(Washington D.C.) Congressman Mac Thornberry (TX-13) submitted the following statement in the Congressional Record about H.R. 9, a bill to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Representative Thornberry voted against the bill, which passed the House.

Statement in the Congressional Record

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

"It's a sordid business, this divvying up by race."

Mr. Speaker, those two sentences sum up my concerns with this bill.  The first comes from the Declaration of Independence; the second from Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Perry, a case about this very Act.

We should be moving closer to that American ideal of God-given equality before the law, rather than "divvying us up by race" for another 25 years, as this bill would do.

To have different levels of scrutiny apply to various states, based on judgments made 40 years ago that are no longer accurate or justified, is wrong.  There is simply no reason to believe that Texas requires more federal supervision of voting than does Ohio or Florida or any other state.  The same standard should apply equally to each person across the country, regardless of where he or she lives.

I am anxious for the day when race and skin color is as irrelevant to voting as is hair color.  Unfortunately, this bill pushes that day 25 years further away.

Background

In 1965 Congress passed the Voting Rights Act.  Most of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act are a permanent federal law; however, the Act did include some "temporary" provisions which were renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982.  These provisions require covered states to get the permission of the Department of Justice before making any changes in their elections, such as moving a polling location.  They also require the presence of federal examiners and observers, as well as bilingual election assistance.

A formula determines which jurisdictions must comply with these additional requirements and which jurisdictions do not.  The formula is based on election day statistics from 1964, 1968, and 1972.  The effect of using this formula is that some states, mostly in the South, are forced to abide by these provisions regardless of whether conditions remain as they were three decades ago.  Meanwhile, other states - even those where there have been voting controversies, such as Florida and Ohio - are not covered.  (Currently 4 of the 17 counties in Florida and none in Ohio are covered by the "temporary" provisions while all 254 counties in Texas are.)

The bill passed by the House renews these "temporary" provisions for an additional 25 years, or until the year 2032.

-30-