The Reauthorization of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice
Federal News Service March 2, 2004 Tuesday
HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE CONSTITUTION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE STEVE CHABOT (R-OH)
LOCATION: 2141 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
WITNESSES: RENE ALEXANDER ACOSTA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. MELVIN L. WATT (D-NC): Mr. Chairman, I'm having trouble hearing today.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. WATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, can you describe for me briefly or generally what the Civil Rights Division does under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
MR. ACOSTA: Certainly, sir. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires covered jurisdictions-there are few over a dozen covered jurisdictions-to submit any changes in voting, in districts. We have received since 2000, I believe, over 14,000 such submissions. They are reviewed for whether or not they have-whether they're retrogressive in intent or in effect.
REP. WATT: Of those 14,000 that you have received how many has the division said were unacceptable under the law?
MR. ACOSTA: I believe that we have objected to 39, in comparison to 13,000 submissions during the prior three years with 29 objections during the prior three years.
REP. WATT: In those 39 cases I presume the Voting Rights Division or your division has concluded that something improper has taken place, or it would have some discriminatory impact on minority citizens?
MR. ACOSTA: We have concluded that there would be retrogression intentionally, or that the effect would be retrogressive.
REP. WATT: And based on that, would you have an opinion as to whether discrimination or adverse impact on minority voters is continuing in the jurisdictions that are currently covered under section 5?
MR. ACOSTA: Certainly whether or not-well, let me rephrase. It is difficult to say. I am not aware of any legislature that intentionally is looking to discriminate --
REP. WATT: I didn't ask you --
MR. ACOSTA: -- but --
REP. WATT: -- about intentional. I asked you about whether they were continuing to violate the law?
MR. ACOSTA: In at least 39 cases the plans were, according to our division, retrogressive.
REP. WATT: Do you have an opinion as to whether if the section 5 pre-clearance requirement were not in effect-well, let me rephrase the question a little bit differently. Do you have an opinion whether the existence of the pre-clearance requirement is an important factor that is considered by those covered jurisdictions in the adoption of plans? Is that something in your experience those jurisdictions take into account to try to make sure that they go out of their way not to send up a plan that would be rejected by your division?
MR. ACOSTA: Allow me to make this easy. Yes, and the jurisdictions themselves, if one were to look at the amounts of money spent on attorneys that are expert in section 5, obviously do consider it because they spend substantial sums on this matter.
REP. WATT: All right. I'm just-I'm trying to avoid keeping from having you express an opinion on a matter that is our legislative prerogative, the ultimate question of whether section 5 of the Voting Rights Act should be reauthorized in 2007. I think that's a legislative judgment. But I also think-I do think it's important for us to have the factual information that would allow us to do a thorough evaluation of that issue. And so I guess my question to you is not whether we should make the decision to or not to do. My question would be whether you believe section 5 serves a valuable purpose at present?
MR. ACOSTA: Certainly, Congressman. Section 5 historically has served a valuable purpose. And certainly in those states that are covered by section 5, the existence of section 5 has an impact on the redistricting process.
REP. WATT: Might I ask unanimous consent for one additional minute, Mr. Chairman?
REP. CHABOT: Yes, the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute.
REP. WATT: Is it your division's intention to engage with the administration in an evaluation of whether section 5 should be reauthorized? And if so, what do you expect to be your recommendation?
MR. ACOSTA: Certainly that is a dialogue in which the Civil Rights Division will be involved. My recommendation obviously is one that I would give to the attorney general in the first instance. Let me say this --
REP. WATT: Has the evaluation already started, or has there been any preliminary discussion up to this point?
MR. ACOSTA: I have been aware of this issue since this summer when I was asked about it during my confirmation hearings. And if I could, the-you know, it's interesting because this Friday I'm going to be going to Selma and, as you're aware, it was the march across the Edmond Pettus Bridge, excuse me, that I guess predated the enactment of the Voting Rights Act by three weeks. It was an historic event and the act is an important act that has historically had impact on the redistricting process.
REP. WATT: I thank the gentleman for his comments and I would just say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that I hope your experience in Selma is as powerful as the one that you testified about where you said in your opening statement, I think-I think this is what you said: "I thought I understood what human trafficking was about, but then when I saw it firsthand." There are some of us who understand voting rights discrimination and employment discrimination and these kinds of discriminations first hand, and so I applaud you for taking steps that would give you those kind of personal experiences rather than just approaching these things in a theoretical way because what always appears theoretically from the outside is not always what's happening on the inside. I thank you very much.
I yield back.