<DOC> [109 Senate Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:28342.wais] S. Hrg. 109-562 MODERN ENFORCEMENT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ MAY 10, 2006 __________ Serial No. J-109-75 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 28-342 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) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........ 3 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts.................................................. 2 prepared statement........................................... 112 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 127 Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania................................................... 1 WITNESSES Cartagena, Juan, General Counsel, Community Service Society, New York, New York................................................. 14 Coleman, Gregory S., Weil Gotshall and Manges, Austin, Texas..... 20 Kim, Wan J., Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C......................... 4 Landreth, Natalie A., Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund, Anchorage, Alaska........................................ 18 McDuff, Robert B., Attorney, Jackson, Mississippi................ 21 Strickland, Frank B., Strickland Brockington Lewis, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia........................................................ 16 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Juan Cartagena to questions submitted by Senators Cornyn, Coburn, Leahy, Kennedy, and Schumer.................... 31 Responses of Gregory S. Coleman to questions submitted by Senators Coburn and Cornyn..................................... 50 Responses of Wan J. Kim to questions submitted by Senators Specter, Sessions, Cornyn, Coburn, Leahy, and Kennedy.......... 55 Responses of Natalie A. Landreth to questions submitted by Senators Cornyn, Coburn, Leahy, and Kennedy.................... 73 Responses of Robert B. McDuff to questions submitted by Senators Coburn, Cornyn, Kennedy, and Leahy............................. 82 Responses of Frank B. Strickland to questions submitted by Senator Coburn................................................. 100 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Cartagena, Juan, General Counsel, Community Service Society, New York, New York, prepared statement............................. 103 Coleman, Gregory S., Weil Gotshall and Manges, Austin, Texas, prepared statement............................................. 108 Kim, Wan J., Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., prepared statement.... 114 Landreth, Natalie A., Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund, Anchorage, Alaska, prepared statement.................... 124 McDuff, Robert B., Jackson, Attorney, Mississippi, prepared statement and attachment....................................... 129 Strickland, Frank B., Strickland Brockington Lewis, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, prepared statement.................................... 151 MODERN ENFORCEMENT OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT ---------- WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2006 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Specter, Hatch, DeWine, Sessions, Cornyn, Leahy, and Kennedy. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Chairman Specter. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is 9:30 and the Judiciary Committee will now proceed on the third in a series of hearings on the renewal of the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Yesterday, we examined the legal issues surrounding reauthorization, and today we will focus on how the Voting Rights Act is enforced. Just reading the statute does not get one very far until we probe on how the Act is enforced. For example, Section 5 provides that a voting practice must ``not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color,'' or a voter's English proficiency. That provision, a very important one, has been subject to significantly different interpretations. Beginning in 1976, the Supreme Court applied a thoroughly mechanical formula in evaluating district plans under Section 5. If the plan decreased the number of majority/minority districts, the Court would strike it down. Then in the 1990's, the Justice Department went a step further and followed a policy of rejecting any districting plan that did not create the maximum number of majority/minority districts possible. In Georgia v. Ashcroft in 2003, the Court rejected both its own approach and that of the Justice Department and held that districting plans can pass Section 5 even if they decreased the number of majority/minority districts. It is likewise important to understand the enforcement of Section 203, which requires bilingual election materials in certain jurisdictions. That section says nothing about how those jurisdictions should distribute bilingual election materials. It only requires a jurisdiction to ``provide them.'' It is enough that the materials be available on request. Must a State locate voters and ensure they receive them? What criteria should the States use to develop its programs? How the Department of Justice and local jurisdictions answer these questions has a great impact on how effective Section 203 will be. These are all complicated issues. We all recognize the overwhelming importance of the Act in securing fair treatment for minority voters, and the right to vote and the exercise of the right to vote is obviously the basic protection of a citizenry and a democracy. To help us examine these issues today, we have the head of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Assistant Attorney General Wan Kim. We also have five distinguished attorneys with extensive experience litigating and responding to the Voting Rights Act. I thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this important subject going over--let's see, the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's, the 1990's--five decades, Senator Kennedy. You are recognized for your opening statement. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for the breadth and depth of these hearings that will clearly establish a record on this very important and fundamental piece of legislation, perhaps the most important legislation we will consider in the Congress. As we know, the Voting Rights Act was adopted to address the systematic and egregious discrimination endured for over a hundred years in the country, and we heard testimony yesterday regarding the unfortunate fact that in numerous ways this discrimination still endures today. Laughlin McDonald, the Director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, provided very recent examples, and he testified about a TRO that was just issued last month on potentially discriminatory voting changes made in Randolph County, Georgia, that were not submitted for preclearance. Regrettably, it is not surprising that it may take more than 40 years to eliminate the blight of racial discrimination in voting. The Voting Rights Act combats the ills that are at the core of the 14th and 15th Amendments--racial prejudice. And while the remedy is strong, it is appropriate, given the fundamental importance of the right to vote and participate in the political process. And as the Supreme Court has held, the electoral franchise is a fundamental right that is preservative of all other rights. So we cannot discard lightly the safeguards adopted in the Voting Rights Act, particularly in Section 5 of the Act. The progress we have made has been great, but it is not complete, and we cannot allow it to be jeopardized or diminished. Today we will be hearing about the Justice Department's efforts to enforce the Voting Rights Act, and while I have some concern about the Justice Department's recent approach to implementing the Act, today we will hear from the Assistant Attorney General about the Justice Department's efforts and the continuing need for vigorous enforcement. Section 5 has been the Federal Government's most effective tool against voting discrimination. And even after the Act was passed, there was real and substantial danger that discriminatory decisions by jurisdictions covered by Section 5 would deny or abridge the right to vote. In fact, jurisdictions did adopt a host of voting devices and changes, some subtle and some overt, with the intent to shut minorities out of voting power. And some of those decisions had a discriminatory purpose. Some had a discriminatory effect. Others had both. It was because of the work of the Justice Department under Section 5 of the Act that those invidious voting changes were not implemented and that any progress in political participation was not undone. Taking a long view, historically the Justice Department has vigorously carried out its Section 5 responsibilities precisely as Congress intended it to. The record we will be examining, which the House hearings examined closely, indicates that there is a continuing problem with discriminatory decisionmaking with respect to voting by jurisdictions covered by Section 5. Today we will also hear from witnesses who will describe in more detail the concerns about continuing discrimination in some of the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 and Section 203, the minority language sections of the Voting Rights Act. As we have noted, compiling this record is one of the most important purposes of the hearings and will provide a sturdy foundation for our actions in this most important piece of legislation. We have a number of communities in my own State that are covered by Section 203, including Boston and Chelsea and Lawrence, Southbridge and Springfield as well. So, in addition, we will specifically be hearing about the role that Section 203 has played in ensuring the right to vote and having that vote count fully and fairly. Section 203 requires that certain jurisdictions provide for language assistance to American citizens who are limited in their English proficiency. Section 203 directly addresses barriers to voting for Asian Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, and it, too, as a provision should not be allowed to expire. So I thank the Chair and look forward to the testimony. Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Senator Cornyn, would you care to make an opening statement? STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Senator Cornyn. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for this series of hearings. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses along the lines that we previously inquired of other witnesses, trying to ascertain what sort of empirical evidence exists of changes in voting practices and whether some of the stereotypes that certainly were validated by the facts years ago in terms of precluding minorities from fully participating in the process, whether those stereotypes are still valid today in light of some of the dramatically improved changes that we have seen. And so I look forward to inquiring of the witnesses and hearing from them on those issues. Thank you very much. Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Senator DeWine, an opening statement? Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, I just thank you for holding this hearing, and I look forward to the testimony. Chairman Specter. Thank you very much. Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim became the holder of that position on November 9th of 2005. Born in South Korea, Mr. Kim is the first immigrant to serve as Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division and is the first Korean American ever to become an Assistant Attorney General, so you have two very distinguished firsts, Mr. Kim. He has experience in the Department before becoming the Assistant AG, having been the Deputy Assistant, spent most of his career at the Department of Justice, was in the Attorney General's Honors Program, was Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, served on the staff of Senator Hatch here, and was a law clerk to Senator Buckley; an honors graduate from both Johns Hopkins University and the University of Chicago Law School. He has served as an enlisted soldier and a rifle platoon leader in the Army Reserve. Thank you for joining us, Mr. Kim. Our practice is to allocate 5 minutes for statements and then 5-minute rounds for questions by the Senators on the panel. