Washington, DC—Congressman G. K. Butterfield spoke on the House Floor this morning regarding the decision to take up a vote on reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act later this week.

Congress originally approved the Voting Rights Act in 1965 in response to widespread evidence of disenfranchisement of black citizens in several southern states. It protects the rights of citizens to vote primarily by forbidding covered states from using tests of any kind to determine eligibility to vote, by requiring these states to obtain federal approval before enacting any election laws and by assigning federal officials to monitor the registration process in certain localities.

The reauthorizing legislation has 152 House co-sponsors, including Butterfield, and was approved by the House Judiciary Committee by a 33 to 1 vote. It appeared that the legislation would move quickly toward vote by the full House until May when some southern legislators sought and won a delay, according to media reports.

The text of Butterfield’s Floor Statement follows:

“Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the House Leadership has agreed to bring to the floor this week the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. I want to thank the Speaker and Majority Leader for their willingness to go forward with this debate prior to our upcoming recess.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act changed America.  It created the opportunity for minority citizens to fully participate in Democracy. Prior to the enactment and enforcement of the Act, black citizens in the South were disenfranchised primarily because of the Literacy Tests and because of the design of election systems that submerged concentrations of black voters into large, majority-white election districts. The result was that African-American communities could not elect candidates of their choice to office. 

Why? It was because black voters did not comprise sufficient numbers within the district and white voters refused to vote for candidates who were the choice of the minority community. And so, the votes of black citizens were diluted which is a clear violation of the principal of one-person, one-vote.

The Voting Rights Act permits minority citizens to bring federal lawsuits when they feel their vote is being diluted. Hundreds of these lawsuits have been successfully litigated in the federal Courts. In my prior life I was a Voting Rights attorney in North Carolina. As a result of Court ordered remedies, local jurisdictions have been required to create election districts that do not dilute minority voting strength. The result has been absolutely incredible. When I was in law school 32 years ago, there were virtually no black elected officials in my congressional district.  Today, I count 302.

The Voting Rights Act also requires some jurisdictions to obtain Department of Justice pre-clearance to any change in election procedure. This, at first blush, may appear to be unfair to those jurisdictions. But the jurisdictions that are covered have a significant history of vote dilution and this requirement of pre-clearance simply assures that the jurisdiction does not, intentionally or unintentionally, make changes in their election procedures that will discriminate. This is called Section 5. Section 5 has prevented many, many election changes that would have disenfranchised minority voters. It serves a useful purpose and should be extended.

A short story – in 1953, in my hometown of Wilson, North Carolina, the African-American community worked very hard to teach the literacy test and qualify black citizens to vote. They then organized and elected an African-American to the City Council in a district with a large concentration of black voters. That was big news. When it was time for re-election in 1957, the City Council arbitrarily and without notice or debate, changed the election system from district voting to at-large voting which resulted in the submerging of black voters. The change also required voters to vote for all city council seats on the ballot. If not, the ballot was considered spoiled. It was called the “vote for six rule.”

Needless to say, that candidate, Dr. G. K. Butterfield, was handily defeated. If Section 5 had been in place in 1957, this jurisdiction would not have been able to implement the changes and this community would have continued to have representation.

Mr. Speaker, we have made tremendous progress in this country with respect to civil rights and voting rights. We must not turn back. I urge my colleagues on Thursday to vote for another 25-year extension of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and require covered jurisdictions to get the Department of Justice to analyze the voting change to determine if it will have the effect of diluting minority voting strength. 

Thank you, I yield back.”