On the recordMay 9, 2012
My amendment would simply prohibit any funds in this underlying bill from being used to carry out or enforce section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Under section 5, seven States in the South, as well as Arizona, Texas, and a number of counties scattered across the country, are required to receive Federal pre-clearance to every change they make in election laws. The provision stipulates that only changes to election law in those covered locations which are shown to be nondiscriminatory may be pre- cleared. Unfortunately, the burden of proving that a change is nondiscriminatory is on the State or locality which wishes to make the change. The standard and practice is known to be highly subjective, with no presumption of innocence. {time} 2200 It is also highly unfair to allow some States to make changes to their election laws while other States wishing to make the same changes are forced to jump through a bunch of hoops. I know firsthand how onerous this law is. My home State of Georgia, as an example, has long struggled with the U.S. Department of Justice over its voter identification laws. They're not alone. The State of Arizona is currently suing to be free from section 5, showing evidence that it made accommodations for Spanish- speaking voters long ago. On the other side of the country, South Carolina is challenging the Department of Justice's decision to overturn its voter identification law. Mr.…