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF WAN J. KIM, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Kim. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding these hearings. It is my privilege to appear before you and before the other distinguished members of the Committee. It is my privilege to appear in this hearing on the modern enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. As you know, certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act are due to expire next year. The administration supports reauthorizing these provisions of the Voting Rights Act, as the President and the Attorney General have made clear. We also support the legislative intent of S. 2703 and H.R. 9 to overrule the Supreme Court's 2003 decisions in Georgia v. Ashcroft and the 2000 decision in Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board. While the Department of Justice has not yet completed our review of this bill's language, we look forward to working with Congress to ensure that this legislation is consistent with these purposes. I am pleased to provide you with an overview of the Justice Department's enforcement of three important provisions of the Voting Rights Act: Section 5, which involves the Act's preclearance mechanism, and Sections 203 and 4(f)(4), which contain the Act's language-minority provisions. I am also pleased to provide you with an explanation of the Department's use of two other provisions of the Act--Sections 6 and 8--which pertain to Federal examiners and observers. Let me begin with Section 5. The Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division receives roughly 4,000 to 6,000 Section 5 submissions annually, although each submission may contain numerous voting changes that each must be reviewed. Our function in evaluating Section 5 submissions is, in the words of the Supreme Court, ``to insure that no voting-procedure changes [are] made that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.'' Impressively, the outstanding career attorneys in our Voting Section undertake this often highly complex examination in a brief 60-day period of time, as is required under the statute. Employing this standard over the last 40 years, we have found retrogression in an extremely small number of cases. Since 1965, out of the 125,885 total Section 5 submissions received by the Department of Justice, the Attorney General has interposed an objection to 1,402. And in the last 10 years, there have been 92 objections. In other words, the overall objection rate since 1965 is only slightly above 1 percent while the annual objection rate since the mid-1990's has declined even more, now averaging less than two-tenths of a percent. This tiny objection rate reflects the overwhelming compliance with the Voting Rights Act by covered jurisdictions. In addition to our Section 5 enforcement efforts under this administration, the Justice Department has undertaken the most extensive Sections 203 and 4(f)(4) enforcement activities in its 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 notices 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 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. These efforts have borne abundant fruit. Since 2001, this administration has filed more language-minority cases under Sections 203 and 4(f)(4) than in the entire previous 26-year history of these provisions. The lawsuits filed in 2004 alone provided comprehensive language-minority programs to more citizens than all previous 203 and 4(f)(4) suits combined. Our lawsuits have significantly narrowed gaps in electoral participation. In Yakima County, Washington, for example, Hispanic voter registration went up by over 24 percent in less than 6 months after resolution of our Section 203 lawsuit. In San Diego County, California, Spanish and Filipino registration were up by over 21 percent, and Vietnamese registration was up over 37 percent, within 6 months following our enforcement efforts. Finally, the Department of Justice has taken full advantage of the Federal observer provisions of the Voting Rights Act. In 2004, for example, the Civil Rights Division worked with the Office of Personnel Management to send nearly 1,500 observers to cover 55 elections in 30 jurisdictions in 14 different States. Additionally, in 2005, 640 Federal observers were sent to cover 22 elections in 17 jurisdictions in 10 different States. Let me say in conclusion that the Civil Rights Division has made the vigorous enforcement of voting rights a primary objective. The Department of Justice is proud of the role that it plays in enforcing the statute, and we look forward to working with Congress during these reauthorization hearings. At this point, I would like to submit the text of my prepared statement for the record, and I will be pleased to answer any questions that the members of the Committee may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Kim appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Specter. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Kim. Without objection, your full statement will be made a part of the record. As you know, the record basis has to include recent and continuing violations. Over the past 10 years, are you in a position to say how many jurisdictions have refused to comply with Department of Justice enforcement orders and court orders? Mr. Kim. Senator, it is my understanding that no jurisdiction has refused to comply with our determinations made under Section 5. It is the case, however, that some jurisdictions have failed to make preclearance submissions under Section 5, as is required by the statute, and in those jurisdictions we will followup by bringing appropriate remedies, if necessary. Chairman Specter. How many such cases are there where they do not comply with the provisions you just mentioned? Mr. Kim. Senator, I would have to get the detailed statistics to you, and I will make those statistics available-- Chairman Specter. Would you make those available to us for the record so that we know the extent of that problem and also how current it is? Mr. Kim. Yes, sir. Chairman Specter. Can you give us some examples over the past 10 years of States committing unconstitutional voting discrimination? Mr. Kim. Yes, sir. Certainly with respect to some of our Section 203 lawsuits, we have found voters who have been denied other protections either by statute or by the Constitution. For example, in a recent lawsuit we brought against the city of Boston under Section 203 and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, we found instances where ballots presented to certain voters who did not understand English very well were taken from those voters and marked out against those voters' will. And certainly in instances in San Diego County, for example, we found examples where election officials would ask for additional information about citizenship from people who seemed to be Hispanic. And those kinds of violations are often found in the kinds of cases that we bring under the Voting Rights Act. Chairman Specter. Would you supply for the record the details or as much information as you have on unconstitutional behavior by a State or jurisdiction to give us as comprehensive a record as possible on this important question? Mr. Kim. Of course, Mr. Chairman. In fact, we have made available and submitted for the House record and we will make available and submit for the Senate record all of the objection letters that we have submitted under Section 5 in history, which number more than 2,000 pages. We will also make available all the lawsuits that we have brought in recent years that allege constitutional violations. Chairman Specter. Mr. Kim, as you know, Federal regulations require that jurisdictions covered under Section 203 provide bilingual materials to all voters or to develop ``an effective targeting system'' to identify ``persons who are likely to need them.'' Recently, the House Subcommittee on the Constitution found that an elected official from Orange County, California, claimed that the Department of Justice requires States to send bilingual materials to any voter with a Spanish-sounding surname. That has an overtone of racial profiling, assuming that anyone with a foreign-sounding surname cannot speak the language, regardless of how long they have lived here. Does the Department of Justice enforce such a policy? Why doesn't the Department of Justice simply require States to send bilingual ballots to those voters the census lists as needing assistance? Or is the census adequate to pinpoint the need for that kind of assistance? Mr. Kim. Mr. Chairman, to answer the first part of your question, no, the Department of Justice does not make such a requirement. The Department of Justice is charged with enforcing Congressional intent in Section 203, and we do so vigorously. And part of that intent is to make sure that people who need the bilingual provisions obtain them and no more than that. If we required the jurisdiction that was covered to provide bilingual materials to everyone in that jurisdiction, obviously that would be a burden that is not commensurate to the harm. The Census Bureau data only provides information with respect to the entire jurisdiction and does not break out those individuals in the jurisdiction who actually need the bilingual services. And so in each individual jurisdiction, the Department of Justice takes a comprehensive view of the facts and circumstances in that jurisdiction to determine the best method for obtaining compliance. Chairman Specter. Mr. Kim, I want to interrupt you because I have time for one more question. What are the key reasons, the best reasons in your mind about the need for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act? What currently is happening which leads you to believe the Act should be reauthorized? Mr. Kim. Well, Senator, as you know, the administration strongly supports reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, and we have a proud history of enforcing the Voting Rights Act since its inception at the Department of Justice. The Act has a continuing vitality. We file objections under Section 5 every year. We have brought numerous lawsuits in the past 5 years to enforce the language-minority provisions, and these are the provisions that are due to expire, and we do believe that these provisions serve a continuing need. Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Kim. Senator DeWine has graciously consented to chair the balance of the hearing, so at this point I turn the gavel over to Senator DeWine. Thank you. Senator DeWine [presiding]. Senator Kennedy? Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much. Could you just continue on your answer about Section 203? We had a situation in Boston, as you mentioned, and it was settled very expeditiously, and the people--the mayor feels that the interaction with the Department has been enormously constructive and positive. So it is one of those circumstances where those that were pointed out where there had been alleged kinds of problems benefited significantly from working with the Department. But besides the 203, in response to the Chairman's question, I mean, we have seen the growth of the terms of the Hispanic community and a number of different communities, so that Section 203 is going to be out there and applicable in places where I suppose we did not think were much of a problem, but we obviously have to watch these situations. But in Section 5, if you could--you mentioned that you have been bringing cases. Maybe you could just expand on that briefly about what has been the record in the period of the last--I don't know. I guess you have been in there now for a period, but could you give us sort of a rundown of the recent history, say for 5 or 7 years? Mr. Kim. Certainly, Senator. First of all, it cannot be overstated that the Voting Rights Act has widely been recognized as one of the most successful pieces of civil rights legislation ever passed by Congress, if not the most successful. It has, during its course of history, significantly narrowed gaps in electoral participation by all Americans, and that is certainly a proud history and one that we are proud to enforce. Over the history of the Voting Rights Act, the covered jurisdictions are required, of course, to submit for preclearance any changes in its voting procedures, and that submission by itself creates a deterrent effect. So I think it is important, when one thinks about Section 5 and preclearance, to recognize that the very fact of submission is an important detail that prevents retrogression and prevents harming minority voting strength and prevents back-sliding, the very types of evils that Congress sought to prevent in passing Section 5. And even with the submission procedures, it is true that the number of objections filed by the Department of Justice has declined in the past 10 years to approximately two-tenths of 1 percent. The need for objections, however, is real, and we do make those objections every year. And so the fact of the matter is, in the past 5 years, we have raised approximately something shy of 50 objections. Stated differently, those are 50 cases that we have prevented in terms of allowing a voting change to take place that may have had a retrogressive effect or a retrogressive purpose. And we think that that is enormously important to the work of promoting the very goals that Congress sought to promote in the Voting Rights Act. Senator Kennedy. Explain to me a little bit the value of observers. How do you make the judgment when you are going to have observers? And how important have they been in these recent cases, recent elections? Mr. Kim. Well, Senator, we think that sending observers and monitors to help assist local election officials conduct the elections is enormously important because they help to prevent problems before there is a real problem, and they help to make sure that no one at the polls is denied access to the polls consistent with Federal law and constitutional law. The decision on when to appoint observers and monitors is one based upon the facts and circumstances on the ground with respect to any particular election. Senator Kennedy. Give us some examples about the extent, how many different sort of polling areas that you have provided-- Mr. Kim. Well, Senator, those numbers are in my prepared statement, and certainly with respect to--in 2004, for example, the Presidential election, we sent out nearly 1,500 observers to monitor 55 elections in 30 jurisdictions in 14 States. That is in addition to Civil Rights and Department of Justice personnel--an additional 400 people to monitor 100 elections in 80 jurisdictions in 27 different States. That was the most extensive observer and monitor coverage in history. Senator Kennedy. What do you anticipate in this election here in 2006? Mr. Kim. Senator, we have not reached firm numbers yet. Clearly, Presidential elections are different in terms of magnitude and scale, and we need to step up our enforcement efforts and our monitoring efforts commensurately. But, you know, the commitment that I have as the head of the Civil Rights Division is to make sure that whatever the need is, we will accommodate it. Senator Kennedy. Just finally, could you tell us--I understand the Department of Justice has offered assistance to jurisdictions on ways to reduce costs of compliance with Section 203. Could you describe for us some of the outreach the Department has done in this regard? Mr. Kim. Absolutely, Senator. One of the important things, I think, with Section 203 is communication and technical assistance because many jurisdictions who are covered do not realize exactly that they are covered, nor do they know how to comply with the Act in a cost-effective way. Our folks are experts in doing so, and we have made contact by mailing letters to every covered jurisdiction shortly after the Census Bureau made the determination in 2002, having face-to-face meetings, and under the facts and circumstances of each particular case, designing a targeting method to reach the voters to whom the provisions are directed in a manner that is cost-effective to the jurisdiction to ensure compliance. Senator Kennedy. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kim. Thank you, Senator. Senator DeWine. Mr. Kim, thanks for joining us. You mentioned that the Department supports the efforts this bill is making to overturn the results of some recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, certainly including the case of Georgia v. Ashcroft. Could you share with us the practical effect of that case and how that has changed how you do business, how the Department investigates and prosecutes cases under the Voting Rights Act? Mr. Kim. Yes, Senator. Certainly, Georgia v. Ashcroft has changed the analysis that the United States employs when reviewing Section 5 submissions by covered jurisdictions. And, of course, the Government's position in Georgia v. Ashcroft was the one rejected by the Supreme Court and adopted by only four members of the Court. I will say at the outset, of course, that the Department of Justice will act pursuant to the laws passed by Congress as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and we have been faithful in our application of Georgia v. Ashcroft. That said, we do support what we understand the intent of S. 2703 and H.R. 9 to be in terms of overruling legislatively the Supreme Court's decision in Georgia v. Ashcroft. What Georgia v. Ashcroft did was adopt a totality of the circumstances approach to redistricting standards, and since Georgia v. Ashcroft was decided in 2003, we have not had occasion to review many redistricting submissions employing its standard. Clearly, a small proportion of redistricting happens after the decennial census. Most of it occurred and was evaluated prior to the standards enunciated by Georgia v. Ashcroft because, again, we obtain most of our redistricting submissions about 2 years after the census, so about 2002. We have tried to faithfully employ, and we have, I submit, faithfully employed the standard enunciated by Georgia v. Ashcroft, but the totality of the circumstances standard involves a much more nuanced approach to retrogression. It requires not only looking at minority-controlled districts, but also influence districts where minorities may not control the outcome of elections but influence the outcome of elections. And the totality of the circumstances approach is one that is in many respects more nuanced and more difficult to administer because it requires a greater look at everything that is going on rather than focused areas. Senator DeWine. You do not have a specific example you could cite for me? Mr. Kim. With respect to a problem caused by Georgia v. Ashcroft, Senator? Senator DeWine. Problem or a case where you could show me the actual difference in the application of the law. Mr. Kim. No, Senator, I do not-- Senator DeWine. Pre-Georgia v. Ashcroft. In other words, compare and contrast how you would approach it. Or if you cannot do that, give me a hypothetical. Mr. Kim. Sure. Senator DeWine. Make up a hypothetical for me. Mr. Kim. Absolutely. Well, Senator, I mean, the facts of Georgia v. Ashcroft themselves would probably be the best hypothetical because that was a plan to which we objected, and that was a plan-- Senator DeWine. What were the facts? Mr. Kim. Well, Senator, the facts were--and I am not going to do justice to the facts right now, but the facts generally were that there was a decrease in the number of minority citizens of voting age population in, I believe, three legislative districts in the State of Georgia. And the benchmark plan had approximately a 55- to 60-percent level of minority populations in those covered districts, and the plan that Georgia submitted under Section 5 reduced that minority population in, I believe, those three districts to closer to 50 percent, making those districts much more of a toss-up. The United States interposed an objection to those districts, and I believe it was three, but do not quote me on that, and I will get back to you certainly with more specific and finely honed details. The Supreme Court ruled that that legislative judgment was appropriate under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and not retrogressive because the decreases of minority voting strength in those districts was compensated by increases in minority voting strength in other districts. Those districts where minority strength increased could not be characterized and were not characterized as majority-minority districts but sufficiently increased the minority voting strength in those districts so it transformed them into what was called influence districts. And based upon that totality of the circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 5 that was a legitimate decision and choice for the States to make. And consistent with our previous practices prior to Georgia v. Ashcroft, we thought that that was retrogressive under pre- Georgia v. Ashcroft law. Senator DeWine. Thank you very much. Senator Cornyn? Senator Cornyn. Mr. Kim, let me ask you, first of all, you said the record today in terms of the Voting Rights Act is one that demonstrates overwhelming compliance with the law. Is that correct? Mr. Kim. Yes, sir. Senator Cornyn. Let me ask you if you agree with this following statement: And today in the American South--in 1965, there were less than 100 elected black officials. Today there are several thousand. So there has been a transformation. Georgia is a different State. It is a different political climate. It is a different political environment. It is a different world that we live in, really. The State is not the same State it was. It is not the same State it was in 1965 or in 1975 or even 1980 or 1990. We have changed. We have come a great distance. It is not just in Georgia but in the American South. I think people are preparing to lay down the burden of race. Do you agree with that statement? Mr. Kim. Senator, I have no reason to disagree with that statement, and I certainly agree that the Voting Rights Act has effected a great change, and America has changed much over the past 40 years. Senator Cornyn. That statement is part of sworn deposition testimony, as you know--you probably recognize it--in Georgia v. Ashcroft by Representative John Lewis. I want to ask, in light of this record of overwhelming compliance, first of all, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, to make a part of the record at the end of my questions and Mr. Kim's answers a document that I believe is part of the DOJ testimony entitled ``Administrative Review of Voting Changes from 1965 to 2006.'' Senator DeWine. Without objection. Senator Cornyn. Mr. Kim, this document appears to demonstrate that, first of all, as you pointed out, that the number of objections to preclearance requests by those jurisdictions covered by Section 5 have dropped dramatically. I think you mentioned two-tenths of 1 percent? Mr. Kim. Yes, sir. That is correct. Senator Cornyn. And, in fact, in 2006, according to this document, there was one out of 4,094 submitted; out of 4,734 in 2006, there was one; the previous year, 5,211, and there were three objections. Is that indicative of what you have testified to earlier, a record of overwhelming compliance obviating the necessity of the Department objecting to