Opening statement. Todays hearing of on current and ongoing voting discrimination is part of the house judiciary subcommittee on constitution, civil rights and Civil Liberties over the course of this year to assess the current need for a reinvigoration of the requirement of section 5 of the Voting Rights act. To consider other ways to strengthen that civil rights statue. Im not sure why we say reinvigoration. That seems to be one of the words we tossed around. Section 4 was cut out so we need to have a section 4 to activate section 5. Section 5 has been made dormant by the Supreme Court saying section 4 wasnt adequate so we need to find a new test to awaken the dormant power of section 5. Voting rights act of 65 is widely considered the most effective civil rights statute ever enacted by congress to protect the fundamental right to vote. One of its central enforcement provisions was section 5. The provision required certain jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination against racial minority groups predominantly those that tended to be in the deep south to obtain approval of any changes to the voting laws or procedures from the department of justice or u. S. District court for the district of columbia before those changes could take effect. Purpose of the requirement was to ensure the jurisdictions, as shown by finding of congress, would bear the burden of proving that any changes to voting laws were not discriminatory before such changes could take effect and therefore not discriminate against people that they shouldnt be taking that action against. If provided a mechanism to ensure the rules with a history of discrimination were fair to all voters. We passed the Voting Rights act in there was a list of 1965. Jurisdictions. It was renewed. And then in 2013, our Supreme Court said what we did in the past, chairman of the committee and what the house did by a vote of 390something to 33 and the senate by 980 was not adequate. That a finding by the congress of legislative action was not sufficient, that the court, which is generally kind of says it bears deference to congress was going to jump in and put its opinion above congress. What it did was prevented potentially a discriminatory voting practice. It was the purpose of these laws. In this way it proved to be a significant means of protection of the rights of minority voters. Congress had repeatedly authorized. Most recently in 2006. It was 39033 in the house and the senate was 980. The Supreme Court effectively gutted section 5 in 2013. Shelby county versus holder. Struck down the coverage formula. Section 4. Determined which jurisdictions would be subject to the requirement. As a result, the provision remains dormant unless and until congress adopts this new formula. Weve got to show the court weve taken information and our findings are based on fact. Most recently in memphis, tennessee. Well further learn at todays hearings. Weve seen formally cover voting measures. North carolina for example, passed a sweeping voting suppression law that a federal suppression law that a federal Appeals Court ultimately held to be unconstitutional, finding that it intentionally targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision. Of course by doing it after they put it into effect, they had their desired effect, which was to limit African American voting. The courts could have stopped them from doing it before they did. As mel brooks would say the voodoo they do so well. We also hear about measures that make it difficult or impossible for minority voters to exercise their rights to vote. Polling place closures, purging of voting rolls that disproportionately target minority voters. All of which are designed to make it harder for African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities to vote. Last week in memphis we learned about tennessees third Party Registration law that would item made it a criminal effort for people to do so. Back in may, we learned about a similar law in texas and about many other examples of voting discrimination in that state. Weve seen states engage in racial gerrymandering designed to allude the strength of minority voters. In the absence of an executive preclarence formula, theres almost certainty these discriminatory measures will undermine the Voting Rights of racial and language minority voters. While section 2 of the Voting Rights act remains in effect, it is by itself less effective so definitely more cumbersome and often expensive to enforce the Voting Rights act. Most importantly, plaintiffs cannot invoke section 2 until after alleged harm has taken place, requiring discrimination victims to rely solely on such a remedy. It effectively neutered the act. The acts most important enforcement mechanism. I thank our witnesses, members for being here today. I look forward to a fruitful discussion. Id like to recognize the Ranking Member mr. Johnson, for , his opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Appreciate you all for being here as the Minority Party on this committee. I think theres a couple things that we just want to say at the outset as we begin the hearing. First of all, lets be clear about this. We all agree discriminatory treatment and voting based on race or sex is abhorrent. Its prohibited by the constitution as it should be and prohibited by federal statute as it should be. Too often complaints of discrimination and voting have nothing to do with discriminatory treatment. Instead, rules entirely neutral on their face sometimes claimed to be discriminatory simply because they have a disparate impact on one group