[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO VOTE: ELECTION DECEPTION AND IRREGULARITIES IN
RECENT FEDERAL ELECTIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 7, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-810 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)
512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202)512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RIC KELLER, Florida
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
[Vacant]
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 7, 2007
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 1
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary. 2
WITNESSES
The Honorable Barack Obama, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Illinois
Oral Testimony................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
The Honorable Benjamin Cardin, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland
Oral Testimony................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 16
Prepared Statement............................................. 18
The Honorable Rahm Emanuel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois
Oral Testimony................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa
Oral Testimony................................................. 26
Prepared Statement............................................. 28
The Honorable Brian Bilbray, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 29
Prepared Statement............................................. 31
Mr. Ralph G. Neas, President and CEO, People for the American Way
Oral Testimony................................................. 39
Prepared Statement............................................. 41
Ms. Donna L. Brazile, Chair, Democratic National Committee's
Voting Rights Institute, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown
University
Oral Testimony................................................. 44
Prepared Statement............................................. 47
Ms. Eve Sandberg, Associate Professor of Politics, Oberlin
College
Oral Testimony................................................. 53
Prepared Statement............................................. 55
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Printed Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 86
Prepared Statement of John Fund, Columnist, The Wall Street
Journal........................................................ 96
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Ralph G. Neas, President
and CEO, People for the American Way........................... 99
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Donna L. Brazile, Chair,
Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute,
Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University....................... 102
Newspaper Articles, from The Washington Post and The Westside
Gazette, submitted by Donna L. Brazile, Chair, Democratic
National Committee's Voting Rights Institute, Adjunct
Professor, Georgetown University............................... 104
Prepared Statement of Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP
Washington Bureau.............................................. 115
Prepared Statement of Lillie Coney, Associate Director,
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Coordinator
National Committee for Voting Integrity........................ 117
OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD
Material Submitted but not Reprinted
Reports published by the People for the American Way, the NAACP
and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
submitted by Ralph G. Neas, President and CEO, People for the
American Way, have been retained in the official Committee
hearing record. These reports may also be found at http://
media.pfaw.org/PDF/Reports/TheNewFaceOfJimCrow.pdf and http://
media.pfaw.org/PDF/ElectionReform/BarriersToVoting.pdf.
Submission entitled Report by the Center for Voting Rights &
Protection, submitted by Donna L. Brazile, Chair, Democratic
National Committee's Voting Rights Institute, Adjunct
Professor, Georgetown University, has been retained in the
official Committee hearing record. This report may also be
found at http://www.votelaw.com/blog/blogdocs/GOP_Ballot_
Security_Programs.pdf.
PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO VOTE: ELECTION DECEPTION AND IRREGULARITIES IN
RECENT FEDERAL ELECTIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:06 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John
Conyers, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Mr. Conyers. The Committee will come to order.
Will everyone take their seats? The doors are closed but
not locked.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no more important issue that
comes before this Committee, this Congress or this Nation than
protecting the right to vote. Our democracy is premised on the
notion of one person, one vote. It is the keystone right of our
Nation, and without it, all of the other rights and privileges
of our people would quickly become meaningless.
And that is why so many of us think that this is a very,
very unusually important hearing for the Judiciary Committee,
``Protecting the Right to Vote: Election Deception and
Irregularities in Recent Federal Elections.''
Protecting the precious right does not come easily or
cheaply. In a very real sense, we fought a war of independence
over our people's right to vote, and the most basic reform that
grew out of the Civil War was the 15th amendment's protection
of the right to vote. Even then, it was not until we passed the
Voting Rights Act in 1965 and those continuations, including
the one last year, that we began to give true meaning to that
right.
There is a constant ebb and flow in our democracy over this
right. We have endured a lot of political abuses in our
history: Tammany Hall, Pendergast, the Daley Machines, et
cetera. We survived the debacle of the Florida election in
2000. In each case, we, with the best of intentions, have
enacted reforms.
While the days of Bull Connor turning fire hoses on young
voters may be over, those bent on voter suppression have only
turned to more sophisticated devices. These modern-day tools
include unfounded threats of arrest or loss of citizenship for
failure to follow elaborate and fictitious procedural
requirements, as well as deliberate disinformation with regard
to correct polling locations, or even the actual date of
election itself.
Just ask the voters turned away from the polls in Florida
in 2000 because they were illegally purged from the voting
rolls. Or the voters who waited in pouring rain for hours in
inner city Columbus while their counterparts in the suburbs
went speedily through the lines. Or the African-American voters
targeted in nearby Prince George's County, Maryland, with false
and misleading flyers.
While the notorious voter-suppression practices of the past
have been outlawed, I believe it is time that we do the same
with those notorious modern-day practices. In history, we
responded to the challenges laid down by Susan Anthony, Martin
Luther King, Jr., but today's modern-day prophets, like Bobby
Kennedy, Jr., and Reverend Jesse Jackson, have clearly and
eloquently spoken to the problems we face today.
If we are serious, and I believe this Committee is, about
protecting this most fundamental of rights, we have our work
cut our for us. And so I am proud to have joined with
introducing the very important legislation that will be
discussed today.
While this may be one step in our efforts to reform the
election process, we not pretend it to be a complete solution.
We also need to reduce our reliance on unverifiable electronic
voting machines, so that American citizens can have the
confidence in the results of our elections that they ought to
have.
In each of the last three election cycles, electronic
voting machines have literally cost tens of thousands of votes,
with no means of accountability for this most cherished
constitutional right.
We also need to better ensure fair allocation of voting
machines in polling places. There is not a reason in the world
we cannot give our citizens the benefit of an election-day
holiday.
And we need a fairer, more voter-friendly system for
provisional ballots so that innocent confusion on Election Day
does not prevent eligible voters from casting a ballot and
having it counted in each and every instance. We have seen
disturbing instances of State and local officials using hyper
technicalities to subvert the intent of the Help America Vote
Act.
If we allow the infrastructure of our democracy to decay,
our citizens will lose faith in our elections--and, for me, too
many already have--and the very legitimacy of our democratic
institutions is at risk.
Forty years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act--and
I sat in this body and was present in this Committee when it
was enacted--voters across the country continue to be the
targets of deceptive practices and intimidation aimed at
preventing them from voting. It is long past time for Federal
legislation to help prevent this from occurring.
And I am 5 seconds over my 5 minutes, for which I will
allow Lamar Smith as much time as he may need over the 5
minutes. And I am happy to introduce now my Ranking Member on
the House Judiciary Committee from Texas, with whom I have had
a very effective and cordial relationship.
Mr. Smith, you are recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, both for the time and
for those cordial comments.
Mr. Chairman, elections are run by human beings, and human
beings have flaws. So it is no surprise and voting fraud and
other irregularities occur in each election. And each political
party, of course, has their favorite examples. But voting fraud
is deplorable, and we must do all we can to prevent it.
What I want to focus on today is something the vast
majority of the American people have shown that they are very
concerned about, and that is the problem of illegal immigrants
voting and the need for photo ID requirements.
A recent Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll mirrors every
other poll on this subject: Over 81 percent of those surveyed
supported a requirement to show a photo ID before voting. This
includes two-thirds majorities of African-Americans and
Democrats and a majority of Hispanics.
In the 1996 election, that one of our colleagues testifying
here today, Representative Loretta Sanchez, a House
Administrative Committee investigation found ``evidence of 748
improper ballots, 624 by immigrants who were not citizens when
they registered to vote.'' And I am sure Ms. Sanchez and all of
us agree that, while we all want to earn as many votes as
possible, we only want votes that are legally cast by American
citizens.
I am glad to see that the bills introduced by
Representative Emanuel and Senator Obama to prevent voting
fraud provide for stiff penalties, up to 5 years in jail, for
illegal immigrants who vote illegally.
Clearly, under the terms of H.R. 1281 and S. 453, a person
who signed the voting registration form that states they are a
citizen when they are not a citizen is a false statement. And
when that person votes and negates the vote of legally voting
citizens, then the illegal immigrant has denied the legal
voters right to exercise their vote.
Regarding the need for a photo ID requirement, one needs a
photo ID to open a bank account or cash a check, drive a car or
board a plane. Because a photo ID is so central to assimilation
into American society, civil rights leader Andrew Young, the
former U.N. ambassador and mayor of Atlanta, strongly supports
a photo ID requirement.
In Mexico, strict anti-fraud regulations and photo ID
requirements in voting have actually increased voter turnout.
That is because when people have greater confidence in the
election process, there is greater voter participation.
Unfortunately, State and local election administrators do
not have a means of ensuring that only legal voters are voting.
So what is the most practical solution?
In 2005, a prominent group of bipartisan leaders and
scholars, led by former President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of
State James Baker III, issued a very influential report.
One of the chief recommendations of the bipartisan Carter-
Baker Commission on Voting was as follows: ``Instead of
creating a new card, the commission recommends that States use
real ID cards for voting purposes. The Real ID Act, signed into
law in May 2005, requires States to verify each individual's
full legal name, date of birth, address, Social Security number
and U.S. citizenship before the individual is issued a driver's
license or personal ID card.
``A real ID is a logical vehicle, because the National
Voter Registration Act established a connection between
obtaining a driver's license and registering to vote. The real
ID card adds two critical elements for voting: proof of
citizenship and verification by using the full Social Security
number. The ID Act does not require that the card indicate
citizenship, but that would need to be done if the card is to
be used for voting purposes.''
That is the end of their statement.
Mr. Chairman, requiring photo IDs is not costless, of
course, but it is well worth it. As Homeland Security Secretary
Chertoff recently stated, ``It is a reasonable amount of money
that people should pay to prevent people from getting on
airplanes or getting in buildings and killing Americans. I
think most people would say that $20 per person well spent.''
And as the Carter-Baker report concluded, ``Voters in
nearly 100 democracies use a photo identification card without
fear of infringement of their rights.'' If they can do it, so
can we.
Mr. Chairman, like you, I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much, Mr. Smith.
All other opening statements will be included in the
record, without objection.
Our second panel that will come after our first will
consist of Ralph Neas of the People for the American Way; Donna
Brazile, adjunct professor at Georgetown University; Wall
Street Journal Columnist John Fund; Ms. Eve Sandberg, associate
professor of Politics of Oberlin College.
Our first panel will consist of our distinguished junior
Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who has worked in public
service, started out as a community organizer, civil rights
attorney, State senate leader.
Our second is a former colleague, now Senator, Ben Cardin,
a Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has been a
national leader on health care, retirement, security and many
other issues. We are delighted that our two Members from the
other body can join us.
Then we have Loretta Sanchez of California, known for her
work on education, public safety and crime reduction, a very
articulate spokeswoman for the Hispanic-American community and
in the Congress as well.
Then we have Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a former White House
official, former Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee and who currently serves as Chairman of the House
Democratic Caucus.
Next is our own colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Steve
King, of Iowa. Thank you for joining us.
And, finally, we have Brian Bilbray of California, whose
Committee assignments include Oversight and the Government
Reform Committee.
Ladies and gentlemen, we welcome you all.
And we would invite Senator Obama to begin our discussion.
Welcome to the Judiciary Committee.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BARACK OBAMA,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Obama. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, to Ranking
Member Smith and all the Members of the Committee. Thank you
for taking the time to study this issue, and thanks for giving
me the opportunity to be here today.
I was pleased to introduce the Deceptive Practices and
Voter Intimidation Prevention Act in the Senate, along with my
colleague, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Cardin, who is beside
me today, and others, such as Senator Kennedy and Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy.
I am honored that my colleague here in the House include
yourself, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Emanuel, Congressman
Becerra, Honda and Ellison, as well as Sanchez, introducing the
companion legislation last week.
It is hard to imagine that we even need a bill like this. I
think most Americans assume that voting is a sacred aspect of
citizenship and people are going to meddle with it, that we are
past that point. Unfortunately, there are people who will stop
at nothing to try to defeat voters and keep them away from the
polls. What is worse, these practices often exploit and target
the most vulnerable populations: minorities, the disabled,
seniors or the poor.
We saw countless examples of this in the past election.
Some of us remember the thousands of Latino voters in Orange
County, California who received letters warning them in Spanish
that, ``If you are an immigrant, voting in a Federal election
is a crime that can result in incarceration.'' Or the voters in
Maryland who received a ``Democratic sample ballot,'' featuring
a Republican candidate for governor and a Republican candidate
for U.S. Senator. Or the voters in Virginia who received calls
from a so-called ``Virginia Elections Commission'' informing
them falsely that they were ineligible to vote. Or the voters
who were told that they couldn't vote if they had family
members who had been convicted of a crime. The list goes on.
Of course, these so-called warnings have no basis in fact
and are made with only one goal in mind: to keep Americans away
from the polls. We see these problems year after year and
election after election, and my hope is that this bill will
finally stop these practices in time for the next election.
The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention
Act makes voter intimidation and deception punishable by law,
and it contains strong penalties so that people who commit
these crimes suffer more than just a slap on the wrist.
The bill also seeks to address the real harm of these
crimes, people who are prevented from voting by misinformation,
by establishing a process for reaching out to those misinformed
voters with accurate information so they can still cast their
vote in time.
There are some issues in this country that are inherently
difficult and political. Making sure that every American who is
eligible can cast a ballot should not be one of them. There is
no place for politics in this debate, no room for those who
feel that they can get a partisan advantage by keeping people
away from the polls.
And I think that it is fairly noted that this is not
something that restricts itself to one party or another. I
think both parties at different periods in our history have
been guilty in different regions of preventing people from
voting for a tactical advantage. We should be beyond that.
As the New York Times stated in its January 31st editorial
on this issue, ``The bill is an important step toward making
elections more honest and fair. There is no reason it should
not be passed by Congress, unanimously.'' I asked that this
editorial be placed into the record.
Mr. Conyers. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Obama. It is time to get this done in a bipartisan
fashion, and I believe this bill can make it happen.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, the
Ranking Member, the other Members of this Committee, as well as
many of the co-sponsors of this bill in both the House and the
Senate to pass this legislation so that we can present it to
the president for his signature, and I thank you very much for
your time and attention.
I apologize, I will probably have to leave before all the
other witnesses have completed their testimony. If there were
specific questions for me, I would be happy to field them at
this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Obama follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Barack Obama,
a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois
Chairman Conyers, distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
so much for the opportunity to be here today and discuss with you
legislation that will help restore integrity to our electoral system.
I was pleased to introduce the Deceptive Practices and Voter
Intimidation Prevention Act in the Senate and I am honored that my
colleagues in the House, including Chairman Conyers, Congressman
Emanuel, Congressmen Becerra, Honda, and Ellison, introduced companion
legislation last week.
It's hard to imagine that we even need a bill like this. But,
unfortunately, there are people who will stop at nothing to try to
deceive voters and keep them away from the polls. What's worse, these
practices often target and exploit vulnerable populations, such as
minorities, the disabled, or the poor.
We saw countless examples in this past election. Some of us
remember the thousands of Latino voters in Orange County, California,
who received letters warning them in Spanish that, ``if you are an
immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in
incarceration.''
Or the voters in Maryland who received a ``democratic sample
ballot'' featuring a Republican candidate for Governor and a Republican
candidate for U.S. Senator.
Or the voters in Virginia who received calls from a so-called
``Virginia Elections Commission'' informing them--falsely--that they
were ineligible to vote.
Or the voters who were told that they couldn't vote if they had
family members who had been convicted of a crime.
Of course, these so-called warnings have no basis in fact, and are
made with only one goal in mind--to keep Americans away from the polls.
We see these problems year after year and election and after election,
and my hope is that this bill will finally stop these practices in time
for the next election.
The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act makes
voter intimidation and deception punishable by law, and it contains
strong penalties so that people who commit these crimes suffer more
than just a slap on the wrist. The bill also seeks to address the real
harm of these crimes--people who are prevented from voting by
misinformation--by establishing a process for reaching out to these
misinformed voters with accurate information so they can cast their
votes in time.
There are some issues in this country that are inherently difficult
and political. Making sure that every American can cast a ballot
shouldn't be one of them. There is no place for politics in this
debate--no room for those who feel that they can gain a partisan
advantage by keeping people away from the polls.
As the New York Times stated in its January 31st editorial on this
issue, ``the bill . . . is an important step toward making elections
more honest and fair. There is no reason it should not be passed by
Congress unanimously.'' I would ask that this editorial be made part of
the record.
It's time to get this done in a bipartisan fashion, and I believe
this bill can make it happen. I look forward to working with you,
Chairman Conyers, and the other members of the Committee, as well as
the many co-sponsors of this bill, to pass this legislation this
Congress.
__________
ATTACHMENT
New York Times
January 31, 2007
EDITORIAL
Honesty in Elections
On Election Day last fall in Maryland, fliers were handed out in
black neighborhoods with the heading ``Democratic Sample Ballot'' and
photos of black Democratic leaders--and boxes checked off beside the
names of the Republican candidates for senator and governor. They were
a blatant attempt to fool black voters into thinking the Republican
candidates were endorsed by black Democrats. In Orange County, Calif.,
14,000 Latino voters got letters in Spanish saying it was a crime for
immigrants to vote in a federal election. It didn't say that immigrants
who are citizens have the right to vote.