those plans that are submitted for preclearance? Mr. Kim. Yes, Senator. There is almost near universal compliance with the Voting Rights Act, in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act specifically. Senator Cornyn. And as you know, the preclearance requirements under Section 5 are regarded by some of the political subdivisions that are covered as expensive and time- consuming and to some extent an onerous requirement. They cover only, I guess, nine States and parts of other States, but the vast majority of the United States is not covered at all by those preclearance requirements. Could you cite for the Committee empirical evidence that would indicate that the outcomes, in terms of protection of minority voting rights, are significantly different in those sections that are covered versus those that are not covered? Mr. Kim. Senator, I am afraid I do not have a record with respect to non-covered jurisdictions in the context of Section 5 because, of course, we do not receive submissions under Section 5 from non-covered jurisdictions. Certainly you are correct to note that the Voting Rights Act has a trigger formula for coverage, which turns on various factors that existed in 1964, 1968, and 1972, leading to approximately 17 States that are covered either entirely or in part. I would also note that there is a bailout mechanism employed in the Act that allows covered jurisdictions to bail out of coverage under Section 5. Senator Cornyn. You are certainly correct the bailout provisions exist, but we are being asked to reauthorize expiring provisions, and so I would submit that is a slightly different issue. But when I ask for the empirical evidence and you say that you do not have it for those areas that are not covered, is that because you are of the opinion that such empirical evidence does not exist or you just do not happen to have it? Mr. Kim. Senator, I just do not have the evidence. I mean, certainly I have statistics with regard to the number of submissions that we receive, the number of submissions that we evaluate, and the number of submissions that we raise objections to under Section 5. But that data only exists because of history and because of Congress and the laws that it has passed with respect to the covered jurisdictions. Senator Cornyn. Would you agree with me that that is an important question for Congress to consider in determining how to go about reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, particularly the preclearance requirements, whether, in fact, that Federal intervention into the practices of local and State political subdivisions covered by the preclearance actually produces better outcomes in those areas than it would under the Voting Rights Act generally? Mr. Kim. Senator, certainly the administration supports reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, and it is Congress' role, and I think duty in many respects, to make sure that it is a policy decision that is consistent with the goals of Congress and the facts on the ground. And I think that a wide- ranging inquiry is something that Congress has always undertaken, and I know that the record is still open. I know that these hearings are still ongoing, and certainly we will act at the Department of Justice consistent with what Congress legislates. Senator Cornyn. Thank you. Senator DeWine. Senator Kennedy? Senator Kennedy. Just a question to followup on this. Could you relate then--Section 2, which covers the country--how that would relate to these areas that are not covered under Section 5, wouldn't that still be available in those jurisdictions? Mr. Kim. Yes, Senator. Section 2 has nationwide application. It always has had nationwide application. It does not expire, and we certainly enforce the provisions of Section 2 where the cases present themselves. Senator Kennedy. Is it your sense from looking at Section 2, in looking at these other areas that are not covered that the Senator mentions, is there anything you want to tell us about whether there are Section 2 cases in those areas? Are there a good number in some areas? Do you form any opinion about the number of Section 2 cases, that maybe there should be greater coverage? Mr. Kim. Senator, I can give you some information with regard to the number of Section 2 cases that we have brought in the past 10 years or so. I will say that with respect to the Section 2 cases the Department of Justice has brought in the past 10 years, more of them have been brought in non-covered jurisdictions than covered jurisdictions, which suggests many things, but it certainly could suggest that the preclearance mechanisms in Section 5 do have an effect in the covered jurisdictions in tamping down abuses of the Voting Rights Act. Senator Kennedy. I think if you can provide, you know, just some information on that, it would be helpful. Mr. Kim. We would be happy to do so, Senator. Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator DeWine. Senator Hatch? Senator Hatch. Well, Mr. Kim, we are so proud to have you back here again. We appreciate the work you are doing down there. Sorry I have not been able to get here before now, but I just want everybody to know that I have considered the Voting Rights Act the most important civil rights bill in history, and there are a lot of important bills. So we are very concerned about making sure that we follow through and do what is right here. But I appreciate you being here. Is there anybody else who wants to question? Senator DeWine. It is down to you, Senator. Senator Hatch. Well, then we are going to let you go. How is that? [Laughter.] Mr. Kim. Thank you, Senator Hatch. It is always good to see you. Senator Hatch. Well, thank you. Good to see you. We are proud of you. Senator DeWine. Mr. Kim, thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony and look forward to continuing to work with you. Mr. Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman I have a letter written by the Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs dated April 12, 2006, to Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. This letter speaks for itself, but it addresses the Department's response to Chairman Sensenbrenner's request for those cases where the Department has been either admonished or been required to pay attorney's fees in connection with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. I would ask unanimous consent that it be made part of the record. Senator DeWine. That will be made a part of the record. Senator Cornyn. Thank you. Senator DeWine. Let me invite our second panel to start coming up right now, and I will begin to introduce all of you. Robert McDuff is a civil rights and criminal defense attorney practicing in Jackson, Mississippi. He is currently Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of the Mississippi Center for Justice and serves on the Board of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Prior to opening his own practice, in 1992 he was a faculty member of the University of Mississippi Law School. Gregory Coleman is a partner in the Litigation Department. He has an appellate litigation practice in a variety of areas and has argued and won four cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He previously served as the Solicitor General for the State of Texas from 1999 to the year 2001. Natalie Landreth is a staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund. Ms. Landreth has worked with the Native American Rights Fund since July 2003 and currently practices entirely in the area of Federal and State American Indian and Alaska Native Law. Most recently, she authored a report entitled ``Voting Rights in Alaska 1982-2006.'' Prior to joining the Native American Rights Fund, she worked in the first Office of Tribal Justice in the United States Department of Justice. Frank Strickland is a partner in the Atlanta law firm of Strickland Brockington Lewis and a regular speaker on the topic of election law. During the 1990's, he served as redistricting counsel to the Georgia Republican Party and represented two voters in Jones v. Miller, the 1992 case arising from Georgia's 1991 redistricting. He has been the attorney on a number of other high-profile election cases, as well. Juan Cartagena is a civil rights attorney who serves as a general counsel at the Community Service Society of New York, where he litigates voting rights cases on behalf of poor communities. He has held previous positions with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and was the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's Department of Puerto Rican Community Affairs. Since 1991, he has represented Latino and African-American communities in voting rights litigation in a number of States, including Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and New Hampshire. He also currently serves as co-chair of the New York Voting Rights Consortium, a collection of major legal defense funds that protects the voting rights of racial and language minorities. We welcome all of you here today. We will start on my right. Mr. Cartagena, thank you for joining us. You are first. STATEMENT OF JUAN CARTAGENA, GENERAL COUNSEL, COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY, NEW YORK, NEW YORK Mr. Cartagena. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear before this distinguished Committee and testify on S. 2703, the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. In particular, I want to focus on the provisions that provide for language assistance for American citizens who speak English as a second language. I have been a voting rights attorney since 1981 who has used the promises of equal opportunity and full political access established in the VRA to assist racial and language minorities in a number of States. The Community Service Society, where I work, is an independent, nonprofit organization that for more than 160 years has engaged in social science research, advocacy, policy analysis, direct service, and volunteerism to address the problems of poverty and strengthen community life for all. Since 1989, we have used the Voting Rights Act and other legal norms to benefit these most marginalized communities by ensuring full and fair representation, especially of African- American and Latino voters. I will limit my remarks this morning in light of previous work that I have submitted to the record on the reauthorization debate before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution as it considered the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. I have attached those documents to my statement as appendices. These include the testimony I gave in November, which highlighted the reauthorization of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act in New York City as well as in New Jersey, with a special emphasis on the voting rights of Puerto Rican voters; a report that I drafted called ``Voting Rights in New York 1982-2006'' for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, which summarizes the state of compliance with the three expiring provisions of the VRA in New York; and an article I drafted for the National Black Law Journal at Columbia Law School, ``Latinos and Section 5: Beyond Black and White,'' which addresses important issues for Puerto Rican voters under Section 4(e). I just want to emphasize a few points for you. One, we applaud the bipartisan efforts that this Congress has used to address the critical issues of political participation for racial and language minorities. The VRA has consistently received bipartisan support since its inception and its amendments, and we welcome the manner in which these important debates have been held. Two, the right to vote, the very right that is ``preservative of all rights,'' is just too important a right to delay, impede, or otherwise fail to make fully and meaningfully available to American citizens who speak English as a second language. Regardless of the concerns that some opponents of the VRARA may have about the primacy of English in our country, democracy is too precious and voting is too fundamental to condition on full mastery of English for American citizens in certain areas of the country who have yet to master English. In saying this, we echo the U.S. Supreme Court in Katzenbach v. Morgan, which upheld the language assistance provisions of Section 4(e) for Puerto Rican voters in the original Act of 1965 as a valid exercise of Congressional enforcement powers under the 14th and 15th Amendments by noting that Congress may have questioned at that time ``whether the denial of a right deemed so precious and fundamental in our society was a necessary or appropriate means of encouraging persons to learn English, or of furthering the goal of an intelligent exercise of the franchise.'' Three, we cannot emphasize enough that the rights we are advocating for today this morning are the rights of citizens of this country to full and fair access to the franchise. With the equally important and pressing matters before the Senate regarding immigration policy, we cannot conflate these issues. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act, as currently proposed, addresses the rights of American citizens who speak English as a second language. Recent research by the Arizona State University has documented that three-quarters of all voters who depend on language assistance are native-born. Section 203 of the Act was created to address concerns of access to the ballot and under significant educational disparities as highlighted by higher than average illiteracy rates for certain language minorities in the U.S. More severe forms of exclusion for language minority citizens led to the adoption of Section 4(f)(4) in 1975. Both provisions still operate today to benefit native-born citizens. Puerto Rican voters would be a case in point: All of them are U.S. citizens by operation of law, significant numbers of them are either monolingual in Spanish on the island or because of educational disparities in the U.S. have still not mastered English proficiently here, and circular migration patterns between both of those points--the U.S. and Puerto Rico--are still present today. Four, the major factors which led to Sections 203 and 4(f)(4) are still present today for Latino citizens. Educational Attainment still lags far behind white or black counterparts. Illiteracy rates are far higher than national averages; 75 percent, compared to 18 percent nationwide, speak a language other than English at home, and Latino registration rates are lower than either black or white registration rates nationally. Finally, Section 203 is self-maintaining. It adjusts itself depending on changing demographic patterns, even more so with the amendments in the proposed Act for using ACS data in 5-year cycles, and contains a bailout provision that is hinged on improving illiteracy rates for these language minority groups. All of it demonstrates, consistent with Katzenbach v. Morgan, that it is a proper exercise of Congressional authority in furtherance of Congress' enforcement powers under the 14th and 15th Amendments where Congressional power, I would submit, is at its zenith, even under the current case law of the U.S. Supreme Court. I will gladly accept any questions at the appropriate time. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cartagena appears as submission for the record.] Senator DeWine. Thank you very much. Mr. Strickland? STATEMENT OF FRANK B. STRICKLAND, STRICKLAND BROCKINGTON LEWIS, LLP, ATLANTA, GEORGIA Mr. Strickland. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, and thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the important issue of the renewal of certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Although I have been involved in a number of redistricting cases, as you mentioned in my resume, I want to talk to you today in a different capacity, and I am not here in an official capacity, but I am one of five members of the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections, which is a bipartisan board in Fulton County which has general supervision of all voter registration and election processes in Georgia's largest county. First, I would raise a question: Should Georgia continue to be a covered jurisdiction? The election results in Georgia over the years, not only in Fulton County but statewide, suggest that the answer is no. In 1969, there were 30 African-American office holders, 14 of whom served in the legislature. By 2001, this number had increased to 611. And the makeup of Georgia's Congressional delegation is even more revealing. Four of 13 Members of Congress are African-American, and that share of the Georgia House seats, 31 percent, exceeds the African-American population in the State. And at the State level, there is a significant number of African-American elected officials, 9 of 34, including our Attorney General, and members of the Supreme Court and court of appeals. The experience in Fulton County is similar. The Board of Commissioners of Fulton County has a 4-3 African-American majority. The mayor of Atlanta has been an African-American since 1972. The Fulton County legislative delegation to the Georgia General Assembly includes a majority of African- American representatives. In addition, an examination of the people who run the elections in Fulton County is illuminating. Approximately 95 percent of the Election Department staff is African-American. In primary and general elections, more than half of the paid poll workers in the 356 voting precincts in Fulton County are African-American. Some might suggest that rather than trying to escape coverage in renewal legislation, Georgia, and particularly Fulton County, should pursue the bailout mechanism under Section 4. That section allows a jurisdiction to bail out of the preclearance requirements of the Act if it has had no objections interposed by the Justice Department for a period of 10 years; in other words, it has to have a perfect record. That might appear to be the obvious choice for Fulton County, but there is a catch. Here is how it works. Because there are 11 cities within Fulton County, if any one of those cities has had a single objection interposed by the Department during the 10- year period, Fulton County is automatically prevented from seeking to bail out of the preclearance requirements, even if its own 10-year record is flawless. A recent example that stopped Fulton County from pursuing the bailout provision resulted from the failure of one of those cities to obtain timely preclearance of one or more annexations into the city in an area where the African-American population is probably less than 5 percent. This means that Fulton County has to start over and achieve a new 10-year record of perfection in its own preclearance procedures and hope that all the cities in the county will also achieve perfection. There has got to be a better way to do that, and I see no reason why Fulton County's perfect record should not stand alone and that the time period for compliance should not be shortened. Even if these jurisdictions remain covered, Congress should still examine what changes should remain covered. As another example, the Fulton County Election Board spends considerable staff and board time reviewing and approving simple changes in the location of a polling place from one public building to another. In many instances, the polling place is in a church and is being moved to another church because the current location is no longer available for use as a polling place. Similarly, the simple task of setting a date for a special election must also be precleared, despite the fact that the requirements for special elections are a matter of Georgia law which cannot be varied by any action of the Election Board. I think I am about to run out of time, so I will conclude by saying thank you for your consideration of my comments, and I would ask that my written testimony be made a part of the record and I be allowed to revise and extend my remarks where appropriate. Thank you very much. Senator DeWine. It will be made a part of the record. [The prepared statement of Mr. Strickland appears as submission for the record.] Senator DeWine. Ms. Landreth? STATEMENT OF NATALIE A. LANDRETH, STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Ms. Landreth. Good morning. I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me to speak today. It is a true honor to be here. My name is Natalie Landreth, and I am a staff attorney at the Native American Rights Fund in Anchorage. I am an enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma and a descendent of the Imatobby family, who survived the Trail of Tears. I am here to discuss the impact of the Voting Rights Act in Alaska and the need for reauthorization and enforcement of the Act. Alaska is subject to Section 4(f)(4) and 203--the minority language provisions--as well as Section 5, the preclearance requirement. Under the auspices of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and the Native American Rights Fund, I prepared a report detailing the Alaska Native experience under the Act. The evidence gathered in preparation of the report shows that there is still a very real need for minority language assistance and Federal oversight in the form of preclearance. To our surprise, however, we also discovered, one, that, with all due respect to the State of Alaska, it has been out of compliance with the VRA for more than 30 years and, two, that the Act has largely not been enforced in Alaska. First, however, I must give you a small picture of the Alaska Native population to enable you to understand the reality on the ground. It is naturally very different than the previous two scenarios described. Alaska has the single largest indigenous population in the United States at 19 percent. Most of these people reside in rural Alaska, which is largely inaccessible by road; all supplies must be flown in. It consists of about 200 Native villages with no services, hotels, roads of any kind. Only 70 to 75 percent of these homes even have sanitation systems, and the rest use well water. They live off subsistence, literally fishing and hunting off the land. In places like this, a ballot box often has to move up and down the river on Election Day in order to hit all of the polling places, and you have half an hour to vote. In November, this is no mean feat. On Election Day in 2004, 24 of these villages did not even have polling places. Today, an Alaska Native is likely to be unemployed--fewer than 50 percent have jobs--and when he does get a job, he will earn just 50 to 60 percent of what non-Natives earn in Alaska. As a result, they are 3 times more likely than other Alaskans to be poor. They also have the lowest level of education. At the time the VRA was extended to Alaska in 1975, only 2,400 Natives had graduated high school at all. This is incredibly important because this is now your elder population that are having a very hard time understanding the English ballot. Seventy-five percent of all Alaska Natives have now graduated from high school. There have been gains, but at the same time, our dropout rate is actually increasing. The 2005 standardized test results reveal that 80.5 percent of the new Alaska Native voters, graduating seniors, did not pass reading comprehension in English--80.5 percent. This enduring but disadvantaged population speaks about 20 different indigenous languages. Yet it is a well-known fact that Alaska does not provide ballots or election materials in any languages other than English and Tagalog out in Kodiak Island. Yet all of Alaska is covered by 4(f)(4), and 14 census areas are also covered by 203. The Native population still meets or exceeds all the population and illiteracy benchmarks set forth in the VRA. Yet Alaska provides nothing more than intermittent oral assistance upon request. In addition to this