removed from the rolls. This is a problem that Congress Needs to address because the voter motor system is broken and it is not working because of Technology Changes in the last 30 years since motor voter 25 years since was passed. So it is important, i believe, that only citizens be on the rolls and there are easy ways to fix that. Cooperate with state officials, federal governments and state officials cooperate to post registration verify citizenship. Allow states to do some form of citizenship verification that was nonintrusive and its easily solved. Mr. Chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, mr. Klein. Miss scanlon, youre recognized. Thank you. The Ranking Member suggested in his opening remarks that evidence of disparate impact is not proof of discrimination and i have to differ based on my experience in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. Almost a decade ago pennsylvanias Republican Legislature and executives pass said a number of Voter Suppression measures which have since been struck down including a strict voter id law and some wildly gerrymandered electoral maps. This legislation was facially neutral, but it had a disparate impact upon voters who were poor, elderly, women, residents of cities, people of color. In other words, voters who were overwhelmingly democrats. I would surrender that was identity politics of the most pernicious kind which is trying to suppress the votes of citizens on the basis of their political identity as democrats. In challenging the voter id law in particular, advocates were fortunate in being able to uncover a recording of the House Majority leader bragging to the statewide Republican Committee that his legislative accomplishments included any this was and this was 2012. Quote, voter id will allow governor romney to end the state of pennsylvania, i am not so naive as to believe that those who will suppress the vote will always be so indiscreet. I would like to ask miss perez, can you address what kind of evidence we use to show disparate impact to show that theres actual discrimination occurring in these cases . Certainly. Under section 2 we have what many of us call a disparate impact plus standard whereby congress and its wisdom set forth a series of factors that are designed to smoke out intentional discrimination because folks are exactly as member scanlon noted a little bit more discreet and that evidence, is in fact, probative of what people are intending to do if they if they felt like they could get away with it. In addition, we have the continuing evidence of Current Conditions which would justify section 5 of the Voting Rights act and a reauthorized Voting Rights act that would include a coverage formula that is rolling, dynamic and looks at a number of factors both geographically and in terms of conditions that cause problems. So taken together, a Voting Rights act which has a robust section 5, a modern section 4, and a strong section 2 will go a very, very long way in rooting out Racial Discrimination. Thank you. Miss gupta, when acting attorney general whitaker was here in february i asked him whether the Trump Department of justice had brought any Voting Rights Enforcement Actions and he was unable to recall that. Is it your testimony that the Trump Administration has not acted to protect Voting Rights in any case since january 2017 . Thats correct. Thats what i thought. Congresswoman, if you wouldnt mind, if i can quickly respond to something that is somewhat galling at the table at the moment to something that mr. Adams said. Those of us at this table know that mr. Adams recently had to enter a Settlement Agreement in which he was forced to apologize for reports that contained inaccurate information about specific individuals removed from voter rolls in virginia, the matter he was just talked about allegedly because they were noncitizen, and i think it is important to also put that into the record. Thank you. One more followup question. Location of polling places has been an issue in my district and to that end we introduce the disability Voting Rights act which passed with hr1 and would make it easier for individuals with disabilities including seniors and veterans to register, obtain absentee ballots and polling places and can you describe how the locations of polling places and the degree of accessibility present Voting Rights challenges for disabled and minorities, and you have this in the new report that just came out. We do. Theres been a lot of enforcement on the part of both private organizations and the Justice Department in prior administrations around the lack of accessible polling places and so theres a lot of work to be done. Thats been a rigorous area of our work, and i will say, though, that its important to note that closing polling places because of ada noncompliance really should be something of last resort because there are many ways to actually make falling places more accessible including things like creating parking for signage, and building temporary ramps and the like and in a number of instances, thats exactly how accessibility has been improved without resulting in the need to close polling places to begin with. