seen a big in this,in the efforts but it's all very copied cases which we have to -- before the decision is being made, there has to be a lot of proof that it alluded to finance and finance errors. to same is true in regards institutions, for example. if an organization is not lifted, you cannot -- i think it is a very difficult process in itself. if an organization changed into another organization, we get in the process and it will already

be too late again. then there is the issue, for example, foreign finance for a mosque in the netherlands, we do finance.foreign we see -- questionery important is small and big amounts of money can play an important role in the development of terrorism. answer still has to be found and i spoke to the united states listing and it is a fairly important role in it and how can we really affect very quickly and get things right?

general taylor: because we did not speak to it, doesn't mean it is not ongoing. looking at foreign terrorist fatf has been working on this since i was in the state of army 15 years ago. the effort is ongoing and complicated. we are building better phenomenon and coming out of paris and european working with partners, we were able to uncover connections using financial tools. it is a part of the fight, not have forgotten about but it is an important tool in dismantling organizations across the globe. i think we have

come to the close of our event. i know we have more russians and would love to have you answer them. both of these gentlemen have easy schedules so we have to close. i am very happy that we had such from two superb experts on this topic of information, sharing intelligence. thank you very much for the hard work you have done and for the roadmap that you presented today. did,ou and what your team a big round of applause for that. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

[various conversations] missed any of the conversation on counterterrorism, you can find it up on our video library he's

been.org. we will have that archived so you can watch anytime. entrepreneurs will talk about innovations in health technology and what that could mean for privacy. from the second annual ideas los angeles conference, here is a look. >> i think we can learn a lot talk aboutse if we healthy people. talk about fuel -- sick people and that is great. we need to help sick people. how you really help sick people is like concentrating on the healthy population and motivating the healthy population from the social impact and dynamic. instagram, for example. me so many people share so many things on instagram and do not think twice about it aired on a beach, in a bikini,

or in a bathroom taking a selfie. they do not think twice about how much private data they are actually sit -- sharing. what if you could anonymously share or donate or monetize your in a way where it is protected? key in getting even the government, for example, involved in that would from all we can see the support from joe biden and friends. of where our and other governments are around the world, interested in population genetics. we have to get over the fact it -- of, is this private, i do not want to share it. we are sharing other things that are way more private. >> we will show that tonight at

8:00 eastern here on his band. tomorrow, florida and arizona will hold primary elections taking a closer look at the arizona senate race between john mccain and kelly ward, and the days leading up to the election, senator mccain tweeted a picture with his life and also the of ancement and arrival new grandchild, sharing a picture of his son jack. in florida, debbie wasserman schultz is in a tight race with a finance professor. campaigning alongside a congresswoman and dk butterfield of northern carolina, she writes come rain or shine, the last day of early voting. her challenger released this tweet ahead of the voting tomorrow. debbie wasserman schultz has demonstrated a clear arrogance and disregard for our democracy,

which is why we must win the election on tuesday. -- ill preview before taking a summer break, the senate noted a second time to block funding. >> this last may when our democratic colleagues act with urgency. down theey turned money they argued last may and decided to gamble with the lives of children like this. instead of testing them. they ignored their own calls to that wouldne quickly protect their country from a public health crisis. as i said when i started, this to see whether

our democratic colleagues cared more about babies like this or special interest groups and they failed the test. it is as simple as that. >> the senate approved what happened in the house. planned parenthood, an organization where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of women go for their care, the think they will have a rush of this miss now? women in america today want to make sure they have the ability to not get pregnant because the mosquitoes ravage pregnant women. under the logic of my friend, they do not need to go to planned parenthood. they can go someplace in las vegas or chicago or lexington, kentucky.

they can go to an emergency room and say i am sorry, i did not get birth troll, can you help me? that is what planned parenthood is for. that is the majority of women who need help, that is where they go, planned parenthood. back fromlegislation the house, not a lot of money to be provided for that. this thursday, a preview of four major issues congress made -- defense policy, gun violence, and the impeachment of virus mission or john. an update with washington examiner senior congressional correspondent susan thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> on your screen is cornell william brooks, the president he is runningacp

is from baltimore, the organization's hometown. mr. brooks: thank you, it is good to be here. >> let me introduce the two reporters. jesse holland is a race reporter. and making her first appearance is kimbriell kelly. in 2015, she had her team shared a pulitzer prize for the reporting on police killings. nice to have you with us, and you are asking the first question. go ahead. kimbriell: you have seen in the headlines last years, particularly around the black lives matter movement, and i feel like as an organization focused on civil rights, where does the naacp play in terms of relevance these days, in your opinion? mr. brooks: the naacp is at the heart of relevance in 2016 america.

we are an organization that is over 100 years old with over 2000 branches across the country. wherever there is a policing crisis, wherever there is a crisis in terms of civil rights, we are on the ground. by being on the ground, what i mean is a multi generational army of social justice activist. the naacp represents your parents and your grandparents, but also your children and grandchildren as the largest civil rights organization comprised of young people. we have at least 70,000 college students, hundreds of college chapters, units in high schools were represented in every state of the country, hundreds and

hundreds of small towns, we are where the crises happen in civil rights, so in terms of relevance, we are the organization that governors call, that mayors call when there is a crisis in their midst. we are not only the first responders of civil rights, that is to say an organization that people call when there is a challenge, but we are the primary care physicians of civil rights. that is to say we are on the ground in the state legislature in corporate offices when the cameras are present and when the cameras are not present. we are at the heart of civil rights in america in 2016. jesse: it is interesting that you said the naacp is who governors call and mayors call, but is the naacp the organization that the people on the street call first? we see a lot of people from black lives matter and justice league out there immediately on the streets. where does the naacp sit in when it comes to the young people out on the streets? we have seen a lot of protests and movements from younger people that did not seem to be led by the naacp.

they seem to be led by other groups. how are you fitting in where the people are on the streets? mr. brooks: certainly. the naacp is on the ground and in the streets all across the country. for example, with the tragic death of michael brown in ferguson, the naacp was on the ground the day after he was killed. we led a march of 1000 people, mostly grade schoolers, high schoolers, young adults, adolescents in ferguson. we marched from the home of mike brown to the home of the governor, 134 miles. we pressed for and were

successful in pushing for the passage of a bill which capped municipal fines, the break the connection between predatory policing and predatory taxation. the naacp in ferguson was the organization that passed the racial profiling law that made the pattern and practice investigation report and settlement possible. when we look across the country, not only are we the organization that stands with the justice league with black lives matter activists and activists with the aclu or the urban league, we are the organization that works in concert. the point being here is that it is not a matter of which organization is out front on every march, but it is a matter

of who gets the work done. also, in atlanta, only a few weeks ago, we had thousands of people on the ground in the streets shutting down a major highway, lifting up the notion of the idea that black lives matter. the naacp stood side-by-side with black lives matter activists. the point is that it is not a matter of who is first or last, but rather who is standing against injustice in any way. it is not only who is prominent in front of the camera. it is about who is prominent and persistent and who ultimately prevails in the state legislature in congress in terms of passing legislation to bring about serious reform. that is the question that people ask. we don't have to be pitted against one another. we don't have to compete for prominence.

