tv House Judiciary Hearing on Voting Discrimination CSPAN September 19, 2019 6:06pm-8:01pm EDT
the committee heard from leadership confronts on civil and human rights president, anita, naacp derek johnson, and public interest foundation president jay christian adams. >> committee on the constituti constitution, civil rights and civil liberties is called to order. that went out objection, welcome everyone to the next hearing. you'll hear in evidence, on evidence of current ongoing
voter discrimination. >> today's hearing on evidence of current and ongoing voting discrimination is part of the series of hearings of the house judiciary subcommittee on constitution several rights and liberties, for this year. the current need for reinvigoration of the preclearance requirement of the section five of the voting rights act. to consider other ways to strengthen the civil rights. i'm not sure why we say reinvigoration. that seems to be one of the words we toss around. it's not really reinvigoration. it's degradation. section four was cut out so we need to have a section for to activate section five. section five is made dormant because of the supreme court staying section four wasn't adequate. so we need to find a new section. awaken the dormant power of section five. it's widely considered the effective civil rights statute ever enacted on congress.
enormously successful and expanding federal authority to present protect the fundamental right to vote. when the central enforcements was section five preclearance provision. required certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination. against minority groups, predominantly those that ended in the deep south. two of pain provable to the voting laws, before those changes could take effect. purpose of reading occurrence was to be sure they jurisdictions that were most likely discriminated against, minority voters, shown by a finding of congress would bear the burden of proving that each of the voting laws were not discovered terry before changes could take effect. therefore not discriminate in fact against people, they shouldn't be taken that action against. if providing a mechanism to make sure the new voting rose and practices with a history of
discrimination would be to all voters. 1965, jurisdictions, it was renewed, a list of jurisdictions then in 2013, shall be older, our supreme court said, we did win the past, and with the ousted in the senate by 98 was not adequate. the defining by congress of legislation tax was not sufficient that the court was wish generally has its fair part two congress would jump in with its opinion about congress. so what did the pre- acquire it potentially protected before the harm of the voters. in this way preclearance proved to be a significant means of her production in the voters.
this is like congress had repeatedly reauthorized records provision. most recently in 2006, and mr mr. since skinner was the chairman of the committee at that time. 39233. the house and the senate were 98 to nothing. the supreme court and in section five in 2013, brought down the coverage formula in section four and determine which jurisdiction would be subject to the pre- clearance provision results. we have to have hearings to show the court that we have taken information that our findings are based on fact. referred so far this year and voting rights. most resilient memphis tennessee. we will further learn in today's hearing, the decision we formally cover decisions numerous discriminatory voting measures. the pastor sweeping vote suppression law that the federal
appeals court said it was unconscious attention no. by doing it after they put it into effect, they had their desired effect which was to limit african-american voting. if they were on the preclearance environment, courts could've stopped them from doing it before they did it. as mill brooks would save the video that they do so well. we also hear about recent measures to make it difficult or possible for minority voters to exercise the right to vote. these measures include poles closures and relocations. disproportionately to target minority. all of which are designed to make it harder rather for african-americans and other minorities to vote. last week in memphis we learned about tennessee's third-party registration law. that would impose penalties like the legal women voters, omissions and registrations.
an effort to do so. back in may, we learned about a similar law in texas. other voter determinations. in the absence of an effective preclearance formula, there's almost certainly measures will undermine the minority voters in a broader democracy. while section two of the voting rights act which prohibits boats. by itself less effective so definitely more cumbersome and more expensive to enforcing the butter right act. you cannot put this in place till after, requiring effective lee notice . some congress to create a new coverage formula to integrate the act most important enforcement is in.
i think our witnesses and members are being here today. i look forward to a fruitful discussion and i now like to do recognize ranking member mr. johnson for his opening statement. >> mr. chairman. i appreciate you all for being here is the minority party in this committee. there's a couple of things that we just want to say that the offset as we begin in the hearing. personal, must be clear about this. we've all agree that his primary treatment and voting based on race or is a point. is by the constitution as it should be as prohibited by federal statute as it should be. but is it too often complains of discrimination in voting have nothing to do with the discriminatory treatment. instead, roles entirely neutral on their face are sometimes claimed to be discovered during similar because they have a impact on one group or another. this impact claims are in the forum of identity politics and they contradict for example,
doctor martin luther king junior to focus on purchases rather than racial groups. doctor king said famously and is i have a dream speech, when the architect of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the constitution and the declaration of independence, the resigning 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 women, would be guaranteed the rights of live liberty and pursuit of happiness. doctor king said it well. that promissory note promised live liberty and pursuit of happiness, not equality of outcomes. insofar his opponents have changes in law, based on of equal outcomes, instead of equal opportunities, we just leave genuinely they pervert the language of our fan new documents and failed to understand the importance of docking his words. this impacts are not proof of discrimination. indeed they are statistically
inevitable. as thomas soul has explained, if several criteria need to be met for any given outcome and this can apply to voting requirements as well, the small variations of any groups positive and meeting any of those criteria will produce different outcomes for the group generally. the problem with the theory is that often it is used to falsely impute discrimination. there are many reasons why this could happen that have nothing to do with discrimination. a letter to decline to clear the 2011 vote right. the department claimed that in the letter, minority registered voters were nearly 20 percent more likely to be effectively disenfranchised, by the law, but by the elected driver license. the difference between white and african american voters driver's license was only 1.6 percent.
the justice department use the 20 percent figure because while the state figures showed 8 percent, as compared to 10 percent of nonwhite registered voters, the number and ten is 20 percent larger than the number of 8.4. it is true mathematically that tan is 20 percent larger. actually is 19 percent ordered the justice department rented that, it clearly distorts to report differences in the driver's license race. it was used to falsely declare the law as objectionable. let's give another example. status show younger people cross racial groups tend to be least likely to have drivers license. consequently, if it african-americans have more kids in their group, they will be disproportionately have fewer licenses.