Dirty tricks like these turn up every election season, in large
part because they are so rarely punished. But two Democratic senators,
Barack Obama of Illinois and Charles Schumer of New York, are
introducing a bill today that would make deceiving or intimidating
voters a federal crime with substantial penalties.
The bill aims at some of the most commonly used deceptive political
tactics. It makes it a crime to knowingly tell voters the wrong day for
an election. There have been numerous reports of organized efforts to
use telephones, leaflets or posters to tell voters, especially in
minority areas, not to vote on Election Day because voting has been
postponed.
The bill would also criminalize making false claims to voters about
who has endorsed a candidate, or wrongly telling people--like
immigrants who are registered voters in Orange County--that they cannot
vote.
Along with defining these crimes and providing penalties of up to
five years' imprisonment, the bill would require the Justice Department
to counteract deceptive election information that has been put out, and
to report to Congress after each election on what deceptive practices
occurred and what the Justice Department did about them.
The bill would also allow individuals to go to court to stop
deceptive practices while they are happening. That is important, given
how uninterested the current Justice Department has proved to be in
cracking down on election-season dirty tricks.
The bill is careful to avoid infringing on First Amendment rights,
and that is the right course. But in steering clear of regulating
speech, it is not clear how effective the measure would be in
addressing one of the worst dirty tricks of last fall's election: a
particular kind of deceptive ``robocall'' that was used against
Democratic Congressional candidates. These calls, paid for by the
Republicans, sounded as if they had come from the Democrat; when a
recipient hung up, the call was repeated over and over. The intent was
clearly to annoy the recipients so they would not vote for the
Democrat.
While there are already laws that can be used against this sort of
deceptive telephone harassment, a more specific bill aimed directly at
these calls is needed. But the bill being introduced today is an
important step toward making elections more honest and fair. There is
no reason it should not be passed by Congress unanimously.
Mr. Conyers. Well, Senator Obama, we thank you for your
commitment and your support of the legislation. We are happy
that you will be with us for as long as you can.
I now recognize the junior Senator from Maryland, Ben
Cardin.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN CARDIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Cardin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Smith
and Members of the Committee, it is a real pleasure to testify
before the Committee that I started my congressional service
on.
When I was first elected to the House of Representatives, I
had the honor of serving on the Judiciary Committee, and now I
have the honor of serving on the Judiciary Committee in the
Senate, and I look forward to working with you.
I would ask that my entire statement be made part of your
record, and let me just try to summarize.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing on protecting
the right to vote.
Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more with your opening
statement. We have just celebrated the 42nd anniversary of the
voting rights march in Selma, Alabama. John Lewis, of course,
participated in that, our colleague here. It helped to pass the
Voting Rights Act, 137 years since the ratification of the 15th
amendment to the Constitution.
We have overcome poll taxes, we have overcome literacy
tests and violence, and yet intimidation against minority
voters still continues in the United States, and we need to do
more about it.
I want to thank Senator Obama for taking the leadership in
the United States Senate on the Deceptive Practices and Voter
Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007. I think it is an extremely
important point of legislation to make it clear that we will
not tolerate practices by campaigns to try to win an election
by marginalizing minority voters.
It happened in 2006 in my own State of Maryland. In that
election, I had a hard fought primary election in which I was
the Democratic nominee for the United States Senate. We then
had an 8-week period between the primary and the general.
During the course of that campaign, I knew it would be very
competitive, I knew it would be aggressive, but I must tell
you, Mr. Chairman, I was shocked by what I saw come out the day
before the election itself. And if I might, I would like to
show you, and ask to be part of the record, the pamphlet that
was handed out, widely spread, in minority communities in
Maryland.
The pamphlet starts off by saying, ``Ehrlich-Steele
Democrats Official Voter Guide.'' It then has the photographs
of three prominent African-Americans in the State of Maryland,
one being Kweisi Mfume, who was my primary opponent on the
Democratic side, our former colleague in the Congress, who
endorsed my candidacy for the United States Senate after the
primary. It has the photograph of Jack Johnson, who is the
county exec of Prince George's County, the largest county of
African-American voters in the State of Maryland. Jack Johnson
endorsed my candidacy for the United States Senate.
The pamphlet then goes on to say, ``These are our
choices,'' making it kind of clear that these three prominent
African-Americans had endorsed the Ehrlich-Steele Democratic
slate. The inside of the brochure says, ``Democratic sample
ballot,'' giving the impression that this is the Democratic
ballot. All of the candidates listed are Democrats, except for
the governor of our State and the U.S. Senate, in which the
Republican candidates are listed.
The authority line on this literature is from the
Republican candidate for governor and the Republican candidate
for United States Senate.
This literature was widely distributed. The U.S. Senate
candidate and the gubernatorial candidate brought in from
Pennsylvania from homeless shelters, by bus, large number of
workers to work Election Day who had no idea what they were
giving out. I had a chance to talk to some of them, and they
were giving out this literature, some of them when they found
out what it was about, wanted to get back home but had no way
of getting back home.
I mention all of this because this was a clear effort by
the gubernatorial candidate and U.S. Senate candidate to try to
confuse and marginalize minority voters, and it should not be
allowed.
The legislation introduced by Senator Obama, which I am
proud to be a co-sponsor, would make this type of deceptive
practice illegal. It is a narrowly defined bill. To make it
clear, it is in compliance with the first amendment of the
Constitution. It applies only to communications within 60 days
of an election. It deals with the tightly defined false and
deceptive information about the time, place, the voter
qualification, party affiliation or endorsement. It is narrow,
but it does deal with the most blatant forms of deceptive
practices that are aimed at suppressing minority votes. That is
its effort.
Mr. Chairman, I knew the campaign for the United States
Senate would be a rough campaign. I expected to see some things
that go beyond the pale. That is all part of politics, and I
accept that. But I think it is absolutely essential that we
make it clear it is not acceptable to engage in a practice to
marginalize minority voters. That should not be permitted in
this country, and it is absolutely essential that the Congress
go on record and make it clear that campaigns cannot
participate in that type of conduct.
And I urge you to consider this legislation. I think it is
vitally important.
I, again, thank Senator Obama for taking the leadership in
the Senate.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin,
a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland
Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today before the House Judiciary Committee on
the critical subject of election deception and irregularities in recent
federal elections. I am privileged to appear before you with such a
distinguished panel of members of Congress, including Senator Obama,
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, and Congressman Emmanuel.
In the interest of full disclosure, let me begin by stating that I
greatly enjoyed my previous service on this committee which began when
I was first elected to the House and was appointed to serve on the
Judiciary Committee in 1987 under Chairman Peter Rodino of New Jersey.
After serving twenty years in the House of Representatives representing
the Third Congressional District of Maryland, I was honored to be
elected to the United States Senate in 2006. And I find myself
privileged to serve again on the Judiciary Committee of the other body,
and I look forward to working with this committee in my new capacity.
Today I come before the committee to testify in part as a fact
witness to discuss what happened during the 2006 U.S. Senate election
in Maryland.
After a lengthy campaign which began shortly after the retirement
announcement of former U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes in the spring of
2005, I was nominated by the Democratic Party in September 2006 as our
U.S. Senate candidate. Former Lt. Governor Michael Steele was the
Republican nominee for U.S. Senate. Former Baltimore Mayor Martin
O'Malley was the Democratic candidate for Governor challenging the
Republican incumbent Robert Ehrlich.
Former Congressman Kweisi Mfume, who is a friend with whom I
represented Baltimore City in the U.S. House of Representatives, ran
against me for the Democratic nomination and lost. He subsequently
endorsed me as the U.S. Senate nominee for the general election, as did
Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson. They both are prominent
African-Americans leaders in Maryland and appeared at several campaign
events on my behalf as I prepared to face off against Lt. Governor
Steele in the November general election.
Imagine my surprise then to discover on Election Day that the
Republican campaigns for Governor and Senator in Maryland had
distributed this literature. I would ask unanimous consent to have a
copy of this literature inserted in the hearing record today.
Let me take a minute to walk through it, since it is one of the
tactics that would be prohibited under the pending legislation before
this committee.
The title of the piece is ``Ehrlich-Steele Democrats'' and
``Official Voter Guide.'' The cover page prominently displays three
African-American politicians: former Prince George's County Executive
Wayne Curry, former Congressman Mfume, and current Prince George's
County Executive Jack Johnson. Under their names is the statement
``These are OUR choices,'' implying that all 3 gentlemen had endorsed
Mr. Ehrlich for governor and Mr. Steele for senator. That is false. Mr.
Mfume and Mr. Johnson endorsed my candidacy over Mr. Steele for the
Senate. The flyer concludes with a citation to the general election, on
Tuesday, November 7, 2006, and legal authority lines (required under
Maryland election law) noting that the literature was ``paid and
authorized'' by both the Ehrlich and Steele campaigns.
On the inside a large sample ballot is printed with the title
``Democratic Sample Ballot,'' with the correct date and times for the
elections. The entire sample ballot endorses Democratic candidates for
local, county, state, and federal offices, with two exceptions: the
``Democratic Sample Ballot'' endorses the re-election of the Republican
Governor Robert Ehrlich, and the election of Republican U.S. Senate
candidate Michael Steele.
Mr. Chairman, this type of deceptive literature is despicable and
outrageous. It is clearly designed to mislead African-American voters,
who have a legal right to vote and pick the candidate of their choice.
I was also upset to learn, according to articles in the Washington Post
and Baltimore Sun, that the Ehrlich and Steele campaigns had bused in
homeless African-Americans individuals from Philadelphia to hand out
this deceptive literature on Election Day. These individuals from
Philadelphia were given $100 and two meals, but many told the
newspapers that they were not aware they were working for the
Republican Party on that day. Finally, the Washington Post reported
that a Maryland Republican election worker guide for poll workers
stated that their ``most important duty as a poll worker is to
challenge people'' trying to vote. This election guide was rightfully
denounced by civil rights groups as a voter suppression and
intimidation effort.
After having served in elective office in Annapolis for 20 years
and in Washington for 20 years, I understand that campaigns are a rough
and tumble business. I expect that candidates will question and
criticize my record and judgment, and voters ultimately have a right to
choose their candidate.
What goes beyond the pale, Mr. Chairman, is when a campaign uses
deceptive tactics to deliberately marginalize minority voters. Sadly,
Mr. Chairman, the tactics we saw in Maryland are not new, and in
previous years deceptive practices in Baltimore City, the State of
Maryland, and throughout the United States involved handing out false
and deceptive literature in African-American neighborhoods. In previous
elections we have seen deceptive literature distributed which gave the
wrong date for the election, the wrong times when polling places were
open, and even suggested that people could be arrested if they had
unpaid parking tickets or taxes and tried to vote. My colleagues on the
panel, I am sure, will discuss other such tactics designed to suppress
minority turnout.
I reject that this is the way we do business in 2006 in Maryland
and in the United States of America. To me this is clearly an organized
pattern and practice of attempting to confuse minority voters and to
suppress minority turnout.
It has been 137 years since Congress and the states ratified the
Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1870, which states that
``the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
race [or] color?'' The Amendment also gave Congress power to enforce
the article by ``appropriate legislation.'' African-Americans suffered
through nearly another 100 years of discrimination at the hands of Jim
Crow laws and regulations, designed to make it difficult if not
impossible for African-American to register to vote due to literacy
tests, poll taxes, and outright harassment and violence. It took
Congress and the states nearly another century until we adopted the
Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in 1964, which prohibited
poll taxes or any tax on the right to vote. In 1965 Congress finally
enacted the Voting Rights Act, which once and for all was supposed to
prohibit discrimination against voters on the basis of race or color.
The Act also provides that no person, ``whether acting under color of
law or otherwise,'' shall:
``intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate,
threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of
interfering with the right of such person to vote or to vote as
he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or
not vote for, any candidate for [any federal office].'' [42
U.S.C. 1971 (b), emphasis supplied].
Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to once again take action to
stop the latest reprehensible tactics that are being used against
African-American voters to interfere with (a) their right to vote or
(b) their right to vote for the candidate of their choice, as protected
in the Voting Rights Act. These tactics undermine and corrode our very
democracy and threaten the very integrity of our electoral process.
After being sworn in to the Senate in January, I was pleased to
join with Senator Obama and Senator Schumer to introduce S. 453, the
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007. In
sum the legislation provides that, within 60 days before a federal
election, it shall be illegal to distribute false and deceptive
information about an election regarding the time, place or manner of an
election. The legislation also bans false and deceptive information
about voter's qualifications or restrictions on voter eligibility, as
well as false and deceptive information about political party
affiliations or explicit endorsements of candidates.
This legislation is narrowly tailored to apply to only a small
category of communications that occur during the last 60 days before an
election. Under our legislation the categories of the false and
deceptive information cited above are only illegal if they are
intentionally communicated by a person who: (1) knows such information
to be false and (2) has the intent to prevent another person from
exercising the right to vote in an election. This legislation properly
respects the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech while
recognizing the power of Congress to prohibit racially discriminatory
tactics to be used in elections under the Fifteenth Amendment, Voting
Rights Act, and the general power of Congress under Article I, Section
4 of the Constitution to regulate the ``times, places, and manner'' of
federal elections.
This legislation creates tough new criminal and civil penalties for
those who create and distribute this type of false and deceptive
literature. The bill authorizes a process to distribute accurate
information to voters who have been exposed to false and deceptive
communications. The bill requires the Attorney General to submit to
Congress a report compiling and detailing any allegations of false and
deceptive election communications, and authorizes the Attorney General
to create a Voting Integrity Task Force to carry out this law. The
Senate bill would also create a right of private right of action
against the continued distribution of false and deceptive campaign
literature and communications, in which a party could seek a temporary
injunction, restraining order, or permanent injunction against
materials.
In the House I understand that similar legislation, H.R. 1281, has
been filed by Congressman Emanuel with Chairman Conyers, and I applaud
your efforts.
Let me conclude by thanking the many civil rights groups who helped
us with voter protection efforts on Election Day and who have helped us
in supporting this legislation, including the NAACP, the Mexican-
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Lawyer's Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law, and People for the American Way.
This past weekend was the 42 year anniversary of the voting rights
march onto Edmund Pettus Bridge outside Selma, Alabama. Our own House
colleague, Congressman John Lewis from Georgia, was savagely beaten and
tear-gassed by police for peacefully marching and protesting on what we
now call ``Bloody Sunday.'' He and so many others, including the Rev.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., ultimately led a peaceful march to
Montgomery help their fellow citizens register to vote. Media coverage
of the mistreatment of our own American citizens garnered worldwide
attention, and led to the quick introduction by President Johnson in
Congress of the proposed Voting Rights Act. Congress passed this
historic act and President Johnson signed it into law less than five
months after its introduction.
Today we have the obligation and duty to fulfill the promises made
by Congress and the states nearly 140 years after the end of the Civil
War, and over 40 years after the enactment of the Voting Rights Act. I
urge you to pass this legislation that would stop the use of false and
deceptive practices designed to disenfranchise and suppress minority
voter turnout. Let us make it crystal clear that it is illegal to use
these types of campaign tactics to deliberately try to suppress and
intimidate minority voters from casting their hard-won and precious
right to vote in an election.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward
to your questions.
ATTACHMENT
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
Before you leave, Senator Obama, there is a question from
our distinguished friend from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, and we
have agreed with Mr. Smith that his side will have 15 minutes
to question this distinguished panel, and we will have 15
minutes, but we will allow him to get his question in before
you leave.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much
for taking this out of order.
And, Senator, I thank you also for staying after your
testimony.
Mr. Obama. No, not a problem. Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. You stated in your testimony, which I
welcome, that you introduced your legislation to help restore
integrity to our electoral system. You said, I think, in your
opening remarks that there are some things that are political;
making sure that every American who is eligible to cast a
ballot should not be one of them.
Mr. Obama. Yes.
Mr. Goodlatte. We are going to hear later from witnesses
who talk about the importance of not allowing illegal aliens
and non-citizens to vote in Federal elections So would you
agree that that would be an important priority for your
legislation?
Mr. Obama. I think that as a general--look, one of the
principles of any voting system is that people who are eligible
to vote get to vote. If you are not eligible, by definition,
you don't get to vote. If my 8-year-old daughter shows up at
the polls, I hope somebody says, ``Young lady, you are going to
have to wait for 10 years before you can cast your ballot.''
So I have no quarrel with efforts to make sure that voter
fraud does not take place.
Mr. Goodlatte. Excellent.
Mr. Obama. Just to finish, the only thing I do want to
point out, because I know you will be debating the issue of
photo ID and whether that becomes incorporated in this bill or
amended to this bill, my concern, having looked at the
literature in terms of how that works, is that it may end up
disadvantaging certain groups that are less likely, as a
routine matter, to obtain a photo ID.
And although minority groups may be somewhat in that
category, I should just point out that seniors are one of the
groups that are most likely to be in that category.
And I know that in Georgia where a photo ID requirement was
instituted, there was some concern that, for example, there was
no access to an office to get the official photo ID in Atlanta,
and so people had to drive from Atlanta. I don't remember which
one it was, but the point was that there were long travel times
and great difficulty in order of obtaining it.
So, in theory, I think we are all in agreement that we want
to establish eligibility. We want to make sure that it is not
set up in such a way where it is exclusionary or creates extra
difficulties for some populations and not others.