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Armstrong, you are recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman and mr. Adam, i would give you an opportunity, and i know you talk about it in the opportunity and i will give you an opportunity to respond. Thank you, mr. Armstrong. Indeed. I discussed this at length in my written testimony. Miss guptas assertion that mr. Adams was forced to apologize was flat and wrong. It stated that noncitizens in virginia were being removed from the rolls when in fact, we discovered this those were actually citizens. I would note that miss guptas organization has done absolutely nothing about citizens being removed from the voter rolls whereas we were a set. Ing to fix the problem. There was no finding of any liability. Thank you. And then just i want to go into this motor voter issue a little bit primarily because were dealing with often times people who have english not their first language and adding to the roles and it doesnt matter if its demeanor democrats or republicans and people are running hot and volunteers are out there and then i will tell a north dakota story in a second, but if they register to vote or get into situations, doesnt that impact their ability to become a citizen later . Absolutely. Its question 12 on the ins form and question 12 says have you ever registered to vote and have you ever voted . Whats happening is we are finding through public records requests is that those individuals who are not citizens who got caught up in this broken motor voter system are jep art iedzing their immigration status. You would think everybody would care about that, but as weve seen today thats not the case. What is happening is theyre jeopardizing the immigration status and they are voting and weve been harvesting their please take me off the roles and their selfdeportation of the voter rules, if you will, where they thought they were registering for Something Else and it wasnt in the language in Allegheny County pennsylvania that they spoke because it is not covered by 203 and the system has flaws in it that were attempting to catalyze in the fix. Relying from virginia we would assume not removing citizens, but they are. So my wife is not a citizen. Shes a permanent resident alien and she comes from norway and its a little different situation, but in a statement, doesnt have Voter Registration and theyve attempted to deal with this at the state legislature. Her id looks identical to mine. It is absolutely and there is no situation that would i mean, it is absolutely an honor system and we continue to work through it. Obviously, shes married to a politician and we can judge her for that in her own right, and she can walk into a poll in north dakota at any time and the election, people wouldnt know the difference. Were different. Were the only state in the country without Voter Registration, but it really, truly is an issue, and then im going to end this, and i agree. We need to make it easier. Im getting a bunch of calls on real id in north dakota right now because as in all things people wait to the absolute last minute and we need to make it easier for people whether theyre native americans to be able to prove out their idea and work for it, and i would like to say there is a preliminary injunction issue on the north dakota case that was overturned by the eighth circuit and there was a timing when the decision came out that made it incredibly problematic in the 2018 election. And regardless of policy or anything like that, i believe this, that the organizations who went to work and activated on the native American Reservations in north dakota to ensure people did get i. Ds to vote because they turned out, regardless of how difficult it was, they turned out in absolute record numbers in 2018, and it shouldnt be that hard to get an idea and we should continue particularly with older people and the birth certificate thing is a real issue and its a real issue in Rural America and its exponentially and its magnified on the native American Reservations and i recognize that, but they should be commended. Most of them didnt vote for me and they should be absolutely commended for what they got done in a short period of time. With that, i yield back. If you dont mind, how do you do it in north dakota if you dont have registration. How do you do it . All you have to do is show i. D. You have to have a valid id and proof of address. Just for the record, ive had a lot of constituents be concerned that the new government id requirement is something to do with stopping people from having the right to vote. Thats not at all true, is it . It is not true. Were running into a lot of problem, one, i think, in fairness people wait to the last minute to go get their i. D. So there are long delays and theyve had the opportunity to do it and providing the documentation to get the real id versus your regular drivers license, i think this is the same across the country. Its proving to be cumbersome. Thank you. Is it the lemieux sisters . Were proud of them. To the panel. Does anybody on the panel think that the new federal id law about it has anything to do with stopping people from voting . Good. Miss dean, youre recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We are in awfully anxious times in our democracy, and so when i have that fear overcome me, i try to remind myself of a quote that i like from Thomas Jefferson. He said should things go wrong at any time the people will set their two rights by the exercise of their recelective rights exc