Patrick Leahy: “I understand this amendment is going to be set aside. I am glad to see that. This amendment is premature. It would be an…”

“I understand this amendment is going to be set aside. I am glad to see that. This amendment is premature. It would be an extension of the Voting Rights Act absent any hearings of any sort. We have the current difficulty, as we have seen, of an extremely activist U.S. Supreme Court which basically acts as a kind of super legislature and has been setting aside act after act of the Congress, even some that have had years of hearings. I would be concerned that when they set aside acts of Congress passed by very solid majorities, both Republicans and Democrats, following years of hearings, what they might do on something like this that has not had a hearing. The Supreme Court's 1997 decision in City of Boerne v. Flores provides an instructive example. In that case, the Court distinguished between the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993--which it invalidated--and the Voting Rights Act. The Court criticized the lack of evidence of religious bigotry Congress had adduced to support its passage of the RFRA. Conversely, it said, Congress had developed a record of widespread bigotry to support its passage of the Voting Rights Act. I believe the Court overstepped its bounds and thwarted Congress' will through this decision, and I fear the same could happen if we hastily make the Voting Rights Act permanent without establishing an ample record of why such a decision is necessary.”