Mr. Goodlatte. Actually, I wanted to ask you about your
legislation----
Mr. Obama. Sure.
Mr. Goodlatte [continuing]. With regard to photo IDs.
Certainly, I hope we do move in the direction of doing that,
but I also hope that as we do it we make it very easy and
affordable for people of lower economic means or have less
access to places to get the photo ID.
But let me ask you, your legislation appears to help with
the problem that I mentioned, because, specifically, it
prohibits a person from communicating false election-related
information, including information regarding a voter's
registration status or eligibility when that person knows the
information to be false and has the intent to prevent another
person from exercising the right to vote in an election
described in the subparagraph.
Mr. Obama. That is correct.
Mr. Goodlatte. So is my reading correct that your bill
would impose the penalties of up to 5 years in prison on
illegal aliens and non-citizens filling out voter registration
cards when those cards state that the applicant is a United
States citizen?
Mr. Obama. Not likely, I don't think so. That I think would
be a stretch. The interpretation here would be if there was--if
I called your house and said, ``You know what, the election has
been moved to Wednesday instead of Tuesday,'' or send a mailer
indicating that your polling place had been moved when it had
not bee, those are the practices that we are directed towards.
We are not intending in this legislation, and it is not
drafted in that way, to set up a situation where we are
creating a felony for somebody thinks they may be eligible to
vote, an individual, and turns out that maybe they weren't
eligible. Because those circumstances could happen in all sorts
of conditions.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, thank you. I would just think that the
intent to vote would be sufficient to show that a non-citizen
at least has knowledge that his vote would cancel out a
legitimate U.S. citizen's vote, thus preventing another person
from exercising their right to vote in an election, which your
bill----
Mr. Obama. Well, I don't think it would prevent anybody
under the scenario that you spoke about, but I appreciate that
question so that we can make doubly sure that we are clear in
this legislation that that is not the intent.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, I would hope it would be, but I thank
the gentleman, and I thank the Chairman for yielding the time.
Mr. Obama. Thank you very much.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Loretta Sanchez, famous sister of Linda
Sanchez.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member
and the rest of the Committee Members. It is indeed an honor to
be before you today to discuss a little bit about elections
here, although I know you all are experts in that.
Before I begin, and before Mr. Smith leaves the room, I
would like to make a correction to one of his remarks in his
opening statement. He said that in my election, in 1996, the
Congress or a paper out of the Congress had determined that
there might be 748 improper ballots cast in my election. I
would just like to note that that was the majority's report
without any access to the files or information, whatsoever, by
any Democrat or any of the Democratic staff on that Committee
and that task force, which means that unless you are willing to
show it to me today, I am not willing to believe you.
Anyway, getting back to what happened just this past
election, in this past election, there was a letter that was
sent in our election. I didn't even know it really had
reference to my election until my opponent fessed up that it
came out of his campaign headquarters.
And the reason I would not have known is that the
letterhead of this letter that came out stated that it was from
the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, or people who
are pretty much anti-immigrant and very, very straightforward
about it, very vocal about it, and if you know anything about
Orange County, you will also note that aside from these types
of anti-immigrant groups, we also were the creators of the
Minutemen and other types of groups.
So imagine this letter was sent to 14,000 registered
voters, many who had been registered sometimes for over 20
years, all of whom had indicated on their affidavit of
registration that they were born in a Latin American country,
Central American country or Mexico--only Hispanics.
Now, these people had been naturalized, some for many
years. So imagine when you receive a letter from one of these
anti-immigrant groups and it goes on to say several things:
``Be advised that if your residence in the United States is
illegal or if you are an immigrant,'' which all of these
people, by definition, because this is what they looked on to
get this list, were, ``voting in a Federal election is a crime
that can result in incarceration and possible deportation for
voting.''
So it was, in fact, a voter suppression, a voting
suppression letter.
What is very troubling is the next line: ``In the same way,
be advised that the U.S. government is installing a new
computerized system to verify names of all the newly registered
voters who participate in the elections in October and
November.'' Just this election, mind you. ``And organizations
against immigration will be able to request your information
from this new computerized system.'' So intimidation was there,
that if you showed up to vote, your name would be available to
people like the Minutemen.
This letter, by the way, was sent in Spanish. It was
actually sent to only voters in the districts where I
represent. When we first started seeing it walk into our
offices, we didn't know it was about our election. It could
have been about a city election, and we would have never known
it was about our election except that our opponent, again, did
a press conference to say it had come out of his office.
I have seen many things in Orange County. We have had
people, the Republican Party, hire and dress people like INS
agents at Latino precincts and turn away people from voting.
That was in 1988. But I would have thought that after 10 years
of representing Orange County that these types of intimidation
and suppression would have gone away, and, unfortunately, they
haven't.
And I would just like to say that I believe that H.R. 1281
will strengthen the prohibition and punishment of deceptive
practices that aim to keep voters away from polls on Election
Day.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanchez follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California
CHAIRMAN CONYERS, RANKING MEMBER SMITH AND DISTINGUISHED COMMITTEE
MEMBERS.
It is with great pleasure that I appear before you today to discuss
voter intimidation and modern day violations of the Voting Rights Act.
Finding a solution to this problem is very close to my heart.
When most people think of Voting Rights Act violations they think
of the 1960s when African Americans were prevented from voting because
of the color of their skin. Many don't realize that voter suppression
still occurs today.
And the targets remain the same. This last election, minority and
immigrant communities were targets of deception, misinformation and
voter intimidation designed to abridge their right to vote.
Constituents in my district, the 47th Congressional District of
California, were similarly affected this last November.
Concerns were expressed to my office in Garden Grove, California,
when residents received a written letter, in Spanish, from the
``California Coalition for Immigration Reform'' informing voters that
immigrants voting in a federal election were committing a crime ``that
could result in incarceration and possible deportation . . .''.
Its also went on to advise voters that ``the U.S. government is
installing a new computerized system to verify names of all the newly
registered voters who participate in the elections in October and
November. Organizations against immigration will be able to request
information from this new computerized system.''
This letter was sent to about 14,000 registered Hispanic voters.
Let me repeat that . . . REGISTERED LEGAL VOTERS.
These are people who are immigrants and have naturalized in this
country; many have been citizens for over 20 years.
The letter quickly ignited fear in the Hispanic community.
Families were afraid that their personal information would be
shared with anti-immigration groups if they voted. They were afraid of
retaliation for casting their vote.
In response, I joined civil rights and Latino organizations in
calling for an immediate investigation by the Federal Bureau of
Investigations for potential Voting Rights Act violations by the
organizations and individuals associated with the distribution of the
letter.
The State of California, at the initiative of Attorney General Bill
Lockyear, and under the direction of Secretary of State, Mr. Bruce
McPherson, issued a letter on October 24, 2006 to the 14,000 registered
voters who received the voter intimidation letter, informing them of
their voting rights and that the letter was false and misleading.
Unfortunately this is not the only attempt to suppress minority
voting in Orange County. In 1994, poll guards were hired by candidates
and stationed at voting precincts, with high Latino concentrations, to
intimidate voters, harassing them for identification and the like.
During my first campaign in 1996, my opponent ran explicitly anti-
Latino rhetoric in automatic ``robo-calls'', and used other tactics to
harass Latino voters in Central Orange County.
Today you'll hear similar testimony of other instances where there
was voter intimidation and deception.
This problem is not going away, and the government needs to do
something about it.
I am pleased that the State of California has taken steps, for
instance, to enact stricter penalties for Voting Rights Act violations.
Now the U.S. federal government must take the lead in protecting
the rights of voters and putting an end to deceptive practices.
Revisiting and reforming the voting rights laws will send a clear
message to potential violators that deceptive practices are
unacceptable and will be prosecuted to the full extend of the law.
I am pleased to see that the Senate has introduced the Deceptive
Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, (S.453) and now the
House is following suit. I am a proud original cosponsor of the bill
that was introduced by Representative Rahm Emanuel and the
distinguished Chairman of this Committee.
H.R. 1281 will strengthen the prohibition and punishment of
deceptive practices that aim to keep voters away from the polls on
Election Day.
Centrally, the Emanuel/Conyers bill would increase both monetary
and criminal penalties and would direct the Attorney General to take
swift action against complaints and disseminate corrective election
information after an incident occurs.
It would also require the Attorney General, after each federal
election, to report to Congress on the allegations of deceptive
practices and actions taken to correct them.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which will go a
long way in preventing future acts of voter intimidation.
We must do EVERYTHING to protect the cornerstone of our democracy;
the right of our citizens to vote.
Mr. Conyers. Just in time, Ms. Sanchez, and I thank you
very much.
I am very pleased now to welcome Mr. Rahm Emanuel, whose
work in helping get out the vote and encourage the vote is
well-known across the country. Welcome to the Committee.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RAHM EMANUEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Emanuel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A number of my
colleagues have spoken to the legislation. You obviously did it
in your introduction. I also want to thank Mr. Smith. I want to
thank you for having this hearing, Congressman Smith and
Chairman Conyers.
I would make two or three quick points and then leave time
for my colleagues and enough time for them as well.
One is, although in your introduction you spoke eloquently
about the Voting Rights Act from 1965 and having just returned
from the trip that John Lewis put together for everybody down
in Selma and bringing my 10-year-old for his birthday gift to
have that trip with John Lewis, at that point--and this may be
the abbreviated history I received, having read it, although
hearing it from Congressman Lewis, our colleague--at that
point, the State was involved in intimidation.
What we are talking about here, although we did exactly the
right thing as a country by passing the Voting Rights Act, here
it is where parties and the campaigns have taken on the role of
intimidation. That baton has passed down to State parties and
candidates. The State has backed away from that role because of
the Voting Rights Act, but the role of intimidation continues
and others have adopted it.
Second, in every process, and we have been through the
campaigns, et cetera, there is a recourse if a TV ad falsely
accuses an opponent--I have exercised it, Senator Schumer
exercised it, Congressman Reynolds exercised it, Senator Dole
has exercised it--through the parties to appeal to the TV
stations to take that ad down. Sometimes you win, sometimes you
lose but there is a recourse.
If in fact, and there is a great, if I can, recommend, if
not, I will also then submit into the record, a Sunday front-
page story in the Boston Globe that looked back on all the ads
that were pulled down, and if I could, I would like to submit
that into the record.
Mr. Conyers. We will include it in the record.
Mr. Emanuel. There is no recourse for a false pamphlet, for
a false phone call. There is no recourse.
This raises the penalty for knowingly deceiving a person
who wants to vote when they say there is a changed location for
your voting booth, that you can't vote unless you do X, Y and
Z. This raises the penalty and has a place of recourse so there
is a consequence in the same way that during a campaign if
somebody runs a false ad, a party, on behalf of a candidate,
can have a recourse to that TV station, have the TV station
waive that.
This attempts to make people before they do something,
whether it is a 3 o'clock in the morning phone call, whether it
is literature that Ben, our colleague now in the Senate, showed
that it had out there, or all the other literature that has
been passed out in mainly minority communities but not limited
to that, telling people that their voting place has been
changed or the requirements of what they need informationally
to vote has been altered, this raises the stakes to doing that
and will hopefully have the consequence of actually making
folks' campaigns or parties pull back.
Now, we are all taking the action here that is within our
purview, which is to deal with making sure that intimidation
does not stop people from exercising their rights, that is to
vote.
There are two other pieces to this. One of them is leaders
and elected officials that inspire people to come out and vote
and our citizens who take their responsibility and their right
seriously and do it. We are only dealing with one of the three
today, an important piece of it, but the other two play a very
significant role in increasing the turnout and participation in
a democratic process.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding this,
and I want to apologize because I have to go to another hearing
to ask a question on the AMT tax, which I know holds fair to
all our colleagues.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Emanuel follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Rahm Emanuel, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Illinois
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
Committee today on election deception and voting irregularities. I am
honored to have worked with your office, Senator Obama, and several
other members of this committee on drafting Deceptive Practices and
Voter Intimidation Act of 2007, and I hope that we can move forward
quickly on this legislation to protect the right to vote.
Honestly, I would prefer if we did not have to have this hearing
today. Unfortunately, though, the last election and others before it
have seen repeated instances of campaigning tactics that go beyond
political competitiveness.
We have seen repeated phone calls at three in the morning with
blatant misinformation on a candidate's background; we have seen flyers
posted in minority communities lying about the date of the election; we
have seen letters sent to legal immigrants threatening them with arrest
for trying to vote because they were born outside of this country. We
have seen far too many examples of these abuses, and it is time to put
an end to these deceptive practices.
I served as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee during the last election cycle. My job was to elect
Democratic candidates to Congress, and I had a firsthand look at the
day-to-day of many campaigns. In my role, I saw the specifics of
misleading robo-calls, malicious flyers, and misinformation campaigns
designed to keep certain groups of voters away from the polls on
Election Day. That is why I am committed to making sure that future
campaigns are not decided by false information and intimidation that
keep Americans from voting when and how they want.
I look forward to passage and implementation of the Deceptive
Practices and Voter Intimidation Act to prevent repeat occurrences of
some of the tactics that hinder voter turnout. I want to thank Chairman
Conyers, Congressman Holt, Congressman Becerra, Congressman Honda, and
Congressman Ellison for serving as lead co-sponsors of this important
legislation. I would also like to thank Mr. Nadler, Mr. Scott, Ms.
Jackson Lee, Ms. Waters, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, and Mr.
Davis of this committee for signing on as original co-sponsors of the
bill.
I am proud to have introduced the Deceptive Practices and Voter
Intimidation Act last week, and again, I want to thank you, Chairman
Conyers, for inviting me to participate in this forum and for leading
the charge on addressing this problem. I look forward to continuing to
work with you, Senator Obama, and the rest of this panel as we seek to
ensure that each American is able to vote free from intimidation and
misinformation.
ATTACHMENT
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Conyers. Thanks so much, Congressman Emanuel. We
appreciate your presence and your support of the legislation.
I am now happy to recognize an outstanding Member of the
Judiciary Committee. Mr. King has worked with us in a
bipartisan fashion across the years, and I would like now to
acknowledge him.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am privileged to be
recognized by you and also Ranking Member Smith to testify
before this Committee, as opposed to being seated upon it.
And I am going to take this to a little bit different tact
here in this discussion that we have had and focus on some
facts that currently you have numbers between 8 million and 14
million illegal aliens in the United States who are of voting
age. That is a level of exposure. There are approximately 23
million legal non-citizens that still live in the United States
in addition to that 8 million to 14 million illegals who are of
voting age.
But beyond requiring applicants to sign a pledge on a voter
registration form affirming that they are U.S. citizens, there
are no restraints to prevent the Nation's illegal aliens and
lawfully present non-citizens from casting ballots in our
local, State and Federal elections.
There are a number of tactics that are being employed by
illegal aliens and non-citizens to fraudulently vote in Federal
elections. One is to obtain a State driver's license. A lot of
States purposely or inadvertently allow illegal aliens to
receive a driver's license, but under the motor voter law, the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993, information provided
by the applicant for a driver's license may also be used for
voter registration unless--and this is an important point--
unless the applicant specifically indicates that he or she did
not want to be registered to vote.
That is an encouragement for a non-citizen, whether they
are legal or illegal, to register to vote, and they may not
understand the language; they may just simply be complying with
the bureaucracy, register to vote and find themselves in
violation of Federal law, but it is hard to find anybody that
will check. There are large numbers of non-citizens and illegal
aliens that are on those kinds of lists.
But to preserve the integrity of the election process,
Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, a bill that Mr. Smith was well-
involved in. It made it a Federal crime for non-citizens to
vote in a Federal election and also for non-citizens who
knowingly voted illegally to be deported. Non-citizens who
fraudulently claim to be U.S. citizens could also be in
violation of the act. So that tightened some things up in 1996,
but despite the penalties that are there, there are frequent
substantiated reports of illegal aliens and non-citizens taking
part in elections.
One of the reports is a well-known one that we discussed
earlier here that Ms. Sanchez responded to with regard to Mr.
Smith's numbers, and I will say that my research comes up with
the same numbers, 984 vote difference, and the investigation
revealed that there may be as many as--I will say found
evidence that there were 748 improper ballots--624 by
individuals who were non-citizens. But the ruling was even
though 83 percent of the improper ballots were by non-citizens,
there wasn't enough to change the results of the election and
the House Oversight Committee found that it would not affect
the results of the election, so there was no recommended
change.
I think that was good action by this Congress to recognize
the flaw in the system but didn't seek to get a political gain
by adjusting to that flaw. So I will say that the Oversight
Committee had congressional findings there of the highest
integrity, as did Mr. Smith of Texas.
And there are also issues within the State of Utah where
they found 58,000 illegal aliens had fraudulently obtained
driver's licenses. Of those, at least 383 were registered to
vote, presumably by motor voter. I narrowed some of that down,
took a sample of 135 of these individuals and discovered that
five were naturalized citizens, 20 were ``deportable'' by their
measure, one is a permanent legal resident and 109 had no
record and were assumed to be in the United States illegally.
But at least 14 had voted in a recent election, and we know
that people move, so that makes it an even more significant
number.
North Carolina ICE agents identified at least four similar
cases there, and so there is a very simple solution to this and
that is to provide a photo ID. We have talked about the Real ID
Act that addresses this, Mr. Chairman and Committee, and the
Real ID Act does a number of things that are really effective.
