,,iv  #aahth ,,congress  #b;d ,session  
,h4 ,,res4 #ifh  ,,in ,,the ,,house ,,of
 ,,representatives  ,january #af1       
#bjbd,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 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 nullified 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 to 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 since the      
,shelby ,county decision1 #bi laws have 
been passed in #aa ,states that had been
 subject to preclearance2 ,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 many of these laws target      
voting mechanisms disproportionately    
used by non-,white voters1 including in 
the #bjbj and #bjbb elections1 such as  
,georgia enacting new restrictions on   
mail voting after nearly #cj percent of 
,georgia's ,black voters cast ballots by
 mail in #bjbj2 ,whereas since the      
,shelby ,county decision1 at least #bb  
,states have passed at least #dc laws to
 restrict mail voting access2 ,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 #gj4i percent of ,white voters 
cast ballots in the #bjbj election1     
compared to #eh4d percent of voters of  
color2 ,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 since the      
,shelby ,county decision1 courts have   
struck down restrictive voting laws1    
demonstrating the discriminatory nature 
of voting restrictions that have        
proliferated post-,shelby ,county2      
,whereas if a preclearance formula had  
been in effect1 the ,department of      
,justice and ,federal courts would have 

been able to prevent discriminatory     
voter suppression laws from being       
passed2 ,whereas #b1jjj1jjj fewer       
individuals would have been purged from 
their ,states' voter rolls between #bjab
 and #bjaf if formerly covered          
jurisdictions had continued to remove   
voters at the same rate as noncovered   
jurisdictions1 and #a1ajj1jjj fewer     
individuals would have been removed     
between #bjaf and #bjah if formerly     
covered jurisdictions had continued to  
remove voters at the same rate as       
noncovered jurisdictions2 ,whereas1 on  
,july #ac1 #bjbc1 the ,committee on     
,house ,administration favorably        
reported the ,american ,confidence in   
,elections ,act 7,h4,r4 #defc71 which   
contains provisions that would apply    
only to the ,district of ,columbia and  
make it harder for ,district of         
,columbia residents to vote and for the 
,district of ,columbia to administer    
elections2 and ,whereas many 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 voter suppression laws  
and techniques4