Mr. WOLF of Virginia.
...But because I do believe that everyone should have the right to vote, I voted for it.
But I would also say, to end, we may be approaching a time that this would go because we want a Nation where no one is discriminated against, and we may have reached that point. But I think the Judiciary Committee should hold extensive hearings and we should see what the Supreme Court does. I don't think this is the place to do it, and I strongly rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois.
Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF.
I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois.
I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I've enjoyed a great relationship with the gentleman during his tenure in the Congress.
You mentioned several times in your remarks that there might be an appropriate time. How do you objectively determine when there is an appropriate time for not extending Section 5 to the covered jurisdictions?
Mr. WOLF.
I am not a legal scholar, and at 10:10, I don't think I can do it, but there may be a time.
I believe now in my State there is not discrimination with regard to voting. I think our Governor is a good, decent guy, and I don't think he wants to discriminate against anybody. The members of the general assembly are of that same mind. Yet there had been in a case in previous times in the State of Virginia, so I'm not going to be the--I went to Georgetown Law School. It's an accredited law school, but I'm not going to sit here tonight and lay it out.
I don't think this is what we ought to do tonight. I initially wasn't going to speak, but I just feel strongly. Again, I go back. I remember in 1982 voting for this, and people felt it and I just felt in my heart this was the right thing to do. As of now in my heart, it tells me we ought not adopt this amendment, and we can have the Judiciary Committee hold hearings both in the House and the Senate. We can see what the Supreme Court will do. I just don't think this is the place for this amendment, and I strongly oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia.
It is hard and difficult and almost unbelievable that any Member, especially a Member from the State of Georgia, would come and offer such an amendment.
There is a long history in our country, especially in the 11 States that are old Confederacy--from Virginia to Texas--of discrimination based on race, on color. Maybe some of us need to study a little contemporary history dealing with the question of voting rights.
Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it was almost impossible for many people in the State of Georgia, in Alabama, in Virginia, and in Texas to register to vote, to participate in the democratic process. The State of Mississippi, for example, had a black voting age population of more than 450,000 and only about 16,000 were registered to vote. In one county in Alabama, the county was more than 80 percent and there was not a single registered African American voter. People had to pass a so-called ``literacy test''; interpreting sections of the Constitution. One man was asked to count the number of bubbles on a bar of soup and another man was asked to count the number of jelly beans in a jar.
It's shameful that you would come here tonight and say to the Department of Justice that you must not use one penny, one cent, one dime, one dollar to carry out the mandate of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. We should open up the political process and let all of our citizens come in and participate. People died for the right to vote--friends of mine, colleagues of mine--to speak out against this amendment. It doesn't have a place.
I agree with the chairman.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia.
Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia.
No, I will not yield.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois.
Mr. Chairman, let me first associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who paid the price for this Voting Right Acts of 1965 on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. He paid beyond measure. He sacrificed beyond measure to make this a reality for every American.
This near midnight attack is an unprecedented attack on the implementation legislation of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It took this Congress 95 years from the moment that the 15th Amendment was added to the Constitution of the United States for this Congress to wake up after Selma to Montgomery to pass legislation to implement the Voting Rights Act.
For me to stand here and listen to my distinguished colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the subcommittee, for him to argue that there may be a time and we may be approaching a time when the Voting Rights Act preclearance provision of Section 5 is no longer necessary couldn't be further from the truth.
Here's how the State legislative process works within most of the State legislatures. First, whoever is in the political majority, Democrat or Republican, usually draws legislative lines consistent with their political advantage, whether it's the Democratic Party or whether it is the Republican Party.
Such is the case in Illinois. Such is the case of every State in the Union.
Almost never before the 1965 Voting Rights Act had racial minorities or language minorities ever been considered as a factor in the ongoing partisan debate for the last 150 years between Democrats and Republicans. Only the Voting Rights Act of 1965 says that if a language minority or a racial minority in a protected jurisdiction can draw a congressional district or can draw a State Representative district or can draw a State Senatorial district to give a racial minority an opportunity to represent their own people in a legislative body, the State legislative body must take that into account.
For us to be standing here on the floor of the Congress arguing about the right to vote, we're not discussing at that level the right to vote. We're discussing whether or not legislators will be effective in representing their constituents by protecting Section 5, the preclearance provision, because most of us can't go to our Governors or our State legislatures to protect the franchise from minorities.
I know that the First Congressional District, the Second Congressional District, the Seventh Congressional District, the Fourth Congressional District of Illinois are all Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act congressional districts, from Virginia around to Texas, because we still cannot trust Democrats, because we still cannot trust Republicans in Virginia, all the way around to Texas, to consider racial minorities in the drawing of congressional districts. Sure, those States must implement their plans by submitting their plans to the Federal Government for preclearance.
Look at the language minorities. Look at what's taking place in Texas. Look at what's taking place in New Mexico. New Mexico, a State that is 25 percent Latino, and the State legislature played games with what constitutes an effective congressional district that might give a Latino an opportunity to represent a congressional district in Congress. It plays both sides against the middle.
Both Democrats and Republicans, through history, Mr. Chairman, have used race as a partisan advantage in trying to draw congressional districts and legislative districts.
I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to reject this amendment at midnight; reject this unconstitutional, unprecedented attack on the civil rights of every American; reject efforts to undermine the implementation legislation of the 15th Amendment earned through an American Civil War, along with No. 13, 14, and 15; reject this effort to roll back the civil rights gains of 1965 by undermining the funding in the Federal Government's capacity to ensure that minorities have a chance to represent themselves in the Congress of the United States; reject this effort on this evening. Both Democrats and Republicans should reject it in a bipartisan manner.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
No comments:
Post a Comment