this is due to demographics not demonstration. as a result of prejudice, is fundamentally unsound for the same reason social scientists are trained to correlation does not imply causation. in other words, there can be all sorts of correlations between one if it in another and that doesn't answer the question as to why the correlation exists. my.again it's not that voting discrimination has disappeared forever. we know it hasn't. i.is only that this desperate impacts cannot be meaningfully used to prove voting discrimination. regarding discriminatory treatment and voting come this based on race, section three of the voting rights act, which is permanent federal statutory law, remains in effect. for a couple years ago, district court fresno records pasadena texas to be monitored by the business department because they had intentionally changes city council district to decrease hispanic influence. the city was deep court ruled a
long history of discrimination against minorities. was required to have the teaching rules voting rules change for the next six years during which time the federal judge changed jurisdiction to review before enforcement any change to the election plan that was in effect on december 12013. the change to the city his election plan can be enforced that went out review. the judge only if it has been submitted to the us city journal in the department of justice has not within 60 days. discriminatory treatment and voting, i look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses here today. i yelled back. >> thank you. gentlemen from much of new york, manhattan, when he sighed, left side, all about the town. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me express my appreciation to you for hosting on voting rights in memphis last week.
since the supreme court's disastrous 2013 decision which effectively done the most critical provision of the civil rights voting rights of 1965, the clearance requirement. you've seen a troubling trend. localities and states in particular those of your subject to the preclearance requirement have enacted or engage in various suppression factors. such as birds improve citizenship laws, voters, significant scale back to early voting periods, restrictions and absentee balance. difficult to restore the voting rights of incarcerated vintage individuals. these kind of restrictions have negative impact of racial and language minority voters. and contrary to what we just heard, it is very much useful tool. in the most recent elections in november of 2018, voters across
the country experienced various barriers to voting. the state and local laws and circumstances that made it hard or even impossible to vote. for example, we heard last week in our field hearing in memphis, that states match law, 53000 voters registrants and 70 percent of whom were african-american. they were placed in pending status. a risk of not being counted by the secretary of state, was also the nominee in that same election. because of minority on registration forum. federal court one put a stop to this practice. parental treatment to a group of individual who are predominant minorities. this happened right just four days before the election. it led to a long period of confusion. section five of the voting rights act, contains a preclearance requirement which requires certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to submit any proposed changes to the voting laws of practices
into the department of justice for prior approval to ensure that they are not discriminatory. to understand why to preclearance requirement was so essential to enforcing the dairy, it is worth remembering why it was enacted in the first place. before the bra, and stays localities voter suppression laws. security analysis i can take many years before the laws could be successfully challenged in court if at all. as soon as one law is overturned, another would be enacted. essentially setting up the discriminatory game. section five clarence broke this legal and helped the discriminatory practice. indeed the success of the voting effectively clears requirement, is apparent almost immediately after the went into effect. francis registration african-american voters, both rose dramatically in the few years after enactment. that was according to section five. the successes could not happen that went out vigorous enforcement of this voting rights act and particularly of
his preclearance provision. shelby counted as an concision to snow, which determined which jurisdictions would be subject to the preclearance requirement. they are suspending the pre- operation. it happens in the game of waccamaw has returned with a vengeance. not surprisingly, within 24 hours of the shelby county decision, the attorney general north carolina, a great voter id laws. jericho also had laws to be intentionally racially discriminatory. intentionally. during the years between their inactive course decisions, the states and localities held many elections over discriminatory laws that remained in place and many people were denied their rights to vote. in short before the racial discrimination to be stopped, the damage had already been done.
other states also enacted other statewide voter laws. the vitality of the voting rights, critical importance. 2006, when i was ranking member of the subcommittee, which again exacted process to build this record. unequivocally the need to revisions in which preclearance requirements, and the coverage formula or expired. at the time, we found that many jurisdictions are still facilitating ongoing discrimination. for instance when he states in subdivisions, continue to engage in racially selective practices, such as relocating polling places for african-american voters. in the case of localities, connecting student were similar to serve circumvent the african-americans vote for elective vote office in the cities. while it's true that those the bra can still be pursue
after-the-fact legal remedies. even after clearance. time and expense have proved that secular approach takes far longer and is far more expensive. and having an effective preclearance regime. once a voter has been denied, it cannot be required cast. that is why members of the side of the aisle in both chambers of commerce, will come together and pass registration to restore it to its full legality. today's hearing will provide additional opportunities to renew our understanding of the importance of the voting rights act. in particular of his preclearance revisions. the score efforts and offer solution. i look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and to hear about their findings of ongoing discrimination by states and localities and bills.
>> we welcome our witnesses and thank them for participating in today's hearing. written statements will be entered into the entirety. the timing light on your table. when it turns red, you have one minute left. reminders statements are or could result in imprisonment up to five years or both with a fine as well. but that will not likely happen. first witnesses anita. she's the president and chief executive office of the civil and human rights. previously she served as principal deputy attorney general and acting generally. during the obama administration.