or another. Disparate impact claims are a form of identity politics and they contradict, for example, dr. Martin luther kings admonition to focus on consciouses rather than racial groups. Dr. King said famously, quote, when the they were signed a promissory note to which every american was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. That promissory note promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not equality of outcomes. We just believe genuinely that they pervert the language of our founding documents and fail to understand the import of dr. Kings words. Disparate impacts are not proof of discrimination. Indeed, they are statistically inevitable. As thomas has explained, if several criteria need to be met for any given outcome, and this can apply to voting requirements as well, small variations in any groups odds of meeting any of those criteria will produce different outcomes for the group generally. The problem with disparate Impact Theory and voting right context is disparate impact, there are thousands of reasonable reasons and neutral voting rule might have a disparate impact. Reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination. The department of justices letter to preclear South Carolinas voter i. D. Law under the Voting Rights act in 2011. The department claimed in the letter that, quote, minority registered voters were nearly 20 more likely to be effectively disenfranchised by the law because they lacked a drivers license. The difference between white and African American holders of a drivers license was 1. 6 . The Justice Department used the 20 figure because while the states data showed 8. 4 of white registered voters lacked any form of dmv issued i. D. , as compared to 10 of nonwhite registered voters, the number 10 is 20 larger than the number 8. 4 . Its true 20 is larger but the Justice Department rounded up but it clearly distorts the reported difference in drivers license rates and it was used to falsely declare the South Carolina law as objectionable. Lets give another example. Data Shows Younger people across racial groups tend to be the least likely to have drivers licenses. Consequently, if African Americans have proportionately more young people in their demographic group, there will be a disproportionate number without drivers licenses, however, slight, as is indeed the case. As the facts follow, this is due to demographics and not discrimination. The disparate impact approach to civil rights and the assumption that different outcomes are a result of prejudice is fundamentally unsound for the same reason social scientists are trained that correlation does not imply causation. In other words there could be all sorts of correlations between one event and another and that doesnt answer the question as to why the correlation exists. My point is not that voting discrimination as disappeared forever. We know it hasnt. My point is disparate impacts cant be meaningful used to prove voting discrimination. Regarding voting based on race, section 3 of the Voting Rights act, permanent and federal statutory law remains in place and fall of fact. Just a couple years ago, for example, u. S. District court judge rosenthal issued an opinion in a redistricting case that required the city of pasadena, texas to be monitored by the Justice Department because it had intentionally changed its City Council Districts to decrease hispanic influence. The city, which the court ruled, quote, has a long history of discrimination against minorities, unquote, was required to have their future voting rules changes precleared by the department of justice for the next six years during which time the federal judge retains jurisdiction to review enforcement any change to the election map or plan in effect in pasadena on december 1, 2013. A change to the citys election plan can be enforced without review by the judge only if it has been submitted to the u. S. Attorney general and the department of justice has not objected in 60 days. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses here today. I yield back. I now recognize the chairman of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from much of new york, manhattan, eastside west side, eastside, mr. Nadler for his opening statement. Let me express my. Ppreciation to you since the disastrous 2013 decision that effectively gutted the most important Enforcement Division of the Voting Rights act, we have seen a troubling trend. States and localities in particular those that were subjected to the preclearance requirement have engaged in various border suppression tactics, such as partisan proof of citizenship laws, significant scale backs to early voting andods, absentee ballots laws to restore the Voting Rights of incarcerated individuals. These kind of restrictions have a disproportionate negative impact on minority voters. Contrary to what we heard, asparate impact is very much very useful evidentiary tool. In the most recent elections in november 2018, voters across the country experienced barriers to voting because of state and local laws that made it hard or impossible to vote. For example we heard last week in memphis that in georgia under 53,000, 70 of, whom are africanamerican were placed in pending status and at risk of not being counted by the secretary of state, also the republican nominee for governor election, because of minor misspellings on their Registration Forms. Only after a long. Of confusion. Section 5 of the Voting Rights act contains the preclearance requirement requires certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to submit