TheWeekInCongress.com (TM)

Week Ending July 21, 2006

 

H.R.9 To amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

 

The bill amends and extends the landmark, 1965 legislation that defined the right to vote and many areas of the country where that right was denied or conditional.

 

The Congressional Budget Office explained the basic tenets of the bill this way, “H.R. 9 would reauthorize and amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Major provisions of the legislation would extend certain expiring provisions of the act for 25 years, expand the use of federal observers at polling sites, and authorize the use of the American Community Survey to identify areas that may need bilingual voting assistance. In addition, H.R. 9 would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report to the Congress on the implementation of a provision of the Voting Rights Act regarding the requirement for election materials in both English and an alternative language.”

 

“Under current law, the Department of Justice (DOJ) certifies the appointment of federal observers to work at polling sites when it has received 20 or more written complaints from residents regarding voting rights violations. OPM, through its Voting Rights Program, works closely with DOJ to assign voting rights observers to locations designated by the department. OPM currently has about 1,000 intermittent employees who serve as neutral monitors at particular polling sites on election days. Since 1966, OPM has deployed 26,000 observers to 22 States. The legislation would amend current law to authorize the Attorney General to assign federal observers without using the certification process to election sites if he or she has had a reasonable belief that violations of the 14th or 15th amendment have occurred or will occur at a polling site.”

 

“H.R. 9 also would require the GAO to report to the Congress, within one year, on the implementation of a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 regarding the provision of voting materials in alternative languages (in addition to materials in English).”

 

The bill allows for the award of attorney fees in enforcement proceedings to include expert fees and other reasonable cost of litigation. Also, bilingual election requirements are extended in the bill through August 5, 2032. The bill extends the prohibition and date for mandatory congressional reconsideration of provisions that prohibit tests or devices to deny the right to vote in any election.

 

Amendments extending the bill only for ten years, easing states ability to remove themselves from being listed as having violated voting rights and removing bilingual ballot and language aid to voters all failed.

 

Sponsor: Rep. James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI-5th)

Vote: Passed House 390 to 33 July 13, 2006 (RC 374). Passed Senate July 20, 2006. Passed Senate 98 to 0 July 20, 2006.

Cost to the taxpayers: CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 9 would cost $1 million in fiscal year 2007 and $15 million over the 2007-2011 period.

## All Rights Reserved. © 2006 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM)

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)

 

MORE INFORMATION

AMENDMENTS-House

 

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.

(a) Purpose- The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the right of all citizens to vote, including the right to register to vote and cast meaningful votes, is preserved and protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.

(b) Findings- The Congress finds the following:

(1) Significant progress has been made in eliminating first generation barriers experienced by minority voters, including increased numbers of registered minority voters, minority voter turnout, and minority representation in Congress, State legislatures, and local elected offices. This progress is the direct result of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

(2) However, vestiges of discrimination in voting continue to exist as demonstrated by second generation barriers constructed to prevent minority voters from fully participating in the electoral process.

(3) The continued evidence of racially polarized voting in each of the jurisdictions covered by the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 demonstrates that racial and language minorities remain politically vulnerable, warranting the continued protection of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

(4) Evidence of continued discrimination includes--

(A) the hundreds of objections interposed, requests for more information submitted followed by voting changes withdrawn from consideration by jurisdictions covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and section 5 enforcement actions undertaken by the Department of Justice in covered jurisdictions since 1982 that prevented election practices, such as annexation, at-large voting, and the use of multi-member districts, from being enacted to dilute minority voting strength;

(B) the number of requests for declaratory judgments denied by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia;

(C) the continued filing of section 2 cases that originated in covered jurisdictions; and

(D) the litigation pursued by the Department of Justice since 1982 to enforce sections 4(e), 4(f)(4), and 203 of such Act to ensure that all language minority citizens have full access to the political process.

(5) The evidence clearly shows the continued need for Federal oversight in jurisdictions covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 since 1982, as demonstrated in the counties certified by the Attorney General for Federal examiner and observer coverage and the tens of thousands of Federal observers that have been dispatched to observe elections in covered jurisdictions.

