Personal Attacks Erupt Between Ted Cruz And Mazie Hirono During Debate About Racial Gerrymandering

[0:00] case and they never did. Thank you, Mr. Graham. I see my time's expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:07] Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's absolutely no question that racial discrimination [0:12] existed in our country and in many places people would argue that it still does. [0:18] And so we had all kinds of ways to keep black people from voting. We had poll taxes, [0:24] we had literacy tests, we had, I think some places even required them to count how many [0:32] jelly beans were in a jar. All kinds of ways to keep black people from voting. This happened. [0:38] I don't think anybody can deny that that was going on. And as far as I'm concerned, [0:43] there is a pattern now of voter suppression going on in our country right now. And the Calais decision [0:51] just plays into that by pretty much gutting the Voting Rights Act, which by the way, was reaffirmed [0:57] many times in a bipartisan way in acknowledging that this kind of racial discrimination [1:02] occurred and that as a, as a democratic country where everybody has an equal vote, that's not [1:09] tolerable. But suddenly it's a-okay just because the Supreme Court says so. No, it's not the entire [1:16] Supreme Court. It's a 63 majority, which I consider to be basically an out of control Supreme Court [1:22] majority where there is a pattern of this kind of decisions out of this court. So just because the court, [1:29] this court says so, doesn't mean I agree with them. So meanwhile, there is voter suppression going on. [1:35] You have an attorney general who sued at least 29 states to get these states to turn over their voter [1:42] rules. Why? What does the Department of Justice, what does the executive branch want to do with all [1:48] this voter information? Up to no good, I would say. There's this huge push to pass the SAVE Act. It's more [1:57] safe Trump act. And what does that act do? It would require millions and millions, all of us who are [2:03] registered to vote, suddenly we will have to show proof of citizenship, either through a birth certificate [2:09] or a passport. Millions of people don't have either. Married people who take their partner's name [2:17] will not have a name that matches their birth certificate. So what are they going to do? [2:22] There are going to be millions of people who are not even going to register to vote. And you think [2:27] Trump doesn't know that? Of course he does. That's why he wants the SAVE Act to be enacted. [2:32] That's why the Republicans would like to see the SAVE Act enacted, because they know that millions of [2:38] people will be literally disenfranchised by not even being able to allow to vote. And then with this [2:44] regime, once you do vote, they will challenge your vote as they did in the last elections. [2:49] So voter suppression is going on. It's very reminiscent to the kind of stuff that was going [2:55] on that the Voting Rights Act was intended to address, to fix. And now you have a Supreme Court [3:03] that says, oh, never mind all of that. Never mind all of that history. And over three cases, [3:10] they succeeded in gutting the Voting Rights Act. And don't tell me that the provisions of the Voting [3:16] Rights Act still exists in a way that is pretty much unenforceable because the racial gerrymandering [3:24] is going to be okay unless the legislative body that does the gerrymandering says, oh, by the way, [3:30] we intend to racially discriminate. Are you crazy? You think that state legislators are going to be [3:37] that overt about it? Of course not. So you have a Voting Rights Act that you claim is still intact. [3:43] Please, please, give me a break. I have a question for Mr. Cox. Last weekend, thousands of people, [3:51] and apparently you were among them, gathered to protest the Supreme Court's gutting of the Voting [3:56] Rights Act. The central locations for these protests were Montgomery and Selma, Alabama, [4:02] and both significant sites in American civil rights history. Mr. Cox, can you put this current [4:07] moment into historical context for us? For instance, why is this moment reminiscent of when the last [4:14] Congressman John Lewis, who many of us consider a friend and hero, led over 600 peaceful protesters [4:21] across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and Selma, Alabama? [4:25] Thank you, Senator Hirono, for that question. I think it's reminiscent and reflects the fact that [4:32] the Voting Rights Act was not given to us. It was not bestowed on us. It really came