she received her law degree from new york university of school a lot. undergraduate degree medical law at yale university. when he recognized for five. >> chairman, and ranking member johnson. and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity today. thank you for your leadership and callings to restore the voting rights act. it's considered one of the most successful pieces to the civil rights legislation or history. no one ago in 2006, the sperry body reauthorized the bra which sweeping bipartisan support. but in 2013, five justices of the supreme court gutted the bra his most powerful section. five. section five enabled the government to block proposed
discriminatory voting. it also ensured that changes to voting rules for public transparent and evaluated to protect voters against discrimination based on race and they wish. when i served in the justice department. we relied on section two in the bra to help mitigate the damage done by the county decision. we challenged as discriminatory laws passed in north carolina and in texas in the immediate aftermath of the decision and we were successful. horse found in intentional discrimination and a found intentional determination in at least nine federal court cases since the shelby county decision. the section to, can take years. while medication are taking place, and the voters can be effectively disenfranchised with no remedies. when there voting prisoner to laws that are later to be found to have been enacted intentional discrimination. so the reality of section two is
simply no substitute for the meat to restore section five. restoring is all that much more important, huge challenge abutting measures. medical case has been open, including but registration to restrictive voter id restrictions. i want to focus on today. polling place closures and consolidation can be a tactic for disenfranchising voters. particulate voters of color and older voters and rolled voters and voters with disabilities. and since the shelby decision coming jurisdictions of opposing.places and no alarming state. this morning leadership confronts education fund release democracy averted. the groundbreaking and 757 counties that had been once covered on section five. we found that many polling places were close between 2012 and 2018. the report also analyzes only
place reductions in the years between the 2014 and 2018 midterm elections. we found 1173 fewer polling places in 2018 despite significant increase in voter turnout. overall, texas so long co- 750 polling places. arizona close greater than 20, georgia 214, louisiana and mississippi in north carolina and alabama fell behind them. this crisis also extends beyond states finally covered by section five. our campaign all local bidding as local all identified similar trends. in 2016 and 2018, home to cleveland, eliminated 41 polling locations. the bulk of which happened in majority black wars. there may be valid reasons but it's important to recognize that these poles are taking place in this larger constellation of efforts to prevent people of color from voting. that went out preclearance, based on your number of obligation to evaluate the
discriminatory impact and potential harm of polling place closures. as our report found, closures often found the polling places transportation hurdles and mass confusion about where eligible voters may cast a ballot, for many people these challenges make it harder and sometimes impossible to vote. some jurisdictions fight modernization including vote by mail. and yet not moved to these balances far from racially. 96 percent of non- native americans live on the u.s. postal service carrier route while only 6 percent and native americans live on a u.s. postal service carrier route. this is the state of arizona. be sure the shelby decision, section five assuring polling places did not discriminate. this protection no longer exists. this is why the leadership confronts recommends that the
subcommittee and urges the subcommittee to pass hr four to restore the voting rights act based on current conditions today. while there are justifiable reasons for closing polling places, the sheer scale of closures we identified since shelby, coupled with other star efforts to deny voting rights it to people of color, demand response and a coalition is committed to protecting and expanding the franchise and afford to working with you and tell these day these are signed into law. thank you. >> our next speaker is president of nc aa state confronts. south texas college of law, jackson mississippi tule college. mr. johnson, from our part of
the world, welcome. >> good morning. thank you for inviting me to testify. my background is i've spent more than to the casing date mississippi which is been front and center in the ice for voting rights. allow me to get to the point. our democracy is in crisis. there in the right of people of color to participate, we are six years two months and 16 days until the shelby county ruling. this was the worst attack on pets are super a democracy in modern history. the ink wasn't even dry before the floodgates of voters suppression opened. chief justice john roberts, was dead strong we need said in shelby county, that are county and our country has changed. just take those look around, it most certainly has not. voter suppression has become rampant instead of where is it occurring, we should thanks where it's not occurring.
congress has the constitutional duty to act. but testimony lays out the problems that we face around the country. i'd like to make five points here. first, democracy is conducted, by state and local jurisdictions. much attention is focused on statewide efforts, but it can happen in every community. secondly, today's disenfranchisement takes many forms. it adapts us and pervasive. these are just a few stringent voter id requirements. like north carolina's which we successfully challenge in which a court file targeted african-americans with surgical precision. purchase the voter rolls. we are seeing in ohio right now. massive closures of polling places in communities of color. shorten voting theories and elimination of sunday putting in those two) measures for criminal of registered voters like the
ones who recently voted in tennessee. there is no defense, knows suppression is often done in the name of combating voter fraud. but let's be clear, this it's not a real problem. parts of voter fraud is about as common as reports of alien abduction. even trump asked who disband voting commission because fraud does not exist. fourthly, while learning discrimination was well documented and recurrence on the voting rights act, in a spread like a cancer to other states never subject to coverage. the tragic fact is that no community is immune. everyone everywhere must remain vigilant. finally cannot address this alone. by testimony, and to the record to discuss the best legal department with our state causes and other legal organizations on
the ground to combat voter suppression. here's the situation. shelby county eliminated the preclearance apartment. trump justice department is missing in action on any voting rights enforcements. our members are doing what used to be the job of the federal department, protect the right to vote. to be clear, we are fighting back wherever and whenever we can. this it's not sustainable, congress one step up, to combat this nations epidemic. congress must pass learning rights investment acts, make no mistake, congress has simple evidence to restore the voting rights acts back. given the daily expenses of art community, and the need to order the election, no one can deny the strong record that supports the media package. congress was also passed for the people act. voting must be simplified. access must be expanded. it would make it easier to cast
a vote and make sure that vote is coming. counted. can christmas - federal election x. the safe act would help her election secure and free from foreign intervention. interference that disproportionately are gated african-americans. russian interference in elections, when he said, they're doing it as we sit here. we need to defend our democracy. this year the nw a p celebrated the hundred and tenth anniversary. we have never wavered from demanding and inclusive secure democracy. it is now time for congress to make protection and the franchise the highest priority. in mississippi, what i experienced of the last 20 years, is what i'm watching across this country. we do not stand up to protect democracy and make it work today, who will and how can we
ever have a true representative of the government. thank you for allowing me to testify. i welcome any questions. >> thank you mr. johnson. just turn that to clean mentioned that in memphis, location that houses the election commission downtown, was dedicated yesterday as the james meredith building. in order of his integrating and fighting for voter rights. supervisors voting rights advocacy nationwide. he's currently active in dozens of states and out of the country. when he is also adjunct professor of law, received his jd from yelp law school and his undergraduate degree from princeton. recognized for five minutes.
>> thank you. my name is dale and i am the director of the acl rights project. ginsberg famously warned about the supreme court voting rights act. throwing away your umbrella and a razor. and sure enough, after the decision, downpour came with a wave of discriminatory voting laws. they see ou has been on the front lines. we've opened more than 60 cases since the decision. some of our recent and ongoing cases state of new york, casing art argued before the supreme court earlier this year successfully challenging the administrations to add the citizen question 22020 census. so long with it we successfully challenge the sweeping north carolina bill that saw it on to eliminate that means a persistent patient is that more than one million voters in the election.
