<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27336.wais]
FANNIE LOU HAMER, ROSA PARKS, AND CORETTA SCOTT KING VOTING RIGHTS ACT
REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006 (PART II)
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 9
__________
MAY 4, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-119
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-336 PDF WASHINGTON :2006
________________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
MIKE PENCE, Indiana DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on the Constitution
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JERROLD NADLER, New York
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
Paul B. Taylor, Chief Counsel
E. Stewart Jeffries, Counsel
Hilary Funk, Counsel
Kimberly Betz, Full Committee Counsel
David Lachmann, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 4, 2006
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution.. 1
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee on the
Constitution................................................... 2
The Honorable Melvin L. Watt, a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina, and Member, Subcommittee on the
Constitution................................................... 3
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary 5
The Honorable Mike Honda, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California............................................ 5
WITNESSES
Ms. Rena Comisac, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
The Honorable Chris Norby, Supervisor, Fourth District, Orange
County Board of Supervisors
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Ms. Karen Narasaki, President and Executive Director, Asian
American Justice Center
Oral Testimony................................................. 40
Prepared Statement............................................. 42
Dr. James Thomas Tucker, Voting Rights Consultant, NALEO
Educational Fund, and Adjunct Professor, Barrett Honors
College, Arizona State University
Oral Testimony................................................. 57
Prepared Statement............................................. 59
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution....................... 108
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Melvin L. Watt, a
Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina,
and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution................... 110
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California........ 110
Response to post-hearing questions from Rena Comisac, Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice.......................................... 112
Letter from Loren Leman, Lieutenant Governor of Alaska, in
response to testimony by the Leadership Conference, and a
report by Native American Rights Fund Attorney Natalie
Landreth, and law student Moira Smith, presented before the
Subcommittee on the Constitution............................... 115
Letter in support of reauthorization from Larry Naake, Executive
Director, National Association of Counties (NACO).............. 119
Letter in opposition to reauthorization from Mark C. Scott,
Esquire, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioners of Berks
County, Pennsylvania........................................... 121
Letter in opposition to reauthorization from Steve Tatarenko,
Councilman, Clifton, New Jersey................................ 123
Prepared Statement of Jan Tyler, former Denver Election
Commissioner, Denver, Colorado................................. 125
FANNIE LOU HAMER, ROSA PARKS, AND CORETTA SCOTT KING VOTING RIGHTS ACT
REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006 (PART II)
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m., in
Room 2142, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve
Chabot (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Chabot. The Committee will come to order. This is the
Subcommittee on the Constitution. We welcome everyone here this
afternoon. This is the second hearing that this Committee has
had today and it's actually the 12th hearing that we have had
on the Voting Rights Act since we started this process about 7
months ago.
And as I mentioned, this is the Subcommittee on the
Constitution. I'm Steve Chabot, the Chair, and this is the
second of two legislative hearings the Committee is holding on
H.R. 9, which is the ``Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and
Amendments Act of 2006.''
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here this
afternoon. And I gave a longer opening statement this morning;
therefore, I will keep my remarks relatively short this
afternoon.
This afternoon's hearing will focus specifically on the
provisions of H.R. 9 that reauthorize section 203, the
bilingual election assistance provisions, for an additional 25
years and makes certain amendments to section 203 to reflect
recent changes to the United States Census Bureau's methods of
collecting data.
In addition to these provisions we will discuss concerns
expressed by many about what is required of jurisdictions
covered by section 203, especially as interpreted,
administered, and enforced by the Department of Justice.
English has been, and continues to be, the force that
unified this country, and speaking English should be a
requirement which all citizens of this country meet. However,
the record shows that many of our citizens experience barriers
to the political process because of language impediments, which
our witnesses will discuss further today.
In reauthorizing section 203, the Committee seeks to ensure
that all citizens continue to have the opportunity to
participate in the political process, including those who are
continuing their efforts to learn English. However, we must
also ensure that we provide needed assistance to municipalities
so that these obligations do not become overly burdensome.
As I said, we look very much forward to the panel, the very
distinguished panel that we have here before us this afternoon.
And at this time I note that Mr. Nadler is coming shortly.
I don't know if, Mr. Scott, you wanted to make an opening
statement or if you wanted to wait until Mr. Nadler comes or if
you would like to speak on your own.
Mr. Scott. I would like to speak on my own, if you don't
mind.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. And recognize Mr. Nadler as the Ranking Member
when he appears.
Mr. Chabot. That's fine.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you, as
we mentioned this morning, for the hard work that you have done
on a bipartisan basis with Representative Watt and others.
Appreciate the hard work that you have put in to get us to the
point where we are now.
Mr. Chairman, in the 40 years since its passage, the Voting
Rights Act has guaranteed millions of minority voters a chance
to have their voices heard and their votes counted. The number
of Black elected officials has increased from just 300
nationwide in 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act, to
more than 9,100 today. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and other
discriminatory schemes that once effectively closed the ballot
box have been dismantled. The process has also opened the
political process for many of the nearly 6,000 Latinos who now
hold public office, including more than 250 that serve at the
State or Federal level.
Section 203 was added to the Voting Rights Act in 1975 and
requires certain jurisdictions to make language assistance
available at polling locations for citizens with limited
English proficiency. These provisions apply to four language
groups: American Indians, Asian Americans, Alaskan natives, and
those of Spanish heritage. A community with one of those
language groups will qualify for language assistance if more
than 5 percent of the Voting Act citizens in the jurisdiction
belong to a single language minority and have limited English
proficiency, or more than 10,000 voting-age citizens in the
jurisdiction belong to a single language minority and have
limited English proficiency, and the illiteracy rate among
citizens with the language minority is higher than the national
average.
Mr. Chairman, it is significant that these thresholds mean
that there is a critical mass, possibly sufficient to vote
somebody out of office, and therefore there would be an
incentive to try to discourage those people from voting. This
requirement requires that if you have that kind of critical
mass, you have to provide the language assistance.
Mr. Chairman, registration and voting materials for all
elections must be provided to the minority group in the
minority language as well as in English. Oral translation
during all phases of the voting process, from registration to
Election Day poll workers, is also required. Jurisdictions are
permitted to target the language assistance to specific voting
precincts or areas where they are needed.
It is crucial that everyone in our democracy have a right
to vote. Yet having a right legally is meaningless if certain
groups of people, such as those with limited English
proficiency or those who are disabled, are unable to accurately
cast their ballot at the polls. Voters may well be informed of
the issues and candidates but to make sure their vote is
accurately cast, language assistance is necessary in certain
jurisdictions with concentrated populations of limited English-
proficient voters.
It is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that those who are
born in Puerto Rico are American citizens, and yet they may not
be fluent in English. And even though most new citizens are
required to speak English, they still may not be sufficiently
fluent to participate fully in the voting process without much-
needed assistance.
Before language assistance provisions were added to the
Voting Rights Act, many Spanish-speaking citizens just did not
bother to register to vote because they could not read the
election material and could not communicate with poll workers.
The fact is that language assistance has encouraged these and
other citizens of different language minority groups to
register and vote and fully participate in the political
process, which is healthy for our democracy.
Mr. Chairman, the language assistance is not costly. One of
the reasons is that a lot of the compliance doesn't cost
anything extra at all. That is because if you have to hire a
poll worker anyway, hiring a poll worker who is bilingual
doesn't cost you any more than the poll worker you had to hire.
And so, therefore, many of the so-called expenses involved are
not expenses at all.
The compliance is extremely--the cost of compliance is
extremely limited. So section 203, which we're having a hearing
on today, is essential to ensuring fairness in our political
process and equal opportunity for all Americans and it is
imperative that this provision be renewed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott.
The gentleman from Florida is recognized if he would like
to make an opening statement.
Mr. Feeney. That is not necessary, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Feeney. The gentleman
from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, is recognized.
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. I want to
ask unanimous consent to submit my entire statement for the
record. But I feel like I need to address a couple of things.
Mr. Chabot. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Watt. Number one, this morning one of the witnesses
suggested that we had predetermined what would be in this bill
before we had any hearings, and somehow contrived the process
of what would be in the bill rather than using the hearings as
a constructive means of informing us.
And I, of course, denied that. And there is not a clearer
example of that than this--than the language provisions. I
mean, if I were drawing these language provisions, I think they
would be different. And while I stand behind the bill and
understand that it is a product of bipartisan agreement,
everybody needs to know that.
Second, there is this notion that perhaps this ought to be
part of the immigration debate or is connected in some way, and
that when we talk about these language provisions, that it is
about Mexicans or members of the Arab community.
I would just point out that, really, the Hispanic community
has been probably the least of the language minorities that has
been aggressive about this, because in most places they already
exceed the threshold that the statute provides for. So it is
not something that, if they were advocating solely for
themselves, would be as much of an issue. I don't mean to
minimize it, but it certainly--people need to understand that
in Chicago, voluntary voter assistance is provided in Polish,
Russian, Greek, German, Korean, and Serbian. In Boston, in
Spanish, Haitian Creole, Cape Verdian Creole, Vietnamese,
Portuguese, Chinese and Russian.
