Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006

FANNIE LOU HAMER, ROSA PARKS, AND CORETTA SCOTT KING VOTING RIGHTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to the King Amendment to H.R. 9, the ``Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.'' The King Amendment strikes, inter alia, section 203 of the bill. Section 203 is the part of the Voting Rights Act that provides language assistance to American citizen voters for whom English is not their first language.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be soundly defeated. I agree with the Mr. SENSENBRENNER that of all the weakening amendments offered, this is one of the worst and ugliest.

Mr. Chairman, one of the most important things proponents of the King Amendment fail to understand is that Section 203 removes barriers to voting faced by TAX PAYING AMERICAN CITIZENS, citizens who do not speak English well enough to participate in the election process. Tax-paying citizens should not be penalized for needing assistance to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

Language minority citizens are required to pay taxes and serve in the military without regard to their level of English proficiency. If they can shoulder those burdens of citizenship, they should be able to share in the benefits of voting with appropriate assistance to exercise the vote.

Section 203 mandates language assistance based on a trigger formula for language minorities from four language groups: Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Asian Americans, and persons of Spanish heritage. Section 203 protects citizens, not illegal immigrants. Regardless of one's position on the ongoing debate over immigration reform, the debate over immigration policy is simply irrelevant to the debate on ensuring that the fundamental right to vote is exercised equally by English and non-English proficient citizens. According to the 2000 census, more than three-quarters (77 percent) of those protected by Section 203 are native-born citizens. For example, 100 percent of Native Americans and Native Alaskans were born in the United States; 98.6 percent of Puerto Ricans protected by Section 4(e) were born in the United States; and 84.2 percent of Latinos were born in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, section 203 was enacted to remedy the history of educational disparities, which have led to high illiteracy rates and low voter turnout. These disparities continue to exist. As of 2000, three fourths of the 3 to 3.5 million students who are native-born were considered to be English Language Learners (ELLs), meaning the students don't speak English well enough to understand the basic English curriculum. ELL students lag significantly behind native-English speakers and are twice as likely to fail graduation tests. California has over 1,500,000 ELLs; Texas has 570,000 ELLs; Florida has 25,000 ELLs; and New York has over 230,000.

Since 1975, there have been more than 24 education discrimination cases filed on behalf of ELLs in 15 States. Fourteen of the States in which education discrimination lawsuits have been brought are covered by language assistance provisions. Since 1992, 10 cases have been filed. Litigation and consent decrees are currently pending in Texas, Alaska, Arizona, and Florida. Discrimination cases that have been brought address issues such as inadequate funding for ELLs, inadequate curriculum to assist ELLs become proficient in English, and lack of teachers and classrooms. These disparities increase the likelihood that ELLs will achieve lower test scores and drop out of school, ultimately, leading to lower voter registration and turnout.

Also, adults who want to learn English must endure long waiting periods to enroll in English Second Language (ESL) literacy centers. The lack of funding to expand the number of ESL centers around the country leaves minority citizens unable to enroll in classes for several years. For example, in large cities such as Boston, citizens must wait for several years to enroll. In New Mexico, citizens must wait up to a year. In the State of New York, the waiting lists were so long, the State eliminated them and instituted a lottery system. Once enrolled, learning English takes citizens several years to even obtain a fundamental understanding of the English language--not enough to understand complex ballots. Citizens should not be barred from exercising their right to vote while trying to become English proficient.

Most jurisdictions covered by Section 203 support its continued existence. According to a 2005 survey, an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions covered by Section 203 think that federal language assistance provisions should remain in effect for public elections. In fact, in a poll of registered voters, 57 percent believe it is difficult to navigate ballots and instructions and that assistance should be provided.

Mr. Chairman, it is instructive to review just a few contemporary examples which demonstrate the continuing need for the language assistance provisions of Section 203:

In 2003 in Harris County, Texas, officials did not provide language assistance for Vietnamese citizens. This prompted the Department of Justice to intervene and, as a result, voter turnout doubled and a local Vietnamese citizen was elected to a local legislative position.

The implementation of language assistance in New York City had enabled more than 100,000 Asian-Americans not fluent in English to vote. In 2001, John Liu was elected to the New York City Council, becoming the first Asian-American elected to a major legislative position in the city with the nation's largest Asian-American population.

In July 2005, the U.S. Dept. of Justice field a lawsuit against the City of Boston for violations of the federal Voting Rights Act, specifically the language assistance provisions (Section 203) for Spanish language assistance and racial discrimination (Section 2) against Asian American voters. The complaint alleges that Boston abridged the rights of language minority groups by:

Treating limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian American voters disrespectfully;

Refusing to permit limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian American voters to be assisted by an assistor of their choice;

Improperly influencing, coercing, or ignoring the ballot choices of limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian American voters;

Failing to make available bilingual personnel to provide effectively assistance and information needed by minority language voters; and

Refusing or failing to provide provisional ballots to limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian American voters.

In San Diego County, California, voter registration among Hispanics and Filipinos rose by over 20 percent after the Department of Justice brought suit against the county to enforce the language minority provisions of Section 203. During that same period, Vietnamese registrations increased by 40 percent.

http://thomas.loc.gov