we have to ultimately cooperate and collaborate together to bring about reform. kimbriell: let me just ask very quickly, has the naacp in the past leveraged your own financial resources to align yourself with some of the activism of black lives matter? have you done that in a past, and do you see yourself doing that in the future? mr. brooks: we have done that in the past. we have worked with black lives matter activists. in addition to that, we have lent our staffers to work with and alongside blm and other young activists across the country. the point being here is we are not an organization of infinite resources, but the modest resources we have, we give and share generously all across the country because at the end of the day, the naacp relative to black lives matter with the urban league, we are a sister organization in a common struggle for justice. i would simply note this. what our activists were in a post retirement age, 80 years, that is how old our commitment is to young people, our students are on the front lines across the country come on university campuses, university of missouri, yale university,

oklahoma university. we are on the front lines. the point being here is not only do we collaborate in terms of lending support in terms of staffing, but our people stand side-by-side. think about this. only a few weeks ago in roanoke, virginia, we had a group of high schoolers, adolescents who sat in the office of congressman goodlatte to move forward voting rights in this country. myself and the college division director were arrested with young people. there is no millennial or generations when it comes to social justice. we are all together. we have to be in it together. jesse: the reason why some people would say groups like black lives matter's and justice league exist is because going back to trayvon martin, we have seen these publicized shootings of african-american men and women, not just shootings, death at the hands of police, and it does not seem to stop. how do you as a leader of a civil rights organization, what

can you tell people to say this is how we are going to get this to stop? because we have seen it over and over for the last four or five years, but it does not seem to stop. how do you as the head of the naacp look at your constituents and say, this is how we're going to get this to stop? mr. brooks: we have to be very honest with people. the naacp, being in business for aware of the act of violence

called lynching. that led to the creation in the last century before the decade after decade after decade, and we brought into an end. we buy into and through federal legislation, state legislation, vigorous law enforcement. here we are in this century with violence called police misconduct. the naacp is taking a multilevel approach. number one, we are pushing for federal legislation.

we have mobilized and continued to mobilize people for the support and passage of the legislation. the passage of the law enforcement trust and integrity act. what are we pushing for here? body cameras, a national standard for excessive use of force, a retooling, a change in the model and modality of policing. we have seen over the last several years 1000 people die at the hands of police year in and year out. we have seen a young black man be 21 more times more likely to lose his life at the hands of police than his white counterparts. we know that there is a serious problem, but we also know all across the country, there are

police departments that are getting it right or coming closer to getting it right. we push for state legislation, federal legislation. we push for the "preserve and protect our lives" pledge. we asked both presidential candidates to push for the legislation i just spoke of, to push for the reporting of data. that is to say you cannot solve a problem unless you are able to measure the problem. we have also asked presidential candidates to push for civilian review boards. the point being is we know what works because we have brought on the number of place involved shootings. we know we have been able to tune things around. the point is we have to push

forward these reforms at the federal level and the state level, and we know that they work because our places in the country where they have worked. the point being here is we cannot conclude that not having solved the problem in a few years that we are not able to solve the problem. i want to emphasize here. we may not have confidence in our politicians, but we at the naacp, being in business for 100 years have confidence in our capacity, we have confidence in the capacity of our young people to bring about reform in voting, activism in the streets, through civil disobedience, legislative advocacy. we have the tools at our disposal. we can get up done, and we can get it done in our time. we are possessed with the fierce urgency of now. i believe we can get it done. our history suggests we can get it done. we don't need to conclude on the basis of the difficulties that we face the moment that we cannot get it done. kimbriell: you mentioned consent degrees which are a tool of the apartment justice to reform police departments, and we know the justice department over the last 20 years has investigated dozens of police departments across the country for use of excessive force. however, we know there are 18,000 police departments in the country, and the justice department cannot be everywhere. they have acknowledged their limited resources financially, their staff. in terms of the naacp, what do you see as a limitation in trying to address the civil rights issues today and going

forward into the next few years? mr. brooks: our limitations are these. we have nearly all volunteer army of nearly half a million. while we are in a great many places, we are not everywhere. while we are the largest civil rights organization in the country, we are not as large as the problem. that being said, acknowledging our limitations, we acknowledge our resources. our resources are these. we have a strong history. we have imagination and creativity of our activists, and also, we have the determination and the will of this present

moment. what we are seeing across this country is generally unprecedented. we see thousands of activists in the streets. we are in the midst of a post-millenium civil rights movement. i would say this -- if looking back on history, if we do not underestimate the capacity of change in this country during the era of martin luther king or rosa parks, let us not underestimate our capacity for change in the present moment. the point being we have to raise money, resources, the will to bring about change in policing culture in this country, but it can be done. the country is not nearly where it should be, but it is certainly not where it was. while we may be resource-constrained, the fact of the matter is our people have done a whole lot more with a whole lot less, so we refuse to be discouraged and disheartened, even with the present circumstances. jesse: you brought up the presidential campaign earlier, but first, did you get a

response from any of the presidential candidates to the pledges you asked them? second, where does the naacp stand as far as this year's presidential election goes because it has been a lot of conversation around the country about voting rights? there has been a long conversation recently about how the political candidates relate to the african-american community. where as far as voting rights goes? have you heard anything from the political candidates back on the pledges you mentioned? where does the african-american community stand as far as this year's campaign goes? is there anything we need to hear from the political candidates this year that they

have not talked about? mr. brooks: certainly. let's talk about the pledge. our pledge to protect and preserve our lives, we crafted this pledge with five key elements. we reached out to both presidential candidates from the major parties. secretary clinton came to our convention, addressed the pledge at length and in detail. we have not heard from mr. trump whatsoever. he declined our invitation to come to our convention. he declined the invitation of the association of black journalists. he declined the invitation of the urban league and a number of groups. we have not heard in depth and detail with respect of his plans in terms of criminal justice

reforms, whether it be policing, sentencing, any of the challenges that face us in the realm of the injustice in the criminal justice system. in terms of the plants, we continue to press forward with it and seek that all candidates, we seek their commitment to bring about those reforms and bring about those reforms and make significant progress in the first 100 days. beyond that, in terms of voting rights, when you ask where is the naacp? the naacp is in the courts, streets, and state legislatures. when you look at the recent cases from texas to georgia to north carolina, in each instance, the naacp has both been in the courts as either lawyers or the client and in the streets as activists and advocates for legislative reform. we are also in the congress in terms of our washington bureau passing for a fix to a badly broken voting rights act. this is the first presidential election in 50 years without the protection of the voting rights act. we have seen in the wake of

shelby versus holder this machiavellian frenzy of voter disenfranchisement. we have seen a strong naacp on the winning side. in our north carolina state conference was a plaintiff in that case where the fourth circuit found intentional discrimination, in terms of voter suppression, intentional racial discrimination in terms of voter suppression in the state. we are going to be on the winning side in the state legislature and in the federal congress in terms of pushing for the reform of a voting rights act. that is to say the passage of the voting rights advancement act. the naacp only a few weeks ago, we were arrested in roanoke, virginia, in an act of civil disobedience to get congressman virgil goodlatte to free that legislative hostage called the voting rights advancement act from the judiciary committee in the house. all across the country, whether it be georgia, north carolina, texas, over and over again, the

naacp has been in the lead on this issue with partners. make no mistake, we stand with partners, but we have to be clear about this. we put our lawyers and bodies on the line. the naacp marched in alabama to washington, d.c., on what we call america's journey for justice, 1004 miles in the heat of the summer. why? we were pushing for the reform and the protection of voting rights act in terms of the voting rights advancement act. there is no organization that has given more sacrifice in terms of securing the franchise. that their question here is, where are we with respect to this presidential campaign? we reached out to both candidates. we have asked them to debate the issues. we have engaged in twitter storms. we have petitioned certainly the debate commissions to put the right questions on the agenda. during the primary season, we pushed for these candidates to debate the issues of not just

black america or african-american america, but america in terms of our civil rights agenda, and we continue to press the case. as we enter into the final days of the campaign with 70 some-odd days left, we will press the candidates again and again. we will call them out for a lack of specifics, for generalities or platitudes when it comes to civil rights in this country. the point being here is we will make it clear. you don't get to the white house unless you travel through the doors of the naacp. more importantly, you don't get to the white house without addressing the nation's civil rights agenda. we cannot have candidates not speaking about the voter rights act, racial profiling, not saying it loud and with clarity that black lives matter.

