Nathan Deal: “today, some 41 years after the first Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress, the facts that relate to infringements on…”

“today, some 41 years after the first Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress, the facts that relate to infringements on voting have substantially changed. And here we are talking in this amendment about a portion of the Voting Rights Act that was deemed to be temporary and was deemed to be remedial in nature. The bill we are asked to pass today, however, without this amendment relies on facts that are over 40 years old, and the Norwood amendment seeks to overturn those facts and base this legislation on facts that exist today, in fact, the three most recent Presidential elections rather than the election of Lyndon Johnson. Now, the opponents of the Norwood amendment argue that it might render the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional to do that. Doesn't that give you some pause, some concern? If you can't justify this legislation on the facts of 2006, if you can't base it on the last three Presidential elections and those facts will make your act unconstitutional, that alone ought to cause you to vote against it. This is here because the 15th amendment has given jurisdiction to Congress to do certain things, and we act on those facts. But the facts are still the facts even though this bill may attempt to say they are something different. Just because some of our Members prefer to linger in the sins of the past, it is our responsibility to legislate on the facts of the present, and those facts do not justify an extension of section 5”