we are challenging a florida law that tonight's the right to vote to returning citizens that went out showing any big convictions based solely on their inability to pay outstanding costs finds fees and restitution. which estimate money today in respect to racial discrimination. on section two of the voting rights act. i think four points stand out. first on section two demonstrate the need for the voting rights investment act. while the current administration has not filed a single case on the bra, private litigation have one more than two dozen section two cases since shelby case was decided. that volume of successful section two litigation illustrates a continuing problem of racial discrimination in voting today. second despite the successes, we
currently lack the tools necessary to stop discriminatory changes to voting laws before they keep changing election. discriminatory laws that we have ultimately succeeded in blocking have remained in effect for months or even years, while litigation has proceedings time in which elections have been health, and government officials elected. the north carolina case that you've heard so much about tod today, the law that we challenged eliminated one week of early voting, with 900,000 people have voted in 2012. same-day registration and with nearly $100,000. and pre- registration which 50000 voters had used before that election. the law also banned the use of many forms of government issued photo ids for voting purposes. including student id cards, municipal employee and public assistance ids. the fourth circuit found that this law targeted african-american voters, with
almost surgical precision. and found it unconstitutional. but that case, took $5.9 million including expert fees and attorney time, and 34 months to litigate. in the interim, the 2014 general election took place at 190 federal and state government officials were elected on was later determined to be an unconstitutional regime. the laws of insert down about election cannot be rerun. there is no way now to compensate the voters of north carolina or our democracy ourselves. that's just one example. american testimony details ten section two cases that the aco litigated since shelby county, in which we ultimately obtain favorable outcomes for our clients, but only after a dozen actions were held in 315 federal state and local officials were elected on discriminatory laws. the bra would address the problem into a scrape new preclearance, recent voting
rights violations in the clarified standards for preliminary junctions in section two cases. both would help prevent discriminatory laws for taking effect before an election. third, overall the bolts of section two litigation happens at the local lead loophole. more difficult to monitor highlights and needs for the vra his transparency and notice requirements. for then finally, a handful of states of family cover states, on section five preclearance regime account for more than half of successful section two cases since joey county was decided. which indicates the voting discrimination remains concentrated in certain areas and particularly strong protections are justified in those places. 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 discrimination. thank you and i look forward to answering any questions you have
today. >> thank you. the next witness is mr. j christian adams. when he worked in the voting section of the united states department of justice. prior to this time when he served as general counsel south carolina secretary of state. his law degree from university of south carolina school of law. five minutes. >> general counsel, legal foundation, we are dedicated to preserving a late integrity. states may administrator during elections. i'm presenting evidence that have two instances of utter discrimination and distant frenchmen that i've been working on. the first is the case recently decided by the ninth circuit in july. i represented retired air force nature dave davis. major davis served so long and
decided to live there in retirement. guam is governed by the federal organic act of 1950. the organic act than racial discrimination voting and explicitly incorporates the protections of the 15th amendment. nevertheless, the legislature long past election law and finding the right to vote, and its status of the site to a preferred racial group. so-called native inhabitants. in other words, woman post voter qualifications based on blood ancestry, much like the oklahoma grandfather clause struck down by the supreme court over a century ago. now congress is required long to adhere to rights and obligations to 15th amendment. but ironically juan also received over $300,000 in federal funds from the department of the interior to conduct education campaigns about this very same racially discriminatory both their
process. that is something congress can fix. when dave davis thought to register to vote at the government office, his registration forum was marked voided. by election officials. the forum is in my written records. even in the jim crow south of the early 1960s, seven registrars were not brazen enough to deny the rose to vote explicitly on having the strong racial blood. we filed suit in federal court way back in 2011, in the case is still continuing because guam has been zealous in defending their racially discriminatory laws. this will blatant that the united states district court landen mr. davis summary judgment 2017, and in july of this year did ninth circuit firm despite this brazen racial discrimination not a single right disorganization, case. not a single organization offered to help mr. davis did not despite the long inventory of voting cases not even a single civil rights organizati
organization. in some cases, the same groups manage and truncate each other despite the fact that the single person was disenfranchised by the south carolina voter id laws. why is this important. it is important that reauthorization voting rights act, clinic years, it's not done in a way that affects partisan interests. because all is it too often civil rights enforcement is also about partisan interests. to add insult to injury, mr. davis could not get the united states department of justice to help them. in 2011. to please were ignored by the civil rights commission. no case was filed on his behalf. no one helped him. no nothing. even after the ninth circuit court of appeals in 2005 role they are rife case, the justice department failed to act. oddly, when he was cited by the
chief of voting section and then internally spiked or general reports, as to why the doj did not help mr. davis. finally, on november 2017, the justice department did what i should've done six years earlier. any purity court to strike down the. congress can do something. for one, stop public funding of racially discriminatory elections public information campaigns. congress has exclusive power in the territories and can stop this. the second example was briefly mentioned. it was an canceling citizen registrations. in virginia. we found this out when it began to inquire about records regarding noncitizens. we found the commonwealth was canceling citizens. in some there are things congress can do. we examine the interplay between motor voter dmv laws and election officials. the dmv part of motor voter is hidden from the public.
because congress gets it. secondly, congress shielded motor departments in that field should go away. third, they strengthen obligations for election officials to be transparent. we are currently suing the state of pennsylvania and texas and another one because they're not allowing public inspections of the public records. fourth congress should allow citizens and states to verify citizenship. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. adams. author of several recognized articles including growing threat, right to vote, noncitizen voting, and election day long the lines be sourced obligations. electorate law at columbia and served as an adjunct professor at the nyu school of law.
law degree from columbia and she's also public interest fellow, received a master for the policy harbors school of government and an undergraduate degree from yale. >> thank you committee members for having me. i'm the director of the voting rights and election that in my school a lot. the supreme court in shelby county left congress of the critical challenge. that's a revised coverage formula. accordingly we asked this committee to take out. number of states and local jurisdictions have continued to permit discriminatory laws. in fact, over the past decade, the brennan center has documented it anyway of new laws and practices putting the right to vote especially targeting communities of color. these ongoing problems demand and and strong response. section five of the voting rights act and reflects an important insight.
state and local electors, looking to suppress the vote have a ride variety of tools and tactics at their disposal. i go through some of these tools and tactics during my written testimony. what i will focus on here is that of aggressive focus purchase which can aggressively and unfairly target voters of color and disenfranchise large numbers of eligible citizens. purchase brief first to the process of electoral his to try to remove the names from broder reservation list. obviously this process is important part of any election stop. with her done right, the are assuring that they are accurate and up-to-date. when they are done improperly, they disenfranchise legitimate voters and undermine confidence in our democratic processes. moreover, improper purchase can lead to discriminatory results. sometimes on purpose. for example, reports indicate that new york's purge leading to
the 26 election disproportionately affected latina voters. prior to shelby, carol jurisdictions were required to free clear changes to the purge practices before implementing them. not anymore. when we see. between 2014 and 2016 they removed almost 16 million voters. almost 4 million more than states that removed in 2004 and 2004 and 2008. that's up 33 percent. our research suggests that shelby county had a notable impact on that growth. prior to shelby county, jurisdictions subject to preclearance had purge rates in line with the rest of the country. over the three election cycles ending in 20142016 and 2018, in other words after shelby county. preclearance jurisdictions have significantly higher purge rates in other jurisdictions.
