Fighting for the Right to Vote

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me and thank her so much for bringing this issue before the American people.

For several weeks now, we have all heard discussions about various aspects of H.R. 1 and H.R. 4. Now, H.R. 4, as all of us know, has not yet passed the Congress and is now before the Senate.

But I wanted to bring two issues to the forefront here this evening. The first one has to do with the so-called preclearance that we just heard a discussion on. I am serving in the Congress today in large part because of the preclearance in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

But preclearance came into being because of some targeted legislation, legislation targeted toward those States that had a history of discriminating. Therefore, because all the States did not have that kind of a history, we had to go out and develop a record to show that this is the reason these particular States are being targeted. All or parts of seven States were initially covered and, of course, we all know what happened in Shelby County v. Holder.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act was virtually gutted because the formula of section 4 is no longer operative. Therefore, section 5 has really been neutralized, which is the preclearance.

Here is something I want to bring to the attention of the American people, and that is this: If you were to only pass preclearance as it relates to a history of discrimination, we will miss what is happening in the country today. Pennsylvania was not one of those States. Yet, we see massive discrimination in voting being advocated throughout Pennsylvania. The same thing is going on up in Michigan.

Now, according to the studies I have read, 48 States have now put into place or proposed--I think 28 of them have put into place-- restrictive voting laws. Under the standard of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, these States would not be covered. Therefore, it is time for everybody to turn their attention to what we need to do about preclearance.

I submit that preclearance needs to be applied universally to all 50 States, because if you pass preclearance, zeroing in on seven, eight, nine States, and then another State pops up with a new restrictive law, that State would not be covered under preclearance, and I think it is time for us to take a look at that as well.

Madam Speaker, I call upon my friends in the Senate to not wait around for us to develop this record, though I think it is pretty much in place, look at applying preclearance to all 50 States.

The second thing I think that we are needing to begin to think about that is not being discussed is this little thing called nullification; states enacting nullification laws. If you look at the Georgia law that they passed, it is very suppressive. It restricts. The thing that is insulting to me is that little part in there that allows an established commission to overturn the results of an election, to nullify the results of an election. None of us are using that word today, but that word is very prominent when you look at what States are doing.

That violates not just laws as passed by this Congress, that violates the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear. Article I, Section 4 tells us that no State can pass final judgment on federal elections. No State. The best argument for that is sitting right there in The Federalist Papers No. 59. It talks about it and lays out examples as to why the Federal Government cannot allow States to determine the election.

That is why the Supreme Court made it very clear that States could not put term limits on Members of Congress because that is not their purview. When you see nullification laws coming forward, I think it is incumbent upon this Congress to step in and do what is necessary to exert the Constitution of the United States. That is what is at threat here today. That is why I have argued irrespective of what you may feel about filibusters.

Filibusters ought not be applied to anybody's constitutional rights because it will allow a State to give final determination as it relates to federal elections, and that is as unconstitutional as anything that can take place.

Madam Speaker, I think that it is incumbent upon the Federal Government, the Congress, the House of Representatives, and the Senate to do what is necessary to make sure that the United States Constitution still reigns supreme.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina for his comments. He clearly acted, as I indicated, and that is, he presented the history, but he brought us to the 21st century and 2021. I think the challenge that we are now offering to the American people, incredulously, how can anyone try to undermine the votes of any American, and particularly those Americans of color?

As I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, let me at least just depict for a moment the uniqueness of our history, for this picture is a picture of a whipped, beaten back of a slave. That means that we had extraordinary conditions, extraordinary circumstances. In the 1800s preceding and around the Emancipation Proclamation, I will just read these words as I yield: Congress put forward the 15th Amendment and it made it very clear that:

No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the rights of any citizen of the United States to vote on the account of race, or color, or language minority status.

This was coming out of slavery when they had the 13th Amendment that eliminated slavery but didn't eliminate stigma and institutional racism, gave due process, and then gave the right to vote out of the history of what is depicted here. That is why this is so serious that an institutional rule cannot survive over the right to vote, and the big lie cannot supersede the right to vote.

It is my pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), who is a historian and professor in her own right and spent her life's work teaching at historically Black colleges which were born out of the seeds or born out of the quagmire and the fires of slavery but born to make a difference. She has been a champion for the HBCUs and understands what the denial of the vote and voting rights means to that constituency.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source