AP offers this updated report. The report picked up the LCCR’s talking points by referring to the proactive bailout amendment as “turning the ‘bail out’ process upside down.” Of course, it does not do that. Three-judge courts would still have to approve a bailout, and consider any objections made to any bailout requests that DOJ would consent to. That is not upside down at all.
After the break, I am posting the LCCR talking points, and other material that’s been sent to me on today’s House Debate. (Some of the formatting may be a bit off.)

1. LCCR Talking points:

Voting Rights Act Reauthorization (H.R. 9)
Talking Points on Amendments
Norwood #8 — “Update” the Trigger
Replaces the existing Section 5 coverage formula with one keyed to whether a jurisdiction has a test or device or voter turnout of less than 50% in any of the three most recent presidential elections.
• The coverage formula does not need to be changed in order for it to be up to date. The current formula correctly identifies jurisdictions that have the longest and worst history of voter disenfranchisement and entrenched discrimination. Jurisdictions free of discrimination for ten years can come out from under coverage. Those with continuing problems remain covered. And those where a court finds new constitutional violations can become covered.
• If the existing coverage formula were to be replaced with a formula that relies on 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential election data, it would amount to a repeal of Section 5, even though we know that voting discrimination continues in the currently covered jurisdictions.
• Utilizing recent presidential election turnout data to determine who should be covered by Section 5 preclearance would be confusing the symptom with the disease. In 1965, Congress used registration and turnout data to select which states should be subject to federal pre-approval of voting changes because that was the way to best identify those places with the longest and worst history of voter disfranchisement and entrenched discrimination by recalcitrant jurisdictions. Congress understood that while the formula for identifying the worst actors could be designed this way, the way out of Section 5 coverage was keyed to whether the discrimination had ended.
• The Supreme Court considers both the history and ongoing nature of voting rights infringements in weighing Congress’s legislative power to enforce voting rights. Thus, the years 1964, 1968, and 1972 are still relevant in recognizing the long history and ongoing nature of voting rights abuses and in identifying those jurisdictions in which minority voters are most in need of Section 5 protections.
• This amendment hurts the constitutionality of a renewed section 5. The current coverage formula targets jurisdictions where Congress found a record of pervasive discrimination in voting on the basis of race. There is no evidence that this proposed new trigger targets such jurisdictions, raising the strong possibility the Supreme Court would say that a revised VRA with the Norwood amendment is unconstitutional.
Westmorland #4 –Proactive Bailout
Requires the Attorney General to annually determine whether each state and political subdivision subject to Section 5 preclearance requirements meets the requirements for bailout. Requires the AG to then inform the public and each state and political subdivision that they are eligible to bail out. Also requires that the AG consent to the bail out in federal court.
• This amendment turns Section 5 on its head. Under this amendment, instead of enforcing the Voting Rights Act and stopping voting discrimination, the Department of Justice will be forced to spend nearly all of its time conducting investigations to determine where discrimination no longer exists. In the meantime, voting discrimination and constitutional violations will not be addressed.
• This amendment would cripple the Voting Section at DOJ, making enforcement of the Act nearly impossible. There are nearly 900 jurisdictions covered nationwide by Section 5. Under the proposed amendment, determinations of whether a jurisdiction has a clean bill of health will require the Attorney General to dedicate considerable resources to making these determinations, and little else. This amendment has the effect of requiring coverage determinations be made by the Attorney General each year.
• This amendment also reverses the longstanding requirement that jurisdictions bear the burden of establishing that they are free from discrimination by placing that burden on the Attorney General. Jurisdictions are uniquely positioned with the evidence showing whether or not voting discrimination is still present.
• The current bailout provision in Section 4(a) of the Act provides a reasonable and cost-effective opportunity for qualifying jurisdictions to bailout any time after they meet the criteria. All eleven jurisdictions that have sought bailout have been successful. The cost for bailout actions has averaged only $5,000.
King #7 – Repeal Section 203
Repeals the requirement in the Voting Rights Act that requires certain jurisdictions with concentrations of citizens who don’t speak English very well to provide language assistance to voters who need it.
• This amendment is an attack on the fundamental right to vote for millions of citizens across the country.
• This is not about immigration. According to the most recent information from the Census, more than 70% of citizens who use language assistance are native born, including Native Americans, Alaska natives and Puerto Ricans.
• The denial of language assistance to citizens who need it amounts to a modern-day literacy test for voting.
• Ballots are often too complicated even for native English speakers. To deny needed assistance to American citizens goes against who we are as a democracy.
Gohmert #14 — Reduce the reauthorization period from 25 to 10 years
Reduces the reauthorization period from 25 to 10 years.
• The evidence presented in the House record demonstrates a level of continued discrimination that is unlikely to be eradicated in 10 years.
• In the past, when Congress has reauthorized the Act for short periods of time, it created an incentive for jurisdictions to “wait out” their obligations, rather than comply, thus contributing to the widespread non-compliance with the statute that continued into the late 1970s.
• A 10 year renewal of the act would be inadequate. In order for Congress to assess whether a pattern of discriminatory conduct remains, it must be able to review voting changes through multiple redistricting cycles. The three years following the decennial Census are a time of the highest volume of voting changes and the greatest opportunity for discrimination.
• Congress’s own experience with the renewal of the Voting Rights Act demonstrates a pattern of lengthening the period of coverage as experience revealed the level of entrenchment and intractability of voting discrimination.
• Given the extensive investment of Congressional resources expended by the Judiciary Committee in compiling and considering the detailed record necessary for reauthorization, reenacting the statute for 10 years rather than 25 is inefficient.

