Witnesses Describe Effectiveness of Voting Rights Act
Feature Story by Tyler Lewis - 10/24/2005
This story is the second in a series on Congress' hearings on the Voting Rights Act of 1965.House Judiciary Committee hearings Thursday on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 focused on the effectiveness of expiring provisions of the Act, and in particular, how the Act's federal approval requirements for states with a history of racial discrimination have prevented voting discrimination in countless instances around the country.
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.
Section 4 of the Act lays out the formula under which jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 preclearance. Such preclearance is required for jurisdictions that had a voting "test or device" as a prerequisite for voting or registration during the elections of 1964, 1968 or 1972, where less than 50% of the voting-age residents were registered to vote, or actually voted, in those elections.
Currently, all or part of 16 states are subject to Section 5 preclearance.
Witnesses at Thursday's hearing testified about the continued threats to voting rights in states that require Section 5 preclearance and how the Act has kept them at bay.
Jose Garza, voting rights counsel for the League of United Latin American Citizens, discussed a case in Taft, Texas, where voting discrimination against Latinos led to the perpetuation of city-run segregated communities.
Armand Derfner, a voting rights lawyer from South Carolina who has testified at past hearings on the Act's reauthorization, discussed instances of voter discrimination in South Carolina, including manipulation of city boundaries to benefit white voters, harassment of poor or black voters, and at-large elections.
Derfner also discussed the design of the Act, calling Section 4 its "original heart" in that it also triggers oversight of registration and election processes, bans literacy tests, and protects language minorities.
He explained that while Congress "was confident that there would be widespread attempts to evade the Voting Rights Act, it could not predict exactly what forms those evasions would take." The vast majority of changes prompting Attorney General objection "have involved changes in representational systems, or, to put it in plainer terms, gerrymanders and related tactics," Derfner said.
The hearing also addressed Section 4's bailout provisions and whether or not to consider reauthorization in their current form. The bailout provisions were instituted to reward good behavior and to allow subdivisions of a jurisdiction that comply with the Act to be removed from the Act's requirements..
Under these provisions, a jurisdiction can be removed from coverage if it has been in full compliance with the preclearance requirements for the past 10 years; has not used a test or device to discriminate on the basis of race, color, or language minority status; and has no pending lawsuits alleging voting discrimination..
Since 1997, nine jurisdictions - all in Virginia - have used this provision. Augusta, Virginia's bailout is currently pending at the Department of Justice.
"Members of Congress asked important questions about the bailout provisions and recognized that the practicality of those provisions have worked well over the last 20 years," said Gerry Hebert, a former Department of Justice attorney who testified on those provisions. "Congress has started a valuable process of gathering info about why the VRA has worked effectively and is a law worth renewing."
The hearings continue on October 25 and 27.
House Begins Hearings on Voting Discrimination and Reauthorization of the VRA