So this is not about the kind of typical immigration debate
that is going on in another context in our legislative
environment here.
I would just conclude by saying that the bill before us
today extends the current language assistance provisions of the
Voting Rights Act and that is supported by the record, not
something that was backed into or dealt with in some arbitrary
fashion. It does not discourage or prohibit any State or
political subdivision from doing more to open this process to
more voices, thereby enhancing our democracy.
I think the bill struck a good balance on this, and while
if I were drawing the bill solely by myself I might have done
differently, I certainly intend to support the provisions that
are in the bill.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back.
And we also have three--before we had one other as well--
Members; two of whom are Members of the full Judiciary
Committee and not actually Members of this Committee, and two
who are not Members of the Judiciary Committee at all. What our
practice has been thus far in this is to allow those Members to
have 5 minutes which they can choose to use either for an
opening statement or questioning the witnesses. Or if they
would like to, they can divide it up and take 2 minutes for an
opening statement and 3 minutes for questioning. At your
discretion, however you would like to do that.
And two of the Members here are representing their various
caucuses. One is the distinguished Member, Charlie Gonzalez
from Texas, who is the Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus. And we welcome you here, as always, very good friend of
mine, Charlie.
And we also are joined by the very distinguished gentleman
from California, Mr. Honda, who is the Chairman of the Asian
Pacific American Caucus.
And we also have two Judiciary Members here: Sheila Jackson
Lee from Texas and Linda Chavez from California.
Ms. Sanchez. Sanchez.
Mr. Chabot. What did I say?
Ms. Sanchez. Chavez.
Mr. Chabot. I'm sorry; I apologize. I don't know what I was
thinking.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you for not calling me Loretta.
Mr. Watt. We think that is the ultimate insult.
Mr. Chabot. I'm not going to touch that. I didn't say it
either. In fact, I didn't even laugh.
Ms. Jackson Lee, do you want to use your time now or do you
want to use your time for questioning?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I will split my time and very briefly say
that all eyes are on this Committee and on this Congress, on
the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, primarily because
of the pathway and the opportunity that was given through the
original passage in 1965.
I am very eager to hear the testimony of the witnesses and
I associate with words that I will be supporting this
legislation.
And my only comment I think I came in on Mr. Watt's
commentary, so I don't want to suggest that this is what he was
saying, but I am interested in the idea that there are many
languages in the United States, and I hope that we will have an
opportunity prospectively to be assured that everyone who is in
the United States has a right to vote. And that the fact that
language interpretation or different language is necessary to
exercise the right of a citizen, they should not be penalized
nor should they be condemned. So I think any attempt to
condemn, because language is needed to make sure that your
right to vote is exercised, should be eliminated from our
discussion and we should move forward.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman has 4
minutes remaining for questioning. Thank you.
The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Sanchez, is
recognized.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to reserve
my time for questions.
Mr. Chabot. Duly noted. Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. I also reserve my time for questioning.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take a few
minutes to make comments.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Nadler, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I want to thank you for allowing me to make an
opening statement at this important hearing on the
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.
Just 2 days ago H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization Amendments Act, was introduced to strengthen
and renew the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. I am
proud to be an original cosponsor of this historic measure. I
would like to personally thank the Members of this Committee
for their diligent work in conducting a thorough review of the
VRA.
Mr. Chairman, your Committee's extensive hearing record
showed that while substantial progress has been made in the
area of voting rights over the last 40 years, the provisions of
the VRA, including temporary provisions, remain a necessary
part of our efforts to protect the rights of every American
voter.
Last year I had the honor of being with our distinguished
colleague, Congressman John Lewis, and others in Alabama to
commemorate the 40th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. On that day
on March 7, 1965, on the Edmund Pettis Bridge outside of Selma,
Alabama, the Vivil Rights Movement continued its unwavering
steps forward. As we all know, civil rights activists, led by
Dr. King, took to the streets in a peaceful protest for voting
rights for African Americans. They were met with clubs and
violence. This dramatic event helped the Nation understand what
was at stake.
What makes the promise of this Nation a reality is the
ability to vote. The VRA helps to ensure that everyone who is
eligible to vote has that opportunity. This month is Asian
Pacific American heritage month and I'm here to underscore the
point that the right to vote is keenly felt by the Asian and
Pacific islander American community.
Chinese Americans could not vote until Chinese Exclusion
Acts of 1882 and 1892 were repealed in 1943. First-generation
Japanese Americans could not vote until 1952 because of the
racial restrictions contained in the 1790 naturalization law.
More recently, language minority citizens were often denied
needed assistance at the polls. In the 1975 amendments to the
Voting Rights Act, such language assistance became required in
certain situations, and I submit to you today that section
203's impact and importance to language minority communities
has only grown.
When I was a supervisor in Santa Clara County, California,
I led an effort to get sample ballots printed in English and
Chinese. And I know firsthand how important this was to the
community. Their participation increased by 11 percent. And the
Vietnamese ballots, we made them available upon request.
I am looking forward to hearing from our distinguished
panel today. I am especially looking forward to important
testimony from my good friend, Karen Narasaki, President and
Executive Director of the Asian American Justice Center. Karen
Narasaki and AAJC have been at the forefront of protecting the
rights of Asian Americans. The record of evidence established
in her testimony will clearly show the importance of section
203 and other provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
Again I thank the Chair and Ranking Member and Subcommittee
Members for allowing me to make this statement today, and I
yield back.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Honda, and you have 2 minutes
remaining.
We would now like to--after stating that, without
objection, all Members would have 5 legislative days to submit
additional materials for the hearing record--we will introduce
our distinguished panel this afternoon.
Our first witness will be Ms. Rena Comisac. Ms. Comisac was
appointed Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil
Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in October of
2005, and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in April
of 2006. Prior to joining the Civil Rights Division, Ms.
Comisac served as Deputy Chief of Staff for the Criminal
Division. From 1998 to 2000 she worked as Assistant U.S.
Attorney for the middle district of Georgia, where she
prosecuted asset forfeiture in white collar crimes cases.
Ms. Comisac served as a staffer on the U.S. Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations from 1997 to 98 and
2000 to 2001. In addition, she served as staff on the Senate
Judiciary Committee from 2001 to 2004. We welcome you here this
afternoon, Ms. Comisac.
Our second witness will be the Honorable Chris Norby. Mr.
Norby was elected to the Orange County Board of Supervisors in
March 2002. He was sworn in as the Supervisor of the Fourth
District on January 6, 2003. Prior to his election to the Board
of Supervisors, Mr. Norby served on the Fullerton City Council
since 1984. He also served 3 years as the Mayor of Fullerton.
His 18 years of public service place him among the most senior
of Orange County's elected city officials. As a member of the
Orange County Board of Supervisors, Mr. Norby works to
implement structural reform for local governments. We welcome
you here this afternoon, Mr. Norby.
Our third witness is Karen Narasaki. Ms. Narasaki is
President and Executive Director of the Asian American Justice
Center. AAJC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan civil rights
organization whose mission is to advance the human and civil
rights of Asian Pacific Americans through advocacy, public
policy, public education and litigation.
Ms. Narasaki serves in a number of leadership positions in
the civil rights and immigrant rights communities. She is Vice
Chair of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. She is also
the Vice President of the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigrant
Reform and the Chairperson of the Rights Working Group. Before
joining AAJC, Ms. Narasaki was the Washington, D.C.
representative for the Japanese American Citizens League. Prior
to that, she was a corporate attorney at Perkins Coie in
Seattle, and served as a law clerk to Judge Harry Pregerson on
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We welcome you
here, Ms. Narasaki.
And our fourth and final witness is Dr. James Thomas
Tucker. Dr. Tucker is a Voting Rights Consultant for the
National Association for Latino Elected and Appointed Officials
Education Fund, with expertise in redistricting and voting
rights law. He is also a former senior trial attorney with the
voting section of the Department of Justice. Dr. Tucker's
litigation experience at the Justice Department included
Georgia v. Ashcroft, minority language assistance cases under
section 203, and Federal observer coverage, to name a few. He
has also published numerous articles on the Voting Rights Act
and voting law, including ``Minority Language Assistance
Practices in Public Elections.'' we welcome you here this
afternoon, Mr. Tucker.
For those of you who may not have testified before a
congressional Committee, we have what is called the 5-minute
rule. That is the time allotted to each of you to give your
testimony. We actually have two timepieces up there where there
will be a series of lights. The green light will be on for 4
minutes. The yellow light is a warning to let you know you have
1 minute remaining. And when the red light comes on, we would
appreciate it if you would wrap up as close to that as
possible. We won't gavel you down immediately, but if you could
stay within that we would be appreciative. And we will also
restrict ourselves to 5 minutes in questioning you all as well.
It is also the practice of this Committee to swear in all
witnesses appearing before it. So if you wouldn't mind, if you
could all please stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Chabot. All witnesses have indicated in the
affirmative. And we will now hear from our first witness.
Ms. Comisac you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF RENA COMISAC, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ms. Comisac. Thank you, Chairman Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. And you all need to turn the mike on. You did,
but you will need to turn the mike on.