before shelby county, jurisdictions subject to preclearance look like the rest of the country we need came to purchase. but after, formerly coverage jurisdiction increase or purge rates. while everyone else remained about the same. we calculated that 2 million br voters would've been purged between 2012 and 2016. in jurisdictions previously subject to preclearance. they purged at the same rate as other jurisdictions. we seen several improper purchase and shelby. they stop texas officials from purging. they said that these people were noncitizens. in 2016, new york wrongly deleted more than a hundred thousand names for the role. that same year, the arkansas secretary of state prepared a highly inaccurate purge list of nearly 8000 names. purchase typically happen behind closed doors. as a result, voters often don't know they've been purged until when he shopped about.
because they are below public radar, and is difficult to address the effects of bad purges until it's is it too late. that is why section five preclearance processes particularly equally well tailored. the purge problems specifically because of revitalized clearance regime. shows approval before they get into place. the need for preclearance is particularly urgent and why this development over the last take it in the late databases popping up. but they're producing flawed results that can lead to improper purchase. the passing new laws looking for different grounds upon which to purge people. and they're relying on the methodology certain groups are pushing localities to increase the aggressiveness of their purges. many advocates sitting here, will do our very best to protect voters against discriminatory laws and policies. on the laws that we have. including a guest improper purchase.
but congress should also act to protect voters for the supreme court has up repeatedly confirmed congressional power for section five preclearance. including the shelby county itself. we urge congress to revitalize the bra and i'm very much looking forward to the questions. >> our final witnesses ms. miss atlee. senior staff attorney for the native american rights fund. based in anchorage alaska office. member of the litigation management many of the group. practices coverage of wide variety of law, constitutional protections, two significant cases in congress of the renewal of the vra in 2006. she graduate of harvard university and received a law degree from harvard as well. member the chickasaw nation.
recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. my name is natalie landers. i'm ascended. staff attorney at native american live fund. otherwise nose does not. i held this position since 2003. i thank you for the invitation to speak here today. just begun on goading butter and discrimination on indian country. because there is a lot as that. there is a view direct impediments pulling places. it's a thing of the valve. that view is strong. first generation barriers are not gone and this month in
support of this testimony, the native american rights while summoning a report on nine field hearings we conducted throughout indian country. they 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 in a sheriff station for the norm sheriff who are the plates before they walked inside. i wanted 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 it's compacting your constituents. secondly talk about what previously discovered previously, jurisdictions are now doing. and third, want to talk a little pit about known practices covered which is included in this draft vra a. first the lost of preclearance, means just that the burden has shifted from the jurisdiction on the voters themselves. when a main is that they previously had to submit them to
the doj and now we have to sue to get them undone. it is enormously burdensome and an average voting case, not alone, very 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 that because native americans have brought 95 cases and 192.5 percent of the time, is that these jurisdictions in it up paying our fees and then the taxpayers get to pay for them. this tells us the success rate the discrimination is real and it is ongoing. second the loss of preclearance means that the previously covered jurisdiction implemented that had previously been denied. one example is of course the arizona ballot harvesting law. the reason that was so critical in indian country is that only 18 percent of native americans
outside of fema and iacocca candies actually have mail delivery. they would have to pooled their ballots and neighbors would collect all of your mail, and taken to the post office at the same time. this lot turned them to potential felons for handling ballots it did not have the name on it. the thing that happened in this jurisdiction, after the loss of preclearance, was a testimony indicated in this is currently in litigation. an astounding step removing locations from hundreds down to about 60 in 2016. the result according to testimony was four to six hours long lines. this can be found specifically in the arizona field transcript that we will be providing complete with locations and names of witnesses. i want to speak briefly of this fact that there are bad actors everywhere. we talked about how people feeling like certain states are targeted.
the non- practices in this bill will help. the me give you an example, from california. some when he testified they were unable to register to vote in northern california because of local jurisdiction concerning mobile homes not to be a permanent residence. there are people in this today in this reservation were not being allowed to vote. fortunately the secretary of state, has since received some attention. another jurisdiction not cover covered, north dakota. very well publicized situation. some people consider to be a neutral law. false. 24 percent of native americans have no id. in the course at a, you need an id to get an id in north dakota. most of the elderly native americans were born at home so they don't have birth certificates from the 20s and 30s and 40s. and they can't get the documents i need not to mention the
significant number of them have no access to transportation to do that. so i would like to close by staying that the known practices of the section list these pieces so does the component bill that we have drafted based on our field hearings in the findings there and called the native american voting asked right. we encourage them to pass this act and also the native american rights act. thank you. . . >> there have been 26 cases
and to define successful cases ruling and flavor of the plaintiffs or the parties settled and they have some or all of the relief. two things stand out when you talk jurisdictions. those cases arose from and first of those 26 cases, 16 of them happened at the local level. the majority of the successful litigation happens at the city and county and school board level. this is the of notice of importance of transparency requirement to voting laws at the local level this is something we lost with the regime but second the majority of these cases arose from a small handful of states set
forth in my testimony that used to be covered by section five. in with congressional attention. >> if i remember correctly and all in the old confederacy. >> there were some partially covered states like california or new york. >> and they were local jurisdictions. >> that's correct. >> amer most of this took place so the old expression those are not forgotten. >> the numbers speak for
themselves. >> and then some of them were necessary because people that move they are no longer eligible. and the protections that were once available to let the department of justice no of those are no longer available and they are after find out on election day when it is too late. >> a number of states have different practices that they use. every state in the country that is subject to the process if they are flagged for certain reasons of removal.
>> don't song jurisdictions urge you if you haven't voted the last two or four years quick. >> are some states that have policies like that. >> do they have to be particular similarities? >> one of the things that is important in particular but the state could change its practice. >> if they have of the united. the states however that use a policy to use failure to vote. >> you are familiar with
australia crack. >> crowded they get along quick. >> i'm actually not familiar with how they enacted the law but what's important in this country with continuing evidence of discrimination and congress has authority to recognize that pursuant. >> sends that effectiveness of expansion five extends the pace of litigation for those jurisdictions that are not covered do you see clarence to be more active in the litigation has been more active?
>> those that had to engage in much greater activity and the chart shows the need for section two of litigation in jurisdictions that had that preclearance regime with the justice department also there is a stark marketed contrast with the justice department with the trump administration which has not opened a single investigation but the effort now with a hyper local changes at the national level protects people's right to vote and that protects the voting rights act. >> i have watch with a very pensive expression is everything you like to respond?