It requires a photo ID and it requires a Social Security number
to be attached to that, and then we can attach the condition of
citizenship to Real ID as well. Those three things there would
do more to prevent fraudulent voting than anything else that I
can think of.
But as I look across the spectrum of these issues, and I
will tell you that I sat in the chair for 37 days in the 2000
election tracing the Internet and my Dish TV and my telephones
and I found out a lot about election fraud in this country,
much of which I have not addressed in my testimony today. But I
believe we need to adopt a Real ID Act for voter registration.
We need to also have an integrated voter registration list that
eliminates the duplicates, the deceased and where the applies
to the felons.
And I would point out that there are certain States that
prohibit the electoral workers from challenging a prospective
voter, even when they know that prospective voter is not the
person that they represent themselves to be.
So, for example, if I were an electoral board worker in a
State like New Mexico, for example, and my name being Steve
King and I have gone in there to work and decided that when my
shift is over then I will vote, if someone comes in and
presents themselves as Steve King, I have to let them vote even
though I am the individual that is registered on that voter
registration list. There are those kinds of prohibitions that
are in place that are designed to keep from intimidating voters
that disenfranchise real citizens that really have the right to
vote.
And I would conclude with that.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the 2 seconds of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Iowa, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary
Thank you Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and members of
the Judiciary Committee for inviting me to testify today. I appreciate
this opportunity to address the Committee about the need to protect the
integrity of our democratic process, by guarding against illegal aliens
and noncitizens taking part in only the American citizen's right to
vote.
Currently, there are approximately 14 million illegal aliens in the
United States who are of voting age. There are approximately 23 million
legal noncitizens currently residing in the U.S. Beyond requiring
applicants to sign a pledge on voter-registration forms affirming that
they are U.S. citizens, there are no restraints to prevent the nation's
illegal aliens and legally present noncitizens from casting ballots in
local, state and federal elections. Our voting system is subject to
fraud by noncitizens. Illegal voting by legally residing non-citizens
may be more prevalent than voting by illegal aliens. There are no
existing structures in place to prevent illegal aliens from voting or
to know if noncitizens are illegally voting in federal elections.
Numerous tactics are being employed by illegal aliens and
noncitizens to fraudulently vote in federal elections. The first
approach begins by obtaining a state drivers' license. States vary
greatly in their laws governing the issuance of those licenses. A few
states require and verify documentation that an applicant is either a
U.S. citizen or a legal resident. However, other states purposely or
inadvertently allow aliens to receive a drivers' license. Seven states
allow registrants to use an individual taxpayer identification number
(ITIN) instead of a Social Security number. The problem with an ITIN,
stems from the fact it is available to noncitizens for purposes of tax
withholding. On the opposite side of the spectrum, eleven states are
lax and negligently permit illegal aliens to obtain drivers' licenses,
by refusing to verify the authenticity of the Social Security Number.
Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, information
provided by the applicant for a driver's license may also be used for
voter registration unless the applicant specifically indicates that he
did not want to be registered to vote. With many states making driver's
licenses available to legal noncitizens and illegal aliens, it is
probable voter rolls contain large numbers of non-citizens and illegal
aliens.
Another tactic employed by illegal aliens and noncitizens to obtain
voting rights involves absentee voting. Absentee voting has become
increasingly common, and there are no safeguards in place to ensure the
actual voter is voting or for elections officials to challenge the
voter in person as a possible illegal voter. In effect, there are no
safeguards in place to ensure the person requesting the absentee ballot
is actually the person voting. Elections official's hands are tied to
protect the integrity of the voting ballot.
To preserve the integrity of the election process, Congress enacted
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in
1996. Under the Act, it became a federal crime for non-citizens to vote
in any federal election. Ineligible non-citizens who knowingly voted
illegally could also be deported. Furthermore, a non-citizen who
fraudulently claimed to be a U.S. citizen would also violate this Act.
Despite these penalties, there have been frequent substantiated reports
of illegal aliens and non-citizens taking part in elections.
One of these reports is well-known to another witness before the
committee today, because it involved Loretta Sanchez's California race
in 1996. This is probably the best example of documented illegal voting
to date. Loretta Sanchez defeated Republican incumbent Robert Dornan by
984 votes. Dornan called for an investigation of alleged illegal voting
by noncitizens. The House Oversight Committee found that while there
was insufficient evidence to void Ms. Sanchez's victory, the Committee
found evidence of 748 improper ballots, 624 by individuals who were not
citizens when they registered to vote. (``Dornan's Election Challenge
Dismissed,'' Los Angeles Times, February 13, 1998). This is a striking
number because it illustrates in that election, 83% of all the
fraudulent votes cast were by noncitizens.
In the 2000 Presidential election, noncitizens may have directly
influenced the outcome of this race in eleven different states.
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, all had small enough
winning vote margins that illegal voting could have shifted the balance
to Vice President Gore. With only a three vote margin in the Electoral
College, if enough noncitizens had voted to reverse the outcome in any
one of those eleven states, it would have changed the entire election.
In preparation for the 2004 elections, Iowa and South Dakota issued
directives to voter registration officials that voters should be added
to the voter rolls even if their application did not affirmatively
designate they were United States citizens. These directives were in
blatant violation of the National Voter Registration Act, which
requires every potential voter to designate citizenship on the voter
registration application.
In Utah, it was discovered that more than 58,000 illegal aliens had
fraudulently obtained drivers' licenses. A legislative audit bureau
determined that possibly 383 illegal aliens were registered to vote.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted a sample consisting
of 135 of these individuals and discovered that five were naturalized
citizens, twenty were ``deportable'', one was a permanent legal
resident, and 109 had no record and were assumed to be in the United
States illegally. More alarmingly, it was revealed that at least
fourteen had voted in a recent Utah election.
In North Carolina, ICE agents inspecting voter registration records
last November revealed at least four cases of noncitizens illegally
registered to vote. Three of the people were arrested, and officials
are looking for the fourth. Tom O'Connell, resident agent in charge of
the ICE agency's Cary office, said that ``It's a very personal charge
to us, it goes to the integrity of the entire democratic system when we
have . . . aliens registering to vote.'' (``Voter rolls risky for
aliens,'' The News & Observer, December 7, 2006.)
There is a very simple solution to the problem of illegal aliens
and non-citizens voting in our elections. A bipartisan commission
headed by former President Jimmy Carter and ex-Secretary of State James
Baker announced after their study into Federal Election Reform, that
Americans should be required to have photo identification to vote.
``Instead of creating a new card, the Commission recommends that
states use `REAL ID' cards for voting purposes. The REAL ID Act, signed
into law in May 2005, requires states to verify each individual's full
legal name, date of birth, address, Social Security number, and U.S.
citizenship before the individual is issued a driver's license or
personal ID card. The REAL ID is a logical vehicle because the National
Voter Registration Act established a connection between obtaining a
driver's license and registering to vote. The REAL ID cards adds two
critical elements for voting--proof of citizenship and verification by
using the full Social Security number. The REAL ID Act does not require
that the card indicates citizenship, but that would need to be done if
the card is to be used for voting purposes. In addition, state bureaus
of motor vehicles should automatically send the information to the
state's bureau of elections.'' ``Building Confidence in U.S. Elections:
Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform,'' The Carter-Baker
Report (Sept. 2005).
Allegations that implementing REAL ID will suppress voting
participation are unfounded. Every illegal vote by a non-citizen
ultimately voids the vote of a U.S. citizen and it is as injurious as
not allowing the citizen to vote in the first place.
While advocates for illegal aliens and noncitizens claim such
individuals would not take the risk of registering to vote for fear of
being discovered, the evidence I have just presented before you
suggests otherwise. It is foolishness to believe fraud is absent when
efforts are not being made to ensure the integrity of our electoral
process. Remember, it only takes one vote to change an election.
Thank you and I would be happy to take questions from the
Committee.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Steve King. I am glad you are on
this Committee, because we want to inquire into some of the
other research and materials you have accumulated.
We welcome Brian Bilbray, California. Welcome to the
Judiciary Committee.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BRIAN BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
privilege to speak here today. I also appreciated the ability
to serve as a county supervisor for the 3 million people of San
Diego County where I supervised a very large registration vote
system in that county.
And I have to tell you, the 10 years that I served there it
became obvious to me that though in the past we have been very,
very strong about guaranteeing the ability on the franchising
of individuals to be able to vote, we have never really looked
at the other way that people are disenfranchised.
Now, I remind you that the procedure of voting is not an
end into itself; it is a sacred right not only to vote but to
have your vote count. And the challenge of the past was making
sure the franchise was not violated by denying people the
ability to participate in the voting process.
But we have done almost nothing, Mr. Chairman, almost
nothing to make sure that the franchise is not being canceled
out by allowing those who are not qualified to vote to cancel
out the qualified voters. And I think every American citizen
has the right, not only to vote, but to have their vote count
and not to have their vote canceled out by a disqualified
voter. May not seem like it is a big deal but when you have 37-
plus-million people that could be out there and could be
canceling out votes, I think it is time we check on that.
And I will just tell you, as somebody running the
registration system, I could ask you for documentation about
your residency and check about where you live, but I wasn't
allowed to ask you about your citizenship. I had to go on the
honor system that just if you say it, and I would ask you to
ask the Ways and Means Committee, do they think that the tax
system in this country could function on the honor system where
every taxpayer just signed off and nobody ever audited, nobody
ever checked? We not only do not have the check, but you
specifically have State laws that restrict the ability to do
that kind of checking.
I think that the fact is, is that when we get into motor
voter, we have got to recognize that these two challenges to
the people's franchise is there, and we need to address the
other side.
And, Mr. Chairman, as somebody who represented a Committee
with a large percentage of foreign nationals and naturalized
citizens, the burden of being disenfranchised by illegal votes
is not equally distributed across this country. We all know it
is the working class American citizens that have the greatest
propensity for having their vote not count because this
Congress and the Federal Government hasn't done its part to
protect their franchise. The wealthy neighborhoods tend not to
have that threat. So I just think that we need to be upfront
about this.
I think that the Carter commission addressed it
appropriately, and over the years I have wondered when we are
finally going to get to the issue, that we should make every
vote count if it is legal, and that means a lot. And this is
not just illegal immigrants, this is all immigrants. And my
mother is very proud that she got her citizenship and was
franchised. She is also very much upset that she was actually
fined in Australia because she didn't vote her first election
because she was too young to register but actually turned 21
before the vote. We don't want to create those kind of catch-
22s, and we have addressed those in the past.
I just ask you that if you truly believe in the right of
franchising, you truly believe, not only in the right for
people to vote, but for their vote to count, we have to address
the issue of the identification of the person when they show up
to the polls.
And the real problem is the voter registration system, and
I will give you just some of the problem. You have paid
registrars going out there, people that are being paid by
groups and agencies to collect votes. They will tell people
almost anything to be able to get them to register. Once these
individuals register, many of the foreign nationals who are not
proficient in English, when they get the papers from the County
of San Diego or from the State, they assume they are legal. And
so this is an issue of protecting the innocent from taking a
deadly mistake. Because many times, the illegal votes are
manipulated and are pushed by people who have something to gain
when it is not the immigrant who is perpetuating the fraud
intentionally.
So I just ask you, in conclusion, to respect the fact that
every voter should count and no voter should have his vote
canceled out.
And so enfranchisement, I think, is the challenge before
us, Mr. Chairman. Are we willing to protect the vote after it
is cast as much as we have been willing in the past to make
sure the vote gets cast?
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilbray follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Brian P. Bilbray, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished colleagues of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak before you today on the
importance of addressing voting fraud and irregularities. As Chairman
of the Immigration Reform Caucus, I am extremely concerned about
illegal immigrants violating our nation's election laws by registering
and voting in local, state and federal elections. I feel that the
American people have been disenfranchised by ballots illegally and
fraudulently cast in our increasingly close elections.
Nothing is more important than ensuring the integrity of our
election process. Because of this very issue, I am able to sit before
you today and represent the people of the 50th District of California.
It was during my campaign that the issue of illegal participation in
our election process came to light. For a short moment in time, one
person's words were heard throughout the entire nation. As reported in
the Wall Street Journal on June 5, 2006, ``Ms. Busby addressed a group
of supporters and in response to a question in Spanish about how
someone who was an illegal alien could help, she answered: ``You don't
need papers for voting,'' she said. ``You don't need to be a registered
voter to help.''
The freedom to vote is one of the most fundamental and sacred
rights Americans can exercise. With more than 20 million foreign-born
residents in the United States who are not U.S. citizens, including an
estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, the potential for non-citizen
voting is a growing concern, especially when you consider the relaxed
registration requirements and a lax screening process at the time of
voting. I feel there is a very real possibility that non-citizens have
affected the outcomes of elections in the past and will in the future.
Voting by illegal immigrants is one of the toughest issues to study
due to the fact there is no centralized or accessible list of illegal
immigrants that can be compared to voter registration lists or lists of
persons who actually cast ballots. The most basic requirement for
registering to vote is United States citizenship.
Citizenship is clearly defined in both federal and state law. The
14th Amendment to the United States Constitution states, ``All persons
born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside.'' A person is not a citizen simply because
he or she resides in California or is married to a U.S. citizen. While
federal law requires the voter to check a box on the registration form
to indicate that he or she is a U.S. citizen, Elections Code Sec. 2111
says that an individual who signs an affidavit of registration under
penalty of perjury is assumed, in the absence of contrary information,
to be a citizen. Elections Code Sec. 2112 additionally states that an
affidavit of registration is proof of citizenship for voting purposes
only; it cannot be used to prove citizenship for any other purpose. In
the state of California, those registering to vote must simply check a
box affirming they are a U.S. citizen.
Congress enacted the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act, making it a federal crime for non-citizens to vote
in any federal election unless authorized by state law. All ineligible
non-citizens who knowingly vote in violation of the law may be
deported. While illegal voting can make the alien ineligible for U.S.
citizenship (violation of criminal law), this disqualification has been
often waived.
In 1993, President Clinton signed the National Voter Registration
Act (NVRA). Usually called the ``motor voter'' bill, it requires all
states to streamline their voter registration laws to make it easier
for citizens to sign up. Specifically, it requires states to give
voters the option to register to vote simultaneously with an
application for a driver's license, by mail, or in person, and at
social service and other agencies. The Act made it harder to verify the
identity of voters seeking to register. It also considerably
complicated the states' task of keeping the registration rolls clean.
In September 2005, the Congressional Research Service reported that
more than 25 states failed to require any proof of legal presence in
the United States in order to apply for and obtain a driver's license.
And, as a consequence of the Motor Voter law, every single person who
applies for a driver's license is asked if they want to register to
vote. Voter rolls in the United States, particularly in states that
allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses, are inflated by
non-citizens who are registered to vote. Despite the clear mandate of
the Motor Voter law that any potential voter must affirm citizenship on
the voter registration application, some states issued orders to voter
registration officials that voters should be added to the roles even if
their application did not affirmatively indicate they are United States
citizens.
Requiring a person to identify themselves with photo identification
before casting a ballot enjoys broad public support. The American
Center for Voting Rights-Legislative Fund's polling in Pennsylvania and
Missouri found that more than 80 percent of the population favors photo
ID requirement in order to vote. Other state specific polls in
Wisconsin and Washington have found similar levels of public support
for voter identification requirements. Nationally, a Wall Street
Journal/NBC poll conducted by in April 2006 found that more than eighty
percent of U.S. citizens support the requirement that a person show a
photo ID before they are allowed to cast a ballot. Currently, twenty-
four states require every voter to provide identification before
casting a ballot and seven states currently require photo
identification in order to vote.
Many people tend to think that the photo ID requirement would
suppress voting but there has never been evidence to support that
assertion. Much to the contrary, evidence shows that anti-voter fraud
provisions increase voter turnout. When people have greater confidence
in the election process, there is greater voting participation. There
are more than 100 democracies which require a photo identification card
without fear of infringement on individual citizen's rights, including
countries such as Mexico, India and Pakistan. In fact, our neighbor to
the south, Mexico, issues a voter ID which includes multiple security
features, including a hologram, special fluorescent ink, a bar code,
and special codes in a magnetic strip.
Not only must we worry about illegal immigrants voting illegally in
our elections, we must worry that they are using the voter registration
card to seek employment. There is reason to believe that some illegal
immigrants applying for driver's licenses deliberately, rather than
accidentally, seek voter registration. This is due to the fact that the
employer sanctions law adopted in the 1986 amnesty to deter employment
of illegal aliens allows a voter registration card to be used as one of
the documents that establishes the employee's identity. That document,
plus a Social Security card, is all that is necessary to establish work
eligibility. Thus, the fact that some non-citizens register to vote is
not necessarily a harmless misunderstanding of the rules, as
immigrants' rights groups contend.
In 2005, a prominent group of bipartisan leaders and scholars, led
by former President Carter and Secretary of State James Baker, III,
focused on our nations voting laws and procedures. The Carter-Baker
Commission on Voting recommended:
Instead of creating a new card, the Commission recommends that
states use ``REAL ID'' cards for voting purposes. The REAL ID
Act, signed into law in May 2005, requires states to verify
each individual's full legal name, date of birth, address,
Social Security number, and U.S. citizenship before the
individual is issued a driver's license or personal ID card.