Ms. Comisac. It is my privilege this afternoon to provide
you with an overview of the Justice Department's enforcement of
the minority language sections of the Voting Rights Act. Under
this Administration, the Justice Department has undertaken the
most extensive sections 203 and 4(f)(4) enforcement activities
in history.
The initiative began immediately following the Census
Bureau's 2002 determinations as to which jurisdictions are
covered under section 203. The Civil Rights Division not only
mailed formal notice and detailed information on section 203
compliance to each of the 296 covered jurisdictions, but we
also initiated face-to-face meetings with State and local
election officials and minority community members in the 80
newly covered jurisdictions to explain the law, to answer
questions, and to foster the implementation of effective legal
compliance programs. That is an effort that has been a
continuing one in the Justice Department.
In August 2004, the Assistant Attorney General for the
Civil Rights Division mailed letters to the 496 jurisdictions
covered by sections 203--or 4(f)(4)--reminding them of their
obligations in the November 2004 general elections and offering
them guidance on how to achieve compliance. This was the first
blanket mailing to the section 4(f)(4) jurisdictions since
shortly after their original designations in 1975.
The division's voting section has been systematically
requesting voter registration lists and bilingual poll
assistance data from all covered jurisdictions. This
information is then reviewed to identify polling places with a
large number of minority language voters and to ascertain
whether the polling places are served by a sufficient number of
bilingual poll officials who can provide assistance to voters.
We fully recognize that comparing voter registration lists
to the Census Bureau's Spanish surname list, place of birth
data, or other data, are imperfect measures of the language
need in a precinct. We use such data as a mere starting point
in our investigations. We also suggest it as a convenient
starting point for local election officials, in trying to
determine how and where best to meet the needs of their voters.
The division is also systematically looking at the full
range of information provided by covered jurisdictions to
voters in English, and determining whether the same information
is being made available to each minority language community in
an effective manner and whether necessary translated materials
are actually provided at the polling places.
These efforts have borne abundant fruit. Since 2001, this
Administration has filed more minority language cases under
sections 4 and 203 than in the entire previous 26 years in
which these provisions have been applicable. The lawsuits filed
in 2004 alone provided comprehensive minority language programs
to more citizens than all previous sections 203 and 4(f)(4)
suits combined.
Among these cases were the first suits ever filed under
section 203 to protect Filipino and Vietnamese voters. We
recognize, of course, that States and local jurisdictions do
not have unlimited budgets. We thus encourage and work with
local election officials to identify the most efficient
channels of communication to get information effectively to the
language minority community at low cost.
Our lawsuits have significantly narrowed gaps in electoral
participation. In Yakima County, Washington, for example,
Hispanic voter registration went up more than 24 percent in
less than 6 months after resolution of the division's section
203 lawsuit. In San Diego County California, Spanish and
Filipino registration was up 21 percent, and Vietnamese
registration was up more than 37 percent within 6 months of the
division's enforcement action.
The division's minority language enforcement efforts
likewise have made a tremendous difference in enhancing
minority representation in the politically elected ranks. For
example, a memorandum of agreement in Harris County, Texas,
helped double Vietnamese voter turnout, and the first
Vietnamese candidate in history was elected to the Texas
legislature, defeating the incumbent chair of the
Appropriations Committee by 16 votes, out of more than 40,000
cast.
Let me say in conclusion, that the Civil Rights Division
has made the vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act
language minority provisions, one of its primary missions. Our
enforcement program shows the continuing need for the minority
language provisions of the act, and we support their
reauthorization. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Comisac follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rena J. Comisac
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Norby, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHRIS NORBY, SUPERVISOR, FOURTH
DISTRICT, ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Mr. Norby. Thank you. My name is Chris Norby. I represent
the Fourth Supervisional District of Orange County, California,
including the cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, Placentia, LaHabra
and Buena Park. I will have to catch a 5:40 flight to Long
Beach and so I may not be able to stay for the entire hearing,
but I do thank you for listening to my testimony and I welcome
any questions at any time.
I would also like to enter into the record letters of three
other elected officials unable to be here, which I believe you
have a copy of--Mark Scott, who is a commissioner from Berks
County, Pennsylvania; Jan Tyler, elections officer from Denver,
Colorado; and Stephan Chaterenko from Clifton, New Jersey, who
have comments similar to mine. I believe you have these as
well.
Mr. Chabot. Without objection, they will be entered into
the record.
[The information referred to is printed in the Appendix.]
Mr. Norby. Our county has made it clear that we support
clear, reasonable, Voting Rights Act provisions and that they
not be subject to continual changes by Department of Justice
agents.
We suggest five specific improvements to the Voting Rights
Act:
Number one, accept naturalized voter self-description of
their own English ability. Speaking English well or very well
should both be considered adequate.
Two, non-English voting materials should only be provided
to those who request it.
Three, delete the numerical threshold of 10,000 which is
unrealistic in large urban counties, and raise the 5 percent
threshold to 10 percent.
Four, English fluency assumptions must never be based on a
voter's surname.
And number five, multilingual ballot provisions must not be
applied to petitions.
The multilingual ballot sections of the Voting Rights Act,
I believe, perpetuate negative stereotypes, are outdated,
vague, and violate the spirit of assimilation that holds our
country together. According to the current interpretation of
the VRA, my county of Orange must provide translations in
Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean. Yet in the 1995
special election, countywide, only seven-tenths of 1 percent of
our voters requested such materials.
The method for determining which voters are non-English
speaking is highly suspect. Census forms ask us whether we
speak English well, very well, not well, or not at all. Only
those checking ``very well'' are judged capable of voting in
English.
Speaking English well should be good enough, as it was
obviously good enough to pass the citizenship test. In
addition, all immigrants who have not finished the fifth grade
are presumed illiterate. When more than 5 percent, or 10,000
people, of the voting age population in the county meet these
criterion, non-English ballot requirements take effect.
If these standards are left unchanged after the 2010
census, my county could be required to translate into a
plethora of additional languages, including Tagalog, Hindi,
Punjabi, Urdu and Farsi, depending on future immigration
patterns.
Such confusing rules allow Department of Justice agents to
push us far beyond what the law actually requires. Last year,
at an expense of over $20,000 from our county general fund, we
were required to send about 120,000 outreach letters offering
naturalized voters foreign-language ballot materials. We got
hundreds of angry responses back from voters at the suggestion
they could not speak English based on their heritage. And these
cards have been provided to you--samples of these cards.
Department of Justice agents have now given our registrar a
list of Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese surnames. And
based on last names alone, we are told to assume that 25
percent of the voters with these last names are limited
English-speaking. And you have these surnames here, this list
which was provided to us by the Department of Justice. Most of
our voters with Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese
surnames were born in this country, while many others took
these names upon marriage. The rest all took citizenship tests
in English, and it is insulting to stereotype people's language
ability based on their last names.
I urge a total reexamination of the need for multilingual
ballots. If they are kept, again, five simple clarifications
would greatly improve the Voting Rights Act, and we have
submitted these in writing for your consideration:
One, accept naturalized voters' self-description of their
own English ability. Speaking English well should qualify.
Two, non-English voter material should only be provided to
those who request them. And we are being told by the Department
of Justice it is possible in the future we will have to have
all five translations of all languages published in the same
voter pamphlet and sent to all voters. This would cost us $20
million per election cycle and produce a sample ballot the size
of a phone book, and it would lead to an anti-immigrant
backlash. These practices are recruiting Minutemen that ask why
they have to be addressed because they are perpetuating
negative stereotypes.
English fluency assumptions must never be based on a
voter's surname. And multilingual ballot provisions must not
apply to petitions. We recently had a suit in the Ninth
District Court where our registrar was challenged because the
petition in a Santa Ana recall case was not also published in
Spanish. That is nowhere in the act. But judges must be told
that these provisions do not apply to petitions. That would put
a tremendous burden on those who would want to petition their
government and change their government. Let the values of the
Voting Rights Act reflect the civic value of assimilation, not
static schisms. Let voting be a tool for unity, not divisions.
Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norby follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Norby
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
ATTACHMENT 1
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
ATTACHMENT 2
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
ATTACHMENT 3
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mr. Chabot. Ms. Narasaki, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF KAREN NARASAKI, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ASIAN AMERICAN JUSTICE CENTER
Ms. Narasaki. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I am
pleased to be here to testify on behalf of the Asian American
Justice Center. One of our top priorities has long been the
elimination to discriminatory barriers to voting. We have
worked in partnership with local Asian American community-based
organizations and the Department of Justice to ensure
compliance with the Voting Rights Act. And we commend the
leadership and the Chairs and Ranking Members of both the House
and Senate Judiciary Committees and Subcommittees in working
together to ensure that Congress has a full record to review as
it considers the reauthorization of this very important piece
of legislation.
I'd like to request that my full written statement be
formally entered into the hearing record.
Mr. Chabot. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Narasaki. Thank you. Since the Voting Rights Act has
been enacted, Asian Americans have made some gains in electoral
representation. About 75 percent of the Asian Americans elected
are in jurisdictions either covered by section 2, which is the
language assistance provisions of the act, or section 5, which
is preclearance covered jurisdictions.