>> i apologize for not having a poker face. [laughter] a couple of states left off the list of states it isn't all pixie also south dakota, alaska, new hampshire, michigan, parts of new york, new york city but new york state and not mississippi or south carolina. went to find purposeful discrimination. so can you just elaborate on the significance of the ninth circuit decision with intentional race discrimination. >> the case in guam that i testified literally have on
the voter registration you have to say who your parents are and it says you have to have the right blood before you can vote and this is intentional discrimination. we often hear, and i understand the circuit courts but we often hear about the surgical precision over and over on the loop but the reality is it only bears if the lower court ruling that was reformist one - - reversed of the actual findings is not often that the appeals court reverses factual findings in that case. >> has it ever been easier to vote in this country? and it seems we've had progress with access to voting. >> there is awareness of the
importance to make it easier to register to vote. with the oversight committee it has never been easier than in 2019 was never been easier to vote than 2019. >> and to negate the fact that is the suppression of voting more than any other efforts you can describe those measures of the integrity of the vote to protect the vote? >> i don't buy the idea that you cannot get it right for you can have clean voter rules and integrity and everybody gets to use the vote for example it should be free and easy to get that's why the south carolina voter id law in fact there was a failsafe mechanism and at the end the
outcome of the district court even though the burden is reversed to reverse the burdens it still ruled in favor of south carolina and instead despite those $1 billion with discriminatory the court ruled that was not. how section five can be abused if it is reauthorized. >> i noticed only the justice department in this case what was going on the previous administration to protect the right to vote? >> that's a great question is not a lot of answers they said they didn't think the case was right but the ninth circuit in 2015 with two years of inactivity.
so if you look at the record of the bush justice department and obama and the cases filed you will see clearly the bush justice department was far more active section two enforcement that i testified previously that virtually was asleep with obama. >> why didn't any other groups assemble at the table? >> i cautioned the committee to reauthorized does not make it partisan and used as a partisan weapon in fact to say that the justice department should use that on this side of the room. 's i think that's the danger looking at voter id to be
attacked. >> i healed back. >> just to have the facts straight, i made a statement it with the exception of arizona the only state covered in whole is alaska the others are local jurisdictions that i mentioned. so i apologize for forgetting about alaska and not knowing about guam. >> i will comment on the guam case which has nothing to do that was pretty egregious so at a hearing last week in memphis the majority witness has that civility to reinvigorate section five notwithstanding the power essentially because that current level of discrimination is not severe enough with the state and
local elections with that discriminatory effect not just the purpose. 's is it not with l will do so within congresses authority to determine not only the existence of the discrimination with that legislative response quick. >> i do believe congress does have the authority to reinvigorate the voting rights act the supreme court issued a decision that if congress wants to exercise the 14th amendment then there must be a record of constitutional violations. we have that here. but that section two evidence on the violation does not require judicial finding but that liability is also similar
to the test the supreme court with unconstitutional voting discrimination we heard comment of the disparate impact standar standard. this congress adopted in 1982 signed into law by president ronald reagan liability depends on factors and was adopted specifically because congress did not want to put it in the congressional record or judges in a difficult position to call legislators and their counties or state. they had to call out their intent which functions that if it would be perverse today looking at those violations that make it easier for courts to strike down those discriminatory laws and say that's not relevant to say if
those violations have occurred was stronger congressional actions. >> so to enforce the law through litigation is time-consuming. what do you think of legislation to impose all cost of the defendant government? not just attorneys fees? >> just to start out it is incredibly time-consuming so the loss of the preclearance regime in the litigation of the shelby county decision is the number of elections taking place that were found by the
federal courts just to be enacted of intentional discrimination of constitutional and federal law there is no mechanism to seek that because the elections have taken place and voters were penalized unlawfully for that. but on the question the major issues around the loss of section five is the ability to hold officials accountable with intentional discrimination and that enactment was to shift the burden which was an interesting remedy to pursue. i don't think it's enough of preclearance to have some deterrent mechanism in place such that officials take and they think about when they
enact these laws. >> in the 27 seconds that i have left do you support amending section 1983 allowing the justice department to sue officials for voting rights violations and with the color of law quick. >> that's an interesting idea. is on the issue of the accountability the supreme court has whittled down the 1983 protections and i welcome the opportunity to talk about the importance to strengthen section 1983 by congress. >> i yelled back. >> i recognize the gentle man
from texas. so just to inform the full committee chairman who says that the guam information was not relevant to anything here, the subject of this hearing according to the democrats is evidence of current and ongoing discrimination. 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 stand up to say this is absolutely intolerable to make somebody go through. down to the mother and father and parents to certify that you were native. that is prejudicial to the groups of chinese, japanese, chinese, japanese, korean, all
of those that were not there in 1850 per i appreciate the looks i'm getting from some of our witnesses but it is embarrassing that nobody stepped up. i would call black panther intimidation case occurred when you were there at the justice department where you allowed to go in and get judgment against those people for intimidating the election site quick. >> i admit i forgot about that case but i will do my best. >> i'm just asking. >> the case was dismissive to the two corporate defendants. i think mister jackson. >> but you were not allowed to pursue that. >> there was a long record
ther there. >> there was an incident in guam with the justice department would not go into say this is wrong. we cannot have these kind of forms. doesn't matter your race. you want to be able to come in and vote. who was here with the civil rights section at that time in 2012? >> that's a good question. i'm not sure exactly who was the attorney general. i know after those questions were directed to the voting chief to make you testify to that but i know perez was there at some point. >> he may have been. >> now he share of the dnc. that's right now the chairman of the full committee by calling voter id laws and apparently he is not aware but
in 2012 the dnc was not allowing anyone to come in and vote in their words they had a state issued id. wow. the democratic national convention is using and has used in this decade, a draconian voter id requirement. that is incredible. going through john fund's boo book, he makes the point the greatest flaw is the statement that there is no election wrong. it has gone on for years for those that don't know. you can go back and look at cook county illinois or in texas. it still goes on anytime we
allow people to vote without showing some evidence they are allowable to vote, it disenfranchises all of the legally voting people and people that vote more than once. there are a lot of problems that need to be dealt with. it is just amazing to me. back when this was reauthorize reauthorized, i wanted to vote for the vra. it needed to be reauthorized. but none of you have brought up that it had a formula that required punishing states for what happened 50 years before. generations were punished and i went to a republican leader at that point of this committee that there was a district in wisconsin with racial disparity and he said
we are not changing the 50 -year-old formula. we will keep punishing those state so i went to john conyers he was very gracious and said let me talk to some people. he said you've got a good point but we can't get it past let's let it go. i said it will be struck down i name some very liberal people including the dean from the new york law school who just left there and he said it will be struck down it is unconstitutional. if you are not aware we should not be punishing generations over 50 years before. that is where we ought to come together let's deal with racial disparity and then allow the section but i was not allowed to have that as an amendment and that's why we are here with you here in shelby county.
