Washington, D.C.— Following outrage from Members of Congress, citizen groups and constituents, the bill to renew certain controversial provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) was pulled from the U.S. House voting calendar today, giving Members more time to respond to concerns before a vote by the full House.
 
The bill to renew the VRA, H.R. 9, was expected to go to the full House today; however, a debate over institutionalizing bilingual voting loomed over House leadership.

U.S. Congressman Steve King (IA-05) offered an amendment to the bill, which was denied by the House Rules Committee, the body that decides which amendments are to be made in order on the House floor. King’s amendment would prevent renewal of a provision of the bill which requires localities to produce multilingual voting ballots for twenty-five additional years.

“The Voting Rights Act is an important law, once meant to ensure minorities were not denied their right to vote in the 1960s,” said King. “The move to allow Members more time to respond is a setback only for those who want to institutionalize multilingual voting for the next twenty-five years. It is irresponsible to renew these provisions for another generation. A Member of Congress could serve Congress for an entire lifetime without getting the opportunity to object to these federal mandates on behalf of their tax-paying constituents.”
 

“If we want to demolish modern-day obstacles and bring all backgrounds into our voting process to communicate with each other, we must unify the country instead of driving a wedge between cultures,” added King.

King recently authored a letter to Leadership signed by 79 Members outlining concerns over the renewal of multilingual ballot provisions in Sections 203 and 4(f)(4) of the VRA. The provisions were not part of the original VRA, but were added ten years later.

Following is an excerpt of the letter:

“Multilingual ballots divide our country, increase the risk of voter error and fraud, and burden local taxpayers. The multilingual ballot mandate encourages the linguistic division of our nation and contradicts the “Melting Pot” ideal that has made us the most successful multi-ethnic nation on earth. This increasingly burdensome mandate on state and local governments to provide multilingual voting materials also serves to undermine the election process. It contradicts the requirement that immigrants need to demonstrate the ability to read and understand English in order to become naturalized citizens. The existence of multilingual ballots increases the risk of election errors and fraud. Furthermore, not only are multilingual ballots an unfunded mandate, but they are a waste of taxpayer funds because they are mandated by the VRA without regard to whether they are actually used.”

If provisions expire, people with limited-English proficiency would still have help inside the voting booth.  Voters who need language assistance are already permitted, under current law, to bring an interpreter of their choice into the voting booth.

“Every citizen deserves to cast an informed ballot, and this is the right approach for voters who have difficulty understanding voting materials in English,” added King.