And while progress has been made, Asian Americans still
face significant race discrimination at the polls when
attempting to exercise their right to vote, including hostile
and unwelcoming poll workers, and outright challenges on the
right to vote based on their race. AAJC believes that H.R. 9 is
critical to helping ensure the health of our democracy.
Here are just a couple of examples of problems from recent
elections. In Jackson Heights, Queens, New York during the 2004
elections one poll worker said: You Oriental guys are just
taking too long to vote. In fact, we heard many complaints of
some poll workers telling people who didn't speak English that
well that they had to go back to the back of the line.
In the 2004 primary elections in Bayou LaBatre, Alabama,
there was a concerted effort to intimidate Asian American
voters made by the supporters of a White incumbent running
against a Vietnamese American candidate. These supporters
challenged Asian Americans at the polls, charging without any
basis other than their race that they were not U.S. citizens or
city residents or they had felony convictions.
There is also evidence of the continuation of racially
polarized voting. For example, in the 2003 gubernatorial
election in Louisiana, Congressman Bobby Jindal was well ahead
in the preelection polls prior to the November runoff, but on
Election Day he lost. A significant number of those who voted
for David Duke, noted for his past leadership of the KKK, swung
their support away from the very conservative Asian American,
Jindal, to the much less conservative White Democrat, Kathleen
Blanco.
We strongly support H.R. 9's provisions that would renew
and strengthen the preclearance provisions of section 5 and the
award of expert witness fees for the prevailing party in
enforcement actions. We also strongly endorse the renewal of
the Federal observer provisions which deter and prevent
discrimination at the polling place. Indeed, we ask the
Subcommittee to consider strengthening them by amending the act
to authorize the Attorney General to send Federal observers to
section 203 covered jurisdictions, just as they are able to do
with section 5 covered jurisdictions.
We would ask specifically to discuss section 203 today
which is very critical, as Congressman Honda noted, to the
Asian American community. While new immigrants are required to
be able to speak transactional English for citizenship, voting
materials are often written at a much more complex level.
Voting can be particularly daunting for those whose only
language--those of us who actually speak English. In
California's 2004 election, there were 16 measures and the
voting guide was over 200 pages long.
Moreover, although many language minorities were born in
this country or came here at a very young age, many have had
trouble speaking English well, often because they received a
substandard education. Others have not had adequate access to
advanced ESL classes to be able to learn English at the level
required for the voting process.
In addition, the United States encourages senior citizens
who have been here 20 years and who have been contributing to
America, to become citizens by waiving the English literacy
requirement when applying for citizenship. Also exempted are
Hmong veterans who helped Americans during the Vietnam War and
were pledged refuge by the United States.
The formula triggering coverage is a very rigorous one. It
does not presume that all minority voters need assistance, but
considers educational attainment as well as self-assessed
language ability. The Census Bureau asks for English ability in
its long-form census questionnaire. And it has determined by
testing that respondents for various reasons tend to
overestimate their ability to speak English. So only those who
respond that they speak English very well are deemed to be
truly proficient.
As a result of these strictures, only 16 jurisdictions in
seven States are covered for any Asian language. These
jurisdictions account for half of the Nation's Asian American
population. Section 203 has also proven effective in achieving
its objective. Both Asian American voter registration and voter
participation has increased significantly in the covered
jurisdictions.
In 2004, for example, over 10,000 Vietnamese American
voters registered in Orange County, which helped to lead to the
election of the first Vietnamese American to the California
State legislature. As was noted earlier, 2004 also saw the
first Vietnamese American elected to the Texas State
legislature after Harris County began fully complying with
section 203.
We recommend that the Subcommittee consider strengthening
section 203 by lowering the numerical threshold for language
assistance coverage from 10,000. The advent of computerized
voting makes the provision of language access even easier than
when the formula was last set in 1992. For example, lowering
the threshold to 7,500 would trigger coverage for at least
three more Southeast Asian American communities.
On behalf the AAJC, I would like to thank the Committee for
allowing me to testify today.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Narasaki follows:]
Prepared Statement of Karen K. Narasaki
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mr. Chabot. Dr. Tucker, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES THOMAS TUCKER, VOTING RIGHTS CONSULTANT,
NALEO EDUCATIONAL FUND, AND ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, BARRETT HONORS
COLLEGE, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, I want to thank you
for your strong bipartisan leadership, and I want to
specifically acknowledge two members of NALEO, Mr. Gonzalez of
Texas and Ms. Sanchez of California, for the work that you have
done on this bill.
I want to express my strongest support for H.R. 9. Section
7 of H.R. 9 provides for a straight reauthorization of sections
4(f)(4) and 203 of the Voting Rights Act until August of 2032.
Section 2 of the bill outlines substantial evidence of
continued discrimination against language minorities that
supports the 25-year reauthorization.
Equally important, the bill reaffirms the findings in
section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. There is an extensive
record of documented discrimination in voting and education
that supports maintaining the protections in sections 4(f)(4)
and 203 of the Voting Rights Act for the four covered language
groups. Other language groups have not been included because
there is no similar record for those groups.
H.R. 9 maintains the existing section 203 coverage formula.
It also updates the data used for coverage determinations to
reflect changes in how the Census Bureau collects language
ability data using the American community survey.
In 1992, Congress acknowledged the substantial record of
educational discrimination against the covered language
minority groups. Since 1975, at least 24 successful educational
discrimination cases have been brought on behalf of English
language learners in 15 States, 14 of which are presently
covered by section 203; 10 of those cases have been since 1992.
Consent decrees or court orders remain in effect for English
language learner students Statewide in Arizona and Florida, and
in the cities of Boston, Denver, and Seattle.
The December 2005 decision in Florez v. Arizona illustrates
the impact that unequal educational opportunities have had on
the 175,000 English language learner students enrolled in
Arizona's public schools. As the Court explained in citing the
State $500,000 a day for being in contempt of its prior orders,
and I quote: ``The court can only imagine how many students
have started school since Judge Marquez entered the order in
February 2000 declaring these programs were inadequately funded
in an arbitrary and capricious manner that violates English
language learner students' rights under the Equal Education
Opportunity Act. How many students may have stopped school by
dropping out or failing because of the foot-dragging by the
State?''
Educational discrimination is compounded by the absence of
sufficient adult-ESL programs in most of the covered
jurisdictions. In Albuquerque, the largest provider reports an
average waiting time of about 12 months. In Boston, the average
waiting time is 6 to 9 months, but some adults have to wait as
much as 2 to 3 years.
As of just a few days ago, there were at least 16,000
adults on ESL waiting lists in Boston. In New York, the need
for adult-ESL courses is estimated to be 1 million, but only
41,000 adults were able to enroll in 2005. Most adult-ESL
programs no longer keep waiting lists because of the extreme
demand, but use lottery systems in which at least 3 out of
every 4 adults are turned away.
In Phoenix, the largest adult-ESL provider reports a
waiting list of over 1,000 people, with a waiting time of up to
18 months for highest-demand evening classes.
In Rhode Island, over half of all adults on waiting lists
have been waiting for 12 months or more. This demonstrates that
there is a national problem on ESL.
Limited-English-proficient adults are extremely motivated
to learn English and become fully assimilated into American
society. The average adult-ESL student is the working poor,
holding two jobs, supporting a family and learning English in
the few hours available to them in the evenings.
It can take several years for LEP students to even acquire
spoken English language and literacy skills equal to a fifth-
grade education, which is still functionally illiterate. The
need for language assistance on ballot questions is especially
important because of the growing number of propositions
directly impacting the covered language minority citizens. An
average of 13.1 percent of voting-age citizens are limited-
English-proficient in the languages triggering coverage, with
an average illiteracy rate that is nearly 14 times the national
rate.
The barriers posed by educational discrimination, language,
and the absence of sufficient ESL classes and high illiteracy
result in significantly decreased voter participation. H.R. 9
maintains the existing bailout provision from section 203
coverage for jurisdictions that are able to remedy the
illiteracy rate of the applicable language minority groups. As
I testified previously, where implemented properly, language
assistance accounts for only a small fraction of total election
costs, if at all.
For these reasons I recommend that without delay the House
pass H.R. 9, without amendment, to ensure the continued
protection of the right to vote for all American citizens.
Thank you very much for your attention and I will welcome
the opportunity to answer questions you may have.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tucker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. James Thomas Tucker
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mr. Chabot. As Chair, I'm going to yield to the gentleman
from North Carolina, who has a flight to catch, and let him
question first. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Watt. I thank the Chairman for yielding to me first,
and I want to offer to Mr. Norby, if he wants a ride to the
airport I will be happy to give it to him.
Mr. Norby. Great. Are you going to Long Beach on Jet Blue
too?
Mr. Watt. No. Are you going to Dulles?
Mr. Norby. Yes, I'm going to Dulles.
Mr. Watt. Oh, you are in trouble. You need to leave now.
I'm going to National. And my flight is before yours, but you
need to leave immediately.
Mr. Norby. All right. I presume your questions are not for
me, then.
Mr. Watt. That's right. But I was going to give you a ride.
My question is actually for the representative from the
Justice Department, because if the answers to any of these
questions are ``yes,'' please just give us the information
about them subsequently so that we can put it into the record.
