When the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 to invalidate the preclearance formula in the original Voting Rights Act, it issued a challenge to Congress to pass an updated one. That is a challenge Congress must accept. Until Congress acts, millions will continue to face barriers at the ballot box. On April 18, The New York Times editorial board highlighted the disturbing and flawed argument that preclearance is no longer necessary. Obviously, the Congress of the United States found otherwise. The editorial stated: ``This process . . . stopped hundreds of discriminatory new laws from taking effect, and deterred lawmakers from introducing countless more.'' The process to which they were referring was the preclearance process that the Supreme Court threw out. The editors cited a new study that analyzed more than 4,000 rights cases. They write again: ``The study provides the most wide-ranging empirical evidence yet that Congress was amply justified in finding that voting discrimination remains concentrated in the covered States and regions.'' When we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006, Mr. Speaker, we did so with an overwhelming vote of 390-33 in the House. In the Senate, Mr. Speaker, it was 98-0. There was no confusion, there was no doubt in the minds of the Congress of the United States, and that bill was signed by President George Bush.…
Share & report
More from Steny Hoyer
I have great respect for my friend from Missouri, and it seems to me that this is a very serious matter that she has raised. It is also my belief that it ought to be considered in the context of the Financial Services Committee and…
I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be postponed.
We have less than 3 weeks scheduled in the remainder of this year for us to act. We have less than 3 weeks to secure aid for Israel and Ukraine before we return to our districts in December. They cannot afford that time. Each day we wait…
I understand you say it is irrelevant whether it works or not. On my side I think we probably think it is relevant. As the gentlewoman from California said, we think it is working. We think it is advantageous for small businesses. We think…