The REAL ID is a logical vehicle because the National Voter
Registration Act established a connection between obtaining a
driver's license and registering to vote. The REAL ID card adds
two critical elements for voting--proof of citizenship and
verification by using the full Social Security number. The REAL
ID Act does not require that the card indicates citizenship,
but that would need to be done if the card is to be used for
voting purposes.
As the Carter-Baker Report elaborated: ``to make sure that a person
arriving at a polling site is the same one who is named on the list, we
propose a uniform system of voter identification based on the ``REAL ID
card'' or an equivalent for people without a driver's license . . .
There is likely to be less discrimination against minorities if there
is a single, uniform ID, than if poll workers can apply multiple
standards.'' The Carter-Baker Report also stated that ``The right to
vote is a vital component of U.S. citizenship, and all states should
use their best efforts to obtain proof of citizenship before
registering voters.'' I could not agree more!
The Bush Administration announced the program will cost $23.1
billion over 10 years, require motorists born after 1935 to present
birth certificates or passports, and add $28 to the cost of issuing
each license. As Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff stated, ``Is it a
reasonable amount of money that people should pay to prevent people
from getting on airplanes or getting in buildings and killing
Americans? I think most people would say . . . that's $20 well spent.''
While people will have to incur an additional cost, it seems absolutely
reasonable when putting it in the context of safety and securing our
democracy by eliminating voting fraud.
The Administration also announced it would delay implementation of
the REAL ID provisions that federalize driver's license standards to
allow states more time to comply fully. The deadline will be extended
from May 2008 until December 2009, and up to 20 percent of state
homeland security grants can be used to implement the program. I am
extremely disappointed by the Administration's stance on this issue and
will seek to insure REAL ID makes its May 2008 deadline. It is far too
important for the safety of our society to delay.
If the United States wants to prevent fraudulent voting, procedures
must be adopted to verify the eligibility of individuals when they
register, and then to verify the identity of voters when they vote.
There must also be a heightened dedication to prosecute those who
fraudulently register and vote. If there is no real penalty for illegal
voting, it is unreasonable to expect that an `honor system' to keep
ineligible persons from voting will be effective. It is worth noting,
that with the passage of Proposition 200, Arizona was the first state
to implement such measures. Approximately 32 other states are
considering similar legislation.
Unfortunately, special interest groups are pursuing litigation to
undermine the ability of election officials to assure that only U.S.
citizens are included on voter rolls. Clearly, there has been a much
greater movement to lawsuits to settle election administration issues
since the 2000 Presidential election. Fundamentally, voters should
believe at the end of the day that they decided the election, not a
handful of lawyers and judges.
I applaud the House Judiciary Committee for focusing on this very
important issue. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Bilbray, we are grateful that you came
here today.
By previous agreement, I have 15 minutes to divide on my
side and so does Mr. Smith.
If I could just recognize Mr. Nadler, Mr. Ellison, Mr.
Cohen to present--let's try this--present their questions to
whom they want to direct them, and then we will ask the
appropriate witnesses to respond.
Starting with Jerry Nadler.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, I
thank you for holding this hearing on this extremely important
legislation.
My first question is of our colleague, Representative King.
Reading your testimony, you say Utah has discovered that more
than 58,000 illegal aliens have fraudulently obtained driver's
licenses. A legislative audit bureau determined that of these
58,000, possibly 383 illegal aliens were registered to vote.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted a sample
consisting of 135, or roughly 40 percent, of these individuals
and discovered that five were naturalized citizens, 20 were
deportable, one was a permanent legal resident and 109 had no
record and were assumed to be in the United States illegally.
And it was revealed that at least 14 had voted in the recent
Utah election.
So out of 58,000 people, maybe 14 possibly illegal people
had voted. Do you think that is a significant problem, 14 in
the State of Utah?
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. I would say that I did
actually give that some reference in my verbal testimony as
well and that you really start with that number of 383 illegal
aliens.
Mr. Nadler. That would be 58,000 is where you start.
Mr. King. Correct, but the registered to vote illegal
aliens would be 383. So I would say the more----
Mr. Nadler. Possibly illegal.
Mr. King. And 14 out of that I think is significant, given
the small populations of some of these elections that take
place and that the State of Florida was down to about 537 votes
that made the difference in the leader of the free world.
Mr. Nadler. Fourteen in the State of Utah.
Well, I am glad you referenced the State of Florida. The
State of Florida had 537 votes in that election or at least it
was before the recount was stopped by the Supreme Court.
Mr. King. I think it was after every recount.
Mr. Nadler. Before the recount was stopped by the Supreme
Court; it was never finished. Some newspaper finished it and
they came up with different results depending on the newspaper.
However, it seems to be universally acknowledged that
thousands and thousands of alleged felons were purged from the
rolls--thousands. In fact, I think it was several tens of
thousands were purged from the rolls by the secretary of
state's office, with a 20 percent error rate.
Twenty percent of 10,000 is 2,000. So that means that
several thousand legal voters were refused the right to vote by
the secretary of state's office because of a--the felon
provision. How do you react to that?
Mr. King. I have heard some of those numbers. I have not
seen the kind of data that gives me confidence that that is an
accurate conclusion that one can draw. I have seen the data
that says even so far as the Miami Herald on the recount of the
election came up with the same number, the election report, so
I can speak to that.
But I will say this: that I think that Democrats believe
that Republicans are guilty of election fraud, I believe
Republicans think Democrats are guilty of election fraud. I
think some exists on both sides. To what magnitude, I don't
know, but I believe we all should endeavor to make it as
absolutely clean as we possibly could and put those checks and
balances in place.
I don't think that a 20 percent error rate in a voter
registration list that is going to purge felons is an
acceptable result at all. And if that holds up, then I would be
a critic of that kind of behavior just as well.
But I want to have the highest level of integrity, because,
first of all, I would say I would rather lose the presidency or
the majority than lose the integrity of our electoral process.
If we lose our confidence in it--and it comes down to
confidence beyond the actual numbers in what is real--if we
lose our confidence, we lose our constitutional republic, and I
think that is the precious commodity here we are all trying to
preserve.
Mr. Conyers. Well-said.
Mr. Nadler, thanks for just a moment. Let me yield to Mr.
Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I know
you need to try to get as many Members in here as possible.
Representative Sanchez, I want to ask you about the bill
that has been introduced by Senator Obama and Representative
Emanuel. You were not an original co-sponsor but you are--I
mean, you are not an original sponsor but you are a co-sponsor,
so if you are not able to answer, I would understand.
But I would like to ask you about a provision, and I will
read it to you. This is on page two of the bill, paragraph 618,
deceptive practices in Federal elections. It reads as follows:
``Whoever within 60 days before a Federal election knowingly
communicates false election-related information about that
election with intent to prevent another person from exercising
their right to vote in that election or attempts to do so shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5
years, or both.''
We heard a while ago that Senator Obama said that the
intent was not to necessarily penalize illegal immigrants. I
just wanted to ask you if you would object if we did penalize
illegal immigrants for voting illegally?
Ms. Sanchez. Well, again, I believe I would agree with Mr.
Obama in the sense that I agree with his intent. I will tell
you something, we already penalize people who are here without
the right documents who vote in elections. It is called
deportation.
Mr. Smith. I have limited time. I understand but the
operative phrase here is anybody communicates false election-
related information. If someone registers to vote and professes
to be a citizen who is not a citizen and therefore not eligible
to vote, clearly, that is a false statement that I think that
would apply.
Ms. Sanchez. Again, Mr. Smith, I think they run the risk.
People who are not citizens run the risk of probably the
greatest penalty and that is the penalty of deportation from
this Nation for voting without--I think it is not a jail
sentence, it is not anything else. It is deportation from our
Nation. That is what they are subject to.
Mr. Smith. Non-citizens should not be voting, right?
Ms. Sanchez. Absolutely, non-citizens should not be voting.
Mr. Smith. And you feel that they should be penalized if
they do vote?
Ms. Sanchez. I believe they are penalized when they do
vote. We tend to deport them. That is what happens to them. I
sit on the Homeland Security Committee. I see the deportation.
That is what happens.
Mr. Smith. Okay. And do you think they should be penalized
under this bill?
Ms. Sanchez. They are not penalized under this bill because
it already exists, that if you are not a citizen and you vote--
--
Mr. Smith. Just because it already exists doesn't mean they
can't be penalized under this bill. I think that they are, and
I think a court would find that they are. We can discuss that
more later on.
Again, this next question may be a little too technical but
this says 60 days before an election. Why wouldn't this bill
apply 61 days before an election or 62 days before an election
if someone makes a false statement, for example.
Ms. Sanchez. You would have to ask Mr. Obama that
question----
Mr. Smith. I will do that.
Ms. Sanchez [continuing]. As to why he chose 60 days.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Conyers. Yes? No, I am recognizing--your name is on the
list, but it is further down.
Mr. Ellison, briefly.
Mr. Ellison. My question is directed to our colleague,
Representative King.
I am aware that the State of Indiana, in defending a photo
ID lawsuit in court, found that it could not cite one single
case or instance of voter impersonation, fraud. The State of
Missouri had similar results. They couldn't find any cases of
the kind of fraud that you are quite concerned about. And I
know in my own State of Minnesota there has been much made
about immigrants voting or non-citizens voting, but, still,
nobody ever has any real cases to produce.
Can you tell me, since 1996, exactly how many convictions
have taken place under the law for non-citizens voting as
compared to how many actual votes were cast in Federal
elections since that time?
Mr. King. I am sorry, Mr. Ellison, with that buzzer
ringing, could you pick up where that buzzer cut in, please?
Mr. Ellison. Yes. I am curious to know, since the 1996 law
was passed that made it a felony for non-citizens to vote, how
many convictions, how many Federal convictions have taken
place? And could you also----
Mr. King. I wouldn't have the answer to that question
unless it happens to be in my hand in which case we are looking
at, for 2002, we have persons charged, 95; convictions, 55;
dismissals by the government, eight; and acquittals, five.
Mr. Ellison. So 55 in that 1 year, sir?
Mr. King. Fifty-five in the year 2002.
Mr. Ellison. Any other data for any other year?
Mr. King. That is the only data I have in my hand right
now, thanks to somebody's staff.
Mr. Ellison. How many votes were cast in 2002?
Mr. King. I don't know the answer to that question.
Mr. Ellison. Would you agree with me that probably far less
than one-hundredth of 1 percent is represented by that 55
number?
Mr. King. Would you agree that a single fraudulent vote
would be a violation of our integrity?
Mr. Ellison. I am just going to ask you to see if you could
answer my question. What percentage of the total vote would
that 55 represent?
Mr. King. I wouldn't presume to answer that question, and I
would state that I don't believe it is relative to the subject
before this Committee, but thank you for your inquiry.
Mr. Ellison. Well, but let me ask you this: How many people
do you think have been excluded from their right to vote by
voter suppression, which is actually the subject of this bill?
Mr. King. I didn't testify as to that, but I would believe
that there have been--it would be my judgment, and we all--none
of us know facts here in this, because there are many things
that happen in the election process that are not reported, that
are not prosecuted. There are a lot of things that are just
given a pass.
So I don't think we can give it an analytical, numerical
analysis and take it down to the percentages, although I
generally do look at things from that perspective.
I would say that, on the one hand, those people who have
voted illegally and been prosecuted as part of it, all of those
who have voted illegally have canceled out someone else's legal
vote.
Mr. Ellison. Well, I am asking, sir, what about the people
who have had their vote suppressed, such as in Florida, Ohio,
well-documented voter suppression. As a matter of fact, I
believe Senator Obama cited cases throughout the country about
legal citizens who do have the right to vote who are deceived
and have their vote taken away.
But how many would you guess that represents?
Mr. King. I saw numbers by the thousands alleged in
Florida. I saw reports that there were police roadblocks that
were set up that intimidated. I looked into that further and
they were irrelevant roadblocks that were significantly away
from the election polls.
So as I look deeper into that, I would have to see other
data to convince me that there was a strategy out there that
was trying to suppress, but I don't know how some people are
maybe more easily intimidated than I might be. So I would like
to see some more empirical data on that.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Ellison, I am sorry, we are running
against the clock here, and we only have a few minutes left for
the panel.
So, excuse me, we will have to submit the questions that
Mr. Ellison had, and I will recognize Mr. Smith now.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to encourage Members on this side to be
brief. We are trying to conclude this panel before the votes,
and in that spirit, I will yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Coble.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. King, I agree with you: Members of both parties are
guilty of irregularity, first of all.
Let me ask you this: What role does your State elections
administrator have in addressing efforts to mislead and/or
intimidate voters, and what has been done about it, if you
know?
Mr. King. I can, Mr. Coble, speak to the fact that in the
2004 election, even though there were people that showed up at
the wrong precinct, he issued a recommendation or issued--
actually, our current governor was the governor who was the
secretary of state, Chet Culver, and he issued an order that
the county auditors and the election poll workers could accept
ballots from people who were not registered at that precinct,
even though they showed up at the wrong place to vote, which
really scrambled the process. And even though Iowa is the first
in the Nation to caucus, we were the last in the Nation to
certify the vote because of that confusion.
Mr. Coble. And if Ms. Sanchez or Mr. Bilbray know about
your respective administrator, do you know?
Mr. Bilbray. In the State of California, you are not
allowed to ask citizenship status or place of birth. You are
allowed to ask residency questions.
The biggest problem we have, congressman, we are trying to
figure out those who are illegally--by definition, if they are
on document, there are no documents, so we have no list to
check. Where you can have a list to check legal resident aliens
and you can go down that list, but you don't have the list of
the others.
So the open opportunity, when we talk about being able to
prosecute those who are illegal, to try to get to the data to
get them is impossible unless you can somehow have it
proactive, and that is where you get into this problem here.
Only if they are legal resident aliens can you find a list to
sort of say, ``Wait a minute, you haven't naturalized.''
Mr. Coble. Well, let me hear from Ms. Sanchez, if she
knows.
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Coble, in our State of California, when
you fill out the affidavit, and it is an affidavit you fill
out, you are asked if you are a citizen. If you check the box
that you are a citizen, then you continue to fill out the form.
If you check the box that you are not a citizen, it says
plainly there, ``Please don't register to vote. You are not
allowed to vote.''
So it also says on there with respect to penalties should
you fill out the affidavit incorrectly or falsify it.
It also, by the way, does ask for country where you were
born--USA or Mexico or Italy or whatever country--in reference
to, I think, a misstatement that Mr. Bilbray made.
Mr. Coble. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Cohen will close out our
questions. We only have minutes before the vote. And then we
will take a short recess and promptly reconvene with the second
panel. All other questions to any of the witnesses will be
submitted in writing.
Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. Delahunt. I see Mr. King is getting prepared to respond
to my question.
I hate to disappoint you, Steve, but I am going to just
simply point out, in response to a question by the Ranking
Member, that the gentlelady from California is absolutely
correct. There does exist in the Federal statutes a penalty for
unlawful voters and I would refer my colleagues to the U.S.
code at section 1227(A)(6), and a capital letter A, and let me
read it into the record so there is no doubt as to the accuracy
of a statement by Congresswoman Sanchez.
``Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal,
State or local constitutional provision, statute ordinance or
regulation is deportable.'' So there is a sanction on the books
today, and there should not be any doubt about that.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from----
Mr. Conyers. Tennessee.
Mr. Delahunt [continuing]. Tennessee, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question really would go to Senator Cardin, and in the
interest of time and in honor of Bud Collyer and ``Beat the
Clock,'' I will pass.
Mr. Smith. The Chairman was yielding to me and I was going
to yield to Representative Forbes if he has a question, and if
not, we will go vote.
Mr. Forbes. I will yield any time.
Mr. Conyers. Let's have a brief recess.
We thank the panel.
All questions should be submitted that have not been
sufficiently asked by our Committee.
And we stand in recess until immediately after the votes on
the floor.
[Recess.]
Mr. Conyers. The Committee will come to order.
We continue our panel, the second one for the afternoon,
protecting the right to vote. And we are honored to have Donna
Brazile, Eve Sandberg, Ralph Neas and John Fund.
I would like to begin with the president and CEO of the
People For the American Way. If you would get our second panel
under way.
And I take notice that his mother is in the audience today
monitoring his conduct and presentation. [Laughter.]
TESTIMONY OF RALPH G. NEAS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PEOPLE FOR THE
AMERICAN WAY
Mr. Neas. Actually, Mr. Chairman, after all the times I
have had an opportunity to appear before you and Chairman Smith
and former Chairman Sensenbrenner, I know from past experience
the best thing I could do is to protect myself by bringing my
mother with me. So she is here. [Laughter.]
May stop all questions from everybody.
Mr. Chairman, Representative Smith and distinguished
Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am
Ralph Neas, president of People For, and I want to commend you,
Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for focusing
attention on the most important domestic issue facing the
Nation.
I make this statement because I believe the right to vote
is the bedrock of our democracy. And by the way, I just saw
Chairman Watt come in here, and I haven't seen Mr.
Sensenbrenner, but the work of you all on the Voting Rights Act
extension last year was absolutely spectacular and just want to
thank you all.