If they are ``no,'' then you can just answer them quickly
``no.'' but if they are ``yes,'' then we need information about
them.
Section 11(a) of the Voting Rights Act prohibits any person
acting under color of law from failing or refusing to permit
any person entitled to vote from voting.
Have there been any documented violations or prosecutions
by the Department of Justice for violations of section 11(a) of
the Voting Rights Act?
Ms. Comisac. I do not know the answer to that question. I
will provide it to the Committee.
Mr. Watt. Section 11(b) prohibits any person, quote,
whether acting under color of law or otherwise, closed quote,
from intimidating, threatening, or coercing or attempting to
intimidate, et cetera, any person from voting or attempting to
vote.
Have there been any documented violations or prosecutions
by the Department of Justice for violations of this section?
Ms. Comisac. Again, I will be glad to provide that
information.
Mr. Watt. Third, sections 204 and 205 proscribe certain
activity under the Voting Rights Act.
Have there been any documented violations or prosecutions
by the Department of Justice for violations of this section--of
these two sections of the Voting Rights Act?
Ms. Comisac. I will be glad to provide that information.
Mr. Watt. Wonderful. Now, in anticipation of receiving
this, Dr. Tucker, I think you might be able to tell us what the
significance of either ``yes'' or ``no'' answer might be, if
you have an opinion about that, on these questions.
Mr. Tucker. Well, I believe what it will show is that those
provisions are obviously meant to complement section 203 and
section 404. They are not meant to replace the provision, by
any stretch of the imagination. And I believe, again, that
there are--to the extent that they are undocumented instances
in which certain cases may or may not have been brought, I
think that it will go far to show whether or not--whether or
not section 203 is needed and whether or not instances in which
voters who may need assistance may not only not get it, but
there may be instances of specific discrimination or
intimidation at the polls that obviously would discourage not
only that voter but other voters from the same covered language
group from coming to the polls as well.
Mr. Watt. We're just trying to complete the circle here. If
you will provide that subsequent to the hearing, it would be
great. I said, jokingly, that you should leave, Mr. Norby. I
really was not joking. I think we should excuse Mr. Norby,
unless somebody has questions immediately, because he is not
going to make his plane.
Mr. Norby. I may not, but I am here representing my county
and if there are any questions for me, I would be happy to take
them.
Mr. Watt. You didn't have any particular perspective on any
of the questions I asked, I take it?
Mr. Norby. Well, yes, I do have a very strong perspective.
I think that this is a law that is creating negative
stereotypes, which is putting an undue burden on counties.
Twenty million dollars is a lot of money from our general fund
if we are required to publish all five languages in the same
voter information pamphlet, which DOJ agents have said we are
going to have to do. That is going to create an anti-immigrant
backlash. Imagine people getting in the mail a phonebook-sized
book.
Mr. Watt. I thought we were talking about the questions I
just asked. Is this responsive to those questions?
Mr. Norby. You will have to determine that and if they are
not, I will wait for the next one.
Mr. Watt. Thank you. I think I will yield back, and I
appreciate the Chairman--and I wish I was going to Dulles.
Actually, I don't wish I was going to Dulles. That is a
challenge at this time of day. But I would have been happy to
give you a ride to National.
Mr. Norby. I appreciate that. Maybe next time.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
himself for 5 minutes for questioning, and I will start with
you, Ms. Comisac, if I can.
Could you explain the impetus for the Department's
increased enforcement efforts under section 203? And are
jurisdictions, at least some, not complying? And what efforts
does the Department take to work with jurisdictions before
engaging in litigation?
[3:40 p.m.]
Ms. Comisac. I will be glad to address those questions.
Your first question was the impetus for our enforcement
efforts; and, Chairman, we take very seriously our obligations
to enforce each of the provisions that are part of our
responsibility, part of the Civil Rights Division's
responsibility, under the Voting Rights Act.
Section 203 is one of the sections, and we are committed to
do vigorous enforcement of section 203 as a means by which
Congress has made a determination that we should, to the extent
practicable, as Congressman Scott put it, meaningful access
right to vote for non-English-speaking Americans.
Mr. Chabot. Can I interrupt you for one moment? Mr. Norby,
were you going to leave? Because maybe we could address our
questions to you right now. What time is it?
Mr. Norby. Yes. I need to catch my plane. The flight is at
5:45 from Dulles, and the one after that is in the morning.
Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman, I have questions for Mr. Norby.
Mr. Chabot. Can you stay for another 5 or 10 minutes?
Mr. Norby. I would be happy to.
Mr. Chabot. We will come back to Ms. Comisac if we can.
I have one question for you. Could you describe how helpful
is the Department of Justice in working with covered
jurisdiction to determine what assistance is required?
Mr. Norby. Well, our Registrar of Voters has reported
repeatedly, two different registrars, that the attitude is
confrontational and arrogant. We have repeatedly told them they
are only required to meet the law; and they have told us that
the agents say they are free to interpret the law, and we feel
they are making interpretations not based on what the law
actually says. The law does not allow, for example, an analysis
of English fluency based on surnames. This is nowhere in the
law, but this is the list the Department of Justice has given
us.
And we want to work with the Department of Justice. We are
happy to follow the law, but we feel as long as authorized, it
must be clear as to what we have to do, and we will do it. But
the law cannot be a license to continue ratcheting up licenses
that are not within the law.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Also could you comment on how costly it
is to comply with section 203?
Mr. Norby. Well, it depends on how far it is going to be
pushed. Like I said, a previous DOJ agent had said that they
are emphasizing the county should place all languages in the
same voter pamphlet all together. We have a total of five. If
we do that, it will cost us $20 million per election cycle. The
so-called outreach which sent questionnaires to non-native
voters cost us about $20,000, and mostly we got a negative
response from these voters, feeling insulted. If they wanted
the materials, they would have asked for it, and they didn't
appreciate us suggesting they didn't speak English well.
The poll worker requirements is hard to judge. It is very,
very difficult to try to find them. We are being told a number
of precincts in Irvine are going to have to have Chinese-
language poll workers.
We can only pay $70 a day for these poll workers. The
typical Chinese American voter in Irvine who might speak
Mandarin is a professional, highly skilled. Many of them are
making $70 an hour and really have no interest in being a poll
worker for that amount of money. So it is very difficult to
find people like this. Many of them are perfectly fluent in
English. Certainly if you are talking about Asian Americans,
the educational level of Asian Americans in my county is at
least as high, if not higher, than the typical population. So
the educational opportunity is there.
So I feel the law is creating stereotypes. It is helping to
fuel an anti-immigrant backlash, and it is creating Minutemen.
Mr. Chabot. Let me stop you there on my questions, and I
would like to go down the line. I would like if each Member has
questions for Mr. Norby, we could do that now.
Mr. Scott, if you want to yield to one of the others
because they are champing at the bit.
Mr. Scott. Most of them would be for the others.
Mr. Chabot. Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Norby. I see you
are not as advocate you are in local government.
Mr. Norby. I am an elected official just like all of you. I
am the only one on this panel.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I sense there is a concern about unfunded
mandate.
Mr. Norby. Definitely.
Ms. Jackson Lee. With that in mind, I would assume, then,
that you would not wish to deny a person that had the right to
vote whose only barrier might be language, and they had every
right to vote, you are not asking us to deny that person the
right to vote.
Mr. Norby. I am not asking anyone be denied any right to
vote.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So with that in mind, if we are able with
the reauthorization of this legislation to address the issue of
unfunded mandates, you think it would be appropriate to ensure
that everyone who had the right to vote should vote?
Mr. Norby. Well, the money is only a part of it. Current
law does allow any voter to take in any person that they want
into the polling place, including any interpreters. It does
allow that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. It allows that, but if the voter chooses
to be able to vote in private on their own, and their only
barrier may be a language, temporary or otherwise, you are not
suggesting we should deny them the right to vote?
Mr. Norby. I would suggest we take a look again at the
citizen requirements which theoretically----
Ms. Jackson Lee. You are going beyond the parameters of
this legislation, which is the question of whether or not a
person has the right to vote. I just want to be clarified of
where you are going. That may be a debate that we are having,
Mr. Chairman, on immigration, but we are talking about the
reauthorization of the Voter Rights Act, and we are talking
about citizens who have the right to vote. I am trying to
understand if you are trying to deny the citizens the right to
vote.
Mr. Norby. I am not trying to deny that at all. I have a
large number of Romanians in my city.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You are okay with citizens voting.
Mr. Norby. They are not covered by this, and yet many
people in many language groups aren't covered by this. So there
are people out there now that you might say are being denied
that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You certainly have validity in
acknowledging that there are other groups with a language
issue, and, of course, as----
Mr. Norby. There are.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Progress----
Mr. Norby [continuing]. Reasonable accommodations.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I just want to make sure you didn't leave
with yourself being on record with wanting to deny a person the
right to vote.
Mr. Norby. Of course not.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Of course not. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chabot. The gentlelady has 2 minutes remaining.
The gentlelady from California is recognized.
