July 13, 2006—Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02) today voted against H.R. 9, unjustly entitled the “Voting Rights Act.”

“My record clearly demonstrates that I fully support the basic tenets and purposes of the actual Voting Rights Act based on my lifetime of advocacy for the inherent value and equality of all human beings.  However, the Voting Rights Act itself should not be confused with the few, flawed ‘emergency’ provisions of the Act that were at issue in Today’s vote.

“In fact, the provisions in H.R 9 actually seem to enshrine the very evil that the original Voting Rights act was designed to prevent.  The original aim of the original Voting Rights Act was to ensure that any American citizen, of any race, wherever his or her home, could vote without fear or restraint.  Ironically, the current state of the law, as interpreted by the courts, has resulted in racial gerrymandering, racial preferences, and the entrenchment of candidates according to racial politics. 

“For Arizona and a handful of other states, the provisions mandate unfair federal scrutiny that obviously protects the interests and careers of certain politicians rather than the interests of the voting public.  What is most shocking is that this federal mandate is based on polling data from 1964, even though minority voting patterns have significantly changed since then.  Therefore, these provisions are indefinitely continuing to punish states that were out of compliance 40 years ago, but lack any mechanism to monitor or punish states that violate the Voting Rights Act today.  Essentially, these provisions do not and cannot serve the purpose for which they were originally intended.

“I deeply believe every American citizen should and must have a meaningful voice in elections and in the destiny of this great Nation. This bill moves Americans further away from this goal and hides under a mask of pretenses that claim to strengthen the rights of minority voters.

 “I had hoped the bill could be corrected as it moved through this process and still earnestly hope that the Senate carefully addresses the faults in the bill so that when it returns to the Floor of the House of Representatives, I may cast a positive vote for a bill that may rightfully be called the ‘Voting Rights Act.’ Failing this, I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately strike the provisions in their current form. Many election law experts and legal scholars also believe this will be the result, if the Senate does not act to amend this divisive and unconstitutional law.”