(6) The effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been significantly weakened by the United States Supreme Court decisions in Reno v. Bossier Parish II and Georgia v. Ashcroft, which have misconstrued Congress' original intent in enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and narrowed the protections afforded by section 5 of such Act.

(7) Despite the progress made by minorities under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the evidence before Congress reveals that 40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of disregard for the dictates of the 15th amendment and to ensure that the right of all citizens to vote is protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.

(8) Present day discrimination experienced by racial and language minority voters is contained in evidence, including the objections interposed by the Department of Justice in covered jurisdictions; the section 2 litigation filed to prevent dilutive techniques from adversely affecting minority voters; the enforcement actions filed to protect language minorities; and the tens of thousands of Federal observers dispatched to monitor polls in jurisdictions covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

(9) The record compiled by Congress demonstrates that, without the continuation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protections, racial and language minority citizens will be deprived of the opportunity to exercise their right to vote, or will have their votes diluted, undermining the significant gains made by minorities in the last 40 years.

 

To Top

 

AMENDMENTS

 

1. Amendment offered by Rep. Charles Norwood. (R-GA-9th)
An amendment numbered 1 printed in House Report 109-554 to update the formula in section 4 of the Voting Rights Act that determines which states and jurisdictions will be covered under Section 5 of the act. (Section 5 deals with the ability of a state to remove itself from inclusion on a list of states that have had significant voting rights complaints over the past ten years justifying federal observers at polls) This updated formula would be a rolling test based off of the last three presidential elections. Any state would be subject to Section 5 if it currently has a discriminatory test in place or voter turnout of less than 50% in any of the three most recent presidential elections. Failed House July 13, 2006. 96 to 319 (RC 370 )
2. Amendment offered by Rep. Louie Gohmert. (R-TX-1st)
An amendment numbered 2 printed in House Report 109-554 to make the reauthorization period 10 years, rather than the 25 years proposed in the act. Failed House 134 to 288 July 13, 2006 (RC 371)

3.  Amendment offered by Rep. Steve King (R-IA-5th).

An amendment numbered 3 printed in House Report 109-554 which seeks to strike sections 7 and 8 from the bill. Sections 7 and 8 relate to multilingual ballots and use of American Community Survey census data, and they would automatically expire in 2007. (Under Sections 203 and 4(f), covered jurisdictions are required to provide voting materials such as notices, forms, instructions, ballots, and other materials in the applicable covered language (Spanish, Asian-American, Native American, and Native Alaskan). Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act only requires that non-English voting materials be made available in jurisdictions (1) in which 5 percent of the voting age population consists of a single language, limited English proficient minority and in which there is a literacy rate below the national average; or (2) in which more than 10,000 citizens who meet those criteria reside. A jurisdiction can get out from under coverage under Section 203 if it shows the D.C. Federal court that the applicable language minority population's literacy rate is at the national average or above. Section 203 protects citizens, not illegal immigrants. Citizens in the process of learning to read should not be denied assistance in voting, and such citizens should not be denied aid for lack of educational opportunities.) Failed House 185 to 238 July 13, 2006. (RC 372)

4. Amendment offered by Rep. Lyn A. Westmoreland. (R-GA-8th)

An amendment numbered 4 printed in House Report 109-554 which seeks to provide for an expedited, proactive procedure to bail out from coverage under the pre-clearance portions of the Voting Rights Act, by requiring the Department of Justice to assemble a list of all jurisdictions eligible for bailout and to notify the jurisdictions. The Department of Justice is then required to consent to the entry of a declaratory judgment allowing bailout if a jurisdiction appears on the list. Adds a three-year initial time period (and annually thereafter) for assembly of the bailout list by the Department of Justice. Currently jurisdictions must petition the Justice Department to clear voting changes that might be considered discriminatory. Failed House 118 to 302 July 13, 2006 (RC 373)

 

To Top

## All Rights Reserved. © 2006 TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)