Collins statement at Voting Rights Act hearing

“The right to vote is what makes democracy democracy. America’s federal law has protected this right from discriminatory barriers since the Civil War and more recently through the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Americans oppose racial discrimination as incompatible with democracy, and our current laws reflect that conviction.”WASHINGTON — Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, made the following statement at today’s subcommittee hearing on the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Below are the remarks as prepared. Ranking Member Doug Collins: The right to vote is what makes democracy democracy. America’s federal law has protected this right from discriminatory barriers since the Civil War and, more recently, through the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Americans oppose racial discrimination as incompatible with democracy, and our current laws reflect that conviction. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a single part of the Voting Rights Act — Section 4. That provision automatically put certain states and political subdivisions under the Act’s Section 5 “preclearance” requirements. Those “preclearance” requirements prevented voting rule changes in covered jurisdictions from going into effect until the new rules had been reviewed and approved, either following a federal lawsuit or, more often, by the Department of Justice. When the Voting Rights Act was enacted, Section 4 identified the jurisdictions automatically subject to these special “preclearance” requirements by a formula. The first part of the formula provided that a state or political subdivision would be covered if it maintained on Nov. 1, 1964, a “test or device” restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second part piece provided that a state or political subdivision would also be covered if the director of the census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on Nov. 1, 1964 or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of Nov. 1964. In its Shelby County decision, the Supreme Court struck down automatic preclearance provisions because the original coverage formula was, “based on decades-old data and eradicated practices . . . In 1965, the States could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continue[d] to treat it as if it were.” The court further criticized Section 4’s formula as relying on “decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs.” In Shelby County, the Supreme Court only struck down that single outdated provision of the Voting Rights Act. Significantly, the other very important provisions of the Voting Rights Act remain in place, including Sections 2 and 3. Section 2 applies nationwide and prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or the ability to speak English. Like other federal civil rights laws, Section 2 is enforced through federal lawsuits, and the United States and civil rights organizations have brought cases under Section 2 to court, and they may do so in the future. Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act also remains in place, authorizing federal courts to impose preclearance requirements on states and political subdivisions that have enacted voting procedures that treat people differently based on race in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. If the federal court finds a state or political subdivision to have treated people differently based on race, then the court has discretion to retain supervisory jurisdiction and impose preclearance requirements until a future date at the court’s discretion. This means that such state or political subdivision would have to submit all future voting rule changes for approval to either the court itself or the Department of Justice before enacting those changes. Per the Code of Federal Regulations, “Under section 3(c) of the [Voting Rights] Act, a court in voting rights litigation can order as relief that a jurisdiction not subject to the preclearance requirement of section 5 preclear its voting changes by submitting them either to the court or to the attorney general.” Again, Section 3’s procedures remain available today so people can challenge voting rules as discriminatory. In 2017, for example, U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal issued an opinion in requiring the Justice Department to monitor the city of Pasadena, Texas because it had intentionally changed its city council districts to decrease Hispanic influence. The city, which the court ruled has a “long history of discrimination against minorities,” was required to have its future voting rules changes precleared for the next six years, during which time the federal judge “retains jurisdiction . . . to review before enforcement any change to the election map or plan that was in effect in Pasadena on Dec. 1, 2013.” A change to the city’s election plan can be enforced without review by the judge only if it has been submitted to the U.S. attorney general and the Justice Department has not objected within 60 days. I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses today.