why? unless black lives are said to matter, all lives cannot matter. point being here is the naacp, we are the nations watchdog when it comes to civil rights, and we will do our job in terms of ensuring that these candidates speak to the issues. we can be counted on to do that. jesse: a real quick follow up. you said secretary clinton addressed the pledge. did she sign it? mr. brooks: she did not sign it. we are calling on her to sign it. by signing it, that means you will by executive order, by regulation, or by congressional action, legislation, that you will make significant progress within the first 100 days on things like collecting data, establishing civilian review boards, ensuring we have a minimum standard of conduct when it comes to law enforcement,

that we not fund law enforcement agencies that engage in a pattern, so we don't subsidize discrimination. we defund law-enforcement departments that engage in that conduct. we are asking her to sign it. as importantly, we are asking mr. trump to take note of it, then sign it, then speak to the nation's civil rights agenda in depth and in detail. kimbriell: i just want to pivot to baltimore for a second. there is a lot has happened there recently with the department of justice investigative findings, but as well as the outcomes of the officers who were on trial for the death of freddie gray. what are your thoughts on what that moment meant, both for the trial and as a nation what we should take away from that? secondly, do you feel that officer misconduct and the death of black lives is the most pressing number one civil rights issue right now? >> we have about a minute and a half. mr. brooks: in short, we believe

that these officers not being found guilty and charges being dismissed is certainly disappointing, but at the end of the day, to bring about systemic reform, you cannot look to individual verdicts, so we continue to push for systemic reform in baltimore. the number one issue is voting rights because if our ability to vote is impaired, our ability to hold police department accountable is rendered mute. >> let me ask you as we close here since these issues are going and police relations with the black community have reached something of a tipping point over the past two years, what do you think barack obama's legacy as president will be on these issues? mr. brooks: i believe the president's legacy will be that he spoke candidly to the issues. he had two attorney generals who had been on the forefront, but

he leaves a legacy on this issue that needs to be completed. we look forward to a new president, a new congress to take up the mantle and to make it clear to the nation that the notion that black lives matter is a moral premise to the ethical conclusion that all lives matter. unless we can say that the lives of our children, whatever their color, hue, or heritage, is safeguarded in the streets, little can be said about this country. naacp, we will continue to stand for the nation civil rights agenda, and we will stand with anyone and everyone who was to work with us as we seek to better the country. >> cornell brooks, think you for being with c-span on our "newsmakers" program this week. let me turn to kimbriell kerry and jesse. i am wondering since you both really spent so much time reporting on the issues that we talked about with mr. brooks,

what is it about the past three to four years where these issues have been so much in the forefront in our society? what has brought them to the forefront? is there more happening or something about the reporting that has changed? jesse: the first thing we can say is that we know these issues existed before the last half decade, but what is happening is that the technology has changed, where we actually are seeing video of the incidents that people in the black community have been talking about for years. instead of it being anecdotal evidence, someone said that this happened, we are now seeing it, which is bring the conversation to america's forefront. before, it was a conversation between the african-american community and the police or the african-american community and the courts. the videos we have seen have allowed that conversation to hit the mainstream. >> cell phones and social media have changed everything? kimbriell: absolutely. not only do you have, and i would go a step further and say

it provides evidence, if you will, in court for prosecutions. if you have a police officer say five or 10 years ago who was prosecuted for some sort of misconduct in the court, you may not have that evidence, and now, you see an increase in the prosecutions and the ability to say that the officer and his testimony may differ than what the evidence shows, and that is something you are seeing that as different as well. >> what is the justice department's agenda on these issues to address them during the waning days of the obama administration? jesse: that is an interesting question. we have seen justice department activity in baltimore, but the

question is, how much further can they take it in the waning days of the administration? depending on who will become president will set the agenda of the justice department for the coming years so it will be interesting to see what attorney general lynch can do. can she make any sort of change, impact on these issues that we have been talking about for the last five years or so? have the, they remedies that were not necessarily important. in recent years, you see a federal judge has been to oversee the implementation of these reforms. something for the incurred debts the current administration.

that can change. you can see investigations but the federalt see monitor, that is something that is very different. >> money for the body cameras? it will hard to say and depend on what congress looks like this year. congressities of depend on who is in charge of congress. it will be interesting to see who is in charge and what the priorities are. one thing that will be important moving forward is finding the data. it is one thing we do not have from the police department, with the data is on how many people shot, because or they are not required to report it. if something can be done to help change some of the issues we have seen, it is to mandate the data so it can be analyzed. is how you have spent

your time, analyzing the data. >> exactly. it is important because there is no accurate accounting of the information. resources are just one aspect. thatee time and time again being able to house and archive the data from these cameras, it will be a big issue going forward. not just in getting the funding for the cameras but how you warehouse what you find. >> you talk about the release because that is an issue we are --ing with a lot of room police department's where they have the films but they do not want to pull -- release them. >> i cannot close without talking about the donald trump campaign. what doage, the phrase you have lose, making his

appeal. "the wall street journal" editorial page said he was right in not going to speak to the naacp because the constituency is not his. it provides video of a stonefaced audience listening to his message. so, i'm wondering what you think about his campaign and his possibilities for success with the messaging he is taking to the black community. >> i think there is difference of opinion about the messaging. you hear people saying that messaging is not for black people. the perception that it is that it is around his constituents and he has stronger feelings for the black community than those that may exist. it was not just the naacp he turned on, it was the national association of black journalists. i think people are very clear in terms of what his feelings may be around the black community. it will be interesting to see how penetrative his message is. >> a few words of his speech

is not going to be enough to change the impression that many in the african-american committee have of this election. it is commendable that he wants to try, but it is probably going to take a little bit more than just the mentioning of the african-american community in two speeches for it to be effective in bringing more votes into his campaign. we do not know what he is going to do in the future. maybe he will have some plan or an outreach or something more than a few lines in a speech coming from the trump campaign but right now it is hard to see those few words changing many people's minds. >> i wish we could go on because they're so much of talk about including heller clinton -- -- hillary clinton. thank you very much, the both of you, for being with us on "newsmakers."

>> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> tonight, innovations in technology and privacy. here is a look. >> i think we can learn a lot about disease if we study healthy people and not just sick people. i think we all talk about sick people that is great. we need to help sick people. i think how you really help sick is by concentrating on the healthy population and motivating them for a social impact and social dynamic. a quick example. instagram. me that so many people share so many things on instagram and do not think twice about it. they are on the beach in a bikini or in the bathroom taking a self.

they do not think twice about how much private data they are actually sharing. what if you could anonymously share or donate or monetize your in various ways where it is protected? that would be the key in getting even the government for example involved in that would be key as we continue with the nih and all joe bidenpport from and friends, that is a great example of where our government and other governments around the world are very interested in population genetics. we have to think about, it is private and i do not want to share it. we are sharing other things that are way more private, i think. >> just some of the discussion tonight about health information and privacy. ahead of the return next

tuesday, tweets from congress. ,riting about the zika virus saying -- also tweeting about the zika and climate change, her meeting with the mayor to discuss solutions and sea level rise to concerns that impact our community. senator baldwin of wisconsin on gun violence -- congressman ron of iowa tweeting -- later this week, we will preview what is ahead when members return. >> before taking its some -- summer break, the senate voted for a second -- second time on

the zika virus. >> just last may, when our democratic colleagues asked us to act and with urgency, but their they turned down very money and decided to gamble with the lives of children like this. instead of protecting them. they ignored their own calls to get this done quickly and measureso pass urgent that would protect the country from a public health crisis. thissaid when i started, was a test today to see whether our democratic colleagues cared more about the bees like this or special interest groups and they failed the test. it is simple as that. >> happening in the house,

planned parenthood, an organization where hundreds of thousands of women go for their care. do you think they will have a rush of business now? because women in america today want to make sure they have the ability to not get pregnant. mosquitoes ravage pregnant women. under the logic of my friend, the republican leader, they do not need to go to planned parenthood. they can go someplace in las vegas -- las vegas or chicago or lexington. an emergency room and say, i did not get birth control, can you help me? that is what planned parenthood is for. whovast majority of women need help, that is where they

go, planned parenthood. under the legislation we got back from the house, there is no money to be provided for that. this thursday, a preview of four major issues congress will debate. gun violence,, and the impeachment of the irs commissioner. withll feature an update washington examiner senior congressional correspondent susan. that is thursday on c-span.