i yelled back. >> thank you very much. so to hear from my thoughtful colleague how the southern states were punished under the voting rights act but it was there any punishment in the voting rights act with the shelby county case? is anybody imprisoned because of voting rights violations? >> and so in response to congressman gomez with the need to have a preclearance provision and that's the voting rights act that is based on the findings of recent violations and i appreciated your support and i hope to see your support for
stronger voting right protections today. >> if somebody robs a bank or a gas station, they will be prosecuted and go to jail. today, in the wake of shelby county if the state engages in a deliberate effort to suppress voting rights or to keep people to dilute the votes of minority groups, what happens? >> so getting those decisions would declare that would take years of litigation. >> so what would happen? >> there is no accountability from the state officials that were found to be racially discriminatory. >> there is no punishment.
>> will the gentlemen yield quick. >> i'd be happy to do it at the end if i have time but what happens in the meantime? in other words you now go in absence of the environment many years later you get a ruling but in the meantime all of these elections that have taken place with the voting rights violation in force. so what can be done retroactively to make democracy whole quick. >> there is nothing that those for the voters who have been disenfranchised. >> the supreme court wiped out the preclearance requirement of section four so essentially it knocked the teeth out of the voting rights act because there's nothing to keep a jurisdiction from engaging in a voting rights violation because you don't go to jail
and even if the people who bring the case and the plaintiffs win several years later you just get in order to stop in the future in the meantime you have all these elections that have been fixed from voting rights suppression and discrimination. so before leaving you were president of the mississippi conference which mississippi has a highest percentage of african-americans than any state in the union. if the state is not elected statewide and more than 130 years since reconstruction. in fact the mississippi constitution requires candidates to win not only 50 percent of the popular vote or a plurality but also more than half of those legislative districts two thirds of which are majority right.
>> if that candidate doesn't meet those commitments in the election then wins more than those districts then they choose the winner regardless who got the most votes. >> correct. >> so what is it put into the first place? >> was at the mississippi electoral policy that constitution was former confederate soldiers and to take back control the government to put in place the ability of african-americans not only the grandfather clause but additional barriers.
the events that are occurring in virginia. and i am shocked to hear that this activity that occurred in guam is occurring in the 21st century so to go down the road very quickly, would you agree that discriminatory election is unacceptable in the united states in the 21st century quick. >> i cannot speak during my full tenure in the justice department. >> i don't know much about the case but the blood test is something that we oppose spirit that is a violation of the 13th amendment. >> that's appropriate.
>> i am hesitant to answer to definitively. >> as the facts presented the grandfather clause. >> i will not opine on the case i find it embarrassing almost half seem equally as disturbed as americans driving 98 miles one way to register. focus on that. >> and focused on a form displayed that was blatantly discriminatory on the election and it is disturbing and i cannot you talk about virginia
with noncitizens can you elaborate on that what we can do about it? >> my organization of data mining the process of noncitizen cancellation we have found we have published multiple reports frankly of immigrants and green card holders this is not a conspiracy it was a glitch that affected the commonwealth for 20 years. what is happening when they jeopardize the status in virginia the problem is even worse with systems canceled with that citizenship process
individuals who are american citizens were declared noncitizens by state election officials and removed from the roles. this is a problem congress needs to address and is not working because of technology changes the last 30 years in the 25 years since this was passed so it is important only citizens be on the roles that cooperate with state officials to close registration thereby citizenship and allow states that is not intrusive and easily solved. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. >> you are recognized. >> thank you. the ranking member suggested the evidence of disparate
impact is not proof of discrimination a decade ago pennsylvania was looking at the legislature and the number of voter suppression members that has since then been struck down including voter id laws in the electoral maps this legislation was neutral but it does have a disparate impact upon voters who were poor elderly women people of color for those who were overwhelmingly democrat i would say that disparate impact whereas identity politics of the most pernicious kind on basis of their political identity. to challenge the voter id laws they were fortunate of the
house majority leader bragging to the committee of the legislative accomplishments that voter id which would allow the governor to win the state of pennsylvania so i am not so naïve to believe those that would suppress the vote would be so indiscreet so i would like to ask, can you address what kind of evidence we used to show disparate impact with actual discrimination in these cases? >> section two we have disparate impact plus swear by congress set forth a series of factors designed because those are a little more discreet.
and that evidence is of what people are intending to do. in addition we have the continuing evidence of current conditions to justify section five of the voting rights act to include the coverage formula that is the dynamic and looks at a number of factors both geographically and in terms of conditions to cause problems so taken together that has a robust section five a modern section four and section two will go a long way to root out racial discrimination. >> thank you. >> when acting attorney general was here i asked him if the trump department of justice had any voting rights enforcement actions.
is it your testimony the trump administration has not protected voting rights since january 2017. >> that's correct. >> if you don't mind i would like to respond to something something that mister adam said some people don't know he recently entered a settlement agreement where he was forced to apologize for reports that contain inaccurate information from those voters that were removed from roles in virginia because they were noncitizens i feel it's important to put that into the record. >> thank you to make the location of polling places with the disability voting rights act to make it individuals to register for
access polling places so can you describe for those voting rights challenges? and you have some material about this in the report that just came out. >> there has been a lot of enforcement of the organization and the justice department around lack of accessible places so there is a lot to be done and i will say it is important to note because of ada noncompliance should be a last resort because there are many ways to make places more accessible like temporary signage or same-day modification or to
build a temporary ramp that's a need that has been addressed rather than closing down. >> thank you. on the record i would give you an opportunity of your written testimony to respond. >> i discussed this at some length of the written testimony mister adams was forced to apologize is wrong he chose to apologize for our organization for the government election records that stated nonsurgical one - - citizens in virginia were removed from the roles when we discovered they were citizens it has done absolutely nothing to be removed for our organization and fixes the problem that was part of the settlement of the case nobody
was forced to do anything and there was no findings found otherwise. >> to go into this motor voter issue primarily often times if language is not their first language and to be added to the role we run into these cycles it doesn't matter if it's democrat or republican's they run hot but there is another part to this. but if they register to vote or get into those situations then doesn't that impact their ability to be a citizen later quick. >> absolutely is question 12 on the ins form if you ever register to vote so with public records request those
individuals who are not citizens who are caught up in the broken motor voter system jeopardizes the status. you think everybody would care about that. but that's not the case. 's about noncitizens are getting on the roles and voting we have been harvesting their self removal of the voter rolls they thought they were registering for something else and they didn't understand the form. it doesn't say that it wasn't covered by 203. the system has flaws that we were attempting to catalog. the case leader on the way like the line for kenya they assume they are not removing citizens but they are.