Ms. Sanchez. Very briefly for Mr. Norby before you head out
on your flight. I wanted to ask you, did you ever consider
perhaps passing the citizenship test and having a certain level
of English proficiency still might not make voting in English
an easy proposition, especially given in California, as we
know, a number of valid ballot initiatives that get qualified
in each election? The double negatives that appear in the
language----
Mr. Norby. Sometimes triple negatives.
Ms. Sanchez [continuing]. Are written to be purposefully
confusing to those of us who are native English speakers, much
less somebody who has learned English at a level that ensures
that they can pass their citizenship test, but perhaps might
feel more comfortable or more enfranchised being able to vote
in a native language that they feel more comfortable in. Have
you ever stopped to consider----
Mr. Norby. Of course. I consider that every day of my life
practically, how to serve as many people as we possibly can. I
would submit $20 million would be better spent on teaching
people in English classes rather than sending out ballot
materials to people who haven't requested it.
Ms. Sanchez. I do not disagree with the point you made. We
may need to be funding more ESL classes, but unfortunately we
have not seen an increase in funding for that.
Mr. Norby. I taught ESL myself.
Ms. Sanchez. I wanted to bring that to your attention
because my mother, who is a naturalized citizen, who teaches in
an elementary school, who is very fluent in English, on
occasion she finds it is easier for her to vote and receive the
materials in her native language because the election materials
are written in a way so as to confuse. And I just want----
Mr. Norby. Oh, that is definitely true. And English
speakers have a difficult time understanding a lot of
California propositions as well.
Our county is not opposed to multilingual ballots. We think
the threshold should be reasonable, and we also think that
immigrant voters are capable of saying how well they speak
English. To say an immigrant claims they speak it well but they
really don't, we know better than them, we should take it at
face value if they say they speak it well. And we should never
infer language fluency based on a list of last names.
Ms. Sanchez. I think perhaps that is a good starting point,
but you are right. Definitely the system probably needs to be
fine-tuned.
Mr. Norby. No law is perfect. I just think it could be
fine-tuned.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I guess, Mr. Norby, I am reading something into your
statements that I shouldn't be reading. But let me read you
something from your own Website of November 2005.
In fact, the vast majority of immigrants do vote in
English. Of the 1.5 million Orange County voters, only 10,506
requested non-English ballots in the last election. That is 0.7
percent of the total voting population, or just 7 out of every
1,000 voters.
It seems to me that you are dismissing the progress and
effect and accomplishment of section 203, and you are
minimizing and dismissing and discounting the importance of
these voters.
We don't know how many voted out there and so on and took
advantage. Some were assisted and such, but I guess it could
make a difference.
Four years ago in San Antonio, State Representative Mike
Villarreal owes his very existence and political career in
public service to a margin of two votes. Two months ago my
friend Judge Casin lost his reelection by seven votes; and I
don't think I have to remind you that in Florida 2000, the
President of the United States was elected by 537 votes or so.
Think in terms of the impact. Now, maybe there are better
ways of doing it, but I really do challenge you to think
through what you are espousing here, and reaching out to that
population that can be the margin of victory for a Republican
or a Democrat, from State representative to President of the
United States.
You also have a attached to your testimony all of these
cards you got back from those voters. Now, if you read these
carefully, what they are representing to me here is if you
don't speak English, you should not vote.
Now, that hearkens back to a time we had literacy tests. We
don't need to go back to literacy tests. That is what these
comments indicate to me if you really read their full import.
My question to you is: Do you place a price tag on reaching
out to those communities, empowering them, having them come to
the polling place and vote, and making a more informed choice;
and if you do, what is the price?
Mr. Norby. Well, a price tag is placed on everything,
especially in county government, because we have to cover in
taxing everything that we spend. The Federal Government might
be a little bit different in that regard, and the question is,
what is the best use of spending the money?
You have said that these 10,000 people who voted in non-
English materials make the price worth it, and I am not
necessarily disputing that because we are not for necessarily
repealing this, but making them reasonable. On the other hand,
if in the future we do add Tagalog, Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu,
Farsi, Arabic and a whole host of additional languages, we
might have a few thousand more people voting as well. Would
that be worth it? Where does it stop?
Like I say, I have a large Romanian population in my city
of Fullerton. Romanian is specifically excluded because
European languages other than Spanish are excluded from this.
So large numbers of Russian immigrants are actually
discriminated against because Russian is not considered a
qualifying language since it is not an Asian or non-Spanish
European language.
So the law is already drawing a line to which languages
qualify and which people don't qualify. The question of where
should the line be drawn--and I am saying it should be drawn
more clearer than it is so I, as an elected official, know
where it is, so the Department of Justice agents can't say,
well, that is the law, but we want you to do more than the law
actually requires.
I want clarity even if I disagree with what that clarity
is. The clarity currently isn't there. It has to be there,
especially with petitions, because if we require that all
initiatives, all recall petitions be written in these five
languages, then it is going to jeopardize the rights of
citizens to petition their own government because they will
have to be dismissed, and judges are starting to do that. So
the VR has to do at least that.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thresholds haven't been increased even though
there are some of us who thought they ought to be reduced; they
haven't been decreased to meet the guidelines in the
applicability of this law. So you seem to be arguing maybe we
ought to have a lower threshold so that other groups might
qualify. I may not disagree with you on that.
It is not where does it end. The question is, where does it
begin? And I think you bring out a good point. But I really
read much into your testimony and the materials that you have
provided, and I am just simply asking look at the advantages.
Have a positive attitude at what this accomplishes. We can do
it better, be more creative, imaginative, and not have unfunded
mandates from this end of the equation; but from your end, I
think you can be creative, imaginative, and cost-efficient to a
point where it is worth the investment. This is one country
where we are all in this together, contrary to everything that
is going on.
Mr. Norby. I have 600,000 constituents, many of whom are
foreign born, and, like you, I have to be as creative as I can.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much for coming and testifying
today.
Mr. Norby. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman has 5 seconds left. So--thank
you, Ms. Comisac. I think we were with you on your questions.
Do you need me to repeat them, or do you recall what the
questions were?
Ms. Comisac. No. I think I recall what the questions are.
Mr. Chabot. I recognize myself for the 3 minutes that I
have left.
Ms. Comisac. One of the questions you asked us about was
about our efforts to work with jurisdictions, and I would like
to take up that questions now because I would like Mr. Norby's
comments that I would like an opportunity to address. I think
they may answer your questions as well.
I am very distressed to hear his characterization of his
interaction with the Justice Department, because our first
efforts at enforcement of section 203 of the minority language
provisions of the VRA, our first efforts are to work with
jurisdictions. We find this to be a really productive method of
achieving compliance. We hold one-on-one meetings with election
officials. We ensure that they have points of contact in the
Division's voting section. I mean, we have conducted outreach
by speaking to the National Association of County Officials;
the National Association of County Recorders, Clerks and
Registrars; National Association of Secretaries of State; the
National Association of State Elections Directors. We conduct a
tremendous amount of outreach to make them aware of what their
requirements are, what their obligations are to answer their
questions. And we want to achieve, Congressman Gonzalez, that
creativity and imagination that you spoke about.
We do not believe that there is a one-size-fits-all
solution to compliance with section 203. We want to work with
covered jurisdictions so that the local election officials who
know their districts the best, who know their jurisdictions the
best, have the flexibility to devise solutions that will
achieve that compliance.
We enforce low-cost compliance. We have encouraged use of
information trees, for example; of using faxes and e-mails; of
communicating through business organizations, unions, social
and fraternal organizations, churches that have contacts in the
minority language communities. We have discouraged, for
example, jurisdictions from placing minority language notices
in English-language newspapers so that they can better target
their efforts.
The first step in our enforcement efforts truly is to try
to work with the jurisdictions. Having said that, if we find
that a jurisdiction is not meeting their obligations, we will
investigate; and if our investigation indicates that they have
not met their obligations, we will bring enforcement actions,
as we have done. I mentioned some examples of successful
enforcement actions in my statement.
Mr. Chabot. Not to interrupt you there, but my time is
running out, and I wanted to get a question in to Ms. Narasaki
if I can.
Ms. Narasaki, if Congress allows section 203 to expire,
what will be the impact on the language minority citizens?
Ms. Narasaki. We believe it will be a very huge impact. As
I noted for the Asian American community, three-fourths of the
elected officials who are Asian American come from the
jurisdictions that are covered by section 203. We have seen
enormous increases in voter registration and voter turnout in
all of the newly covered jurisdictions that got covered after
the 2002 census. So while some jurisdictions do voluntarily
provide some coverage, it is a minority of jurisdictions, and
what Councilmember Norby was asking for with a 10 percent
threshold was basically to not cover Orange County because
Orange County has about 9 percent who would qualify.
And also, I am sorry that he left because we have different
numbers than he does. According to the Orange County Registrar
of Voters, as of December 2005, they had 72,436 voters who had
requested materials in other languages. That is 4.8 percent of
the registered voters there, and we know that the usage is much
higher because a lot of people don't need the written
materials, but use the oral system at the polls; and we know
that because our affiliate in Los Angeles does exit polling and
has done for the last decade in L.A. And Orange County, and
according to them, in 2004, about two-thirds--no, 46 percent of
Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese voters did request assistance.
