Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
United States House of Representatives
2449 Rayburn House Office Building  
Washington, DC  20515

Honorable Steve Chabot
United States House of Representatives
129 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC  20515                                  

Honorable John Conyers, Jr.     
United States House of Representatives  
2426 Rayburn House Office Building  
Washington, DC  20515                     

Honorable Melvin L. Watt
United States House of Representatives           
2236 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC  20515

Dear Member of Congress:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and its hundreds of thousands of members, activists, and fifty-three affiliates nationwide, we write to clarify recent misrepresentations of the ACLU’s voting rights litigation record, which clearly documents the continuing need for the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in currently covered jurisdictions.  Recently, Representative Westmoreland and his staff have cited the ACLU’s work to support his attempts to weaken the VRA.  We write to make it clear that we do not condone the use our name and our work in a ploy to delay or compromise the spirit or effectiveness of the law.

First, Representative Westmoreland has mischaracterized the report of the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project (VRP) -- an 800-plus page report summarizing its voting rights litigation docket of almost 300 cases from 1982-2004.[1]   Representative Westmoreland has referred to the report as one on the “alleged voting problems in Georgia.”  He also implied that because the report contains descriptions of voting cases against Georgia brought under Section 2, the permanent provision of the VRA, that Georgia should no longer be covered by the preclearance requirements of Section 5.

Despite Representative Westmoreland’s assertions to the contrary, Georgia’s abysmal record of protecting the rights of its minority citizens provides undeniable evidence underscoring the need to continue the vital protections of the VRA in Georgia.  With recent and numerous court findings of discrimination against Georgia jurisdictions, it is disingenuous, at best, to say that the documented abuses in Georgia are merely “alleged voting problems.” 

Since the VRA was last reauthorized in 1982, the VRP has brought more litigation to enforce voting rights in Georgia than in any other state.  From 1982 to 2005, the ACLU initiated a total of 141 voting rights lawsuits in Georgia, a substantial portion of which were brought under Section 5.  Moreover, more than 70% of the total lawsuits filed by the VRP offer concrete evidence and court findings of the continued efforts by Georgia officials to discriminate against minority voters.  In all of these instances, Georgia had to change its conduct with respect to its minority voters.  Furthermore, while VRP has brought both Section 2 and Section 5 cases, it should be noted that, in general, plaintiffs win more Section 2 lawsuits in Section 5 covered jurisdictions than in non-covered jurisdictions, even though less than one-quarter of the U.S. population reside in jurisdictions covered by Section 5. 

In addition to the record of voting discrimination in Georgia documented by this litigation, from 1982 to 2004, the Department of Justice blocked 83 voting changes requested by state and local officials in Georgia that disfranchised minority voters.  Only three other states in the country have had more objections lodged by DOJ than Georgia:  they are Mississippi (120), Texas (105), and Louisiana (102).   Most other covered states had less than half as many objections as Georgia.  It is important to remember that each one of these objections positively affected thousands of minority voters in Georgia.  If it had not been the requirement that Georgia submit voting changes to DOJ, these discriminatory changes would have gone into effect.

It is plainly inaccurate to cite the ACLU’s work to support any claim that Georgia should no longer be covered by the expiring provisions of the VRA.  Despite some progress since the 1960s, Georgia continues to discriminate against its own minority citizens and it remains one of the best examples of the continuing need for Section 5’s preclearance coverage.

Second, based on inquiries we received from congressional offices, we believeit is our understanding that Representative Westmoreland’s Chief of Staff improperly cited the ACLU of Wisconsin’s documentation of registration and absentee ballot irregularities in order to support Congressman Westmoreland’s position that the expiring provisions of the VRA should apply nationwide.  Such an assertion fails to make a clear distinction between election administration issues and claims of race discrimination under the VRA.  Any pPotential election administration violations of the Help America Vote Act does not necessarilyy mean there are also violations of the Voting Rights Act. 

Any proposal to apply Section 5 nationwide is not meant to strengthen the VRA, but instead would be a “poison pill.”  Currently, Section 5 is specifically directed at preclearing the voting changes of jurisdictions with both a history and continuing record of discriminating against racial and language minority voters.  Over 12,000 pages of House and Senate testimony strongly support the continuing need for the expiring provisions of the VRA in the currently covered states.  Making Section 5 apply nationwide, to states and localities without a similarly long and documented history of voting abuses against minorities, would make the statute overly broad and unable to meet the Supreme Court’s requirements that Section 5 be “narrowly tailored” and “congruent and proportional” to address the specific harms the VRA is designed to cure.  It is critical that Section 5 and its coverage formula stay intact.

If Georgia officials feel the current coverage formula reaches states and localities that do not discriminate in voting, the bailout provision of the VRA works to ensure that the scope of Section 5 is not overbroad or otherwise constitutionally flawed.  Congress designed the bailout formula to allow a jurisdiction that could demonstrate it had taken sufficient steps to remove bars to minority enfranchisement to be released from preclearance.  All jurisdictions that have attempted to bailout from coverage since the last reauthorization have been able to do so successfully.  If Georgia no longer discriminates against its minority voters, it can be removed from coverage.  Unfortunately, the truth is that Georgia simply does not currently qualify as eligible to bailout from Section 5.

We hope this letter helps to clarify the ACLU’s record with respect to the Voting Rights Act.  The reports of the ACLU, as well as dozens of other reports that are part of the current reauthorization record, fully support the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 (H.R. 9).[2]  Because the expiring provisions of the VRA deter voting discrimination, failure to fully renew and restore the expiring provisions would undoubtedly undermine the progress this country has made in ending voting discrimination. 

Sincerely,                                   

Caroline Fredrickson, Director 
ACLU Washington Legislative Office            

Laughlin McDonald, Director
ACLU Voting Rights Project

LaShawn Warren, Legislative Counsel 
ACLU Washington Legislative Office

Deborah J. Vagins, Policy Counsel for Civil Rights
ACLU Washington Legislative Office

[1]  See The Case for Extending and Amending the Voting Rights Act: Voting Rights Litigation, 1982-2006: A Report of the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union (March 2006), available at www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/24394leg20060306.html.
[2] See id; American Civil Liberties Union, Promises to Keep: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 (March 2006), available at www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/24396leg20060307.html.