>> up next, c-span's issue spotlight. an in-depth look at programs from the c-span video archive. this program focuses on the 2016 election and voting rights. and tell voting laws are changing. >> some headlines in recent weeks. in the wall street journal, donald trump says he's afraid the election is going to be rigged. and he claims voter fraud lets people vote 10 times. here is the nominee at a rally in green bay, wisconsin. mr. trump: you have to win this election. we have to win it. have to win. otherwise, our big movement was not as big as we thought. that is not good. that is why november 8, you've got to get everybody you know. and you know, now that there is voter id, a lot of places are not going to have voter id. what does that mean was marked you just keep walking in and voting? you have to be careful. >> "the hill" believing seven in 10 voters backing donald trump believe the election will have been rigged against him if he loses.

but president obama called his assertions ridiculous. president obama: it is -- i don't even know where to start answering this question. of course the elections will not be rigged. what is that mean? the federal government doesn't run the election process. states and cities and communities all across the country, they are the ones who set up the voting systems and voting booths. if mr. trump is suggesting there is a conspiracy theory that is being propagated across the country, including in places like texas where typically it is not democrats who are in charge of voting booths, that is ridiculous. that doesn't make any sense and i don't think anybody would take that seriously. we do take seriously as we

always do our responsibilities to monitor and preserve the integrity of the voting process. if we see signs that a voting machine or system is vulnerable to hacking, we inform those local authorities who are running the elections they need to be careful. if we see jurisdictions that are violating federal laws, in terms of equal access, and are not providing ramps for disabled voters or are discriminating some fashion or otherwise filing -- violating civil rights laws, the justice department will come in and take care of that. this will be an election like every other election. and i think all of us at some point in our lives played sports

or maybe just played in a schoolyard. sometimes, if folks lose, they complain they got cheated. i have never heard about somebody complained about being cheated before the game was over. or before the score is even tallied. my suggestion would be, go out there and try to win the election. if mr. trump is up 10-15 points on election day and ends up losing, maybe he can raise some questions. that doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. >> the democratic nominee is also weighing in in a different way.

a statement from hillary clinton earlier this month reads, 51 years after the voting rights act was signed into law, americans are now facing the most systematic effort to curtail those rights since the era of jim crowe. ms. clinton: we have a responsibility to say clearly and directly what is really going on in our country. because what is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young people from one end of our country to the other. [applause] ms. clinton: because since the supreme court eviscerated a key provision of the voting rights act, many of the states that previously faced special scrutiny because of a history of

racial discrimination have proposed and passed new laws that make it harder than ever to vote. >> the new york times national correspondent, why is voting rights an issuing in the 2016 election? >> it is an issue because in some of the states that could be battlegrounds, wisconsin and north carolina, there are laws that restrict the ability of certain people to vote. the basis for these laws, advocates say, is voter fraud.

critics say, that is not the case. they are designed to affect parts of the population and disenfranchise them. >> this will be the first election since changes to the voting rights act. what impact is that going to have? michael: it is going to have a substantial impact in some states. they were covered by section five of the voting rights act. section five did a number of things. one which was especially important, required people in these jurisdictions when making changes in elections to submit them to the justice department for what they called preclearance approval. that was done thousands of times every year. the other thing it did was sent out election monitors to certain areas that qualified under justice department rules. they sent out 800 right before that section of the act was

struck down in 11 or 12 states. and your story, federal appeals court strikes down north carolina voter id requirements. what is going on? michael: the thrust of most of these laws is to require registered voters, when they come to the polls, to display some sort of id. driver's license, military id. and a couple of states, the license to carry a gun. if you have those with a photograph, you are a loud to -- allowed to vote. those are the strictest. the critics say these laws have been designed to target people who are least likely to have these ids. in the ruling in north carolina that struck down the voting laws

there, the appeals court said they were specifically targeted at blacks, at students, at minorities who tend to vote predominantly democratic. so there are, studies have shown, hundreds of people across the country who either don't have these ids or have great difficulty getting them because they are poor. they are in rural areas. the argument by critics is these people are effectively disenfranchised. >> back to the supreme court case. what specifically did the justices say in that case? a lot of these actions across the country coming after this supreme court ruling. what specifically was their decision in that case? michael: the rationale was the

voting rights act was passed in 1965 when discrimination was certainly pervasive. not just in the south. some of the areas covered by section five of the voting rights act were in new york, california. states that did not have a legacy of discrimination from the civil war. it wasn't just the south. the court concluded times had changed since 1965. this sort of pervasive discrimination no longer existed. and didn't justify what they would say was the intrusive nature of section five. this could now be handled by local courts, state courts, or local divisions of federal courts on a case-by-case basis. >> now we get a portion of that case. 20 minutes of the supreme court oral arguments. this starts with antonin scalia asking questions about the process.

>> we submit congress was not writing on a blank slate. the case depends on the proposition section five was a big success. >> maybe it was making that, but that is a problem i have. this court does not like to get involved in racial questions such as this. the problem is, that initial enactment, and the senate, it was double digits against it. that was only a five year term. it was reenacted. double digits against it. then it was reenacted for seven years. single digits against it. and then, for 25 years. eight senate votes against it. the last enactment, not a single that was only a five year term. it was reenacted.

double digits against it. then it was reenacted for seven years. single digits against it. and then, for 25 years. eight senate votes against it. the last enactment, not a single vote in the senate against it. the house is pretty much the same. i don't think that is attributable to the fact that it is so much more clearer that we need it. i think it is a phenomenon called perpetuation of racial entitlement. when a society adapts them, it is difficult to get out of it. i don't think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against this act.

i am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless the court can say it does not comport with the constitution. you have to show when you are treating different states differently there is a good reason for it. that is the concern those of us who have questions about the statute have. it is a concern this is not the kinds of question you can leave to congress. there are certain districts in the house that are black districts by law just about now. and even the virginia senators, they have no interest in voting against this. the state government is not their government, and they are going to lose -- they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the voting rights act.

even the name of it is wonderful -- the voting rights act. who is going to vote against that in the future? >> you have an extra 5 minutes. >> thank you. i may need it for that question. [laughter] >> justice scalia, there's a number of things to say. first, we are talking about the enforcement power that the constitution gives to the congress to make these judgments to ensure protection of fundamental rights. so this is -- this is a situation in which congress is given a power which is expressly given to it to act upon the states in their sovereign capacity. and it cannot have been lost on the framers of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments that the power congress was conferring on them was likely to be exercised in a differential manner because it was, the power

was conferred to deal with the problems in the former states of the confederacy. so with respect to the constitutional grant of power, we do think it is a grant of power to congress to make these judgments. now of course subject to review by this court under the standard of northwest austin, which we agree is an appropriate standard. that's the first point. the second point is i do -- i do say with all due respect, i think it would be extraordinary to look behind the judgment of congress as expressed in the statutory findings, and -- and evaluate the judgment of congress on the basis of that sort of motive analysis, as opposed to -- >> we looked behind it in boerne. i'm not talking about dismissing it. i'm talking about looking at it to see whether it makes any sense. >> and -- but -- but i do think that the deference that congress is owed, as city of boerne said, "much deference" -- katzenbach said "much deference." that deference is appropriate because of the nature of the power that has been conferred here and because, frankly, of the superior institutional competence of congress to make these kinds of judgments. these are judgments that assess social conditions. these are predictive judgments about human behavior and they're predictive judgments about

social conditions and human behavior about something that the people in congress know the most about, which is voting and the political process. and i would also say i understand your point about entrenchment, justice scalia, but certainly with respect to the senate, you just can't say that it's in everybody's interests -- that -- that the enforcement of section 5 is going to make it easier for some of those senators to win and it's going to make it harder for some of those senators to win. and yet they voted unanimously in favor of the statute. >> do you think the preclearance device could be enacted for the entire united states. >> i don't think there is a record that would substantiate that. but i do think congress was -- >> and that is because that there is a federalism interest in each state being responsible to ensure that it has a political system that acts in a democratic and a civil and a decent and a proper and a