Anticipated Floor Schedule

ANTICIPATED FLOOR SCHEDULE
On Thursday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes expected: 5:30-6:30 p.m.
One Minutes (5 per side)
H.R. 9 – Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 (Structured Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Sensenbrenner / Judiciary Committee)
The rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate and makes in order the following amendments:
Norwood Amendment (40 minutes of debate)
Gohmert Amendment (40 minutes of debate)
King (IA)/Istook/Miller (MI)/Brown-Waite/Bachus Amendment (40 minutes of debate)
Westmoreland Amendment (40 minutes of debate)
Special Orders
FRIDAY`S FORECAST
On Friday, there are no votes expected in the House.
###
The Whipping Post is also available in a PRINTABLE PDF VERSION and online at http://www.majoritywhip.gov, where you can also subscribe or unsubscribe to this e-mail list

Tri-Caucus Letter

TriCaucus (CAPAC, CBC and CHC) Opposes ALL Amendments to H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) Reauthorization Bill
Dear Colleague:
The TriCaucus strongly opposes ALL amendments to H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) Reauthorization Bill, and urges the passage of a clean VRA bill.
All of these amendments are inconsistent with the spirit and the intent of the VRA. We strongly oppose these poison pills:
D Norwood Amendment would radically alter the current formula for Section 5 coverage. The TriCaucus believes the current formula is still useful in recognizing and addressing the long history and ongoing nature of voting rights abuses. In the VRA’s “bail out” provisions, jurisdictions that have been free of discrimination for ten years can be removed from Section 5 coverage.
D Westmoreland Amendment would give the Attorney General authority to expedite the Section 5 “bailout” process. The TriCaucus believes this amendment turns Section 5 on its head as the Department of Justice will be forced to spend its time conducting investigations to determine where discrimination no longer exists. In the meantime, voting discrimination will not be addressed.
D King Amendment would strike Section 203, the language assistance provisions, from the reauthorization bill. The TriCaucus believes that the VRA without Section 203 is NO VRA. This amendment would permit discrimination against taxpaying American citizens based on their language abilities, which amounts to a modern day literacy test.
D Gohmert Amendment would re-authorize the expiring sections of the Voting Rights Act for 10 years, rather than the 25 years in the underlying bill. The TriCaucus believes that extensive Judiciary Committee hearings, as well as the work of the Civil Rights Community over the past year, demonstrate the need to renew the relevant sections of the VRA for at least 25 years.
While we all look forward to the day when the VRA will not be needed to protect the rights of voters against discrimination – we are not there yet. We need to protect every taxpaying citizen’s constitutional right to vote. The Tri-Caucus urges a NO vote on all amendments to H.R. 9. If you have any questions or need information on the amendments, contact our offices: Victoria Tung (CAPAC) at 5-2631, Angela Ramirez (CHC) at 5-2410, or Paul Brathwaite (CBC) at 6-9776.
Sincerely,
______________________
Rep. Mike Honda, Chair
CAPAC
______________________
Rep. Grace Napolitano, Chair, CHC
______________________
Rep. Mel Watt, Chair
CBC