Indeed, everything in our democracy ultimately depends on
the integrity of our election system. With more than 1 million
members and supporters, People For the American Way and our
sister foundation are committed to ensuring that the right to
vote is guaranteed to all eligible voters and that this right
is secure.
Allow me to say a word about our comprehensive election
reform and protection efforts. People For has established a
democracy campaign which comprises all of our voting rights
efforts, both on the State and local level, through voter
registration, legislative grassroots litigation and GOTV
efforts. This campaign also incorporates our leadership efforts
in the Election Protection Coalition, our nonpartisan voter
protection effort that our partner organization, our
foundation, co-founded with our allies in response to the
debacle of the 2000 presidential election.
Mr. Chairman, the need to enact election reform is urgent.
In 2008, this Nation will choose a new president, and once
again voters will determine control of both chambers of
Congress. All Americans deserve open, fair elections in which
their votes will be cast and counted as they intended.
In order to give election officials time to implement
election reform, Congress must pass the needed legislation in a
matter of months and provide adequate funding to put those
reforms in place.
In the aftermath of the 2000 elections, Caltech and MIT
issued a joint study estimating that some 4 million Americans
were disenfranchised in 2000. Citizens were denied the right to
cast their vote or to have their vote counted by a range of
problems, including faulty equipment, poorly designed ballots
and untrained poll workers, as well as voter intimidation and
suppression efforts and other illegal action.
These problems have persisted through the past several
elections as evidenced in the report that you, Mr. Chairman,
prepared regarding the 2004 presidential election in Ohio.
As we know, the complexity and sophistication of voter
intimidation and suppression tactics have grown with each
election, while problems with faulty voting technology have
also proliferated.
In light of these problems, Mr. Chairman, I salute you for
taking the leadership with Congressman Rahm Emanuel in the
introduction of the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation
Prevention Act of 2007, along with Representatives Becerra,
Honda, Ellison and Holt. People For is firmly committed to
helping you pass this bill in the House and help Senator Barack
Obama's bill in the Senate.
I would like to discuss for a minute or two some of the
problems that People For Foundation addressed during our
election protection campaign in the 2006 elections and
demonstrate how your legislation will help us remove such
barriers to the ballot box in protecting the voting rights of
every citizen.
While current Federal law provides criminal penalties for
some voter suppression and intimidation practices, the newest
wave of these reprehensible tactics may not be covered,
including disinformation campaigns and harassing robo calls. We
have previously heard about the letters in Orange County and
the robo calls and flyers in Maryland and Virginia, so let me
mention a few others.
Through our program, People For responded to additional
complaints around the country, including in Pima County,
Arizona, where we received several reports that a group of
people claiming to be with the United States Constitution
Enforcement appeared at various voting locations under the
pretext of preventing illegal immigrants from voting
fraudulently. In reality, these actions were intended to
intimidate Latino voters.
In Dona Ana County, New Mexico, a voter received several
campaign phone calls telling them to vote at a polling place
that did not exist. Further, in several Virginia counties,
Democratic voters received phone calls from purported election
officials advising that they should not vote on Election Day
and they would be prosecuted if they showed up at the polls.
Unfortunately, these are typical complaints among the thousands
that the Election Protection Coalition has received over the
past three Federal elections.
We are extremely appreciative of the Chairman's efforts to
put an end to such widespread abuse, yet at the same time we
must diligently protect voter rights once they get to the voter
booth. If voters do not have confidence in the electoral
process, how can we encourage voters to show up at the polls.
Lack of voter confidence in the voting process has
effectively become another suppression tactic, leading people
to stay away from the polls because they do not believe their
votes will count. Perhaps last year's most egregious example of
voter problems at the polls was the travesty that took place in
Florida's 13th Congressional District. In the November
election, voters in Sarasota County used paperless, unauditable
electronic voting machines in the race to succeed Congresswoman
Katherine Harris. The county's voting machines failed to
register a vote for approximately 18,000 voters.
Mr. Chairman, I have got only about a minute to go. Would
that be okay, about a minute, Mr. Chairman? I can finish in a
minute.
Mr. Conyers. I haven't ever granted anyone a minute
overtime.
Mr. Neas. Even with my mother here? [Laughter.]
Mr. Conyers. All right, 30 seconds. [Laughter.]
Mr. Neas. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity
to testify and for your steadfast commitment to addressing the
compelling issue of election reform. While I feel that the
momentum for comprehensive election reform is growing, I fear
that State election officials may not have the time and money
to successfully implement these new laws.
As you know, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., often
used the phrase, ``the urgency of now.'' That phrase is so
relevant, and we feel the urgency of now with regard to
election reform. The clock is ticking. We must not let time run
out.
We are firmly committed to working with Members of Congress
and our coalition allies to ensure that electoral reform
becomes law in time to protect the integrity and fairness of
the 2008 elections. Nothing less than the heart and soul of
democracy is at stake.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ralph G. Neas
Chairman Conyers, Representative Smith and distinguished members,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Ralph G.
Neas, and I am President of People For the American Way and People For
the American Way Foundation. I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing, and for focusing attention on critically
important issues facing the nation.
The right to vote is the bedrock of our democracy. People For the
American Way and our sister Foundation are committed to ensuring that
this right is guaranteed to all eligible voters and is secure. People
For the American Way is a national, nonprofit social justice
organization with more than one million members and supporters, and
more than two a quarter century of commitment to nonpartisan civic
participation efforts. Since our founding by Norman Lear, Barbara
Jordan, and other civic, religious, business and civil rights leaders,
People For the American Way and its Foundation have urged Americans to
engage in civic participation, and we have sought to empower those who
have been traditionally underrepresented at the polls, including young
voters and people of color.
Allow me to say a word about our comprehensive election reform and
protection efforts. PFAW has established the Democracy Campaign, which
comprises all of our voting rights efforts both on the state and
national level, through voter registration, legislative, grassroots,
litigation and GOTV efforts. This campaign also incorporates our
leadership efforts in the Election Protection Coalition, a non-partisan
voter protection effort that our partner organization, People For the
American Way Foundation, co-founded with its allies in response to the
debacle of the 2000 Presidential Election. Our efforts encompass
advocacy on both state and federal legislation, the protection of
voting rights through the judicial system, and year-around work with
election officials to protect the rights of voters before, on and after
Election Day.
Mr. Chairman, the need to enact election reform is urgent. In 2008,
this nation will choose a new president, and once again voters will
determine control of both chambers of Congress. Turnout is expected to
be strong, and the stakes could not be higher. All Americans deserve
open, fair elections in which their votes will be cast and counted as
they intended.
Time is short. In order to give election officials time to
implement election reform, Congress must pass the needed legislation in
a matter of months--and provide adequate funding to put those reforms
in place. Political realities would make it all but impossible to pass
reform legislation in a presidential election year, and such reform
would come too late for timely implementation.
The need is clear. Evidence of persistent problems in our election
systems is abundant.
In the aftermath of the election fiasco in Florida in 2000, Caltech
and MIT issued a joint study estimating that some four million
Americans were disenfranchised. Citizens were denied the right to cast
a vote--or to have their vote counted--by a range of problems,
including faulty equipment, poorly designed ballots, and untrained poll
workers, as well as voter intimidation and suppression efforts and
other illegal action.
These problems have persisted through the past several elections,
as evidenced in the report that you, Chairman Conyers, prepared
regarding the 2004 presidential election in Ohio.
The vast majority of problems during the past six years resulted
from faulty election administration. Voter participation, normally
lower in midterm elections than in presidential years, was spurred in
2006 by close races that revolved around issues such as the war in
Iraq; the exposure of unethical behavior in Congress, and the declining
national economy. The unexpectedly strong turnout in some states
exposed the lack of preparation by many election officials. The massive
voting problems that resulted included failed absentee ballot
distribution, failed processing of voter registration applications
resulting in inadequate voter registration lists, improper
interpretation of registration requirements, a lack of adequate
resources and trained staff at polling places, and more.
The complexity and sophistication of voter intimidation and
suppression tactics has grown, and problems with faulty voting
technology have proliferated. Make no mistake. The threats to democracy
are just as real today as they were half a century ago. The bad old
days of poll taxes and literacy tests are behind us, but new forms of
intimidation and suppression have taken their place. With the enactment
and recent reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and with
subsequent legal decisions that have clarified and strengthened a
citizen's constitutional right to be free from intimidation and
unnecessary barriers at the voting booth, it's hard to believe we are
here today discussing coordinated suppression campaigns. But there you
have it.
Mr. Chairman, I salute you and Representative Emanuel in the
introduction of the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation
Prevention Act of 2007, along with Representatives Xavier Becerra, Mike
Honda, Keith Ellison and Rush Holt. PFAW is firmly committed to helping
you pass this bill in the House, along with and Senator Barack Obama's
bill in the Senate. I'd like to discuss some of the problems that PFAWF
addressed during our Election Protection campaign in the 2006
elections, and demonstrate how your legislation will help us remove
such barriers to the ballot box and protect the voting rights of every
citizen.
While current federal law provides criminal penalties for some
voter suppression and intimidation practices, the newest wave of such
tactics may not be covered. Federal law may not currently criminalize
all the deceptive practices we saw in the 2006 elections, including
disinformation campaigns and harassing robocalls. Such practices try to
deceive voters into changing their votes, or voting on the wrong day,
or by sending them to the wrong polling place. Some schemes attempt to
convince citizens that voting will be difficult or even dangerous, or
simply annoy them so much that they stay home from the polls in disgust
at the whole process.
The 2006 elections provided prime examples of these new forms of
suppression techniques, and dirty tricks were as pervasive and brazen
as ever. In Orange County, California, a Congressional candidate sent
out letters in Spanish to approximately 14,000 Hispanic registered
voters, warning it was a crime for immigrants to vote in federal
elections, and threatening voters that their citizenship status would
be checked against a federal database. Of course, immigrants who are
naturalized citizens have as much right to vote as any other citizen,
and no such database is used in elections. The letters were outright
lies.
In Maryland, fliers were handed out in Prince Georges County and
predominantly African American neighborhoods with the heading
``Democratic Sample Ballot.'' The fliers used unauthorized photos of
Democrat Kweise Mfume, along with the names of the Republican
candidates for Senator and Governor, falsely implying an endorsement.
In Virginia, voters received recorded ``robocalls,'' sometimes late
at night, which falsely stated that the recipient of the call was
registered in another state and would face criminal charges if he came
to the polls.
People For the American Way responded to additional complaints
around the country through our Election Protection coalition. In Pima
County, Arizona, we received several reports that a group of
people,claiming to be with the ``United States Constitution Enforcement
(USCE), ``appeared at various polling locations under the pretext of
preventing illegal immigrants from voting fraudulently. In reality,
these actions were intended to intimidate Latino voters.
In Dona Ana County, New Mexico a voter received several campaign
phone calls telling her to vote at a polling place that didn't exist.
Further, in Accomack and Northampton Counties in Virginia, Democratic
voters received phone calls from purported election officials advising
that they shouldn't need to vote on Election Day and that they'd be
prosecuted if they showed up at the polls. Unfortunately, these are
typical complaints that PFAWF and the Election Protection Coalition
have received for the past three federal elections.
We are extremely appreciative of the Chairman's efforts to put an
end to such widespread abuse. At the same time, we must be diligent
about protecting voters' rights once they get to the voting booth. If
voters don't have the confidence in the electoral process, how can we
encourage voters to show up at the polls? Lack of voter confidence in
the voting process has effectively become another suppression tactic,
leading people to stay away from the polls because they don't believe
their votes will count.
People For the American Way Foundation's Election Protection work
exposed many problems related to voter registration, provisional
ballots and faulty voting technology. Inadequate statewide voter
registration databases and the implementation of burdensome third-party
registration requirements led to countless voters being challenged and
forced to vote on provisional ballots--or at times, being denied the
right to vote to outright. Overly restrictive voter identification and
registration laws implemented in states across the country are
obstructing Americans' ability to register and to vote. Under the guise
of limiting fraud--of which there is little evidence--state
legislatures have passed new laws saddling voter registration
organizations with regulations that are frivolous, onerous, or both.
Voters are continually denied the right to vote, even by
provisional ballot, by inadequately trained poll workers. Election
Protection volunteers were usually able to remedy these situations, but
it is a continuing problem that must be addressed.
The use of non-secure and unauditable voting technology is also
particularly troubling. As a result of the 2006 HAVA deadlines, the
widespread replacement of older voter technology meant more voters and
poll workers throughout the nation used new voting systems in 2006 than
in any previous election. With so many counties using new voting
systems for the first time, the number of voting machine problems
increased dramatically over 2004. In fact, complaints about voting
machines outnumbered all other complaints reported to Election
Protection, and voters in more than 35 states reported various problems
related to voting machines.
Perhaps the most egregious example was the fiasco that took place
in Sarasota County, Florida. In the November election, Sarasota County
used paperless, unauditable electronic voting machines in the race to
succeed Katherine Harris in Florida's 13th Congressional district. The
county's voting machines failed to register a vote for approximately
18,000 voters in that race--more than one out of every seven voters who
attempted to vote on the machines. Even though almost 15 percent of the
voters in Sarasota County saw their votes disappear in this election,
the state certified the winner by a margin of only 369 votes--less than
0.2 percent of the total vote.
These 18,000 Sarasota County citizens whose votes are missing put a
human face on the substantial flaws that remain in our election system,
and should encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to pass
legislation with adequate funding in time for the upcoming 2008
Presidential Election. PFAW strongly believes that it is paramount for
Congress move to pass legislation that will require the use of secure
systems that provide verifiable, auditable, and accessible voting. The
status quo is not acceptable.
In addition to the legislation already introduced by the chairman,
PFAW has supported other election reform legislation in the past, and
we look forward to pending re-introductions of these important bills.
PFAW supported the Chairman's Voting Opportunity and Technology
Enhancement Rights Act of 2005, which takes a comprehensive approach to
addressing election reform problems, and we will continue to support
the Chair should he move forward with similar legislation in this
Congress.
PFAW also looks forward to supporting an updated version of
Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones's election reform bill, the Count
Every Vote Act of 2005 (CEVA), which takes a similar comprehensive
approach. While these comprehensive bills address a range of necessary
voting reforms, PFAW is equally supportive of more focused proposals
such as Congressman Rush Holt's bill, the Voter Confidence and
Increased Accessibility Act of 2007, H.R. 811.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and
for your steadfast commitment to addressing the urgent issue of
election reform. I feel that with the support of congressional leaders
such as yourself, the necessary momentum is growing to put reforms in
place in time for the 2008 elections.
As you know, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. often used the
phrase, ``The urgency of now.'' At People For the American Way, we feel
the urgency of now with regard to election reform. The clock is
ticking, and we promise we will do all we can to advance the cause of
timely election reform. We are firmly committed to working with Members
of Congress and its coalition allies to ensuring that electoral reform
is a priority.
Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir.
Donna Brazile is well-known for her career on Capitol Hill.
She worked for the Congress, she has worked in the civil rights
movement. She is now teaching at a college and is writing
extensively. And we welcome her for her comments on a subject
to which she has been committed across the years.
TESTIMONY OF DONNA L. BRAZILE, CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE'S VOTING RIGHTS INSTITUTE, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR,
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Ms. Brazile. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this
Committee. It is a great honor to be here and to be on this
side of the table and not having to prepare all of the
materials that I know that goes into the work of the staff.
I am here on behalf of the Democratic National Committee's
Voting Rights Institute, which was founded in 2001 following
the chaotic election in Florida to help every American
participate in the political process.
Like Ralph Neas, I want to thank this Committee for guiding
and helping to steer through the Congress the Fannie Lou Hamer,
Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Reauthorization
and Amendments Act of 2006. Forty-two years after the heroic
marchers tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge only to be met
with ugly violence, we continue to celebrate their courage and
honor what they marched for.
That says a lot about our country that we own up to our
struggles, that we acknowledge we haven't always done what we
should, and that we commit ourselves to press ahead and to move
forward to remove any new impediment of vestiges of a previous
era that prevented eligible citizens from participating in the
electoral process.
Mr. Chairman, after the 2000 election, we committed
ourselves at the Democratic National Committee to eliminate any
problems we saw at the ballot box and to recruit lawyers and
volunteers to assist us in educating Americans of their right
to vote.
In the process, during the last political cycle, we heard
from 30,000 Americans who needed our assistance and guidance in
locating their polling places, understanding their right to
vote by absentee ballot, early voting or provisional ballots.
Many voters also called to express their concerns about voting
with new technology, identification requirements and knowing
whether or not their votes would be counted.
The history of racial discrimination at the ballot box is
long and it is appalling. Our electoral system is rife with
problems, problems that can be solved and eliminated with
proper training of election administrators, proper funding to
educate eligible citizens on their right to vote and the
elimination of barriers that continue to impede citizens'
involvement in the electoral arena.
I fully support H.R. 1281 and its companion bill in the
Senate, because I believe this legislation, if enacted and
implemented properly, will eliminate both partisan tactics that
the press turn out, as well as some of the structural barriers
that eliminate people from the voter rolls right before the
election.
