Focus of Voting Rights Act Hearings Switches to Threats Kept at Bay
Feature Story by Tyler Lewis - 11/9/2005
This story is the third in a series on Congress' hearings on the Voting Rights Act of 1965.House Judiciary Committee hearings on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 continued on October 25, as witnesses turned their focus to the importance of the Section 5 preclearance provisions of the Act in preventing voter discrimination.
Under Section 5 the Act, states with a history of practices that restrict minority voting rights must obtain federal approval, or "preclearance," before changing their voting practices or procedures.
Witnesses testified about the continued threats to voting rights in states subject to Section 5, urging Congress to reauthorize the expiring provision.
In many Section 5 states, at-large voting and redistricting that dilutes minority voting power have inhibited minority representation at the local level, just as literacy tests and poll taxes did in the past, witnesses said.
Laughlin McDonald, director of the Voting Rights Project of the ACLU, spoke of these threats in Georgia, South Carolina, and South Dakota and Section 5's effectiveness as a deterrent.
"The continuing voting rights violations throughout the Section 5-covered jurisdictions, the deterrent of Section 5, as well as the role the Courts have played in thwarting attempts to diminish minority voting strength underscore the continuing need for the extension of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act," McDonald said.
Opponents to Section 5's reauthorization cite a decrease in number of objections by the Department of Justice as a reason the preclearance provision is no longer needed. McDonald said this argument "overlooks the deterrent effect of preclearance."
Members of the committee seemed to agree. Edward Blum's testimony that Section 5 was outdated was dismissed by Rep. Tom Feeney, R. Fla., who compared doing away with Section 5 with eliminating meat inspectors just because there is a drop in infected cows.
Nina Perales, Southwestern Regional Counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, cited 196 Section 5 objections in Texas since 1975, more than any other Section 5-covered state.
The expiring provisions come up for reauthorization in August 2007. In making the case for reauthorization for Section 5, Anita S. Earls, director of advocacy at the University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights said, "The rationale for reauthorizing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is simple. Its history demonstrates it works, but current conditions demonstrate that its purpose has not yet been fulfilled."
House Begins Hearings on Voting Discrimination and Reauthorization of the VRA
Witnesses Describe Effectiveness of Voting Rights Act