Norwood Letter

Help Keep the Voting Rights Act Constitutional!
Dear Colleague:
I am pleased the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, & Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization
and Amendments Act of 2006 (H.R. 9) is once again on the Floor for consideration.
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) successfully undid the wrongs of a darker period in our country’s history
regarding voting discrimination. I believe the VRA must be allowed to continue to challenge voting
discrimination wherever it may exist. But for this to happen the VRA must be updated to act as an effective protection for 21st century minority voting rights or the Supreme Court may very well strike down the Act.
This cannot be allowed to happen.
In 1966 the Supreme Court made clear Section 5 of the VRA, or “preclearance” was only constitutional
because it was “narrowly tailored” to address a specific and important problem and its “temporary” nature
excused the Congressional infringement on the state’s role in managing their elections.
There has been no hard evidence presented of continuing systematic discrimination in Section 5 states and
with a 25 year renewal, temporary is simply not an appropriate description. That is why Floor consideration
of the Norwood amendment to H.R. 9 is essential to beat back any court challenge.
My amendment toughens the rules and penalties of the VRA & places every state under those
rules — modernizing the VRA and once again making it relevant to the current challenges we face.
Section 4 of the VRA is a formula used to determine which states and other jurisdictions will be covered by Section 5. The current formula is dependent on: the existence of discriminatory tests (poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literary tests, etc.) and a voter participation rate of less than fifty percent, both circa 1964. My amendment will update the formula of Section 4. States would still be prohibited from implementing unfair
tests, but the fifty percent clause would be updated to a new rolling formula based on the last three
presidential elections.
Any jurisdiction that failed to meet this criteria would be subject to Section 5 until it proved for three
consecutive presidential elections that it had addressed its’ problems. My amendment will therefore both
expand protections, and protect this historic civil rights legislation from future court challenges.
If you have further questions or would like to speak on the amendment please contact J.P. Paluskiewicz in my office at x5-4101.
Sincerely,
Charlie Norwood
Member of Congress

Another Norwood Letter

July 12, 2006
Strengthen and Enhance the Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act
Dear Colleague,
Making sure that the voting rights of ALL U.S. citizens are guaranteed goes to the very heart of our republic. For that reason, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 was effective in undoing many of the wrongs of a dark period in our country’s history of voting discrimination.
For that reason, the VRA was deemed an appropriate expansion of Congressional power because of the gravity and history of discrimination in our nation. Particularly, Section 5 of the VRA, a temporary measure, has passed Constitutional muster because of the complexity and depth of the problems it sought to address. But times have changed.
Today’s voting irregularities are much different from those of the 1960s. The days of “Jim Crow laws” are thankfully no more, and hence we cannot combat voting suppression the same we did in 1965. For that reason, the VRA must be updated to penalize those states that need federal regulation based on their current election procedures, not those who have worked so hard and succeeded in overcoming their past mistakes.
Section 4 of the VRA is a formula used to determine which states and other jurisdictions will be covered by Section 5. The current formula is dependent on: the existence of discriminatory tests (poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literary tests, etc.) and a voter participation rate of less than fifty percent, both circa 1964. My amendment will update this formula. States would still be prohibited from implementing unfair tests, but the fifty percent test would be updated to a new rolling formula based on the last three presidential elections.
I believe the VRA has worked in the South, and in my beloved Georgia. With my amendment, Georgia will not immediately come from under Section 5, but we will have a chance to overcome a realistic hurdle if we continue to do the right thing.
Moreover, this reauthorization gives us a unique opportunity to modernize the law so those states that currently are not living up to the original law’s intent can be monitored by the Justice Department instead of just those states that were guilty of wrongdoing more than three decades ago and since have made great strides towards change.
If you have further questions please contact J.P. Paluskiewicz in my office at x5-4101.
Sincerely,
Charlie Norwood
Member of Congress