>> my wife is not a citizen. permanent resident alien and she comes from norway but in the statement on her registration her id looks identical to mine it is absolutely there is no situation it is an honor system and we work through that. obviously she is married to a politician but we know the laws she can walk in info to any point in time and people would not know the difference. >> we are the only state in the country without voter registration but it is an issue. we need to make it easier we are talking about real id. we need to make it easier and
then to and then there is a preliminary injunction and then there was a mechanism in timing and in the 2018 election and regardless of policy and with those native american reservations those that get ideas and vote regardless how difficult it was turned out in absolute record numbers and particularly with older people it is a real issue in rural america and magnified on the reservations and they should
be commended. >> is everybody on the roles how do you do that? a 30 day residency requirement to show an id. that is a point of fascination that you have to have a valid id and proof of address. the new government id requirement stops people from the right to vote. >> we are running into problems and to provide that documentation to get the real id versus the drivers license
and is proving to be cumbersome. what were the hockey stars they were in memphis last week does anybody think the new federal id law has anything to do with stopping people from voting we are an anxious time i remind myself of a quote from thomas jefferson if things go wrong at any time by the peaceable exercise and that gives me some consolation. and if we have a history from what we have seen today and
thomas jefferson are attacked i would like to start with you several tactics since the show the decision of voter registration with those voter rolls and identification the last minute polling place closures for consolidation and also for 2020. >> thank you for the question. we just released about the pull closures around the country since the shelby county decision and since the
shelby county decision that were previously covered by section five of the voting rights act to be the hyper local changes to require preclearance by the justice department not because they were automatically going to be discriminatory but allow for analysis and evaluation of whether that creates a disparate impact voters of color but also to provide advance notice where these places have been there is an abundance of notice of litigation that has taken years to uncover those discriminatory practices. and then to add with that ongoing systemic issue with voting. >> in addition to polling to
foreclosures what are those other voting problems what they would address which problems quick. >> there is a couple of things. and it depends how you count jurisdictions and protecting 20 percent from that progressive because we have to check this and it depends how you count california that has over 100 tries and new york has eight. >> and the unknown product line - - practices piece where they switch those jurisdictions to make sure it doesn't represent you and and
particularly those polling place closures it is very unique. i'm not sure anyone here is familiar with this if they want to polling place they have to pay for it. try that. go to constituents in atlanta or new york or california tell them if you want to polling place you have to give us $25000. >> who is suggesting that? >> there are several well-known cases subject to perjury limitation i am not 100 percent sure but i believe it was blaine county montana was one example another would be south dakota where it was commonplace to say we don't have enough money. they may have been resolved but this is the issue that if you go to a jurisdiction if you are on tribal lands you will be refused and then they say you pay for it and provide
the poll workers then maybe we will let you have one. so that would be hugely valuabl valuable. >>. >> as a former member of the legislature in 2012 right after voter id i saw personally the consequences going around the district to help elderly people, young people with the barriers and all the rest. could you please explain how voter identification keeps americans from exercising their right to vote? >> sure. we never saw an individual under an assumed name it had an additional barrier.
everybody knows each other. of somebody walking to the polling place and on top of the fact there is no true evidence to be under an assumed name and then create a chilling effect. >> my time has expired. >> and now patiently waiting. >> so my colleague from texas disparaging my home county and to seem to suggest there was voter fraud for many years and it still going on it simply is not true. south texas including my birth county made great effort to
clean all that up and with my birth county or home county first elected from harris count county. will not belabor the point but to mischaracterize that lawsuit in access with those materials that he was after. as lyndon johnson said there is no more important right under the constitution than voting. it to you vote for then that determines the freedoms and the liberties you get from all the other constitutional rights and the recipient and
all this is very personal to me to turn away from the polls that was not there and you can look at me. i don't look mexican so you know it's based on that. 's not only as an advocate for my district but for myself and my family and friends. so starting with you on this letter issue so if you don't do something your name would be purged? are the flawed data and what
can we do from here in the federal laws. >> and also with the great state of texas with the need of those pre- clearance regime because texas is a jurisdiction that keeps popping up with election problems and in addition to register people to vote of those prosecutions of those who run afoul of those election laws. >> so what do we do quick. >> what we do is ensure with
that preclearance process. and with that discriminatory effect with the national voter registration act. and to check that voter registration status. and those threatening e-mails from groups trying to pressure them. >> and how they protect them. >> and with that testimony you presented with the cases and cost-of-living litigation. is there any testimony from the gentleman to your left
quick. >> the 5 million was in reference to the court order award of the south carolina litigation that certainly was more expensive and time-consuming case. certainly that is more extensive. >> to have an average quick. >> i don't but it should be clear that to claim credit his organization published a report titled alien invasion with the ufo on the cover cover-up of noncitizen registration it publish the names and contact voters who were united states citizens including the los angeles for an employee of us cis to claim they were noncitizens accusing them of committing felonies
that the list he used contain false positives defamation and it takes extraordinary for him to claim he protect the united states citizen. >> thank you for caring the record. >> i appreciate the witnesses today with the importance of the hearing and the voting rights and then reactivate section five of the voting rights act this concludes today's hearing and thank you to the witnesses and thanked to the minority. very important and then to submit additional written questions to the record and the hearing is adjourned. and then to submit additional written questions to the record and the hearing is
and the knowledge. >> and we are asking middle school and high school students to create a short video documentary what issue do you most want the presidential candidates to address during the campaign? to reflect differing points of view with $100,000 of total cash prizes including a $5000 grand prize. >> and then to express your views but in the greatest country it doesn't matter. >>