we have a history of what we have seen today. How can the people truly right a wrong when their elective rights referred to by Thomas Jefferson are attacked and weakened and thwarted in many, many ways. Miss gupta, i would like to start with you. You mentioned several common tactics weve learned from the shelby decision and Voter Registration and cuts to early voting and strict photo oifrgsz a and voter consolidations. Can you tell us of the frequency of the implement eggs and if were reflecting on 2018 and your concerns for 2020. Yes. Thank you for the question. We just reported the Leadership Conference Education Fund about the number of poll closures around the country since the Shelby County decision and found that 1,688 polling place closures have happened since since the Shelby County that was covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights act. These are the kinds of hyperlocal changes that would have required preclearance by the Justice Department impeach not because they were deemed as racially discriminatory, but also to allow for analysis of evaluation of whether it would create a disparate impact of language minorities and also to provide notice, advanced notice to voters about where these places have been moved. Theres an abundance of evidence through litigation that my colleagues have mentioned that have taken years to uncover around discriminatory practices in voting an Election Administration that add to the Current Record of contemporary, ongoing, systemic Racial Discrimination in voting. Thank you for that. Miss landrith, in addition to poll closures, what are some of the other voting problems that weve seen across the country that hr4 would address . Well, theres a couple of things. One is that hr4 and it depends if im not wrong and it would end up protecting over 20 of tribes in the United States from retro gresive polling practices because it would cover and wed have to check this and it depends on how you count. California which has over a hundred tribes and new york which has eight tribes and then the mississippi chocktaw and they have ten jurisdictions covered for section 208 so it would prevent 20 of the native american tribes and it would prevent the vote dilution that we commonly see in Indian Country when they switch to jurisdictions to at large to make sure you never get a seat that represents you and your Community Even if its sizeable and particularly the polling place closures because that is one of the things that we find in Indian Country that is very unique. Im not sure if anyone here are familiar to this, but tribes are told if they want a polling place, they have to pay for it. I would like you to go to constituents in atlanta, new york or in california, to say if you want a polling place you would have to give us 25,000. Who is suggesting that . There are several wellknown cases and subject to your perjury limitation and i am not 100 sure, and these are blaine county, montana is one example and the other would be south dakota cases where it had become common place to say we dont have enough money for elections. These cases may have been resolved now, but this is an issue where if you go to a jurisdiction and say our tribe wants a polling place on tribal lands mostly you will be refused on the grounds of cost and then theyll say you pay for it and you provide the poll workers and you give the space and maybe you have bonn. So protecting that would be hugely valuable. Thats incredibly unamerican. Mr. Johnson, i just have a few seconds left. I am a former member of the Pennsylvania Legislature and i came in in a special election in 2012 right after voter i. D. I saw personally the consequences going around my district and trying to help elderly people, young people, the barrier of birth certificates and all of the rest. So could you please explain how photo identification requirements bar americans from exercising their rights to vote . Sure and negative ten seconds. Sorry. We have never found an individual seeking to vote under an assumed name. It creates an additional barrier necessary for the southern rules precinct and everyone knows each other and there are very few cases of people walking into the polling place and the poll workers dont know the individuals on top of the fact that there has not been any true evidence of someone trying to vote under an assumed name. So you create an additional barrier or create a Chilling Effect to voting. Thank you very much. I see my time has expired. Thank you, miss dean, and now patiently having waited, miss garcia. Save me best for last, mr. Chairman. Thank you. First let me begin by responding to someone that my colleague from texas, disparaging my county where i was born, duval county because he seemed to suggest there was voter fraud there for many, many years and its still going on and that is simply not true. South texas including my birth county and my home county of jim wells have made great efforts to clean all of that up and ive not heard, seen or been witness to any voter fraud in my birth county or my home county. Of course, im elected from paris county, and i am not going to belabor the point other than i believe the witness has mischaracterized a bit of his lawsuit against Harris County in access to some of the materials that he was after, but i dont want to get into that because as Lyndon Johnson said