constitutional way. >> and we agree with that, we respect that, we acknowledge that northwest austin requires an inquiry into that. >> but if -- if alabama wants to have monuments to the heros of the civil rights movement, if it wants to acknowledge the wrongs of its past, is it better off doing that if it's an own independent sovereign or if it's under the trusteeship of the united states government? >> of course it would be better in the former situation. but with all due respect, your honor, everyone agrees that it was appropriate for -- for congress to have exercised this express constitutional authority when it did in 1965, and everybody agrees that it was the -- was the exercise of that authority that brought about the situation where we can now argue about whether it's still necessary. and the point, i think, is of fundamental importance here is that that history remains relevant. what congress did was make a cautious choice in 2006 that given the record before it and given the history, the more prudent course was to maintain the deterrent and constraining

effect of section 5, even given the federalism costs, because, after all, what it protects is a right of fundamental importance that the constitution gives congress the express authority to protect through appropriate legislation. >> before your time expires, i would like to make sure i understand your position on this as-applied versus facial issue. is it your position that this would be a different case if it were brought by, let's say, a county in alaska as opposed to shelby county, alabama? >> no. no. let me just try to articulate clearly what our -- what our position is. they've brought a facial challenge. we recognize that it's a facial challenge. we're defending it as a facial challenge, but our point is that the facial challenge can't succeed because they are able to point out that there may be some other jurisdictions that ought not to be appropriately covered, and that's especially true because there is a tailoring mechanism in the statute. and if the tailoring mechanism doesn't work, then jurisdictions that could make such a claim may well have an as-applied

challenge. that's how we feel. >> thank you, general. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> the point is this. at least some of these states have a better record than those states that are out. in 1965, we had history. 200 years of slavery. 80 years of legal segregation and 41 years of the statute and this has helped. congress in 2005 looks back and says, don't change horses in the middle of the stream because we still have a ways to go. the question is, is it rational to do that. people could differ on that. one thing to say is of course this is aimed at state. what do you think the civil war

was about? of course it was aimed at treating some states differently than others. and at some point, that historical and practical justification runs out. and the question is, has it run out now? you tell me, when does it run out? never? that's something you have heard people worried about. does it never run out? or does it run out, but not yet? or do we have a clear case where at least it doesn't run out now? now, i would like you to address that. >> fair enough, justice breyer. i think that the -- what the evidence shows before congress is that it hasn't run out yet. the whole purpose of this act is that we made progress and congress recognized the progress that we made.

and, for example, they took away the examiner provision which was designed to address the registration problem. in terms of when we are there, i think it will be some point in the future. our great hope is that by the end of this next reauthorization we won't be there. indeed, there is an overlooked provision that says in 15 years, which is now nine years from where i stand here today before you, congress should go back and

look and see if it's still necessary. so we don't think that this needs to be there in perpetuity. but based on the record and a 2011 case in which a federal judge in alabama cited this court's opinion in northwest austin -- there were legislators that sit today that were caught on tape referring to african american voters as illiterates. their peers were referring to them as aborigines. and the judge, citing the northwest austin case -- it's the mcgregor case cited in our >> absolutely, chief justice roberts. >> well, then it doesn't seem to help you make the point that the differential between covered and noncovered continues to be justified. >> but the great weight of evidence -- i think that it's fair to look at -- on some level you have to look piece by piece, state by state. but you also have to step back and look at the great mosaic. this statute is in part about our march through history to keep promises that our constitution says for too long were unmet. and this court and congress have both taken these promises seriously. in light of the substantial evidence that was adduced by congress, it is reasonable for congress to make the decision that we need to stay the course so that we can turn the corner. to be fair, this statute cannot go on forever, but our experience teaches that six amendments to the constitution have had to be passed to ensure safeguards for the right to vote, and there are many federal laws. they protect uniform voters, some protect eligible voters who have not had the opportunity yet

to register. but together these protections are important because our right to vote is what the united states constitution is about. >> thank you, counsel. mr. rein, 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> do you think that the right to vote is a racial entitlement in section 5? >> no. the fifteenth amendment protects the right of all to vote and -- >> i asked a different question. do you think section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement? >> well, congress -- >> do you think there was no basis to find it -- >> may i say congress was reacting in 1964 to a problem of race discrimination which it thought was prevalent in certain jurisdictions. so to that extent, as the intervenor said, yes, it was intended to protect those who had been discriminated against. if i might say, i think that justice breyer -- >> do you think that racial

discrimination in voting has ended, that there is none anywhere? >> i think that the world is not perfect. no one -- we are not arguing perfectibility. we are saying that there is no evidence that the jurisdictions that are called out by the formula are the places which are uniquely subject to that kind of problem -- >> but shouldn't -- >> we are not trying -- >> you've given me some statistics that alabama hasn't, but there are others that are very compelling that it has. why should we make the judgment, and not congress, about the types and forms of discrimination and the need to remedy them? >> may i answer that? number one, we are not looking at alabama in isolation. we are looking at alabama relative to other sovereign states. and coming to justice kennedy's point, the question has is alabama, even in isolation, and those other states reached the point where they ought to be given a chance, subject to section 2, subject to cases brought directly under the fifteenth amendment, to exercise their sovereignty -- >> how many other states have

240 successful section 2 and section 5 -- >> justice sotomayor, i could parse statistics, but we are not here to try alabama or massachusetts or any other state. the question is the validity of the formula. that's what brings alabama in. if you look at alabama, it has a number of black legislators proportionate to the black population of alabama. it hasn't had a section 5 rejection in a long period. i want to come to justice breyer's point because i think that -- i think he's on a somewhat different wavelength, which is isn't this a mere continuation? shouldn't the fact that we had it before mean, well, let's just try a little bit more until somebody is satisfied that the problem is cured? >> don't change horses. you renew what is in the past -- >> right. >> where it works, as long as the problem isn't solved. ok? >> well, and i think the problem to which the voting rights act was addressed is solved. you look at the registration,

you look at the voting. that problem is solved on an absolute as well as a relative basis. so that's like saying if i detect that there is a disease afoot in the population in 1965 and i have a treatment, a radical treatment that may help cure that disease, when it comes to 2005 and i see a new disease or i think the old disease is gone, there is a new one, why not apply the old treatment? >> well, mr. rein -- >> i wouldn't -- >> that is the question, isn't it? you said the problem has been solved. but who gets to make that judgment really? is it you, is it the court, or is it congress? >> well, it is certainly not me. [laughter] >> that's a good answer. i was hoping you would say that. >> but i think the question is congress can examine it, congress makes a record, it is up to the court to determine whether the problem indeed has been solved and whether the new problem, if there is one -- >> well, that's a big, new power that you are giving us, that we have the power now to decide whether racial discrimination

has been solved? i did not think that that fell within our bailiwick. >> i did not claim that power, justice kagan. what i said is, based on the record made by the congress, you have the power, and certainly it was recognized in northwest austin, to determine whether that record justifies the discrimination among -- >> but there is this difference, which i think is a key difference. you refer to the problem as the problem identified by the tool for picking out the states, which was literacy tests, et cetera. but i suspect the problem was the denial or abridgement by a state of the right to vote on the basis of race and color. and that test was a way of picking out places where that problem existed. now, if my version of the problem is the problem, it certainly is not solved. if your version of the problem, literacy tests, is the problem, well, you have a much stronger case. so how, in your opinion, do we decide what was the problem that congress was addressing in the

voting rights act? >> i think you look at katzenbach and you look at the evidence within the four corners of the voting rights act. it responds to limited registration and voting as measured and the use of devices. the devices are gone. that problem has been resolved by the congress definitively. so it can't be the basis for further -- further legislation. i think what we are talking about here is that congress looks and says, well, we did solve that problem. as everyone agrees, it's been very effective, section 5 has done its work. people are registering and voting and, coming to justice scalia's point, senators who see that a very large group in the population has politically wedded themselves to section 5 are not going to vote against it, it will do them no good. and so i think, justice scalia, that evidence that everybody votes for it would suggest some of the efficacy of section 5. you have a different constituency from the constituency you had in 1964. but coming to the point, then if you think there is discrimination, you have to