So you could see the impact on the ability of Asian Americans
to vote.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
The gentleman from Virginia Mr. Scott is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is significant Dr. Tucker
mentioned all of the waiting lists for bilingual education--for
English education. If you want to fund more English education,
you do that through the political process; and if you can't
vote, obviously you can't reduce those waiting lines. So I
think what we are talking about here is extremely important not
only as it affects voting, but as it affects public policy.
Let me ask Ms. Comisac, based on your experience, is it a
fact that section 203 has, in fact, increased participation
amongst citizens who have limited English proficiency?
Ms. Comisac. I think there is no question that as a result
of our enforcement efforts, we have seen significant increases
among--in participation in the electoral process and in
election among the political ranks in limited English-
proficient voters.
Mr. Scott. And if you had a desire to reduce participation
amongst that group, would repeal of section 203 be helpful in
reducing the participation?
Ms. Comisac. Well, I certainly am of the opinion that our
enforcement efforts have shown that we have made steady gains
as a result of 203 enforcement, gains that I don't think would
have been accomplished absent our enforcement efforts of
section 203.
Mr. Scott. Dr. Tucker, I have a report that apparently your
organization released on the expenses involved in complying
with section 203.
Mr. Tucker. Yes.
Mr. Scott. Can you give us a little background information
on how extensive it is to actually comply?
Mr. Tucker. The costs are minimal, if there are any costs
at all.
I guess I should, first of all, begin by saying that the
report was of every jurisdiction that was covered, down to
cities of 50,000 or more, and we had a response rate of better
than 50 percent. We had responses from 29 of the 31 States that
are covered by section 203, and this was all self-reported
data. What they indicated--what the election officials
indicated was that a majority of jurisdictions incur no
additional costs for either written language materials or oral
language assistance.
Mr. Scott. And is that because when they hire a poll
worker, they would just, for the same amount of money they are
paying a poll worker, pick somebody that is bilingual?
Mr. Tucker. Absolutely. And the jurisdictions that are not
doing that are the ones that are incurring costs for--the costs
themselves are quite low where they do have costs. On average
they reported costs of 3 percent for written language materials
and 1.5 percent for oral language assistants, and these costs
could obviously be diminished even further by doing as the
Deputy Assistant Attorney General suggested and adequately
targeting the materials in oral language assistants to those
places that actually need it.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Ms. Narasaki, the threshold of 10,000, of 5 percent, is at
an extremely high threshold. It actually could--in many areas,
and I think you mentioned one--be the swing vote in a
particular district. Does that give those that may not be
popular in that segment of their district an incentive to try
to depress the vote?
Ms. Narasaki. Absolutely. One of the things that we see
with the changing demographics is there are a threshold of once
you get to so many minorities in a community, there starts to
be some push-back and some potential friction. So it is really
important----
We actually--as you know, Congressman Scott, the original
threshold was 5 percent, and what happened was with large
cities like L.A. County, to be 5 percent of L.A. County meant
you had to have 500,000 people, which was clearly more than
many--than a lot of jurisdictions people actually voting. So
10,000 was picked at a reasonable level, looking at what the
cost affecting this would be.
Mr. Scott. In many jurisdictions it may be enough to swing
an election.
Ms. Narasaki. Exactly. And in terms of Orange County, under
Mr. Norby's own testimony, it cost $600,000 in the last
election, which is 10 percent, $6 million overall costs, for
Orange County. Well, almost 10 percent of his county is
eligible. So it is a reasonable trade-off because those are all
taxpayers as well. That is what we looked at in looking at
thresholds.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
And finally, Ms. Comisac, can you send observers to enforce
just section 203?
Ms. Comisac. I am not certain, but I will certainly find
out if that is the case.
Mr. Scott. I think Ms. Narasaki's testimony suggested there
may be a little glitch where you can send them into a section
5-covered jurisdiction. While they are there, they can observe
section 203 violations, but there may not be specific
authorization to send an observer just for section 203.
If you could look at that to make sure we don't have a
little gap in the coverage, and if we do have a gap in the
coverage, we would want to make sure that we could send
observers in specifically to observe 203 violations.
Ms. Comisac. I will be glad to get back to the Committee on
that.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentle lady from Texas has 2 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
Let me ask Ms. Comisac, I was trying to read through your
testimony, and thank you. Has the Justice Department taken a
position on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act?
Ms. Comisac. Well, certainly----
Ms. Jackson Lee. The Administration, excuse me.
Ms. Comisac. Certainly the Department and the
Administration in general supports reauthorization of the
Voting Rights Act, and we certainly support reauthorization of
the minority language provisions of the act. Clearly H.R. 9 was
introduced on Tuesday, and we are still examining the
provisions of that bill.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So you are doing your due diligence?
Ms. Comisac. That is correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You are doing your due diligence. I would
hope that inasmuch as this is a tool that the Justice
Department has used now for more than two decades--and I think
Administrations have come and gone, Republicans and Democrats,
and they have found it to be an effective tool. Many times we
may have agreed or disagreed with its interpretation that it is
an effective tool. I would hope that you would engage with
Congress in this instance, since we are not adversarial, as you
do your due diligence.
Can you keep this Committee advised as you do your due
diligence so that we are aware of hopefully your approval or
your concerns?
Ms. Comisac. We will be glad to work with the Committee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me ask both Ms. Narasaki and Dr.
Tucker. We have heard comments being made about other language
groups. Help us quickly--again, for the record, if we use other
language groups to suggest we shouldn't have it, the
devastating impact, but then because of your expertise, how we
might work perspectively in acknowledging the concern of the
need for other language groups. Dr. Tucker.
Mr. Tucker. Okay. First of all, it is clearly intended--I--
this is something that has come up before during prior
reauthorization.
Ms. Jackson Lee. It is important for the record, yes.
Mr. Tucker. What has happened, there is a discussion of
trying to have section 203 applied to all language groups
throughout the United States. It is problematic in two
respects. First of all, it raises constitutional issues.
Section 203 is very narrowly tailored and congruent and
proportional to the need, and the need has been focused
specifically on the pattern and history of discrimination both
in voting and education as to the four groups that are covered.
It also raises some enforcement problems. The Department of
Justice doesn't have unlimited resources, and neither do the
private organizations that bring the lawsuits under the private
attorneys general provision. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
is available for those sections that are not covered and for
those languages that are not covered; and, in fact, there have
been successful cases brought, including one in Hamtramck,
Michigan, for Arabic-speaking populations under section 2.
Mr. Chabot. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentlelady from California Ms. Sanchez is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Ms. Sanchez. Really quickly, I am going to ask these
questions of Dr. Tucker and Ms. Narasaki.
Do you think it is a reasonable starting point--starting
point to survey those who have ethnic last names and/or you
have information about them being foreign-born as a starting-
off point in order to survey for whether or not they need
assistance with voting materials?
And number two, in what ways can language assistance be
offered in a cost-effective manner? Because apparently Mr.
Norby's biggest concern was unfunded mandates and how expensive
they are for the counties.
I think, Ms. Narasaki, you touched on that a little bit and
said it was proportional; but I want to give you a little bit
of time to expand on that. I was a little confused by Mr.
Norby's testimony, and I wish he were still here, because on
the one hand, he argued that we should raise the trigger from 5
percent to 10 percent and eliminate the 10,000 numerical
trigger. And then he seemed to contradict himself and say that
we should lower it because there are other language minorities
that are not being offered this assistance.
I want to know from both of you, what do you think the
world would look like if we eliminated the 10,000 numeric
triggers and raised the 5 percent trigger to 10 percent, as Mr.
Norby suggested?
Ms. Narasaki. Well, I can start out with the cost issue. I
think, as the testimony has shown, there actually is a lot of
flexibility in the regulations that the Department of Justice
has in terms of how they comply, and we very much advise local
jurisdictions to work closely with the local community-based
organizations who could help them identify where the
neighborhoods who--for whom the outreach is necessary, what are
the ethnic papers you could get the information out on, what
are the cost-effective radio outreach that you can do? So there
are many ways that you can cut costs if you work closely with
the communities that are involved.
We have been told by the Department of Justice that they,
in fact, are not asking Orange County to have a telephone book
of, you know, five languages and voting. We would actually
advise against that because it makes it unusable for everyone.
It doesn't make sense to translate something into something
nobody is going to use.
So we think actually there is a lot of room to work with
people both on the cost and how you can best comply. The
challenge with the surname is, as you know, the census data, in
terms of individual answers, is private. So you cannot go to
the census and say, tell us who said they are limited English-
proficient, under fifth grade. You can't do that.
So as the Department of Justice said, they recognize that
it is an imperfect way to go about it, but right now it is one
of the better ways to try to, at least as a starting point,
figure out where you might go.
And I think part of the backlash in terms of the responses
that they got is, if you saw the postcard, I would have put a
little more explanation in there to people who received it.
Mr. Chabot. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentleman from----
Ms. Sanchez. If I could beg the Chairman's indulgence to
allow Dr. Tucker to perhaps answer one or two questions.
Mr. Chabot. If you could make it relatively brief, we would
appreciate it.