Westmoreland Letter

Support the Westmoreland Amendment
Preserve the Voting Rights Act
Dear Colleague:
The House will consider my amendment relating to proactive bailout today during the debate to renew the Voting Rights Act (H.R. 9). I believe my amendment will strengthen the VRA.
So does Professor Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School. He is not known as a conservative, and he wrote an editorial in Roll Call this week urging all members, including Democrats, to seriously consider the proposal as a way to help ensure the VRA renewal will be found constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Under the current Voting Rights Act, jurisdictions can “bail out” from coverage if they meet a stringent set of guidelines demonstrating respect for minority voting rights. But since 1982, only 11 jurisdictions (all counties in Virginia) have bailed out from coverage out of the hundreds covered by the VRA. This demonstrates the need for making the bailout process easier, which my amendment accomplishes.
FACT: The amendment requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to assemble a list each year of jurisdictions that are eligible for bailout based on its analysis, and notify the public and those jurisdictions of their status. DOJ would have three years to assemble the first list.
FACT: The DOJ would then be required to consent to an entry of declaratory judgment in the DC District Court (procedure for bailout) by the jurisdiction, drastically reducing the cost and fact-finding necessary to achieve bailout under the statute.
The VRA is more likely be found constitutional with passage of this amendment because it has a better procedure in place to remove jurisdictions from coverage when they have shown a consistent respect for the voting rights of minority citizens.
For more information, please contact Bryan Tyson in my office at 5-5901.
Sincerely,
/s/ Lynn A. Westmoreland
Member of Congress

Another Westmoreland Letter

Get the Truth:
Don’t Believe the Mel Watt Misinformation on the VRA
Dear Colleague:
In a column this morning in Roll Call, Congressman Mel Watt questions my motives in my efforts to strengthen the Voting Rights Act.
He cites two reasons for this-he claims I was an “architect” of the photo ID for voting requirement in the Georgia state Legislature. He also claims the court that rejected the requirement found it in violation of the VRA.
The truth is that I was already a member of Congress when the state Legislature passed legislation requiring all voters to show a photo ID prior to voting. The bill passed during the 2005 legislative session, when I was already serving in Washington. To say I was an architect of the proposal is simply not true.
The court that rejected Georgia’s photo ID law did so entirely on the basis of the U.S. Constitution, and specifically did NOT rule on the Voting Rights Act implications of the requirement. In addition, the Justice Department precleared the photo ID requirement, further demonstrating that the VRA did not provide protections in this circumstance.
This debate has become far too much about name-calling instead of real facts and real policy solutions. The fact is that liberal law professors Rick Hasen and Sam Issacharoff, both prominent in the election law field, have serious concerns about the constitutionality of the VRA if it is renewed without changes, as H.R. 9 proposes to do.
We must act to update the VRA for today’s problems, and not make the assumption that nothing has changed since 1965. Relying on name-calling and misinformation is just another tactic used by supporters of H.R. 9 to distract from the real issues at hand.
Get the facts. Support the amendments. And strengthen the VRA so its protections will remain for future generations.
Sincerely,
/s/ Lynn A. Westmoreland
Member of Congress

King Amendment

Vote YES on King-Istook-Miller(MI)-Brown Waite-Bachus Amendment to Lift Foreign Language Voting Mandate
Dear Colleague,
The King amendment would lift the federal foreign language voting mandate so it would expire in 2007.
Under the King Amendment:
· If states or localities chose to offer translations, they would free to do so, but they would not be subject to a federal, unfunded mandate.
· Voters still have the right under federal law to bring the translator of their choice in to the polls with them under the King Amendment. “Any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason … inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter’s choice…” 42 USC 1973aa-6
· The King amendment gives local control back to jurisdictions so they can decide for themselves whether they want to translate ballots.
· The King amendment has no effect on the census. It merely strikes the VRA section that specifies which census data to use to decide whether the federal mandate for foreign ballots applies.
I hope you will support my amendment to lift this unfunded, federal mandate and let states or localities decide when foreign language ballots are necessary.
Sincerely,
/s
STEVE KING
Member of Congress