examine that nationwide. they didn't look at some of the problems of dilution and the like because they would have found them all over the place in 1965. but they weren't responding to that. they were responding to an acute situation where people could not register and vote. there was intentional denial of the rights under the fifteenth amendment. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you. the case is submitted. >> new can hear all of that oral argument on c-span.org. the high court decided to strike down the section of the voting rights act requiring states to get preapproval of changes to their voting laws. in part because congress did not provide evidence that racial discrimination was still happening in the districts. >> thank you, thank you all. i was disappointed with the supreme court decision in the shelby county case -- i was

particularly troubled by the suggestion and oral argument that congress passed the voting rights act only because it has a nice name. not because of the mountains of evidence before congress or because of the body's long-standing bipartisan commitment to the 15th amendment. the voting rights act is one of the greatest and most consequential achievements of the civil rights movement as are simpson said. it has improved the democratic process tremendously. i would believe the law remains necessary today. the shelby county decision was a setback. justice ginsburg put it well in her dissent when she wrote -- i am quoting -- throwing out free

clearance when it has worked, and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you're not getting wet. i was disappointed with the decision. i am also optimistic we can fix this. nobody really disputes the voting rights act is still needed. writing for the majority and shelby county, justice roberts credited the voting rights act with great strides that we have taken as a nation while also saying "voting discrimination still exists, no one doubts that." it seems to me the question here is not whether we need the voting rights act at all, the question is what form should the law take? i am looking forward to working

with all of my colleagues on the judiciary committee to address the question in the months ahead. we have enacted a reauthorized voting rights act on a truly bipartisan basis. on five occasions in the past, hopefully we can do it again in 2015. professor, we have touched this already, preclearance. but i want to get your response to this quote. this is from the house judiciary committee report from the 1965 act regarding preclearance. quote, the burden is too heavy. the wrong to the citizens is too serious. the damage to our national conscience is too great not to adopt more effective measures than exist today, end quote. do you believe that statement is still true? >> i do. i think it was right then. and i think although

unquestionably matters have improved all over the country, i think there are still problems where -- that existing tools do not adequately address. and for those problems, the burden is still too heavy for the existing tools to do the work that they need to do to make sure that there is no discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. and the right to vote would have that meaningful participation counted anywhere in the country, justice should never be too expensive, never to slow, never depend on an army of lawyers sweeping in to help. and that is the situation we have now. we are dependent on the ability to find help whenever we can. congress has in the past always recognized that that is where the most fundamental right is not enough. and i take it that congress is here today -- this committee is here today to start the process of another bipartisan effort to

restore the recognition that waiting for help is not enough. senator franken: that is exactly why we are here. professor, from a law a constitutional law standpoint, i think one of the most important points made in justice ginsburg's dissent is that the majority departed from established precedent with respect to the standard of review under the 15th amendment, the court said, quote, congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting, end quote. in other words, to overturn a

statute enacted under congress is -- congress's 15th amendment powers the court must find the statute is irrational. that seems like a deferential standard, i agree with justice ginsburg in that the court did not apply it in shelby county. what are your thoughts on this? what standard of review should we expect the court to use when it analyzes potential amendments to the voting rights act? professor: you are right. it is difficult to know what standard because used in shelby county only because they did not tell us. the prevailing standard had been deferential to congress and the court tossed out more or less with the back of their hand all of the work congress had done -- the 15,000 pages of record. the prevailing standard had been that recognition that congress is the body empowered in the

first instance to enforce the 15th amendment. and that the legislation may pass should be viewed rationally. any rational basis would suffice. the court seemed not to apply that standard. it seemed to depart from that. they did not tell us what standard they were applying. what they did say was that any step congress takes has to reflect current conditions. and although i think the old standard met that test, they did not. i think that congress has the ability to compile a record of current conditions that would more than authorize steps to supplement the very important protections that exist today with more protections designed to ensure that there is no discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. i think congress has plenty of latitude to establish a record supporting whatever steps congress takes to provide the protection that we still desperately need. senator franken: thank you. i am sorry i went over time. maybe we can get 16,000 pages if we go longer this time. thank you, i yield. >> senator cruz. senator cruz: thank you, mr. chairman.

i would like to thank all three witnesses for being here in testifying today. i want to ask a couple of questions to mr. carmen. i want to say at the outset that you and i have known each other for a long time. my first job as a practicing lawyer was working for you in a very small law firm. i commit two things -- number one, to tell no tales from those days. and number two to hold you harmless for any mistakes i may make in this committee or elsewhere in the senate. i would like to ask your legal judgment on what is required in response to the shelby county decision. the supreme court in shelby county noted that congress had thousands of pages of records as the last exchange highlighted. and the court went on to say, regardless of how to look at the record, however, no one can fairly say it shows anything approaching the pervasive, flagrant, widespread, and

rampant discrimination that and faced congress in 1955. to clearly distinguish jurisdictions from the rest of the nations at that time. the question i want to start with is -- what record would congress need to create in order to come up with a new coverage formula that would be constitutional? >> i think that congress made two basic mistakes in 2006, and i don't know if they were remedied by real empirical evidence. they gathered thousands of pages about what jurisdictions were bad, but they did not use that to designate jurisdictions covered by section five. they relied on electoral information from 1968 and 1972, which would be akin to the 1955 congress looking back at the calvin coolidge election to figure out who should be covered in 1965. so, the first thing you need to do is look at whatever current

information you have and get rid of this outdated formula. the second finding they never made -- this was the thrust of my basic commentary, what problem is that -- is section five curing that section two is not a remedy for? i doubt seriously you can make that argument. the one argument that has been made today that again is demonstrably untrue -- you know from private practice, this theory that section two litigation has to wait three or four electoral cycles before a nyone brings a lawsuit. when we all know those lawsuits are brought before the first election, as your home state of texas vividly illustrates. in fact, the professor's example makes my point that he is talking about a challenge to an at-large system. section five states they cannot get at large systems because it only deals with voting changes. it had nothing to do with getting rid of the principal vote dilution technique that was employed in the deep south. second is this was a challenge

the city of charleston could have brought at any time. they brought the case in january of 2001, and they did not move for preliminary junction until april 2002. they waited 15 months. sometimes they just did not take advantage of it. what congress would have to do, and what frankly i don't think they can show is there a such a cognizable difference between the jurisdictions that are being covered that they need justice department oversight 24/7, and there may be jurisdictions that need that for section two but congress has not come close to identifying what would those be , particularly because some of those are doing better today in terms of minority vote participation. senator cruz: thank you. let me ask a follow-up. you rightly noted that section two in the voting rights act remains in full force. and it's protections are

entirely in place. section five -- what i would like to ask you is about your practical experience. you have litigated a number of voting rights cases. you have worked wish, alongside, and after the fact, elected officials dealing with section five. what i wanted to ask, is while section five was in place -- while the department of justice had the authority to preclear or not preclear the decisions of elected officials in states, to what extent did section five effectively require elected officials to make decisions based upon race? >> there was no question. it has been well documented in the 1990's that the justice department had what they quite candidly labeled the black max policy. which was you had to maximize

the black and hispanic districts regardless of traditional principles. that is why you have those districts in north carolina that ran down i-95 and were struck down by the court as unconstitutional jerry manders. i hasten to add, i was involved with in the 1990's, and greatly aided the republican party. there is no bones about that. everything i am telling you today is contrary to the republican party's partisan interest. in the latest round of redistricting, texas is yet another good example, they have injected more politics into the discussion. they now say the new ability to elect a standard that was enacted by congress in 2006 protects white democrats in 9% black districts. in other words, you cannot diminish any democrat's ability to get reelected if they are the party predominantly supported by minorities. so, what section five has done is taken a guarantee of equal racial opportunities and converted it into a partisan preference scheme. one of the beneficial results of

shelby county is that you will be decreasing the amount of politically motivated jerry manders and decreasing the amount that race has to be considered now in every district from where there is a 9% minority to a 60% minority population, clearly driven redistricting over the last 30 years. >> senator blumenthal. senator blumenthal: thank you. thank you mr. chairman. i want to sort of follow senator cruz's questions, which i think really elicited something that i found very telling about the supreme court's opinion -- when i heard you describing what would be irremediable. i was struck by the observation about congress making a mistake

here. and it is pretty much the reason that the chief justice gave for striking down the formula. and i am quoting -- congress did not use the record it compiled to shape the coverage formula grounding in current conditions. isn't that a legislative judgment? how to use a record? whether it is 15,000 pages or 30,000 pages, we are not talking about the absence of a record -- we're not talking about that, we are talking about the evidence from which congress could draw a conclusion -- perhaps one as justice ginsburg said that maybe things have improved, but one of the purposes of congress is to prevent -- or i will quote her, guard against backsliding. my view is, the court was legislating in the most inappropriate and worst way. put aside whether you agree or disagree with the result. don't you agree, professor -- i know you have thought and written a lot about this issue