any proposed changes to their voting laws and practices to the department of justice for prior approval to make sure they are not discriminatory. To understand why the preclearance requirement was essential, it is worth remembering white was enacted in the first place. Before the vra, many Voter Suppression laws were enacted. They agnostic it take many laws years before the laws are challenged in court. As soon as one law was overturned another would be enacted, essentially a discriminatory game. Indeed the success of the Voting Rights act with its effective preclearance requirement was apparent after the law went into effect. Registration of africanamerican voters and the number of africanamericans Holding Elected Office froze dramatically in the years after section 5. These successes could not of happened without enforcement of the voters right act. Shelby county decision struck down as unconstitutional. It determined which jurisdictions would be subject to the preclearance requirement effectively suspending the preclearance requirement itself. The game has returned with a vengeance. Not surprisingly within 24 hours of the shelby kind decision, Texas Attorney general announced it would reinstitute for coney and voter id laws. Federal courts held both laws to be intentionally racially discriminatory, not disparate impact, intentionally racially discriminatory. States and localities held many elections over discriminatory laws remained in place and many people were denied the right to vote. In short, before the Racial Discrimination could be stopped, the damage had already been done. At least a one other states enacted statewide voter loss since the Shelby County decision. 2006, when i was the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, we undertook a process to build a record to demonstrate the need to reauthorize the Voting Rights act. Found many, we jurisdictions are still facilitating ongoing discrimination. The states and subdivisions continue to engage in racially selective practices, such as relocating polling places for africanamerican voters. It is true those seeking to enforce the vra can still pursue after the fact legal remedies, times and experience have proven such an approach takes far longer. It is far more expensive than having an effective preclearance for jean. Once the vote has been denied it cannot be recast. Damage to the democracy is permanent. That is what help members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of commerce will come together to pass the vra to its full power. The understanding of the importance of the Voting Rights act and in particular of its preclearance provisions. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses to hear about their findings of ongoing voter discrimination by states and localities. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The Ranking Member has a statement. We welcome our witnesses and thank them for participating in todays hearing. Your written statements will be entered to the record. I ask you each to summarize your statement in five minutes. The light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute left. Time hasns red, your expired. I remind everyone that your statements made to the subcommittee are subject to placement for perjury. Our first witness is the president and chief executive officer of the Leadership Conference on human rights. She was the head of the Civil Rights Division during the obama administration. Her law degree from New York University school of law. She received her undergraduate degree from yale university. Chairman nadler, chairman cohen, Ranking Member johnson, thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you chairman cohen for your leadership. The vra is considered one of the most successful pieces of civil rights legislation and our history. Vra006, we authorized the with sweeping bipartisan support. In 2013, five justices of the Supreme Court gutted the most powerful provision, section 5. It enabled the federal government to block voting restrictions in places with the most pervasive histories of discrimination. It ensured changes to voting rules republic, transparent and evaluated to protect voters against discrimination. When i served in the Justice Department we relied on section 2 of the vra to mitigate the damage made by the shelby kind decision. We challenge discriminatory laws in North Carolina and texas in the immediate aftermath of the decision and we were successful. Courts found intentional discrimination in at least nine federal county courts decisions since the Shelby County decision. But it can take years. Elections are taking place and millions of voters can effectively be disenfranchised with no remedy. Restoring preclearance is all the more important under an administration that refuses to challenge discriminatory voting measures. Not a single case has been opened, including restrictive voter i. D. Requirements and polling place closures which i want to focus on today. Polling place closures and consolidation can be a pernicious tactic for disenfranchising voters, particularly voters of color, older voters, voters with disabilities. Since the shelby decision, jurisdictions are closing polling places at an alarming speed. The Leadership ConferenceEducation Fund released a amocracy diverted, groundbreaking report that analyzing polling places in 750 counties once covered by section 5. We found that 1688 polling places were closed between 2012 and 2018. The report also analyzes polling place reductions in the years before the midterm elections. We found 1,173 fewer polling place