Subject: Senate VRA Committee Report Now Available |
From: Rick Hasen |
Date: 8/1/2006, 11:23 AM |
To: election-law |
I recently blogged
about the controversy over the Senate Report accompanying the renewal
of the Voting Rights Act. The report is now available. You can access
the bill via THOMAS here.
My sense of reading the majority's report is that it is primarily
factual, though the facts that are highlighted are those that may be
used by opponents of section 5 who want to attack the provision's
constitutionality. Senators Cornyn and Coburn (here)
more directly raised constitutional objections and object to the
process. All eight Democratic members dissented in a brief dissent.
Here is the dissent in full (excluding footnotes):
On July 19, 2006, the Committee debated and voted on two amendments to the VRARA. No other amendments were offered and there was no further clarifying debate during this session. Then, the Committee unanimously voted to report the legislation favorably to the full Senate. The following day, on July 20, 2006, the full Senate debated H.R. 9, the companion bill that had been passed by the House of Representatives. No amendments were offered and the Senate voted 98-0 for final passage.
The Senate Judiciary Committee Report on the VRARA is being filed close to a week after the Senate unanimously passed its companion bill, H.R. 9.
At the time of floor debate and consideration of final passage of H.R. 9 in the Senate, Senators had the following to inform their vote: the extensive Senate Judiciary Committee record, including thousands of pages of testimony; the full record before the House of Representatives, including thousands of pages of testimony; the House Committee Report; and the full debate on the floor of the House of Representatives, including debate surrounding four substantive amendments to H.R. 9 that were all rejected. Most importantly, at the time they voted, all Senators had before them the detailed findings in Section 2 of the legislation. These findings are identical in H.R. 9 and S. 2703 and, as reauthorization measures, both incorporated the statutory findings within the following provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 203(a); Section 4(f)(1); Section 10(a); and Section 202(a).
At the time of floor debate and consideration of H.R. 9 in the Senate, no draft Senate Committee Report was available to Senators.
By voting to pass the legislation, Congress has adopted and
reaffirmed the detailed findings in H.R. 9. The Senate unanimously
adopted these findings. Nothing written by a Member of Congress after
final passage can diminish the force of those findings contained within
the enacted legislation itself or the Member's vote supporting them. As
several courts have suggested, post-passage legislative history is a
contradiction in terms. Any after-the-fact attempts to re-characterize
the legislation's language and effects should not be credited.
Patrick J. Leahy.
Edward M. Kennedy.
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Herbert Kohl.
Dianne Feinstein.
Russell D. Feingold.
Charles E. Schumer.
Richard J. Durbin.
-- Rick Hasen William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola Law School 919 Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211 (213)736-1466 (213)380-3769 - fax rick.hasen@lls.edu http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html http://electionlawblog.org