July 23, 1975
Page 24225
Mr. BROOKE. First of all, I have pointed out to the Senator from Connecticut that the Voting Rights Act already covers all 50 States. Therefore, No. 1, there would be no necessity for the Senator from Mississippi's amendment if all 50 States are already covered.
Mr. RIBICOFF. If that is the case, and the Senator from Mississippi is just repeating this principle, why is there this objection from the Senator from California and the Senator from Massachusetts to the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi? This is why I am puzzled.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RIBICOFF. I do not have the floor.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, Will the Senator yield on my time?
Mr. BROOKE. I yield.
Mr. TUNNEY. What the amendment does, to begin with, is strike out section 4 of the bill, which is the section which allows registrars and examiners and others to be sent to the covered States for the purpose of registering voters, and for making sure that the potential registerees are identified so that local registrars can register them. It allows for the sending of poll watchers so that they can make sure that the elections are handled in a fair fashion so that everybody who comes to the polls has a right to vote.
It strikes out section 4, that is what this amendment does.
Now, if the Senator from Connecticut wants to be associated with that kind of amendment, fine, but this is at the very guts of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. CRANSTON. If the Senator will yield, I would like the Senator from Connecticut to listen to the answer.
I would like to ask my colleague to yield.
I am not an attorney and I do not understand the precise consequences of this amendment, but it is my understanding that the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi, in effect, strikes section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. TUNNEY. That is correct.
Mr. CRANSTON. I understand also that there are reasons to believe that the amendment may be unconstitutional, is that correct?
Mr. TUNNEY. It may well be unconstitutional insofar as it relates to section 5 coverage because it spreads section 5 coverage across the entire country without any exceptional circumstances being shown to justify that type of coverage, that is the pre-clearance coverage.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield on that?
Mr. TUNNEY. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. It does repeal section 4 and, in addition, as I read it, what this amendment says is that every voting precinct, every square inch of land in the United States, the whole country must hereafter submit any changes in its election laws whether or not any discrimination has been found or any case for discrimination has been made.
In other words, every change in the election laws of any State must be submitted to the Attorney General of the United States for pre-clearance and approval before a State legislature can enact them into law.
Mr. TUNNEY. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. In other words, the effect of this,if it becomes law, is to hereafter make the State's prerogatives with respect to writing the laws covering its elections subject to the approval of the Attorney General of the United States and that is completely divorced by the terms of Senator Stennis' amendment from any consideration of discrimination.
Mr. TUNNEY. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. It simply makes the State election laws subject to the supervision of the Attorney General of the United States, as I read the amendment.
Mr. TUNNEY. That is the way I read the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. And it takes the discrimination basis.
Mr. TUNNEY. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. For the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. TUNNEY. That is correct.
Also, the Senator has pointed this out most articulately, it eliminates section 4. If the amendment were adopted and later held unconstitutional, there would be no protections for minorities in the areas where the need is the greatest.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. TUNNEY. Yes; on the Senator's time.
Mr. MUSKIE. On my time.
I would say to the Senator that I could wish that section 4 were more precise, period, because I think there has been progress in the South.
I wish there were some way of recognizing that, and I would agree that there is discrimination in areas of the North, mostly in nonvoting rights citizens, that ought to be subject to the same kind of discipline from national policy that some other regions of the country are. But what concerns me about the Stennis amendment is that under the cloak of giving equal treatment in terms of this policy to the whole country, its effect would be to make the election laws in every State subject to the supervision of the Attorney General of the United States without any basis in any finding of discrimination at all.
It takes the discrimination finding out of the law.
Mr. TUNNEY. That is correct.