more to come….
ACLU Press Release

ACLU Condemns Representative Westmoreland’s Attempts to Weaken Voting Rights Act
Representative Westmoreland Misrepresents ACLU Report to Suggest Georgia’s Voting Problems are a Thing of the Past
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Rachel Perrone
(202) 675-2312
Washington, DC – The ACLU today had strong words for Representative Westmoreland, the Georgia Republican who has lobbied tirelessly for the dilution of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), that requires jurisdictions with significant histories of discrimination to get federal approval of any new voting practices or procedures. Throughout discussions of the VRA, Representative Westmoreland continues to refer to the work of the ACLU as merely documenting “alleged voting problems” in his state, despite both recent and numerous court findings of discrimination against Georgia.
“Representative Westmoreland has mischaracterized the report of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project – an 800-plus page report summarizing its voting rights litigation docket of almost 300 cases from 1982-2004,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Despite his assertions to the contrary, Georgia’s abysmal record of protecting the rights of its minority citizens provides undeniable evidence underscoring the need to continue the vital protections of the VRA in Georgia. It is disingenuous, at best, to say that the documented abuses in Georgia are merely ‘alleged voting problems.'”
Since the VRA was last reauthorized in 1982, the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project (VRP) has brought more litigation to enforce voting rights in Georgia than in any other state. From 1982 to 2005, the ACLU initiated a total of 141 voting rights lawsuits in Georgia, a substantial portion of which were brought under Section 5. Moreover, more than 70% of the total lawsuits filed by the VRP offer concrete evidence and court findings of the continued efforts by Georgia officials to discriminate against minority voters. In all of these instances, Georgia had to change its conduct with respect to its minority voters.
“As documented in our report, Georgia is only one of many examples of states that continue to discriminate against its citizens. The facts show that the expiring provisions are still very much needed today. Members of Congress should not be fooled by the misuse of the ACLU’s litigation record. We urge the House of Representatives to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act, without amendment and without delay,” said Fredrickson. “This Voting Rights Act has had strong bipartisan support throughout its history. Congress must not allow a small group of dissenters to weaken an Act that has protected voting rights for millions of Americans.”
# # #
To read the ACLU’s letter to Congress on Representative Westmoreland and Section 5, go to: http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/26137leg20060711.html.
To read more about the ACLU’s campaign to renew the Voting Rights Act, go to: http://www.votingrights.org/.

More Norwood

July 13, 2006
Support the Norwood Amendment to H.R. 9!
Dear Colleague:
I am pleased H.R. 9 is once again up for consideration. Later today my amendment will be considered
to toughen the rules and penalties of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) & place every state under those
rules — modernizing the VRA and once again making it relevant to current challenges.
Professor Ronald Keith Gaddie Ph.D., of the University of Oklahoma, who has testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on updating the VRA, states in today’s Roll Call: “{ The Norwood Amendment} acknowledges a political reality of significant gains in participation in areas long-covered by the Voting Rights Act, while also continuing and extending coverage in areas where voters are not participating, and where the need for stricter scrutiny of voting and registration practices could be in order.”
Further, he dispels a myth circulated by critics that my amendment would reduce coverage of Section 5 jurisdictions. To the contrary he writes: “instead, most of the currently covered jurisdictions continue to be covered, and other jurisdictions where we observe both racial strife and low political participation will fall under Section 5.”
Professor Carol M. Swain of Vanderbilt University Law writes in follow-up answers to testimony she presented before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “The trigger formula of Section 5 should be updated to correspond to the last three presidential elections, and it should be applied nationally to jurisdictions where document violations have occurred or continue to occur.”
Professor Swain, an African American is hardly known as a conservative but states that if she could propose one amendment to the VRA reauthorization: “The Swain Amendment would be similar to the amendment offered by Representative Charlie Norwood. I would link the original Voting Rights “trigger” to the three most recent presidential elections (1996, 2000, and 2004) and would extend preclearance requirements to all jurisdictions across the nation where voting rights violations continue to occur.”
Finally Samuel Issacharoff, a professor of constitutional law at the New York University Law School, is quoted in today’s Chicago Tribune: “To the extent that the coverage of jurisdictions . . . continues to be triggered by what happened in 1964, it puts a great deal of constitutional pressure on the continued vitality of the act.”
The VRA must be allowed to continue to challenge voting discrimination wherever it may exist. But
we must update the VRA to act as an effective protection for 21st century minority voting rights.
If you have further questions or would like to speak on the amendment please contact J.P. Paluskiewicz in my office at x5-4101.
Sincerely,
_____________
Charlie Norwood
Member of Congress