Norton Announces Congressional Resolution Condemning State Voting Restrictions
WASHINGTON, D.C.—In commemoration of the recent 51st anniversary of passage of the Voting Rights Act, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today announced that when Congress returns from recess, she will introduce a resolution noting the unusual number of recent court decisions overturning restrictive state voting laws in the North and South because they unconstitutionally deny voting rights to people of color, the elderly, and low-income residents. Norton’s resolution calls on the House of Representatives to prioritize new preclearance provisions following the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which allowed the federal government to review new voting laws in mostly Southern states before they went into effect. The resolution notes that 15 states were set to use new voting restrictions for the 2016 elections for the first time, but four were struck down in recent weeks in Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Ohio. States have rushed to restrict early voting, require proof of citizenship, reduce the number of polling stations, decrease assistance at polling places, and have added other restrictions on voting.
“In the wake of the 2013 Supreme Court decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act, many states moved quickly to erect new barriers to voting, particularly for people of color, the elderly, and low-income residents,” Norton said. “However, with alacrity, federal appeals courts have struck down voter suppression laws in time for the next election even in states where the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance procedures would not have applied. Citizens have also been able to get these late laws overturned in some states by using the tough standards that the legislature engaged in intentional discrimination.”
Norton’s resolution is below.
RESOLUTION
Calling on Congress to pass a new preclearance formula for the Voting Rights Act and condemning voter suppression laws enacted by local and state governments
Whereas, the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870 affirms that voting rights cannot be denied to citizens on the basis of race;
Whereas, post-Reconstruction Jim Crow laws severely restricted minorities’ voting rights, particularly those of African Americans;
Whereas, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 contributed to a significant increase in voter registration and participation by African Americans and other minorities;
Whereas, the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, the coverage provision of the law that identified states and political subdivisions with a chronic history of passing restrictive voting laws;
Whereas, the Shelby County decision effectively immobilized Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which allowed the U.S. Department of Justice and federal courts to “preclear” any proposed changes to voting rules, allowing a preemptive strike of unjust and discriminatory voting laws in the regions identified by Section 4(b);
Whereas, the absence of this preclearance requirement has allowed for voter suppression laws to proliferate by permitting state and political subdivisions to pass restrictive voting laws without federal preclearance determining if the laws are racially discriminatory;
Whereas, 15 states will implement new voting restrictions such as burdensome photo identification requirements and reduced early voting hours for the 2016 presidential election for the first time;
Whereas, more than 21 million Americans lack government-issued photo ID and a disproportionate number of those Americans are low-income, elderly, or people of color;
Whereas, African Americans are between 108% and 305% and Latinos are between 58% and 195% more likely than whites to lack government-issued identification;
Whereas, 10,800 eligible Latino voters in Alabama, 4,700 Latino voters in Mississippi, 45,600 eligible Latino voters in Virginia, and many eligible Latino voters elsewhere will find it more difficult to vote in 2016 than in 2012 due to voter ID laws;
Whereas, since the 2013 Shelby County decision, four states (Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin) have reduced early voting access;
Whereas, restricting early voting disproportionately affects low-income citizens, people of color, and the elderly, who often rely on flexible, early voting periods;
Whereas, since the 2013 Shelby County decision, four states (Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, and Tennessee) have passed laws requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship to vote;
Whereas, many voting-eligible, low-income Latino voters are naturalized United States citizens who lack proof of citizenship and cannot afford a Certificate of Citizenship or a Replacement Certificate of Naturalization, which cost $600 and $345, respectively;
Whereas, since the 2013 Shelby County decision, two states (Virginia and Wisconsin) have imposed more stringent requirements on non-governmental organizations that help to register and engage citizens in voter participation;
Whereas, restricting non-governmental voter registration organizations directly affects minority communities, as these organizations are particularly likely to reach and engage low-income citizens, people of color, and the elderly;
Whereas, since the 2013 Shelby County decision, five states (Arizona, Arkansas, New Jersey, Texas, and Utah) have passed laws making it more difficult to vote by absentee mail;
Whereas, reducing absentee voting disproportionately affects low-income minority voters, who are more likely than other citizens to have inflexible work- and childcare-related schedules;
Whereas, since the 2013 Shelby County decision, three states (Florida, Iowa, and South Dakota) have maintained voter laws denying returning citizens or former felons the right to vote;
Whereas, felon disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect African American and Latino voters; at present, African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate that is 5.1 times the imprisonment rate of whites, and Latinos are incarcerated at a rate that is 1.4 times the rate of whites, making minorities more vulnerable to disenfranchisement;
Whereas, in addition to state-level voter suppression laws, political subdivisions have also passed new laws that suppress minority voters, including reducing the number of polling places and offering insufficient language-assistance for non-English speaking voters;
Whereas, reducing the number of polling places disproportionately affects minority communities; for example, in Maricopa County, Arizona, a county that is 30% Hispanic, election officials reduced the number of polling places to one polling place for every 21,000 voters, compared to one polling place for every 2,500 voters in the rest of the state for the 2016 primary;
Whereas, insufficient language assistance at polling places could possibly threaten eligible Latino voters in the 2016 election, as local jurisdictions in Florida and Texas have already limited language assistance programs;
Whereas, in the last few weeks, courts have struck down restrictive voting laws in four states (Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Ohio), demonstrating the discriminatory nature of voting restrictions that have proliferated post-Shelby County;
Whereas, had a preclearance formula been in effect, the U.S. Department of Justice and federal courts would have been able to prevent discriminatory voter suppression laws from being passed;
Whereas, many unjust voter laws that were passed or went into effect after the Shelby County decision threaten to affect a significant number of minority voters on election day, November 8, 2016;
Resolved, That the House of Representatives –
● Should prioritize the creation of a new preclearance formula, based on the Voting Rights Amendment Act, H.R. 3899 from the 113th Congress, and the Voting Rights Advancement Act, H.R. 2876 from the 114th Congress
● Condemns the use of the above listed voter suppression laws and techniques by states and political subdivisions