Mr. Tucker. And I will just build on what Ms. Narasaki
said. First of all, there are a number of ways you can reduce
the cost. First of all, the HAVA funding that has been provided
to the State and local jurisdictions has allowed the States to
purchase new voting equipment where there is absolutely no
cost. Many of these new machines, they are electronic. They
have oral language instructions that can be programmed into the
computer at no additional cost. Private organizations and
outreach can be done. And to bring those organizations into the
process to cut down the cost of translation and, quite frankly,
some of the complaints that Mr.--or Commissioner Norby
complained about regarding the outreach materials, that is what
the jurisdiction should be doing. You should be doing outreach
to the covered communities.
With respect to the elimination of the 10,000-person
trigger and the impact, it would have a devastating impact.
There was a substantial record of this that was introduced in
1992, and what it would do is it would do a wholesale
elimination of covered language groups in southern California,
northern California, particularly Asians, a large number of
Latinos, particularly in and around the Cook County, Chicago
area. There was a substantial evidence of discrimination
against those groups, and, in fact, since the last
reauthorization, successful section 2 cases have been brought
in those jurisdictions including in the town of Cicero,
Illinois. There was a section 2 case involving backlash against
the growing Latino vote.
So the bottom line with it is the elimination of the 10,000
trigger would have a devastating impact, and it would make the
section 203 far less effective than it is today.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; thank you, Members
of the Committee; and thanks to the witnesses.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez. We
appreciate your attendance today, and our final questioner will
be the gentleman from Maryland Mr. Van Hollen. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
to thank you and Mr. Nadler again for hosting this hearing, and
I just have one question, because I know there has been a lot
of testimony, and that is for Ms. Comisac.
Does the Justice Department intend to present its views on
this piece of legislation, number one? And if so, when do you
expect the Committee would have the benefit of those views?
Ms. Comisac. Congressman, we are currently in the process
of analyzing H.R. 9, which was introduced on Tuesday, and we
will strive to complete our analysis as soon as possible.
Mr. Van Hollen. All right. Well, thank you.
Ms. Comisac. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Is that it?
Mr. Van Hollen. It would be helpful to have it. That is it.
Mr. Chabot. I want to thank the gentleman. I want to thank
all the panel up here, and I want to especially thank our
witnesses here this afternoon for coming.
This is a very important issue, and each of the witnesses
has done a great job illuminating these issues. And I might
note for the panel up here, given the unique nature of this
issue, we have made an exception to the Committee rules
regarding the attendance and participation of non-Committee
Members. This was done in a spirit, obviously, of
bipartisanship, and it shouldn't necessarily be considered
precedent for future hearings, but there is nothing----
Ms. Jackson Lee. It isn't?
Mr. Chabot. Bipartisanship should always be a precedent.
But in any event, we very much appreciate the participation of
everyone here. I believe this is the last hearing we are going
to have.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes. Would the gentleman yield?
We have been calling this H.R. 9, and I just welcome the
opportunity to recite that it is also called the Fannie Lou
Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Act, and I think it is
an appropriate statement for all of us no matter which side of
the aisle and no matter where we live in America.
Mr. Chabot. I appreciate the gentlelady having brought that
up. Having attended Rosa Parks' funeral, as well as many of our
colleagues, it was a very moving event, and I am very pleased
you brought that up. Thank you.
Again, I think this is the last hearing on the Voting
Rights Act, although this is the 12th; and it may be around for
a couple more weeks before it is actually voted on on the
floor. So I wouldn't say for sure it is the last hearing. Yeah,
they are saying it is the last hearing. I have heard that
before. They said that at number nine, but it has been an
extremely good experience for all of us, and we want to thank,
again, the witness panel for being here.
If there is no further business to come before the
Committee, we are adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Member, Subcommittee on the
Constitution
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Melvin L. Watt, a Representative in
Congress from the State of North Carolina, and Member, Subcommittee on
the Constitution
Ten years after passage of the Voting Rights Act, Congress in 1975
recognized the link between high rates of limited English proficiency
within certain language minorities and the denial by State and local
governments of equal educational opportunities for language minority
citizens resulting in low voter participation rates. Since that time,
Congress has reviewed the operation of the language assistance
provisions of the Voting Rights Act and the increased participation of
language minorities covered by the Act in the electoral process.
Most recently in 1992, and again this term, Congress received
evidence that the denial of equal educational opportunities to language
minority citizens covered by the Voting Rights Act persists. Section 5
enforcement actions and objections also provide ample evidence of
present day discrimination against citizens with limited English
proficiency. Where language assistance is provided, however, the record
reflects measurable progress towards full participation in the
political process by affected citizens from the relevant language
minority communities. This is a good thing.
Just as in prior reauthorizations of Section 203--and I quote from
the 1982 Senate report--``The testimony [we received this Congress]
refuted allegations that bilingual elections are `excessively costly';
that they discourage non-English speaking citizens from learning
English; that they threaten the ideal of the American `melting pot';
and that they foster `cultural separatism.` '' These arguments have all
been made before. They are as unpersuasive now as they were then.
Increasing the opportunity for all Americans to play their role in our
democracy makes us stronger, not weaker. It unites, not divides us.
Society is enriched by the diversity of voices and views that are heard
at the ballot box.
Earlier today we heard rank speculation that the arduous process of
assembling a record to determine the content of the bill we now have
before us was, in effect, a sham--a process designed to reach a pre-
ordained conclusion. Nothing can be further from the truth. The truth
of the matter is, specifically with respect to the language assistance
provisions, for example, while I stand behind the bill we have
introduced, I am disappointed that we did not lower the population
threshold that would have provided even more citizens from language
minority groups the opportunity to obtain voting assistance in the
language with which they are most comfortable. I believe, however, that
the record before us, at a minimum, supports the conclusion reflected
in H.R. 9 that the continuation of the current requirements is
necessary and appropriate to enable hard working, tax paying, American
citizens with limited English proficiency to participate equally and on
the same terms as fluent English speakers in the body politic.
This bill is no panacea. But nothing in this bill or the
Constitution prevents State and local jurisdictions from enacting and
implementing innovative, inclusionary practices to foster broader civic
involvement by its residents. Indeed, some jurisdictions have done so--
voluntarily expanding the franchise to concentrations of language
minorities within their boundaries by providing voting materials and
ballots in those languages. For example, in Chicago voluntary voter
assistance is provided in Polish, Russian, Greek, German, Korean and
Serbian. In Boston, the city has pledged to provide language assistance
in Spanish, Haitian Creole, Cape Verdean Creole, Vietnamese, Portugese,
Chinese, and Russian.
The bill before us today extends the current language assistance
provisions of the Voting Rights Act and is supported by the record. It
does not discourage or prohibit any State or political subdivision from
doing more to open its processes to more voices thereby enhancing our
democracy.
__________
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California
On behalf of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I thank Chairman
Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Chabot and
Ranking Member Nadler for their leadership and commitment to
reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.
I also want to thank Congressman Watt, for being the voice and
conscience of the Tri-Caucus during the drafting of this landmark
reauthorization bill.
The ``Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act'' is a
bill proudly supported by Democrats and Republicans in both the House
and Senate. H.R. 9 is a shining example of quality, bipartisan
legislation that respects American ideals.
By passing H.R. 9, our Committee will honor the sacrifices of the
great civil rights champions and namesakes of this bill: Fannie Lou
Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King.
Over the last several months, H.R. 9's provisions have been
carefully and effectively crafted to stomp out voting discrimination
and remove the barriers to full participation in the electoral process.
The bipartisan support for this bill is proof that we all agree
that voting is a fundamental right that gives every American citizen
the power to participate, influence, and collectively shape our
democratic government.
That power should not be denied to any citizen, regardless of the
color of their skin, or the language they speak.
Sadly, the record established during the reauthorization hearings
last fall proved that discrimination against racial and language
minority citizens still exists.
That is why I believe that passing H.R. 9, including reauthorizing
Section 203, is essential to safeguarding the voting rights of every
American citizen.
I sincerely hope that this bill is marked up today without partisan
or ideological amendments added to it.
Every Member of this body should join in support for this bill ``as
is,'' and resist pressures to weaken its protections or strip any of
its provisions in order to score short-term political points.
Again, I thank the Chairmen and Ranking Members of both the Full
Committee and Subcommittee for their leadership on this issue. And, I
strongly urge all of my colleagues to support a clean Voting Rights
Reauthorization bill.
I yield back.
Response to post-hearing questions from Rena Comisac, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of
Justice
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Letter from Loren Leman, Lieutenant Governor of Alaska, in response to
testimony by the Leadership Conference, and a report by Native American
Rights Fund Attorney Natalie Landreth, and law student Moira Smith,
presented before the Subcommittee on the Constitution
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Letter in support of reauthorization from Larry Naake, Executive
Director, National Association of Counties (NACO)
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Letter in opposition to reauthorization from Mark C. Scott, Esquire,
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioners of Berks County, Pennsylvania
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Letter in opposition to reauthorization from Steve Tatarenko,
Councilman, Clifton, New Jersey
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Prepared Statement of Jan Tyler, former Denver Election Commissioner,
Denver, Colorado
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<all>