Senate Judiciary Committee Holds
Hearing On The Right To Vote
WASHINGTON
(Tuesday, May 20, 2008) – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) today convened a hearing to examine the
constitutional underpinnings of voting rights and to investigate
obstacles that impede access to the ballot box for all
Americans.
Several states
are currently considering policies that could erect barriers
between eligible voters and their constitutional right to
vote. Last month, a fractured Supreme Court denied a facial
challenge to a restrictive Indiana law requiring specific types
of photo identification before eligible voters are allowed to
cast their ballot.
Leahy’s
statement follows. Watch the hearing live and read witness
testimony
online.
# # # # #
Statement Of Senator Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary
Committee,
Hearing On “Protecting The
Constitutional Right To Vote For All Americans”
May 20, 2008
Two years ago, members of Congress
stood together on the Capitol steps to reaffirm our commitment
to achieving full democratic participation by reauthorizing the
Voting Rights Act. This Committee played a key role in
reinvigorating that landmark law. After nearly 20 hearings in
the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, we found that modern
day barriers to voting continue to persist in our country. Now,
only months away from an important Federal election, we are here
to examine barriers to the ballot box, and to look for ways to
ensure that the democratic process will be open to all
Americans.
Often times we associate voter
disenfranchisement with actions from a foregone era. We all
recall the courage and resilience of Americans who were bitten
by dogs, sprayed by water hoses, or beaten by mobs simply for
attempting to register to vote. We remember a time when
stubborn and recalcitrant state officials used discriminatory
devices such as poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and literacy
tests to exclude certain segments of our population from
voting. Progress has been made to forge a more inclusive
democracy but new voter disenfranchisement tactics arise in
every election year. This year is no different.
During the most recent mid-term
elections, we witnessed overt threats by armed vigilantes
attempting to intimidate Hispanic-American voters at the polls
in Arizona. We witnessed cross burnings intended to intimidate
African-American voters on the eve of an election in Louisiana.
We also saw organized efforts in Maryland to deceive minority
and low-income voters with false information about polling
locations and phony endorsements.
We know from the recent hearing in
the Senate Rules Committee that no credible evidence of
widespread, in-person voter fraud exists. That lack of
evidence, however, has not stopped efforts by Republican state
legislators in some states to pass restrictive photo ID laws.
We also know that photo ID laws
have already disenfranchised voters this year. Two weeks ago, a
dozen elderly nuns in Indiana were turned away from the polls
because they did not possess the required photo ID. I
understand that several of them held expired photo IDs that were
not sufficient under Indiana’s restrictive law.
Fortunately, last week, the
Missouri legislature opted not to follow Indiana’s lead by
passing a restrictive photo ID law. And just yesterday,
Governor Kathleen Sebelius acted to protect voter access in
Kansas. In her veto statement she declared that she could not
“support creating any roadblock to prevent our citizens from
adding their voices to the democratic discourse that makes our
nation great.”
Several members of this Committee
recently sent a letter to the Attorney General asking him to
direct the Department to vigorously enforce the Voting Rights
Act so that novel photo ID laws would not infringe on the voting
rights of racial minorities. We look forward to his response
and to continuing our oversight of the Civil Rights Division on
this issue.
Last week, the White House
withdrew the controversial nomination of former Department of
Justice Civil Rights Division official Hans Von Spakovsky to
serve on the important Federal Election Committee. While at the
Division, Mr. Von Spakovsky played a critical role in
politicizing the Department and reorienting the Civil Rights
Division’s focus away from its traditional mission of ensuring
voter participation. The Senate’s refusal to confirm him to the
FEC sends a strong message that we will not reward his efforts
at the Justice Department to obstruct the path to the ballot
box.
On the brink of an election with
record numbers of new voters, our government must remain
vigilant in protecting our precious right to vote. That means
now, more than ever, we need a Justice Department that will work
to ensure ballot access for all Americans.
Federal courts are also critical
to the protection of voting rights. At key moments in our
nation’s history, the Federal courts have acted to protect
unfettered access to the ballot box. When Virginia passed a law
four decades ago requiring voters to pay a $1.50 poll tax the
Supreme Court invalidated the law. Simply because the tax would
apply to every voter did not make it permissible under the
Constitution.
I regret that the current Supreme
Court was not as protective of the fundamental right to vote
last month when it failed to invalidate a restrictive Indiana
law requiring voters to present specific types of photo ID. Had
just two Justices been more protective of the right to vote,
those Sisters of Mercy in Indiana would have been able to vote
in the primary election two weeks ago. Because the burdensome
law was allowed to stand, those sisters and untold others were
disenfranchised. At a time when the Justice Department has
departed from enforcement of voting rights in favor of advancing
partisan goals, the Federal courts need to provide the check and
balance that the Framers of our Constitution intended.
Our great Nation was founded on
the radical idea of a participatory democracy. Our founding
document begins with “We the People.” Successive generations of
Americans have come together to amend our Constitution six times
to expand the
participation of its citizenry in the election of the
government—to former slaves, to women, to young people, to
include the direct election of Senators, and to prohibit poll
taxes. In this way, “We the people” have reiterated and
affirmed the fundamental importance of the right to vote. We
should all remember Judge Wisdom’s analysis in the 1963 case of
United States v. Louisiana,
where he noted that a law that burdens a citizen from access to
the franchise is a wall that must come down. His words are as
true today as they were 45 years ago.
I welcome our distinguished panel
of witnesses today. I look forward to your testimony.
# # # # #