,,iv  #aafth ,,congress  #ast ,session  
,h4 ,,res4 #gaj  ,,in ,,the ,,house ,,of
 ,,representatives  ,november #ah1      
#bjai,ms4 ,norton submitted the         
following resolution2 which was referred
 to the ,committee on the ,judiciary    
,,resolution  ,calling on ,congress to  
condemn voter suppression laws enacted  
by ,states and political subdivisions4  
,whereas the ratification of the #aeth  
,amendment in #ahgj affirms that voting 
rights cannot be denied to citizens on  
the basis of race2 ,whereas             
post-,reconstruction ,jim ,crow laws    
severely restricted minority voting     
rights1 particularly those of ,african  
,americans2 ,whereas the ,voting ,rights
 ,act of #aife contributed to a         
significant increase in voter           
registration and participation by       
,african ,americans and other           
minorities2 ,whereas the ,supreme       
,court's #bjac decision in ,shelby      
,county v4 ,holder struck down section  
#d7;b7 of the ,voting ,rights ,act of   

#aife1 the coverage provision of the law
 that identified ,states and political  
subdivisions with a chronic history of  
passing restrictive voting laws2        
,whereas the ,shelby ,county decision   
effectively immobilized section #e of   
the ,voting ,rights ,act of #aife1 which
 allowed the ,department of ,justice and
 ,federal courts to preclear any        
proposed changes to voting rules1       
allowing a preemptive strike of unjust  
and discriminatory voting laws in the   
regions identified by section #d7;b72   
,whereas the absence of this            
preclearance requirement has allowed for
 voter suppression laws to proliferate  
by permitting ,states and political     
subdivisions to pass restrictive voting 
laws without ,federal preclearance to   
determine if the laws are racially      
discriminatory2 ,whereas following the  
,shelby ,county decision1 at least #ad  
,states had voting restrictions in place
 for the first time in a ,presidential  
election in time for the #bjaf contest2 

,whereas approximately #aa percent of   
,american citizens lack                 
government-issued photo identification1 
and a disproportionate number are       
low-income1 elderly1 or people of color2
 ,whereas ,african ,americans are as    
much as #cje percent and ,latinos are as
 much as #aie percent more likely than  
,whites to lack acceptable              
identification required to vote2        
,whereas since the ,shelby ,county      
decision1 at least #d ,states have      
reduced early voting access2 ,whereas   
restricting early voting                
disproportionately affects people of    
color1 low-income citizens1 and the     
elderly1 who often rely on flexible1    
early voting periods2 ,whereas many     
voting-eligible1 low-income ,latino     
voters are naturalized ,united ,states  
citizens who lack proof of citizenship  
and cannot afford a ,certificate of     
,citizenship or a ,replacement          
,certificate of ,naturalization1 which  
cost #a1agj and #eee1 respectively2     

,whereas since the ,shelby ,county      
decision1 at least #b ,states have      
imposed more stringent requirements on  
nongovernmental organizations that help 
register and engage citizens in voter   
participation2 ,whereas restricting     
nongovernmental voter participation     
organizations directly affects people of
 color1 low-income citizens1 and the    
elderly1 as these organizations are     
particularly likely to reach and engage 
these populations2 ,whereas since the   
,shelby ,county decision1 at least #e   
,states have passed laws making it more 
difficult to vote by absentee ballot2   
,whereas reducing absentee voting       
disproportionately affects low-income1  
minority voters1 who are more likely    
than other citizens to have inflexible  
work- and childcare-related schedules2  
,whereas in addition to ,state-level    
voter suppression laws1 political       
subdivisions have also passed new laws  
that suppress minority voters1 including
 reducing the number of polling places  

and offering insufficient language      
assistance for non-,english-speaking    
voters2 ,whereas following the ,shelby  
,county decision1 there were at least   
#hfh fewer polling places in the #bjaf  
election than in past elections2        
,whereas insufficient language          
assistance at polling places could      
possibly threaten eligible ,latino voter
 turnout in the #bjbj ,presidential     
election2 ,whereas since the ,shelby    
,county decision1 courts have struck    
down restrictive voting laws in at least
 #d ,states1 demonstrating the          
discriminatory nature of voting         
restrictions that have proliferated     
post-,shelby ,county2 ,whereas had a    
preclearance formula been in effect1 the
 ,department of ,justice and ,federal   
courts would have been able to prevent  
discriminatory voter suppression laws   
from being passed2 ,whereas the         
,committee on the ,judiciary of the     
,house of ,representatives has favorably
 reported the ,voting ,rights           

,advancement ,act of #bjai 7,h4,r4 #d71 
to update and restore the ,voting       
,rights ,act of #aife2 and ,whereas many
 unjust voter laws that were passed or  
went into effect after the ,shelby      
,county decision threaten to affect a   
significant number of minority voters in
 upcoming elections3 ,now1 therefore1 be
 it  ,that the ,house of                
,representatives condemns the use by    
,states and political subdivisions of   
the voter suppression laws and          
techniques described in the preamble of 
this resolution4