SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan
for yielding.
I was the principal author of the Voting Rights Act extension in
2006, which did pass this House 390-33, and unanimously was passed by
the Senate.
{time} 1620
The Shelby County case concentrates on the constitutionality of
section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and that is the section that
requires pre-clearance of electoral changes in covered jurisdictions.
The plaintiffs in the Shelby County case allege that since things have
changed since 1965, section 5 is no longer applicable. They're wrong.
When Congress considered, in 2006, the extension of the Voting Rights
Act, including section 5, the Constitution Subcommittee of the House
Judiciary Committee had probably the most extensive legislative record
in the history of this Congress compiled, 12,000 pages on this side of
the Capitol, numerous hearings, numerous witnesses, including those who
were opposed to section 5, and even those who were opposed to the
entire concept of the Voting Rights Act. So every viewpoint was heard;
and the mountain of testimony, I don't think, can be equaled by any
other issue that Congress has discussed, in my memory, and maybe in the
history of the Republic.
I want to make two points. The first point is that all of that
testimony very clearly shows that, even in the years immediately prior
to 2006, there were attempts at discrimination made, mainly by local
governments, to attempt to disenfranchise minority voters. And, in
fact, over 700 requests for
[[Page H653]]
pre-clearance were denied, I believe, in the 10-year period prior to
the hearings being held. So there still are attempts being made to
disenfranchise minority voters, and the Congress found that; and that
legislative record should be enough to persuade the Court that those of
us who are elected representatives of the people had ample evidence to
make a considered judgment on this issue.
The second point that needs to be made is that, right from the
beginning of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, there was a procedure that
would allow a covered jurisdiction to bail out of section 5 coverage,
and that can be done by showing that there are no attempts to
disenfranchise minority voters to the satisfaction of the Justice
Department. A few jurisdictions have availed themselves of the bailout
provision and have succeeded and thus are no longer under section 5.
What the plaintiffs in the Shelby County case want to do is, rather
than going and presenting evidence that they are not discriminating
anymore and saying that they qualify for the bailout, they want to go
to court to throw the whole of section 5 out. It is like dealing with
this issue with a blunderbuss rather than with a rifle shot or a
surgical strike.
Now, if any of the plaintiffs in this case are clean, I believe that
they ought to tell the Court why they're going to court, rather than
using the provisions that have been in the law for close to 50 years to
bail out, because they are clean.
When I was in law school, I was always taught that when you wanted to
get equity, you ought to come in with clean hands. Well, if you have
clean hands, the bailout is made for you. And if you don't have clean
hands, then the Supreme Court should tell you to go wash up.
The Court should uphold the Voting Rights Act, should uphold section
5, as extensively considered by Congress and reauthorized, and rule in
favor of the government.