there is no important right under the constitution than voting because who you vote for then determines the freedoms and the liberties that you get from all of the other constitutional rights. So mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing us together to talk about this topec and as one who has been the recipient of a purging letter, all of this is very personal to me. Ive been turned away from the polls. Ive been gone to a poll that wasnt there. Ive been to a poll where machines werent ready and you can look at me. You know, i dont look mexican. So you know its based on the surname, garcia, the data that youre after,er i sir. Please know that i take this not only as an advocate for my district, but for myself, my family and my friends. So i wanted to start with you, perez on this letter issue. What really can we do to stop these letters goingal moat threatening that if you dont do something your name will get purged and how do thigh start this flawed data that was in the texas case where you cited where the information was wrong and all those people were supposedly thousands of people who were registered or maybe registering was just not true. What can we do from here in washington in our federal laws to make sure those things have stopped. Thank you, member garcia. I am also from the great state of texas, and i think texas is a ripe example of the need for a robust preclearance regime because texas is one of the jurisdictions that keep popping up in terms of election problems. In addition to making it harder for groups to go out and register people to vote, they have a strict voter i. D. Law that many of us had spent five years challenging. Theres aggressive prosecutions of folks who run a foul of the election laws. What can we do . What we can do with purges what we can do with purges is ensure that there is a strong preclearance regime that would require that changes to the preclearance process get precleared so it wouldnt have a discriminatory effect and we can have strkticter compliance and can ensure people to check the Voter Registration status and we can inform Election Administrators that when they receive threatening emails from groups who are trying to pressure them into oppressing the voter rules that they know that the federal government is there to protect it is remarkable that mr. Adams is here claiming credit for protecting voters. The report titled alien invasion, with a supposed cover up of registration. To work published names and Contact Information of voters that were citizens, including a los angeles for an employee, claiming they were noncitizens and accusing them of committing felonies. Despite warnings that the list contained false positive. Elected takes extraordinary stuff for him to come here and claim he protected citizens. I appreciate the witnesses and testimony. Restoring section 5, the Voting Rights act. Thank you w. This concludes todays hearing. I think all of our witnesses for appearing. I want to thank for educating me about guam. Without objection, all members can submit additional written questions and the hearing is adjourned. Were back for Live Campaign 2020 coverage of the democrats annual steak fry, beginning at 2 pm. Car manufacturing in the city is very important. That industry is one of the backbones of lansing. We have three things, Michigan State university, the state capital and we have automobile manufacturing. Those components have kept lansing very successful. The cities tour is on the road, exploring the american story. This weekend, we take you to lansing michigan, with the help of Comcast Cable is. Lansing has been the capital city since 1847. It was sort of picked as a capital city because no one really wanted to pick lansing. It was offered as a compromise location. We will learn about ransome e old and the auto company he founded. He founded the real manticore company which is the company that was titled as an acronym of his name. It emerged in 1904 and stayed here. Through 1975. Watch the cities tour as we take in history and literary scene. Also sunday at 2 pm on American History tv. Working with our cable affiliate as we ask laura the american story. This weekend, saturday at 6 pm eastern, scott mingus, co author of targeted tracks talks about the importance of the Cumberland Valley railroad. At 8 pm, a discussion on August Wilson. The things that are motivating August Wilson are his desire to move black people from the margins to the center and say what is true about us. What matters to us, what is happening in our lives. Sunday at 4 pm, the 1919 silent army film, motor convoy about a track from washington dc to san francisco. At 8 pm, the presidency. Herbert hoover and his world war i relief work. The team of mostly american volunteers built the crv into a remarkable organization. It had its own flag and fleet. It negotiated what it may call treaties. Its leader enjoyed informal diplomatic immunity and traveled freely through enemy lines. Probably the only american citizen permitted to do so during the war. Explore the past on American History tv. Every weekend. Now the u. S. Institute of peace host a discussion on where the taliban Peace Process stands and sustainable talks in the future. The afghan ambassador delivered the keynote remarks followed by a Panel Discussion with academics and administration officials. Is about two hours