from the people. [4:37] And the joke I'm sort of making is that Justice O'Connor used to say there were more lawyers in [4:43] D.C. than people. I think we sometimes feel that way in D.C. We're on the Hill. Lawyers are at the [4:49] center of the universe, and that's just not true. If we're going to climb out of this destruction of [4:55] Voting Rights Act, the penultimate destruction of our democracy is going to require the people. [5:00] And quite frankly, we're being gaslit. We have an extreme court. We have allies of the Supreme [5:05] Court and allies of the Calais case saying discrimination is over. Obviously not true. [5:10] We have folks on the ground showing and discussing with us that law enforcement are at the polling [5:16] places. We have folks not only confused but being discriminated against right now. And I have to say [5:22] that to ignore the fact that the people are demanding that Congress respond, that Congress restore [5:31] the effects test that has been gutted and taken out by Calais would be a mistake. Because folks [5:39] understand and know what is happening outside in the real world. They know, particularly black voters [5:44] know, that they aren't going to return to the 1800s and what we all experienced or ancestors experienced [5:51] that led us to the Voting Rights Act in the first place. [5:54] There is so much more to say, but I fear my time is up. Thank you. [6:02] Thank you. I would point out that my colleague from Hawaii questions whether or not people would [6:07] be overtly discriminatory in the words that they would say. I will just point out to the California [6:13] mapmaker who said the number one thing he was focused on was creating a racially gerrymandered [6:18] district. So people do say it. Senator Cruz. [6:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a moment ago, our colleague Senator Hirono said there's a lot [6:27] more to say. And indeed, she's right. And in fact, I want to go back to her comments. She began [6:33] by saying we have a long history of racial discrimination in this country. That's undoubtedly correct. [6:38] And then she said, quote, we had poll taxes. We had literacy tests. We even had tests of how many [6:45] jelly beans are in a jar. Mr. Chamberlain, when when Senator Hirono says we had poll taxes, [6:52] I want to ask you who we is. And in particular, what party was it that implemented poll taxes [6:59] in the South? And I don't want to necessarily speak in every single case, but I'm pretty confident [7:03] it was mostly the Democrats. And what party was it that put literacy tests in place in the South? [7:09] Same answer, mostly the Democrats. And what party was it that had tests like how many jelly beans [7:13] are in a bottle? The Democrats. Tell me, what party were the founders of the Ku Klux Klan from? [7:21] I'm pretty sure that was the Democrats. Indeed. In fact, Nathan Bedford Forrest, the founder of the [7:26] Klan, was a delegate to the 1860 Democrat National Convention. What party wrote the Jim Crow laws in [7:34] the South? The Democrats. And so on this side of the aisle were members of the Republican [7:41] Party. Who was the first Republican president? Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party was literally [7:46] founded to oppose slavery. We came into existence because slavery was a grotesque evil. And it was [7:55] President Lincoln, the first Republican president who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, who won [8:01] the Civil War. And that resulted in the freeing of the slaves and the passage of the 13th, 14th, [8:08] 15th Amendments. By the way, fast forward to the civil rights era. Bull Connor, one of the most [8:17] noxiously racist politicians. What party was he from? He was a Democrat. The Democrats, for the entire [8:24] history of their party, have been a party based on racial discrimination. They affirmatively embrace [8:33] it. They support it. Let me ask you, Mr. Grime, is discrimination, is discriminating based on race [8:42] consistent with the United States Constitution? No. What does the 14th Amendment say about [8:49] discrimination based on race? It's prohibited. What does the 15th Amendment say about discriminating [8:55] based on race and in particular drawing congressional lines and explicitly discriminating based on race? [9:02] It's prohibited. Now, the Democrats are fond of telling this story that is, and I wish I could [9:13] find a kinder way to say it, a flat-out lie. That without discriminating based on race, that no African [9:23] Americans will be elected and no Hispanics will be elected. Indeed, there was one fellow online