clear noncompliance with the letter of the law, we know there is a real need for language assistance. In the Bethel census area, a Yup'ik-speaking region, 21 percent of the population is limited English proficient, and there are 17 villages in which Yup'ik is the only language that is spoken. It is one of the oldest written languages in North America. Signs are Yup'ik, school is taught in Yup'ik, and the Pledge of Allegiance is recited in Yup'ik. They consider it their first language. We now know also that the English ballot is interfering with the exercise of the right to vote. For example, in 1995, 18 non-English-speaking Inupiat sued the city of Barrow claiming that the absence of written materials in Inupiaq and the absence of a standardized oral translation led them to vote the wrong way. A class of elders wanted to vote to institute an alcohol ban to protect the children being born in the village, and because they did not understand a single-sentence ballot measure in English, they accidentally voted to repeal that measure. Alaska is also subject to preclearance, and there has only been one objection in Alaska's history. But it is hard to overstate the importance of that objection. While the Alaska Supreme Court approved the redistricting plan put together after the 1990 Census, the astute staff of the Department of Justice caught a retrogressive district called District 36 that showed evidence in racially polarized voting that actually reduced the Native voting-age population. What the court had not objected to and what would have been permissible under Alaska was only prevented by the intervention of the DOJ. Without it, Alaska may have been subject to retrogressive policies throughout the 1990's until the next census. I see that I have, unfortunately, run out of time, so I would like to--I apologize. I would like to submit the entire text of my comments for the record, if I may. [The prepared statement of Ms. Landreth appears as submissions for the record.] Senator DeWine. Thank you very much. Mr. Coleman? STATEMENT OF GREGORY S. COLEMAN, WEIL GOTSHALL AND MANGES, AUSTIN, TEXAS Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to come and visit with the Committee today. As I noted in my written remarks, I would like to address the issue of the reauthorization of the preclearance provisions of Section 5. I believe that preclearance should not be reauthorized. I believe that it is unnecessary, unfair and that it would probably be unconstitutional. With respect to the necessity of Section 5, there is a lot of data that has been put before the Congress, both in the hearings on the House side and now on this side. But that data, in my view, does not amount to a justification for the reauthorization of Section 5. It is largely anecdotal. It does not establish a need for preclearance provisions at all, and it certainly does not establish a need for preclearance provisions in the States only and political subdivisions that have historically been subjected to preclearance. This is not 1965. This is not 1975. The bill that has been introduced notes that the original problems that the Voting Rights Act sought to remedy have in fact largely been remedied and moves the focus toward, I think, what it calls secondary barriers. There are no findings in the record, and there cannot be any findings that those secondary barriers, to the extent that they really do exist, exist only in the jurisdictions that were pegged to be covered under Section 5 in the 1960's and 1970's. Most of the significant litigation in the Voting Rights Act area in the past 10 years has been Shaw-based, suggesting a need to get rid of preclearance. An analogy that one might make is another very successful statute and that is the Americans with Disabilities Act. Enforcement of that Act has been very successful, and yet, Congress did not require every company, every city, every State to submit its building plans to the Department of Justice for review before they have been approved, but has relied on enforcement mechanisms. Those enforcement mechanisms have been extremely successful, and as noted by those who have testified today, as well as in prior hearings, Section 2 and other provisions of the Voting Rights Act have been extremely successful, and they remain a very potent force to remedy any voting rights issues that may exist today or that may come up in the future. There is, as noted today by Mr. Kim, more Section 2 litigation outside the covered jurisdictions. Perhaps Congress might want to consider freeing all the covered jurisdictions from Section 5 and putting all of the remaining States and political subdivisions under coverage for a period of time, so that they can remedy the problems that they appear to have. It is also unfair--I note in my written remarks that the preclearance provisions, while very effective in the early years of the Voting Rights Act, have become largely rote and ineffective. In the tens of thousands of submissions in recent years, the objection rate has moved to where it has become infinitesimally small. Even among those objections, there are many that are withdrawn or that are simply not good objections, and ultimately shown to be so. But there is no case today when you have a team of lawyers that are essentially costing States and political subdivisions within those States tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in the preparation of Section 5 preclearance submissions, when you have an objection rate that is in the single digits per 10,000 submissions. That type of enforcement, I think, is costly and no longer effective. The coverage formula, too, is not changing, and yet none of the evidence that is before the Congress contains any connection to the coverage formulas that the Congress initially put in place. Finally, I would like to just say a word that the Supreme Court has increasingly recognized the federalism concerns that Section 5 implicates, and there is a strong possibility that if reauthorized, that Section 5 would very shortly be struck down as an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's power. I am available for questions at the Committee's bidding. [The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman appears as submission for the record.] Senator Hatch [presiding]. Thank you. Mr. McDuff? STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. MCDUFF, ATTORNEY, JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI Mr. McDuff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a native of Mississippi, who lives there and has spent most of his life there, and as a lawyer who has represented black voters in a number of voting rights cases in Mississippi and elsewhere, I want to urge you to renew Section 5, and I want to talk a little bit about the experience in Mississippi. After the Civil War and the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments, some progress was made in the racial integration of public life in the south, but when the Federal Government lost interest after Reconstruction, it was all nullified by actions like those taken at the Mississippi Constitutional Convention of 1890, and the south was plunged into decades of horrific racial discrimination. It was only after Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act that the promise of those amendments began to be restored. But in Mississippi, as in some other States, Government officials continued to try to nullify and minimize the vote of black citizens, leading the Department of Justice to object to voting changes in Mississippi 169 times since the passage of the Act, 112 of those since the Act was reauthorized in 1982. Now, Section 5 has led to a great deal of progress in Mississippi and elsewhere. In absolute numbers, Mississippi has the highest number of black elected officials among any of the 50 States. But despite the fact that it also has the highest percentage of black population among the 50 States, no black citizen has been elected to office in a statewide election in Mississippi in the 20th century, and at every level of government, viewed from a statewide perspective, the percentage of black officeholders is lower than the black voting-age population percentage in the State, and the percentage of white officeholders is higher than the percentage of white voting-age population, and we continue to see disturbing signs of the destructive role that race plays in public life. In the second most recent legislative redistricting process in Mississippi, the one in 1991 and 1992, the legislature defeated a proposed redistricting plan that would have increased the number of black majority districts with legislators repeatedly referring to it on the floor as the ``black plan,'' and some privately calling it the ``nigger plan,'' even though it was supported by a biracial coalition of 20 black legislators and 38 whites. The legislature passed a plan that created fewer majority black districts than this proposal, but fortunately, the Department of Justice objected to it on racial purpose grounds, citing as part of the evidence these racial characterizations. In 2001, the all-white city council of Kilmichael, Mississippi, canceled city elections 3 weeks before they were to be held, after new data showed the town's voting population had become majority black and after, for the first time in the city's history, a number of black citizens qualified to run for office. Fortunately, the Department of Justice objected to that cancellation. In 2003, in the most recent statewide election in Mississippi, a 46-year-old black candidate for State treasurer, who had served as the State's Director of Finance Administration, who had a wealth of public finance and private sector experience, was defeated in an election marked by racially polarized voting by a 29-year-old white candidate, whose only experience was that he had worked as a mid-level bank employee, demonstrating that it is still difficult for a black person, no matter how qualified, to be elected to statewide office in Mississippi. In 2004, a sitting white trial court judge, running against the only black supreme court justice in the State, used the slogan ``one of us'' when referring to himself, implying that there is a them, and his opponent is one of them, a throwback to a slogan condemned as a racial appeal 20 years earlier by a three-judge Federal District Court in Mississippi, when it was used by a white congressional candidate, who defeated a black candidate trying to become Mississippi's first black Member of Congress in the 20th century. And finally, in 2005, a three-judge Federal District Court had to enjoin the city of McComb, Mississippi, from changing the qualification requirements and removing a black city council member without seeking preclearance of the change. These examples show that, unfortunately, some of those in power still fall back on old ways and old prejudices. William Faulkner said ``the past isn't dead, it isn't dead, it isn't even past.'' And certainly that is not always true. Some things have certainly changed and some of the past is in the past. But we have to recognize the echoes and the vestiges that still exist, and if the protections of section 5 are withdrawn, I think we will see some elected officials changing the rules and changing the districts to take advantage of the racially polarized voting that still exists--this is not anecdotal, this is systemic--to diminish the racial integration that has been achieved in Government. And so I join with many Mississippians, black and white, to urge you to renew the Voting Rights Act and help us build on the progress that has already been made. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. McDuff appears as submission for the record.] Senator Hatch. Thank you. Senator Cornyn, you were here before me. Would you care to start? Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions. I think at the outset of these hearings, members of the Committee on both sides of the aisle stated one of our goals is to pass a reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act that would be sustained, and congressional will sustained, in the face of any litigation that might reasonably be successful to overturn it. So it is for that reason I want to focus some of my comments on the preclearance requirements, and ask Mr. Coleman to start with, what has the Supreme Court said about how they will regard Section 5 preclearance requirements? In other words, what sort of burden is there on Congress to demonstrate the necessity for those preclearance requirements, which are admittedly intrusive, into local electoral affairs in those jurisdictions covered? What sort of burden is required on Congress? Mr. Coleman. Well, the Supreme Court, in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, one of the earliest voting rights cases, upheld Section 5, and the Court did it so again on the Rome litigation. In more recent years, in Monterey County v. Lopez, members of the Court began to recognize more the federalism concerns. Justice Thomas himself indicated that there was a strong likelihood that it was becoming unconstitutional. Many scholars have spoken on this issue and have looked to the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, where the Court said, in the 14th Amendment context, that Congress, in acting, under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, needs to ensure that its legislation is congruent and proportional to the problems that it seeks to fix. The Court has never specifically said that that would apply to Section 2 of the 15th Amendment, although in the early litigation over the Voting Rights Act in the Katzenbach v. Morgan case, the Court did rely strongly on the 14th Amendment. In other courts, cases have suggested that the 14th and 15th Amendments would be considered together. So the congruence and proportionality analysis that the Court set out suggests that there has to be a strong evidentiary link between the data that is presented and a very real and cognizable systemic violation of constitutional rights or threatened violation of those rights. I do not believe that the record before Congress today suggests that there continues to be a systemic violation or a threatened systemic violation of those rights. Senator Cornyn. Mr. Coleman, when looking at the empirical evidence that does exist--and I hope we get that evidence in front of us so we can take a hard look at it and understand it better--are we talking about an all or nothing proposition, in other words, or will it be on the basis of individual political subdivisions that that analysis would have to be made, whether there is sufficient justification based on the evidence of maintaining the preclearance requirements in Section 5? Mr. Coleman. Congress could, if it desired, make specific findings that relate to individual States or individual political subdivisions. Thus far, to my knowledge, there has been no attempt to do that. There has simply been a proposal to reauthorize the coverage as it exists and has existed since the 1970's. Senator Cornyn. Mr. Strickland, you talked about the intrusiveness and the burdens on political subdivisions when it comes to the preclearance requirements, and then also about the bailout provision. Some might say, well, you have a bailout provision, so why shouldn't we just maintain the preclearance requirements? Those seem to me to be apples and oranges. But could you talk about the financial and other burdens on political subdivisions to comply with the preclearance requirements? Mr. Strickland. Well, the example that I gave in my testimony was a pretty simple process of changing a polling place from one location to another. It is essentially a ministerial function. It is not normally a public building. But what is required as a practical matter is election department staff has to produce a map of that area, and it has to locate the old polling place, the new polling place, and the election board will just get a sheaf of papers about--suppose they are changing a dozen or 15 or 20 polling places--we would just get a sheaf of papers that show Point A and Point B. There is never an issue about it, and to my knowledge--I served on the election board in the `70's and I am now serving again--I do not remember a single instance when there has ever been a problem with any of these, what I call ministerial functions, in relocating a polling place from one place to another. So it seems to be an unnecessary consumption of time, energy and expense by the election department staff in complying with that aspect of preclearance. Senator Cornyn. If I can ask just one final question of any member of the panel. Are any of you familiar with any studies or empirical evidence that indicates that there are significant differences and outcomes, in other words, of minority voting participation in those jurisdictions that are covered by the preclearance requirements of Section 5 versus those that are not? Mr. McDuff. Senator, I am certainly not aware of any. I do not know that anyone has undertaken that sort of study, and I am not quite sure how one would do it. What I think we do know is that the formula that was created by Congress in 1965 and has been modified several times, has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court as a constitutional exercise. I do think that a record is being built, both in the House and here, about the problems that still exist in the jurisdictions that are presently covered. Now, one, I guess, could attempt to build a similar record in other jurisdictions that are not covered. I do not know if anyone has tried to do that, but I think the more you expand the scope of Section 5, the more of a record you need to build, and the greater risk you take that it might be held unconstitutional. Mr. Coleman. Very briefly, Senator. I believe the Gaddie- Bullock studies that are in the record very systematically show that there are, in fact, no differences. Senator Cornyn. Anyone else? Mr. Cartagena. Yes. If I may, Senator. The effectiveness of Section 5 cannot only be measured by the number of objections issued by the Department of Justice. There is a significant deterrent effect, a prophylactic effect upon these jurisdictions that are covered by Section 5. In many ways, we really cannot speak about Section 5 without also speaking about what are called more information request letters, MIRs, that are issued by the Department of Justice to numerous jurisdictions. MIRs get responded to. They basically are simply, do you have more information that allows us to make a determination? Some States withdraw the changes. Some States supersede them. Some States ignore it. In all those three cases I just cited, it demonstrates the effectiveness, as well, of Section 5 objections above and beyond the number of objections issued. I cited a study by Fraga and Ocampo out of Stanford University in my materials appended to my statement, in which they have researched the MIRs that were issued in 1989 through 2004. And their study demonstrates that it doubles the amount of objections--excuse me--submissions that would have otherwise received a denial of preclearance just because many jurisdictions withdraw the request upon receiving a more information request letter from the Department of Justice. Ms. Landreth. Senator, I would like to add one thing to respond to some of the comments that were made that would hopefully also help answer your question. One of the aspects that has been discussed is the burdensome requirement of having to submit paperwork for preclearance for simple things such as a polling change. In Alaska, that is an incredibly big deal because, if you move a polling station in a community that does not have cars and operates by snow machines or walking in 10- below weather in November, you may actually disenfranchise an entire community. We have had some of that situation in Anchorage, where they move polling places out of very poor places in Anchorage, and most of the folks could not get time off of work to go to the new polling station, so there are examples of even something like that that another jurisdiction with adequate transportation and adequate systems established would be very ministerial and seem unimportant. In Alaska, it is actually an incredibly important aspect of preclearance. Senator Hatch. Senator Leahy. Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McDuff, I had watched some of this before I came over here. You heard from the hearing yesterday, and others have said, that Section 5 is so successful we do not need it any longer. You practice in a covered jurisdiction. I would assume you have seen some significant progress in minority participation over the decades. If we did away with Section 5, if that is no longer operational, does that really provide any kind of deterrent, or would it be your position that we should keep Section 5 as a deterrent? Mr. McDuff. Yes. It does provide a tremendous deterrent. I cannot tell you how many times I have talked to legislators, city council members, lawyers in the State Attorney General's Office, or lawyers for localities who have really now internalized sort of the goals of Section 5, and who, when voting changes are being made, assess the impact on all groups, all racial groups, and reach out to all groups, to try to determine if a solution can be developed that satisfies everyone's concerns in light of the very deep racial fault line that still exists in the south and in other parts of the country due to the history of discrimination. We have a persistence, I know in Mississippi, and I think in a number of other places, of racially polarized voting. I gave an example a minute ago that clearly the best qualified candidate for State treasurer in Mississippi lost as a result of racially polarized voting. That is a systemic problem that still exists. And the problem is that if you withdraw the protection of Section 5, two things can happen. No. 1, the sorts of officials who canceled the elections in Kilmichael, Mississippi, when it looked like black candidates would be elected--those sorts of people will take advantage of the absence of those protections and will change the rules and will change the district lines. Senator Leahy. Conversely, is it a protection for those people who want to do what is right? Mr. McDuff. Oh, yeah, exactly, because everyone knows that the law has to be satisfied and that retrogression is illegal, and it has become a part of people's thinking and of the process of local government to make sure that doesn't happen. I think this is-- Senator Leahy. So you would not change the existing coverage formula requiring preclearance of changes? Mr. McDuff. No, I wouldn't. I think it has worked very successfully, and I think there is still a need for it. Senator Leahy. Thank you. Ms. Landreth, I listened to what you were saying about Alaska. A majority of the actions brought to enforce Section 203 have been in the last 3 years, 4 years; am I correct? Ms. Landreth. In general we have had no enforcement actions under 203 in Alaska. Senator Leahy. Was there insufficient enforcement of Section 203 previously? Ms. Landreth. It has never been complied with in Alaska, and it has never been enforced in Alaska, so, yes, in my opinion, there is insufficient enforcement of Section 203. Senator Leahy. So you wouldn't do away with it? Ms. Landreth. Absolutely not. I think Alaska is the perfect example of a climate where people are discussing immigration, and I have seen in some articles, confusing the Voting Rights Act and the bilingual ballot with the Voting Rights Act. And the fact is that these are indigenous American citizens, who don't understand the English ballot to such a degree--and here is a perfect example--they didn't understand to such a degree that they actually voted for an English-only law in Alaska, that was then subsequently struck down