We learned in our own experience in Ohio, following the
2004 presidential election where we conducted a very
comprehensive study, that 23 percent of all citizens in that
State (44 percent of African-American voters in Ohio) waited
more than 20 minutes to vote; 3 percent had to leave the
polling place because of long lines; 2 percent had to go to
more than one polling site before finding the correct location;
6 percent of all voters (16 percent of African-Americans)
reported experiencing some sort of intimidation at the polls;
and 2 percent of all voters (4 percent of African-Americans)
had trouble getting their absentee ballot or their registration
status challenged at the polls.
Even with the Help America Vote Act, which was supposed to
fully eliminate some of our problems, we saw problems across
the board in the last electoral cycle. Congressman Cardin,
Senator Obama and many others pointed out some of these
problems, but let me just also highlight others.
Registered voters in Virginia, Mr. Scott's home State,
received automated phone calls falsely claiming that voters in
that State were removed from voter registration rolls and
should not show up. Citizens were warned that if they showed at
the polls, they would be arrested.
In Arizona, Latino voters were confronted by intimidating
gunmen who provided false information about the qualifications
for voting in an effort to prevent eligible citizens from
participating.
And in 2006, we also had voters in Ohio and in Pennsylvania
who received flyers telling them to vote on Wednesday, the day
after election. Milwaukee voters received flyers from a
fictitious Milwaukee Black Voter League warning them if they
ever voted before that year, if they hadn't paid their child
support or if anyone in their family had ever been convicted of
anything, they should not show up at the polls.
Students at Prairie View College in Texas were threatened
with a $10,000 fine or 10 years in prison if they registered to
vote at school, despite having the same rights as any other
Prairie View resident to participate. Students at colleges and
universities across the country complained that they had
difficulty in casting their ballots on campus and getting their
absentee ballots on time.
These deceptive tactics are not new. They have become part
of the political landscape and it is time that we outlaw them.
Under the guise of protecting against voter fraud, we now are
prepared to wage an even greater fraud by deliberately blocking
eligible citizens from voting.
The aggressive proponents of so-called ballot security
programs have played a significant role in voter suppression,
sending official-looking personnel, some of whom are off duty
police officers, to polling places using misinformation and
fear campaigns to challenge and intimidate minority voters.
These intimidating and disenfranchising tactics have been
employed by a wide range of political operatives, many of whom
are prominent in their own political parties, and they, of
course, have gotten away with it.
Mr. Chairman, I want to submit for the record my testimony
along with some of the reports on some of the ballot security
programs and measures that have been instituted across the
country and would hope that this Committee look into these
problems so that we can eliminate them from further use in
future elections.
Mr. Conyers. Without objection, we will accept those into
the record.
[Note: A report entitled Report by the Center for Voting
Rights & Protection, submitted by Ms. Brazile, is not reprinted
here but a copy has been retained in the official Committee
hearing record. This report may also be found at http://
www.votelaw.com/blog/blogdocs/
GOP_Ballot_Security_Programs.pdf.]
Ms. Brazile. Mr. Chairman, I don't have my mother with me--
she is here with me in spirit--but I just want to say in
closing, we have to find ways to clean up our electoral system.
We don't have national elections; we have 51 elections managed
and operated by 13,000 municipalities, countless local
government authorities and volunteers. So our system is rife
with problems, rife with misinformation that is often given
out.
As you well know, Mr. Chairman, there are 21 so-called
swing States with margin of victories that are so narrow that
these sort of tactics can change the entire outcome of an
election.
So the continuing problems faced by the voters at the polls
demand action, they demand results, and I believe H.R. 1281
will address some of these practices and finally help us clean
up our electoral cycle so that we can have in this Nation the
gold standard of elections that most other nations look to us
to provide.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions
and your comments later.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brazile follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donna L. Brazile
Mr. Chairman, members of this Committee, my name is Donna Brazile
and I am the Chair of the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights
Institute (VRI) and a member of the its Rules and Bylaws Committee. I'm
honored to be here on behalf of Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the
Democratic National Committee (DNC).
Many thanks for giving me this opportunity to present my testimony
to this Committee and thank you for your leadership in the 109th
Congress in guiding the reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
While the right to vote is our most precious right and the
cornerstone of our democracy, our government policies often fail to
encourage voting, and by failing to adopt the principle that voter
participation is encouraged and facilitated, the election process has
been left open to discrimination, intimidation of those who are new to
the process, fraud and abuse.
Soon after the tragic death of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I
was inspired to service by committing myself to helping others register
and vote. Although I was only nine years old at the time, I became
excited about the opportunity to help register people in my
neighborhood to vote by simply telling them they now had ``new rights
on the books'' that would allow Black people to vote. Day after day, I
would ride my bicycle all around Kenner, Louisiana--a suburb of New
Orleans to inform people of their moral obligation to vote. I told them
that while many of us were too young to march for voting rights, we
needed them to register and vote in order to help improve conditions in
our neighborhood.
You see, one of the local leaders running for City Council had
promised to build a playground in our area and that news gave me hope--
hope that one day we could play basketball inside because it rained
just about every day.
Today, after seven presidential, over fifty congressional and
numerous state and local campaigns later, I am still out here urging
people to register to vote, to get involved and to use their new
political power to improve conditions in their communities. But, I must
tell you, I am worried. I am troubled by what I have seen with my own
eyes and what I have witnessed repeatedly in several major national
elections--the deliberate attempt to disenfranchise and discourage
people from exercising their right to participate in the political
process.
The rise in voter harassment and voter intimidation is a direct
result of some political operatives--often with the blessing of their
political leaders trying to gain an electoral advantage at the ballot
box. In fact, they call it ballot security--a practice that according
to a report written by Rice University's Professor Chandler Davidson
and others on behalf of the Center for Voting Rights and Protection--
has its origins in the old ``Jim Crow systems.''
This practice of discouraging people from voting, from schemes that
misinform or challenge the electoral status of eligible citizens to
participate should be outlawed in this nation.
There is no place in our democracy for election practices that
target citizens based on the color of their skin or their partisan
affiliation. It's wrong and it should be outlawed.
There is no place in our democracy for last minute attempts to
purge eligible citizens just because they may vote for your opponent.
It's wrong and it should be outlawed.
There is no place for off duty, uniformed policemen setting up road
blocks near polling sites that could impede the ability of eligible,
registered citizens to cast their ballots. It's wrong and it should be
outlawed.
There is no place in our democracy for political operatives posing
as reporters with cameras outside of polling places in order to
intimidate voters prior to entering their precincts. It's wrong and it
should be outlawed.
There's no place in our democracy for demanding multiple forms of
id when the law only requires one--or none. It's wrong and it should be
outlawed.
There is no place in our democracy for political parties to fund
third party groups who spend their resources by putting out
misinformation on precinct locations--or for sending out threatening
information concerning back rent payment, child support or even telling
voters that Election Day has been moved to the following Tuesday. It's
wrong and should be outlawed.
Throughout my career spanning many political campaigns and numerous
elections at all levels, I have advocated the need for meaningful and
effective election reform, specifically, the essential need to restore
citizens' confidence in the electoral process and the integrity of our
voting systems through the adoption of enforceable regulations that
will not only reduce fraud, but will also protect the right of all
Americans to vote free of harassment and intimidation and to ensure
that all votes cast are properly counted.
In signing the original Voting Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson
remarked that ``voting is the lifeblood of our democracy.'' The core of
our democracy is premised upon our duty to do everything in our power
to make voting secure, open, transparent and easier for citizens to
participate. No one should have to pay a fee or incur hardship in order
to exercise the right to vote.
The Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute (VRI)
was created in the aftermath of the chaotic 2000 Presidential election
to educate citizens on their right to vote and to help restore voters'
confidence in our electoral system. As Democrats, we believe that every
eligible voter should be encouraged to participate in the political
process and that their right to vote should be protected. We condemn
every act of voter intimidation and voter harassment.
This past weekend, we were reminded of the continued struggle to
fulfill the promise of our democracy, when civil rights, community and
nationally recognized political leaders gathered in Selma, Alabama to
commemorate the 42nd anniversary of Bloody Sunday, a day when hundreds
of protesters fighting for civil rights started to march from Selma to
Montgomery, but only got as far as the Edmund Pettus Bridge when they
were met with the unprovoked brutal force of state and local law
enforcement. This march and two others that followed shortly after led
to the passage of the single most important piece of civil rights
legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In the 42 years since the passage of this historic legislation,
this country has seen much progress in the expression of our democracy.
It is estimated that in the first decade alone, following the Voting
Rights Act, more than 20 million new voters were added to the rolls.
The number of minority elected officials at the state and federal level
has increased significantly. Prior to the passage of the voting rights
act, there were only 3 African American members of Congress; today
there are 43. In the reauthorization and extensions, the Voting Rights
Act was strengthened and expanded to provide language assistance to
certain communities. This in turn has helped voters to participate in a
meaningful way in our democracy.
When President Bush signed the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks,
Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendments Act of
2006, surrounded by a bi-partisan group of lawmakers who worked
collegially, he pledged that his administration would ``vigorously
enforce the provisions of this law, and . . . will defend it in
court.'' We intend to hold not only this President and Congress but
also future Presidents accountable to ensure that our basic rights are
protected and enforced.
Despite considerable efforts and progress in recent decades, it is
undeniable that storm clouds of voter intimidation still loom today.
This is evidenced by the deliberate strategic efforts to suppress and
harass eligible citizens from voting, especially youth and people of
color.
In the weeks leading up to the 2004 presidential election, the VRI
heard numerous reports from citizens claiming that they no longer were
on the voter rolls and had to cast provisional ballots or their voting
precinct had changed and they were worried that they could not get to
the right polling station. Upon hearing some of these reports, I
traveled to numerous states including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri,
Florida and Ohio to learn firsthand what was happening and to ensure
our voter education and protection program was providing some
assistance to those who worried that their eligibility would be
questioned or challenged. Still we heard problems and decided to figure
out exactly what happened.
We conducted a comprehensive investigative study to determine the
nature and prevalence of the widely reported problems surrounding the
2004 Presidential Election in the state of Ohio. Very simply, we wanted
to know: what was going on and what did voters experience when they
went to cast their ballots? While Ohio may have experienced the most
extreme and widespread problems, it can be viewed as a microcosm for
what happened in numerous states. The types of problems reported in
Ohio were reported in other states across the country. Mr. Chairman, I
have attached a copy of this study for your review.
In surveys conducted for the DNC study, over half of all African
American voters in Ohio in 2004 reported that they encountered some
obstacles to voting at the polls. Statewide, African American voters
reported waiting an average of 52 minutes to cast a ballot. White
voters waited an average of just 18 minutes. African Americans were 20%
more likely than white voters to be required to vote by provisional
ballot, accounting for 35% of all provisional ballots in the state.
Three-quarters of provisional ballots were counted overall in the
state, but officials counted only two-thirds of the provisional ballots
cast in Cuyahoga County [the city of Cleveland), a county with one of
the highest concentrations of African Americans in the state.
Identification requirements were illegally administered and the
effects varied significantly by race. Only voters who registered by
mail and voters who did not provide identification on the registration
form were legally required to produce ID, which accounts for less than
7% of the 2004 Ohio electorate. Fully 61% of male African American
voters were asked for ID, and overall, African American voters were 47%
more likely to be required to show identification than white voters.
These racial differences hold even when controlling for residential
mobility.
African Americans were four times more likely than white voters to
have their registration status changed at the polls, arriving to find
that their names had either been purged or never added. African
Americans were three times more likely to experience voter intimidation
than white voters, including misinformation campaigns that threatened
arrest and up to 10 years in jail if a person who had ever been
arrested, had a family member arrested, or had an unpaid parking ticket
tried to vote.
No one should wait for an hour to vote, or be illegally asked to
produce ID, or have to cast a provisional ballot without cause. But
those precincts where voters have been forced to wait in line for hours
in order to vote have historically been located in neighborhoods
occupied by large numbers of poor people, people of color and young
people. While many decisions, ranging from where to place polling
sites, training election day workers and accessibility to public
transportation, are left to local and state officials, it's imperative
that we find ways to outlaw all forms of discrimination in the process
of making these important decisions.
In 2000, we heard of, and in some cases witnessed, various illegal
schemes that prevented tens of thousands from voting and discouraged
many more with attempts to disenfranchise citizens from voting.
Prior to Election Day, the former Secretary of State of Florida
authorized the purging of citizens--primarily African-American and
Latino voters. Up to 30 percent of those purged were located in
predominantly Democratic and minority voter precincts. My sister who
resided in Seminole county (Orlando, Florida) called me early on
Election Day and asked, ``How many forms of I.D. do I need to vote?''
My simple answer was to tell her only one. Unfortunately on that day,
Demetria had to produce not one, nor two, but three forms of ID in
order to vote.
In spite of the heightened attention that voter disenfranchisement
has received since the 2004 election, we continue to see disturbing
illegal voter suppression campaigns. The reality is that voter ID laws
that go beyond the requirements of HAVA disenfranchise many lawfully
registered voters. And, they do so in a discriminatory fashion,
disproportionately undermining the voting rights of seniors, low-income
citizens, minorities, young people and people who live in urban and
rural areas. Voting laws are unevenly and often improperly enforced by
election officials.
According to the Cuyahoga Election Review Panel Interim Report
issued on June 14, 2006, there was a disparity in Ohio between those
who were asked for identification: 35 percent of Clevelanders said they
were asked for ID as opposed to 16 percent of suburban residents, and
31 percent of African American voters were required to present ID in
contrast to 18 percent of white voters. These findings mirror those of
the DNC's report on the 2004 election in Ohio. The Cuyahoga report can
be found at http://www.cuyahogavoting.org/CERP--Final--Report--
20060720.pdf.
In October of 2006, the campaign of a Republican candidate for the
47th Congressional District of California sent thousands of
intimidating letters written in Spanish to voters with Hispanic
surnames. These letters advised that immigrants could not vote and
could be deported for doing so. The letters deliberately concealed the
fact that immigrants who become naturalized citizens can vote just like
any other citizen.
In Maryland, just days before the 2006 general election, copies of
the Election Day manual for the Maryland Republican Party were
obtained; in that manual, Republican Party workers were given false
information about voters' rights, were told systematically to challenge
voters and were advised to threaten election judges with jail time. On
Election Day in Maryland, flyers were distributed in Prince George's
County, by the Ehrlich/Steele Republican campaign, falsely stating that
African American elected officials had endorsed the Republican
candidates for U.S. Senate and for Governor and misleading voters about
the party affiliation of those candidates.
Registered voters in Virginia and Colorado received automated phone
calls falsely claiming they were removed from the voter registration
rolls. Citizens were then warned that if they showed up at the polls
they would be arrested. In Arizona, Latino voters were confronted by
intimidating gunmen who provided false information about the
qualifications for voting in an effort to prevent eligible voters from
participating.
These tactics are not new.
In 2004 voters from Ohio to Pennsylvania received fliers telling
them to vote on Wednesday, the day after the election. Milwaukee voters
received a flier from the fictitious ``Milwaukee Black Voters League''
warning them that if they had ever voted before that year, if they
didn't pay their child support or if ``anyone in your family has ever
been convicted of anything'' and the voter cast a ballot that voter
will lose his/her children and go to jail for 10 years. Students at
Prairie View A&M University were threatened with a $10,000 fine or 10
years in prison if they registered to vote at school, despite having
the same rights as any other Prairie View resident to participate.
Students at colleges and Universities across the country were forced to
navigate an already difficult election administration system in the
face of similar deliberate deception.
For years, voters in Baltimore and my home state Louisiana have
been subject to similar deceit and misinformation. As I mentioned
before, nearly all of these tactics are focused on traditionally
disenfranchised voters. The very Americans the Voting Rights Act is
committed to protecting are being removed from the system through
cynicism, deceit and misinformation.
The continuing problems faced by voters at the polls demand
additional election reform measures, including steps aimed at
addressing the kind of deceptive practices, specifically intended to
intimidate voters that we witnessed in the 2006 elections. HR 1281, the
proposed Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of
2007, would represent a great step forward in outlawing theses kinds of
abhorrent practices while protecting and respecting the rights of free
political discourse protected by the First Amendment. We commend you,
Mr. Chairman, and the co-sponsors of this important legislation for
confronting head on the type of intimidating tactics we witnessed last
fall and for carefully crafting these measures to put an end to them.
We cannot allow another election cycle to go by where we witness
deliberate efforts to subvert the will of voters to vote for their
candidate of choice.
This necessary legislation will not only provide the tools to go
after those who want to manipulate election results but will provide
the necessary framework to provide voters with the correct information
from a trusted source.
The United States has never committed itself to policies of full
voter participation. The failure of that commitment has made it easier
for discriminatory practices that selectively disenfranchise certain
citizens, in order to give a greater voice to remaining citizens. Until
participation by all eligible voters is our goal, we will leave
ourselves open to manipulation, election scandal and suppression of
selected groups because we are not judging those policies against a
principle that favors participation.
The United States of America must lead by example. While the US
encourages other nations to adopt broad democratic principles and
reform, we need to make a basic policy decision that it is in the best
interest of our democratic form of government to encourage all eligible
citizens to register and vote. We know that election laws, particularly
in some states, emphasize voting prevention, rather than encouraging
the participation of all citizens who have that right. That is one
reason why voter participation in the United States is lower than that
in many other leading democracies. By contrast, election participation
in six states that provide same-day voter registration--Idaho, Maine,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Wyoming--have reported higher
levels of participation with little or no reported election fraud.