who was [9:30] a vocal left-wing spokesperson who tweeted out, if I'm advising anybody to run for president, they sure as [9:37] hell better have a solution to how you make sure that it's not another 100 years before another black [9:44] person can represent South Carolina. So that's a typical Democrat statement, that we cannot elect a [9:51] black person in South Carolina without discriminating based on race. I want to ask you, Mr. Chamberlain, [9:59] who is the junior senator from South Carolina right now? That would be Tim Scott. And, all right, [10:05] I'll tell you what I said online. I said, hey, Grock, who is Tim Scott and why do Democrats think he [10:12] isn't black? And, and by the way, was Tim Scott elected because of a gerrymandered district drawn [10:19] only to elect an African American? No, he won statewide. He won statewide. By the way, the Democrat [10:28] position is you can only elect African Americans with a gerrymandered district. I will point out Burgess [10:33] Owens, an African American, has elected the majority white district in the state of Utah. He's a Republican. [10:38] Byron Donalds, another African American, has elected the majority white district in Florida. [10:43] He is a Republican. John James, another African American, has elected the majority white district [10:48] in Michigan. He is a Republican. And my own congressman, Wesley Hunt, who represents me in [10:54] the House of Representatives, he is elected the majority white district. He is a Republican. And yet, [10:59] in the Democrats' world, you're not black if you're not a liberal Democrat. There is an arrogance to [11:08] African American voters. By the way, they also have that same arrogance to Hispanic voters. They [11:15] say you're not Hispanic if you're not a liberal Democrat. Well, I'll tell you, I am proud to be [11:21] the first Hispanic ever elected to represent the state of Texas in the United States Senate. And, [11:27] Mr. Chamberlain, in my election in Texas, was I elected in a gerrymandered district that could only [11:33] elect an Hispanic? No, you were elected statewide. Discrimination based on race is wrong. Final [11:42] question. The Democrats are now clutching their pearls that seats drawn to elect liberal Democrats [11:49] in the South are going to go away. You may get black Republicans instead. Indeed, in Tennessee, [11:54] they're freaking out that a liberal white guy who's a Democrat is likely going to lose his seat to an [11:59] African American woman who's a Republican. And they say that's horrible racial oppression. [12:04] My final question is this. If you look nationwide, which party has egregiously abused [12:16] gerrymandering for decades? Both parties are guilty of it. But which who has been the worst [12:21] offender? And in particular, take New England, take Massachusetts, take Connecticut, take Rhode [12:26] Island, take Maine, take Vermont, take New Hampshire. How many Republicans are elected from all of New [12:32] England in the House of Representatives? I think the answer to that is zero. Zero. They've drawn every [12:37] district in a naked gerrymander. And yet they're very upset that their illegal pursuit of power has [12:44] now been stopped by the Supreme Court that is enforcing the Constitution and prohibiting [12:48] the racial gerrymandering and discrimination their party is built on. Senator Padilla. [12:53] Senator Padilla. Senator Padilla. Senator Padilla, part of personal privilege. [12:56] Uh, sure. I feel personally aggrieved to sit here and to be lectured by my colleague from Texas. [13:04] And this reminds me of the time when, uh, he was first elected to the Senate and the Judiciary Committee [13:11] had a hearing on gun safety. And he felt a need to lecture Diane Feinstein, who was, well, a leader [13:18] on gun safety legislation. And he took that opportunity to lecture Diane Feinstein about gun safety [13:25] and her leadership on the issue. And she said to him something along the lines of, I did not sit here [13:31] on this committee for however many years she did, only to be lectured by you. And that is how I feel. [13:37] So why don't you just stop lecturing the rest of us? Just because you think you are the smartest [13:42] person in the world doesn't mean the rest of us agree to that. Okay? Thank you. [13:46] Senator Hirono. Senator Hirono. I knew Diane Feinstein. I served with Diane Feinstein. And you're [13:51] not Diane Feinstein. All right. Senator Padilla. We're done. Senator. [13:55] Thank you so much, uh, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, first two quick points [14:03] before I get to a couple of questions.