by our Supreme Court because they had no written translation, and the poll workers simply told them, ``Just vote yes.'' Senator Leahy. I will go to you, Mr. Cartagena. How will the bill provision--before we get into the language--how about the bill's provision permitting recovery of expert witness fees? How does that allow the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act language assistance provisions? Mr. Cartagena. It is a very important point, Senator. Section 203 enforcement actions really have not, from what I can see in the case law, have not come to judgment. Many times these actions are settled well before judgment. But we have--and the cases that I have worked on indicated to me to need either historians or other experts to allow us to present a full picture of both Section 203 noncompliance and potentially Section 2 violations. In those kind of situations, recovery of expert attorney fees--excuse me--expert fees in a successful action that does come to judgment, would be a very, very important tool to use. We are, as you can imagine, private attorneys general. The Department of Justice has done incredible work under Section 203 enforcement in the last several years. But there is so much work to do, and there is just too much noncompliance. And the state of noncompliance is what it is, as I have indicated in the report, particularly like in New York and New Jersey, that we don't have the person power to get to all of these jurisdictions. The ability to collect expert fees would be an incredible assistance in that regard. Senator Leahy. And you would want to maintain the preclearance provisions of-- Mr. Cartagena. Yes, I do, and I think the preclearance provisions, Senator, are important on various levels. And I have indicated the deterrence value already to the panel. I also would indicate--and this is where I differ with Mr. Coleman--Section 5 is a model of the constitutional exercise of both the 14th and 15th Amendment power of the Congress, in large part because it is time limited, it is geographically focused, and because it has bailout provisions. All of those elements, I mean, where Mr. Coleman cited the Lopez case, I think I cited on my last footnote of my testimony, on page 285, that the Supreme Court noted that in short the Voting Rights Act, by its nature, intrudes on State sovereignty. The 15th Amendment permits this intrusion, however, and a holding today adds nothing of constitutional moment to the burdens the Act imposes, close quote. And it said that when it talked favorably about the constitutionality of Section 5. Senator Leahy. My time has expired. I have other questions, especially of Mr. Coleman and others, and I will submit those for the record. I understand Senator Biden is on his way over here. Senator Cornyn [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Leahy. I just have a very few more questions myself. Just out of curiosity, Mr. McDuff, you indicated that clearly the best candidate for State treasurer lost in Mississippi. That was an African-American candidate, I take it. What is the percentage of black voters in Mississippi? Mr. McDuff. The black-- Senator Cornyn. At the time of that election. Mr. McDuff. The black voting age population, under the 2000 Census, is 33 percent. Senator Cornyn. Was that candidate a Democrat, or Republican, insurance Independent? Mr. McDuff. He was a Democrat. He did lose. There was another white Democrat running for an open seat on a down- ticket race, the Attorney General, who won with 66 percent of the vote. So this was not a situation where Republicans swept all statewide seats during the election. Senator Cornyn. That was Michael Moore? Mr. McDuff. It was actually his successor, Jim Hood, right. Senator Cornyn. His successor, all right. Mr. McDuff. Mike Moore had retired at the end of his prior term. Senator Cornyn. OK. Now, the Governor and the two United States Senators from Mississippi are Republicans, are they not? Mr. McDuff. That's true. Senator Cornyn. I just wanted to probe a little bit about your confidence level that this candidate lost because he was an African-American, when 31 percent of the voting population is African-American, and when other high-level statewide officials elected are Republicans, how can you state with such confidence that that demonstrates the nature of polarized voting, or that this candidate lost because he was an African- American? Mr. McDuff. The polarized voting is clear from some statistics I have set out in my written testimony. Of the 25 majority black counties of Mississippi, Mr. Anderson, the 46- year-old black candidate who had this history of public finance and private sector experience, won 24 of the 25. Of the majority white counties, he won 18 and lost 39. It was very clear that he was treated differently in white areas as compared to black areas. Again, it was not a Republican sweep. In fact, most of the statewide offices were won by Democrats that year, in 2003. The Governor was Republican. I believe every other--the Lieutenant Governor was Republican. I believe every other down-ticket race was won by a Democrat. But here is what is important, to me. The treasurer's office and the Attorney General's office were both open seats. In the Attorney General's race, the white candidate won with nearly two-thirds of the vote, in a down-ticket ballot with an open seat. The black candidate, 46-years-old with a wealth of experience, lost to a 29-year-old white candidate who had very little experience. In the Attorney General's race, the white Democrat won. In the treasurer's race the white Democrat lost. I have no doubt in my mind that if the two treasurer candidates had been of the same race, Gary Anderson, the 46-year-old Democrat with a wealth of experience, would have won over the 29-year-old candidate who had no relevant experience. Senator Cornyn. I do not question the sincerity of your statement. I just would note from my experience--and I think shared by other people who run for statewide office--the elections are usually multifactorial and not--it is hard, even though sometimes people tend to point to a single cause, it is hard I think to justify it. Mr. McDuff. And I don't disagree with the multiplicity factors-- Senator Cornyn. Since my time is limited-- Mr. McDuff. I'm sorry. Senator Cornyn.--let me, please, go to ask one other question. This has to do with the legal standard. Mr. Cartagena made I think a good point talking about the legal standard that has been applied, and Mr. Coleman has talked about that too, for maintaining the preclearance requirements in those jurisdictions that are covered. But I would like to know--and maybe we will start with you, Mr. Coleman--in terms of the ultimate protection for minority voting rights, what additional protections, if any, are provided by the preclearance requirements under Section 5? In other words, if a lawsuit is filed by the Department of Justice for violating the Voting Rights Act, will they look to the standard vote in Section 2 and Section 5, or is there somehow, are minorities disadvantaged in those areas where the preclearance requirement no longer exists? Mr. Coleman. A Section 5 lawsuit would largely simply determine whether he should have precleared something. If the U.S. is filing a lawsuit alleging a violation of voting rights, it would ordinarily be brought under a substantive provision, Section 2 or Section 203 that has been talked about. So that the Section 5 litigation tends to be really very little of the law suits given the Department's lack of recent activity in the Section 5 area. So those lawsuits would generally be under the substantive provisions. The Department of Justice has been active in those areas. Private lawyers have been very active in those areas. In my view, Section 5 adds very little to the mix. Ms. Landreth has talked at length about violations that continue to exist in Alaska. My understanding is the Department of Justice hasn't interposed an objection in Alaska since 1994 or something like that. There are bad people, but by and large, the covered jurisdictions are in compliance as much as or more than jurisdictions who are not covered under the provision. At this day and age there is simply no added protection or use that comes from the continuation of Section 5. Senator Cornyn. Ms. Landreth, I thought you gave a good sort of an example of how different parts of the country perhaps should be regarded differently based on geography and history and experience, as opposed to what Congress is especially good at as the one-size-fits-all, but I thought the point you made was an interesting one. If, as Mr. Coleman says, that there have not been objections interposed in Alaska by the Justice Department, can you explain the lack of private litigation or other litigation involving the sorts of violations that you have alleged? Ms. Landreth. I am glad that you asked that question, because that is what sticks out like a sore thumb to us as well. I have been practicing in Alaska for only a few years. There has only been one case brought about Section 203 violations. It was settled, so there is no written decision. It is only available at the clerk's office. But it is indicative of other situations that have happened. In a situation where almost half the children are born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, the elders tried to pass a ballot measure to ban alcohol in the village, and then the ``young 'uns'', who didn't want them to do that, would translate the ballot for them, conveniently telling them to vote against it, and, of course, defeat their own ability to participate in their own democracy. And one of the interesting aspects of that--it is unfortunate there is no written decision--but we have found, when I tell other folks in Alaska this story, other villages have said, that happened to us too. Kasigluk, Akiachak, Akiak, all those communities had the same issue, and people have not brought enforcement. I think-- Senator Cornyn. Why not? Ms. Landreth. That is a very good question. I wish that I had the answer to that. One part of the answer to that question may be that although I won't claim that our study that we have recently done is comprehensive, it is the first of its kind to actually study what Alaska is doing versus what it was supposed to have been doing. I think this is the first time it has been widely known that Alaska has not complied with these aspects of the Act. Senator Cornyn. And you say widely known. Is that because of the reports that you have recited to us here? Ms. Landreth. Yes. I believe our 50 or so page report has been distributed fairly widely, both within the State Government, to our representatives here in Congress, and to communities in rural Alaska, who--several of those that I vetted it through to make sure I was portraying their communities accurately, had no changes to make. Senator Cornyn. Thank you. I think the presentations have been very helpful to the Committee. Obviously, I am the only one left here, but that is not for lack of interest I assure you. The Senators and the Senate, usually we have to multi-task and have a lot of conflicting hearings and requirements, including floor activity. What I would do is to say thanks to each of you for your testimony. Of course, your written testimony is going to be made a part of the record in addition to your oral comments. Customarily we leave the record open for a period of time, for 1 week in this case, for members of the Committee who were not able to come to ask written questions, or of those who were able to come to followup with written questions. So I would just ask you when you get those, if you get those, please respond to those as promptly as you can so we can have a complete record for our further consideration. Thank you very much, and the hearing is now adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] [Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8342.129 <all>