-- don't you think it was legislating? >> i respectfully disagree. if they relate it i would agree with you. senator blumenthal: here the chief justice said they did not use the evidence. how can he reach that conclusion? they had evidence. if you were to say about a jury coming out with a verdict, well, they had evidence but they did not use it. courts do not do that. they say there was not evidence at all about this element of the crime, so no jury could have concluded reasonably. >> no, he said that the coverage formula was not based on that evidence. so he was saying you need to have some reasonable grounds for distinguishing between the

states you are covering and the states you're not. you cannot pass a law that says everybody east of the mississippi is in the covered jurisdiction. when the coverage formula was criticized as not reflecting current realities the answer was, well, we looked at 15,000 pages of testimony. justice roberts, i think, using purely legal analysis said, we will differ like crazy if you are relying on that evidence for the coverage formula at issue. since you did not rely on that, there is literally nothing to do . senator blumenthal: was the judge to usurp a jury or congress and say, you did not rely on it, without having some inquiry as to what was going on? was there an improper influence? don't we open the door to courts saying, well, for all of your fact-finding, mr. congress, i am going to look at that evidence, i don't see enough of it to sustain this element of the law or this part of your decision -- therefore we are going to strike it down. >> we defer every day to administrative agencies. you are arguing that similar deference should be done here. let's assume the epa looked at

co2 when they should've been looking at a h2o, it would not do them good to say they based the formula on co2, we could have had a different formula based on h2o. senator blumenthal: they could say the absence of h2o and the presence of co2 is what justifies this decision. i know we could go back and forth for some time, i am limited in terms of time. and i want to ask the two other witnesses, beginning with professor levitt, if i may. and perhaps we will be limited to you unless the chairman gives you additional time -- how do we fix this formula? the court did not strike down the preclearance procedure. it simply struck down the formula, which may be, in fact, irremediable if we cannot get a

bipartisan coalition together, which perhaps the court counted on congress failing to do. striking down only that part of the law and upholding the preclearance procedure. but really, the task ahead of this committee and the senate is to try to arrive at a bipartisan substitute. >> i think there are a lot of paths ahead. it is part of why i'm so very excited the committee is convening this meeting now, in order to start down that path. i think there are lots of different potential things that will help. the basic premise is, the existing tools do not do the job. but there are lots of ways to modify the existing tools, or return the tools that did exist in ways that will do the job, or at least further the job. the vigilance has to continue. some of that involves different ways to get information about where discrimination is actually occurring. the sorts of things that you do

not get with having to go out in to the world to file a lawsuit, but you did get from the preclearance process. some of what i am sure will be discussed are different ways to identify where there is the most risk. whether that is based on current violations, political polarization, other danger signs, you'll have to look to where the most risk currently is. other things we have done in order to make the available section two process less cumbersome, less burdensome, less expensive -- all of that will help. it may well be that some combination of all of the above is what congress will need. other creative ideas that have not even been put forth yet in order to make sure that congress is able to effectively stop the problem. that is really the task that congress has. it is the task the constitution gives to congress. i really look forward to the months ahead when there will be lots of different ideas, most of which may be in combination will be sufficient to the task. >> that was part of a congressional hearing from 2013. michael from the new york times,

from what we just heard, members of congress are looking for ways to restore the voting rights act. are they making progress? michael: as with most things in congress these days, no, they are not. this has become a very partisan issue. the voting rights act once was a issue on which everyone almost agreed. in fact the last time it was extended it got an 25 year extension with broad bipartisan support. but that has changed drastically in the last few years. now with the gridlock in congress, it is impossible, really, even to get a bill started, much less on the floor. >> next, former attorney general eric holder on voting rights. he talks about the need for automatic voter registration when getting a driver's license, which is already the law in oregon, california, vermont, and west virginia.

[applause] eric holder: i have to say, it is a pleasure to be here. i was a little worried when i heard danielle was introducing me. we go a long way back. she knows where a lot of things are buried. that introduction could have gone any number of ways. thank you so much, daniel for those kind words. today i would like to discuss with you an issue that i believe threatens the integrity of this great nation. and it really puts in peril the future welfare of our country. i would also like to suggest some ways in which we might make real to the people of the united states, the promise of the democracy. 50 years after the passage of perhaps the most significant civil rights legislation in the nation's history -- the voting rights act of 1965 -- the most basic of american rights, the right to vote is under siege. as president johnson said when he signed the voting rights act, i will quote -- the right to

vote is the basic right. without which all others are meaningless, end quote. at a time when we should be expanding opportunities to cast a ballot, there is a movement in america that attempts to make it more difficult. abetted by a wrongly decided, factually inaccurate, and disconnected supreme court decision that unfortunately bears my name. that really, really pisses me off. whenever you talk about that case, don't ever say shelby county versus holder. just say shelby county. make like it does not exist. that part. merrick garland, i hope when he is confirmed will set some kind of precedent. we will go back and change the name. it is one of my requirements for his confirmation. but abetted by that decision, i think too many in this country are trying too hard to make it

too difficult for the people to express their views. now, let me start with a basic statement upon which i think everybody can agree, left, right, conservative, progressive. every person attempting to vote should have to show that he or she is who they claim to be. too many today forget that this has always been the case, and that in the past our fellow citizens were allowed to demonstrate that in many credible ways. let me say that again -- there has always been a component of identifying yourself before you could cast a ballot. it's only very recently that in some states, they have become overly prescriptive and unfairly restrictive in enumerating what is sufficient proof.

it has only been in the very recent past, in certain states, with certain legislatures and certain governors that this more restrictive prescribed approach has been mandated. the question is, why? well, the usual justification is to ensure the integrity of the electoral system by preventing voter fraud. well, given the nature of the fraud that is to be eliminated , the new restrictions must, i assume, be designed to prevent in-person false identification voting. while there is no statistical proof about the nation should be concerned, the vote fraud mantra is said so often, it is almost robotic. some people have unthinkably believe it is in fact, real. studies show the actual instance of in person voter fraud is extremely, extremely rare. and this is very logical. the penalties associated with voter fraud far outweigh the impact that an individual or even a group of people might affect. to truly impact an election

would probably require substantial numbers of people somehow holding themselves out as voters that, in fact, they are not. that would increase almost exponentially the potential exposure of the scheme. no such widespread schemes have been detected. a center stated it is more likely an individual will be struck by lightning than that he would impersonate another person at the polls, end quote. i think they should have used a powerball analogy there, but struck by lightning gives you a good example of how we are this is. -- how rare this is. one expert found 31 cases out of more than one billion votes cast in the united states from 2000 to 2014, 31 out of one billion over the course of 14 years. people of good faith, people grounded in the facts really have to ask, where is the problem? they have to conclude there is not a consequential one. the restrictive voting laws combats a next-to-nonexistent

problem with their serious, negative collateral consequences. instead of ensuring the integrity of the voting process, they actually do the opposite by keeping certain groups of people away from the polls. if there is not a fact-based voter impersonation problem, what then could be the basis for the photo-identification push? sadly, one party has decided to lash itself to short-term political expediency and put itself on the wrong side of history. history will be harsh in its assessment of this effort. in a 2007 houston chronicle article stated -- among republicans it is an article of religious faith that voter fraud

is causing us to lose elections. the article goes on to say, he does not agree with that, but does not believe that requiring photo ids could cause enough of a drop-off in legitimate democratic voting and add 3% to republican votes. in pennsylvania in the last presidential election of 2012, the republican state house majority listed a few partisan issues that would help mitt romney carry the state. after listing guns and abortion, he said, quote, voter id which would allow the governor to win the state of pennsylvania -- done, end quote. a federal court in washington dc in referring to a taxes voter id law said they would impose , and i quote, strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor. and remember, under that texas state law, a university id with

