Opposition to the Frist Amendment
As I reported a couple of days ago, Sen. Frist offered an amendment to the gun liability bill -- an amendment to make the "special provisions" of the Voting Rights Act permanent. Sen. Frist's remarks begin on page S1650 of the Congressional Record. Below are some of the remarks of Sen. Kennedy immediately after the introduction of the proposed amendment. He began by praising Sen. Frist and Sen. McConnell for offering the amendment, but added:
This has been a long march, as the Senators have pointed out. We have to ask ourselves whether now is the time to take this action.
Let me read into the RECORD the letter I have received from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights . I read it at this time:
On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights , the Nation's oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, we write to express our opposition to the amendment being offered by Majority Leader Frist to the protection of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act , S. 1805, to make the preclearance of the minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act permanent.The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important civil rights statutes ever enacted by Congress. This law, which enforces the 15th amendment, has been successful in removing direct and indirect barriers to voting for African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, and Native Americans. And since its passage, the act has survived narrow interpretations by the United States Supreme Court only to be amended by Congress to restore its original strength. Nevertheless, voting disenfranchisement still exists today.
As you know, the VRA's preclearance and minority language provisions are scheduled for reauthorization in 2007. We in the civil rights community plan to actively engage in the process, including working to establish a strong legislative record in support of reauthorization.
I underline, Mr. President, the language that says ``establish a strong legislative record in support of reauthorization.'' That is a key phrase in terms of this letter and for reasons to which I will refer in a moment.
Nevertheless, we oppose the Frist amendment because it is premature. Critical analysis of issues surrounding preclearance of minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act have not yet been fully examined and analyzed carefully to reflect the current status of our laws, court decisions, enforcement actions, and society.The Supreme Court has made it clear in recent years that it will require Congress to establish a detailed record through hearings and legislative findings in order to ensure that provisions such as these survive constitutional scrutiny.
Therefore, while we plan to strongly support the reauthorization of these important provisions, we urge you to vote no on the Frist amendment.
The reasons for this urging are the relevant parts of this letter which have strong justification, given holdings by the Supreme Court on other actions that the Congress has taken in trying to expand rights and liberties for American citizens, and which have been struck down.