Speech #910136623

I am strongly opposed to the proposed administration substitute which I believe substantially weakens the three key remedies for abolishing discrimination in voting set up by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Though on the surface the Administration proposal seems to work toward the lauditory goal of extending the remedy provisions nationwide. upon closer scrutiny it has the practical effect of diluting and even crippling the effort to abolish discrimination in voting where it is needed most. First of all. the administration substitute proposes a blanket nationwide ban on literacy tests and similar devices until January 1. 1974. The literacy test question is an extremely complex one. In some States such as my own State of New York. a minimal literacy test has been proved necessary in dealing with large cultural groups whose main language is other than English. The literacy test ban question has been hotly debated in the past and should be considered separately on its own merits. Tacking a literacy test ban onto this bill severely jeopardizes the passage of the Voting Rights Act extension. The literacy test ban provision as it now stands in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applies only where a causal relationship can clearly be shown to exist between use of a test and low nonwhite voter participation. In seven States in the South. such a relationship has been shown. there is no evidence that this situation exists elsewhere. If evidence were to emerge in the future that use of literacy tests and other devices in other States are discriminatory under section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. the Attorney General has the authority to bring suit to enforce the 15th amendment. So a nationwide literacy test ban is essentially unnecessary. The administration substitute also proposes to extend the use of observers and examiners nationwide. Again I ask. where is the evidence that there is a need other than in the seven Southern States?