-- was found not to be adequate proof, but a state issued concealed weapons permit was. ok? finally, in wisconsin last year, a chief of staff to a meeting republican state senator resigned after attending a party caucus in which he said some legislatures were -- i'm quoting his words, were literally giddy over the effective state voter id laws on minorities and college students. so, let's be frank. faced with demographic changes that they perceive a goal against -- go against them, and saddled with a governing philosophy at odds with an evolving nation, some republicans have decided that if you cannot beat them, change the rules. make it more difficult for those individuals least likely to support republican candidates to vote. this is done with the knowledge that by simply depressing the votes of certain groups, not even winning the majority of votes under these groups, elections can in fact be affected. the 2014 study by the gao found that the more restrictive voter id laws decreased the votes of young people, minorities, and the poor in kansas and tennessee in 2012.

a recent study conducted by the university of california at san diego -- after controlling for a variety of factors, concluded these new laws disproportionately affected democratic voters. the study found that democratic turnout dropped about 7% where a strict photo id law was in place. latino turnout decreased by 10%. and there was an increase in the participation gap between whites and people of color. if one were to try to define what vote fraud is, that is voter fraud. the nation's attentions and a laws should not be focused on these phantom voters. the census bureau reported that in 2008 in the presidential election, of the 75 million adults who did not vote, 16 million were not registered. this is one of the places i think we should focus our efforts.

the speech i gave in 2011 at the lbj library, i called for the automatic registration of all eligible citizens. the logic of the argument i made then, i believe, are still sound. the ability to vote is a right, it is not a privilege. under the current system, many voters must follow needlessly complex and cumbersome voter registration rules. before and after every election these in state and local officials have to manually process a crush of new applications, most of them handwritten, leaving the system creating chaos of the polls. the pew center estimates that one in eight of voter registrations in the u.s. is invalid or significantly inaccurate. modern technology i believe before a straightforward fixed to these problems. if we have the political will to bring our election systems into the 21st century.

the government can and should automatically register citizens to vote by compiling from existing databases a list of all eligible residents in each jurisdiction. and several states have taken steps in that direction. oregon implemented an automatic registration procedure at its dmv in january. it has already seen a nearly fourfold increase in registrants. california, vermont, and west virginia have passed similar laws. and other states are leaning in that direction as well. it is estimated that if implemented at dmv's, but also at other key government agencies -- not just the dmv, these needed reforms could add 50 million eligible voters to the rolls, save money, and increase accuracy in the record necessary to the system. we must also address the fact that although one in nine

americans move every year, their voter registration does not move with them. many would-be voters do not realize this until after they have missed the deadline for registering in their new location, which can fall a full month or more before election day. election officials, i believe, should work together to establish a program of permanent, portable registration so that voters can vote at their new polling place on election day. but until that happens, i think we should implement failsafe procedures to correct errors and byssions -- omissions allowing every voter to cast a regular non-provisional ballot on election day. several states have taken this step and it is shown to increase turnout by 3% to 5%. it would not only improve the integrity of our elections, but also save precious taxpayer dollars. despite these benefits, there will be those that say that

easing registration hurdles and election day processes will only lead to voter fraud. voter fraud to the extent it actually exist is not acceptable and should not be tolerated. career, wed in my actually investigated and prosecuted. they are not likely by to be more susceptible to fraud. and inre all sides, person voting fraud is uncommon. to be honest about this. and we must recognize our ability to ensure the strength and integrity of our election systems and to advance the reforms necessary to achieve this. it depends on if the american

people are informed, engaged, and willing to demand fact-based contentions and commonsense solutions and regulations that make voting more accessible. politicians may not readily and willingly vote on the systems under which they were elected even though 80% of republicans oppose the citizens united decision. supportds of voters strengthening voter protections and the restoring of the voting rights act. only we, the people, can bring about meaningful change and alter current discriminatory trends. i want to commend the brennan center for leadership on these issues. the first proposed it in 2007 and has done much since then to advance the policy and other voting enhancements through extensive research and public education. so speak out. raise awareness about what is it stake.

to suppress certain votes. what do they fear. and perform them in the ways that encourage and not limit participation. to make it easier to register and easier to vote. why is it tied to a single tuesday in november. so that many of our fellow citizens need not choose. keeping their jobs. as was disastrously done recently, the number of polling places where they can truly participate in our democracy.

we cannot and must not take the right to vote. throughout the presidency in the 1965 voting rights act, america was the first nation in history of the world to be founded with a purpose to right wrongs and do justice. over the last two centuries, it has taken many forms. declarations of war and peace. government of and by and for the people should not perish. we are a noisy nation, and that's a good thing. that is where the democratic process is all about. and let opportunities

the people chart their own course. people around the world establish a process. the demands that remove any and all barriers to voting. the goal that all american citizens must share. struggle,cades of they are safeguarding the most basic and important acts. as well as an example for all the world. we must be true to the arc of america's history that includes that purpose.

so let us act. challenges to the and also the fallacies of our time. let us signal to the world that in america today, the pursuit of a more perfect union lives on. now is not the time to retreat into partisan song. it is, i believe, a defining one. it is a moral imperative. if we are the nation we claim to in everyst challenge, way possible, those that undermined democracy and have lost faith with the covenant between government and the people. the right to vote is not only the cornerstone of our system, it is a lifeblood of our democracy.

this struggle for right will be run -- will be one. those that sacrificed and died to ensure the right to vote. thank you very much. [applause] >> more now on the 2016 election and voting rights. part of the discussion on whether the voting rights act is still necessary, voter identification fraud and discrimination. this is from a meeting of the american bar association. >> i will be the dissenter in the room that might make people here unhappy. let me say a couple things. the voting rights act was the most important piece of legislation passed i think in the last century. more important than the civil

rights act. it helped and segregation and lack of political power of black americans. in 1960 five, when that law was passed, blacks were registered at a rate of only 27% in georgia. mississippi, less than 7%. 2004, the year before section five expired, many parts of the southeast covered by section five and that one provision, blacks were registering and voting at higher rates than white voters. talking here has been as if the voting rights act has ended. that is simply not the case. tool againstrful racial discrimination is section two. it is permanent and nationwide. permanent comment nationwide in which the justice department can

threaten anyone -- can fight anyone who is threatening or intimidating voters. one provision of the voting rights act, section five was originally supposed to be an emergency provision, only supposed to last five years. and accompanying a small number of jurisdictions. the justice department would go a court orderet against a jurisdiction or discriminate against black voters. that jurisdiction would basically be the court decree. action five, they would not be able to make any changes without getting the permission of the justice department or the three-judge panel in d.c.. symptom of discrimination was going on, as i said, low voter registration turnout.

congress came up with a formula. if you had less than 50% voter registration or turnout of all --ers, not just black voters in the 1964 presidential election, and you had a prior tester device. when they read new section five, 68, and 72the 64, elections. after that, congress never updated the coverage formula. they did not do it in 2006 when they were looking at it again. looked at it, not a single state would've been covered. because, both systematic and widespread official discrimination that was happening was ended. just a couple of things. >> black registration and turnout was