The failure to commit to full participation continues to allow
states and localities to abrogate the constitutional guarantees of
democracy and selectively decide who has an easier and who has a harder
time voting.
Aggressive proponents of ``ballot security'' programs have played a
significant role in voter suppression, sending ``official looking''
personnel (some of whom are off-duty police officers) to polling
places, using misinformation and fear campaigns to challenge and
intimidate minority voters. These intimidating and disfranchising
tactics have been employed by a wide range of Republicans, many of whom
are prominent professionals and high official standing within the
Republican Party. Legislation requiring voter ID only assists these
reprehensible tactics.
Proposed and existing voter ID laws make voting more difficult for
no compelling reason. The fact is that all voters, in all states, have
to show identification in order to register to vote. Under the federal
Help America Vote Act (``HAVA''), all states require first time voters
who do not present ID when they register to vote to show it when they
come to the polls to vote. Thus, it is given that voters who register
by mail and those who are registered in door-to-door voter drives must
show ID when they arrive at the polls to vote. The reality is that
voter ID laws that go beyond the requirements of HAVA disenfranchise
many lawfully registered voters. And, they do so in a discriminatory
fashion, disproportionately undermining the voting rights of seniors,
low-income citizens, minorities, young people and people who live in
urban and rural areas. Voting laws are unevenly and often improperly
enforced by election officials.
closing recommendations on the need for election reform
Let me conclude with some of the recommendations recently adopted
at the winter meeting of the DNC to ensure a fair, transparent and
error free election. We support legislation and regulation that
mandates transparent election administration and that would require
voter registration lists mandated under the Help America Vote Act be
carefully monitored to ensure they include all voters who are duly
registered and that the strongest possible protections are implemented
which prevent voters from unlawful purges;
We also support legislation and regulations that entitle any voters
who cast provisional ballots in the 2008 federal elections to have
these ballots counted in an equitable and inclusive manner, with a
presumption in favor of validity and a clear mandate that provisional
ballots shall be counted in the most generous possible manner. We
believe that adequate funds should be made available under HAVA for
states to effectively and equally administer the 2008 general election.
Steps toward this goal would include the equitable distribution of
voting equipment and supplies to all polling places and brief and
equivalent wait times for all voters regardless of where they live,
their race or socioeconomic status.
The DNC also believes that ballots timely cast by eligible U.S.
voters living overseas should be counted. Further, we call on Congress
to allow college students greater access to the polls and ensure that
the polls are accessible to all eligible voters, regardless of physical
or language limitation.
Lastly, we would like to encourage Secretaries of State and other
election officials not to engage in partisan conduct during federal
elections. We urge the House to adopt legislation to end voter
intimidation and to prevent the harassment of eligible citizens from
participating in the political process.
Mr. Chairman, there are several bills pending in the House of
Representatives and the U.S. Senate, including HR 1281, which, if
adopted, will make great headway in achieving these goals. Let me say
specifically that as a District resident, I fully support Congresswoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton's bill, H.R. 328, which will provide for the
treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional District for
purposes of representation in the House of Representatives. The call
for voting rights to the hundreds of thousand of tax paying American
citizens is long overdue. I would hope this Congress, along with the
President, will work towards its enactment and to fully embrace the
goal of giving all Americans a voice and a vote in the governing of our
nation.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we can make our democracy work for all its
citizens. In my lifetime, I have seen barriers fall. I witnessed a non-
violent revolution to allow all Americans at seat at the political
table. In closing, please allow me to pay homage to those who dared to
live the dream, who longed for freedom and the right to vote. When
those brave Americans gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge some 42
years ago today, all they wanted was freedom. They wanted a seat at the
table and they wanted to register and participate in the electoral life
of our democracy.
Along the way, they were beaten and jailed. But they never faltered
in their journey. They continued to fight for justice and the right to
vote. Later that summer, they began a massive voter registration effort
in places where people didn't even know they could, in theory, vote.
We have come along way since then. One of those who journeyed
across that bridge now sits in the House of Representatives. I am here
because they marched. Because they knew the day would come for all of
us to have a seat at the table.
Mr. Chairman, please act to remove the remaining impediments to the
dream of true equality for all. Remove the last vestiges of Jim Crow
and allow every eligible citizen the right to vote, to sit at the table
and help guide and lead this nation.
African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans,
women, gays and lesbians, people with disabilities and people of all
backgrounds sit in jobs, live in homes, and hold positions that would
have been unthinkable four decades ago.
To honor their legacy and the sacrifice of so many others, to live
up to the expectation of the generations of Americans who constantly
pushed us to realize America's full promise as a democracy, we must
take up this fight to eliminate all barriers to electoral
participation.
All Americans--no matter their party--must join us in repairing the
machine of our democracy, and the heart of our nation.
Thank you for allowing me to participate and share my observations.
list of sources referenced and articles in the media:
A Report to the Center for Voting Rights & Protection,
September 2004 by Chandler Davidson, Tanya Dunlap, Gale Kenny, and
Benjamin Wise ``Republican Ballot Security Programs: Vote Protection or
Minority Vote Suppression'';
Associated Press, ``Democrats blast GOP lawmaker's `suppress
the Detroit vote' remark,'' Detroit Free Press, 21 July 2004);
Democratic National Committee, June 2005 ``Democracy at Risk:
The 2004 Election in Ohio'' http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/
democracy--at--ri.php;
Demos 2003, ``Securing the Vote, An Analysis of Election
Fraud http://www.demos.org/pubs/EDR_-_Securing_the_Vote.pdf'';
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Report by The
National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006
``Highlights of Hearings of the National Commission on the Voting
Rights Act 2005'' http://www.votingrightsact.org/report/
finalreport.pdf;
People for the American Way Foundation, August 2006, ``The
New Face of Jim Crow: Voter Suppression in America''. Crowhttp://
www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=20203#;
Race and Ethnic Ancestry Law Digest 2 (Spring 1996), Rachel
E. Berry, ``Democratic National Committee v. Edward J. Rollins:
``Politics as usual or Unusual Politics?'' pp 42-46;
The Cuyahoga Election Review Panel Interim Report issued June
14, 2006 http://www.cuyahogavoting.org/CERP_Final_Report_20060720.pdf.
__________
ATTACHMENT
CONTROVERSY GREETS EARLY VOTING
By Judy Normand/OF THE COMMERCIAL STAFF
Tuesday, October 20, 2002 12:00 AM CDT
Early voters were met Monday at the Jefferson County Courthouse by
poll watchers from the Republican Party of Arkansas who demanded
identification and challenged voter ballots.
The Democrats' ``Team Arkansas'' had barely concluded its early
vote rally across the street from the Courthouse when the trouble
began.
Under the watchers' eyes, both voters and county officials received
what they called unexpected--and unnecessary--scrutiny of the election
process.
Trey Ashcraft, chairman of the Jefferson County Election
Commission, said it was obvious the Republicans' actions were targeting
African-Americans.
In a press release, Michael Cook, executive director for the
Democratic Party of Arkansas, criticized Sen. Tim Hutchinson and the
Republican Party for intimidating and harassing African-American voters
in Jefferson County and for giving the poll watchers notarized
credentials he said were apparently forged.
``Their papers did not seem to be in order,'' Ashcraft said.
``Tim Hutchinson and the Republican Party have claimed that they
want to reach out to African-American voters, but when election time
comes they have nothing to offer but intimidation and harassment,''
Cook said. ``We ask Tim Hutchinson and his party to stop
disenfranchising African-American voters and obstructing the democratic
process.''
During Monday's voting, poll watchers were seen asking voters to
either produce identification or risk having their ballots challenged.
``A voter does not have to show an ID as long as it's noted on the
ballot,'' Secretary of State Sharon Priest said. ``They (poll watchers)
can challenge a ballot, but they cannot ask for an ID or even talk to
the voters.''
Several voters received pointed requests from poll watcher Allison
Johnson to produce identification, and refused--a right, Priest said,
that is protected by law.
Voter Bonita McCray also refused the ID request, saying ``When she
insisted, I put my ID back in my purse. They had no right to do this.''
Officials in the clerk's office said several would-be voters became
so frustrated and offended by the process that they left without
casting a vote. Deputy Clerk Charlotte Munson reported a poll watcher
had actually walked behind her counter to photograph voter information
on her computer screen.
The watcher, she said, also asked for identification from, and then
photographed, a first-time voter who was visibly shaken by the action.
``This woman (a poll watcher) was looking over my shoulder, and
this is my business, not hers,'' the agitated voter said later.
Poll watcher Chris Carnahan admitted a colleague had been using
photography to document aspects of the voting process, but said he did
advise the person to put away the camera.
``We're here to ensure a clean and fair election,'' he said.
Johnson also accused a deputy clerk of not requesting IDs from
prospective voters and said workers had no challenge ballots prepared.
``They refused to accept challenge ballots,'' Johnson said.
Ashcraft said this was not true. He was unable to say exactly how
many ballots were challenged, but said there had been ``several.''
Ashcraft said he was disappointed in the Republican ``Gestapo''
tactics.
``They're trying to intimidate and prevent voters from
participating in the Democratic process,'' Ashcraft said. ``The
registered voters feel insecure and the photos are inexcusable. They
(Republicans) know they can't win, so they're trying to steal this
election. This is politics at its worst. They're breaking the law and
it's disgusting.''
At least twice, Ashcraft summoned a deputy from the Jefferson
County Sheriff's Office to escort ``watcher'' Diane Jones out of the
clerk's office for what he said was definite interference with the
voting process.
Cook said the tactics used by the Republican workers clearly
crossed the line from poll watcher to voter obstruction.
Marty Ryall, director of the Republican Party of Arkansas, said in
a telephone interview that different groups of poll watchers will
continue to be sent to the Jefferson County Courthouse each voting day
until Nov. 5. Ashcraft countered with a promise to produce ``watchers''
of his own--of the Democratic persuasion.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much, Donna Brazile. We are
grateful for your being with us.
And we now turn to Eve Sandberg, associate professor of
politics at Oberlin College, a member of the council in her
city, and who has carefully observed the election processes in
Ohio in 2004 and 2006 as well.
We welcome you. And your statement will be incorporated in
its entirety in the record. And we are glad that you are here
as well.
TESTIMONY OF EVE SANDBERG, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF POLITICS,
OBERLIN COLLEGE
Ms. Sandberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. My
name is Eve Sandberg, and I live in Oberlin, Ohio. I teach in
the Politics Department at Oberlin College. I am also an
elected official serving as an at-large city council in the
city of Oberlin.
Like many Ohioans, I was vitally involved in the election
processes in 2004 and 2006. Thank you for the opportunity to
offer my perspective and relate what I heard and saw happening
in Ohio during the last few elections.
I want to note that my comments today will demonstrate my
view that the Republican Party leadership of Ohio involved
themselves in practices that undermined a fair and democratic
electoral process. However, when these activities were
revealed, often we found that many Ohioans who were supporters
of the Republican Party cooperated with Democrats to rectify
what they recognized to be dishonorable electoral practices.
My remarks today should not be construed as an attack on
Republicans but rather on those Ohio Republicans who played
leadership in their party's recent election and on those
Republicans who continue to deny the irregularities and
undermining practices that marked Ohio's recent elections.
Regarding the registration process in Ohio in 2004 and
again in 2006, prior to the election, the Ohio secretary of
state's office, held by the Republican leadership, sent out
mixed messages about voting rights. The secretary of state
office, for example, let it be known that election officials
would vigorously challenge out-of-State students who chose to
vote in Ohio by requiring a photo identification card with a
current voting address on that card. In 2004, such a
requirement was not legal in Ohio.
Students were not the only voters adversely affected during
the registration process again, in 2006, by the changes of the
requirements for voting. Poor people, the elderly who lacked or
had given up their driver's licenses, faced disenfranchisement
as well from a requirement that they had to produce a photo ID
in order to vote. Few voters have photo identifications other
than driver's licenses.
Suppression of the vote became a campaign tactic that was
debated in Ohio, as the Republican leadership in Ohio made the
registration process a circus that prevented Americans who are
entitled to vote from exercising their franchise.
The voting processes in Ohio were undermined by
manipulating the placement of voting machines and by unlawful
challenges of a citizen's right to vote. Despite data on the
number of registered voters, heavily Democratic Party areas,
particularly precincts with large numbers of African-American
voters or student voters, were provided with so few voting
machines that Ohioans in these precincts had to wait hours in
line to vote; in Oberlin, up to 5 hours. Yet we heard not one
report that any precinct in which voters who voted largely for
Republicans received too few voting machines or suffered hours
of voting in line.
However, we also heard the Republican leadership
celebrating the enormous Republican turnout. That is just too
curious.
In 2006, my current colleague on the Oberlin City Council,
David Ashenhurst became a poll worker. He reports that the
rules on provisional ballots that were used during the training
of poll workers did not match the manual that the poll workers
were given. Further, on the day of the 2006 election, a
different set of rules was distributed at polling stations. The
obvious observation here is that if there is confusion among
poll workers, how is a voter supposed to satisfy the rules?
In 2006, many absentee ballots were printed 2 weeks late
and thus delivered late. Individuals had difficulty completing
the ballots and returning them on time. At some polling places
in 2006, again where residents mainly voted Democratic, in
Cuyahoga County, the machine cards were inoperable when
inserted into voting machines on the day of the election. It
took hours to correct the situation and therefore the voting
polls opened late. For many voters who had made arrangements to
vote prior to going to work, it was not possible to do so.
If there was any silver lining to the distressing reports
of irregular or unlawful practices, it can seen in those voters
who were able to devote 4 or more hours to waiting in line, who
cherish democracy enough to demand the right to vote,
regardless of how inconvenienced they were.
Despite the cynicism and distrust created by the actions of
our highest Ohio elected officials, the determination, patience
and goodwill of the American citizenry in coping with adversity
is admirable. Now, I hope the United States Congress, after
hearing our testimony today, will restore our faith in our
political leadership and work to restore free and fair election
practices in Ohio and elsewhere throughout our country.
I thank you for the honor of including my testimony today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sandberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eve Sandberg
introduction
Good Afternoon. My name is Eve Sandberg and I live in Oberlin Ohio.
I teach in the Politics Department at Oberlin College and I also am an
elected official serving as an At-Large City Councilor in the City of
Oberlin. Like many Ohioans, I was vitally involved with the election
processes in 2000, 2004, and 2006. Thank you for the opportunity to
offer my perspective and relate what I heard and saw happening in Ohio
during the last few elections. It appears to me, and to thousands like
me, that the election process in Ohio was undermined in so many points
along the voting process that any fair-minded observer must conclude
that the leadership of the party in power, the Ohio Republican Party
leadership, used its public offices to influence the outcomes of the
elections in Ohio through irregular and unlawful practices.
Before I begin my testimony today I would like to contextualize my
remarks with a few preliminary comments. The electoral contests in Ohio
over the last six years have been bitterly partisan. I believe,
however, that ensuring fair and free elections is a bipartisan
responsibility and that addressing the reprehensible flaws in our
electoral practices is a task that must be undertaken by the political
leaders of all our political parties.
I want to note that my comments today will demonstrate my view that
the Republican Party leadership of Ohio involved themselves in
practices that undermined a fair and democratic electoral process.
However, when these activities were revealed, often we found that many
Ohioans who were supporters of the Republican Party cooperated with
Democrats to try to rectify what they recognized to be dishonorable
electoral practices. My remarks today should not be construed as an
attack on Republicans, but rather on those Ohio Republicans who played
leadership roles in their party's recent elections and on those
Republicans who continue to deny the irregularities and undermining
practices that marked Ohio's recent elections.
I also would like to note that, while living in Ohio, I am a strong
Democratic partisan. Yet, when I first began to vote, I remember
casting some of my first votes for Republican Senator Clifford Case of
New Jersey and also for Gubernatorial Republican candidate, Richard
Cahill, also of New Jersey. Additionally, my mother volunteered in the
campaign for, and stuffed envelopes for Mr. Cahill. I come from a
family that was comprised of classic swing voters. My brother, Mark, is
a thoughtful voter who votes for the best possible candidate. My father
voted for Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960, but he later voted for
Presidential candidate, Richard Nixon. My father was an immigrant to
this country and my mother grew up in an immigrant family. My family
has always viewed democracy and democratic practices with the utmost
respect.
I also want to note that as a Politics professor and as a political
consultant, I sometimes find myself abroad explaining the virtues of
multi-party politics and democratic institutions. For example, in 2001
and again in 2002, I had the privilege of traveling to the Muslim
Kingdom of Morocco with a team led by Seattle political consultant
Cathy Allen. In Morocco we met with the Executive Boards of Morocco's
political parties to discuss strategies of targeting and messaging as
the Moroccan party leaders prepared to contest their first free and
fair elections. Our team also trained about 120 Moroccan women who
hoped to run for parliament because Morocco's electoral laws for women
had recently changed. It pains me greatly as an American when I
encounter foreigners overseas who offer their comments on the reported
electoral corruption in the United States. Such reports support cynical
anti-Americanism around the world. Over the years, I have learned that
one of the best means by which the United States can promote democracy
abroad is to lead by example. Acknowledging the flaws in our election
processes and fixing our electoral system is a job that is in the
interests of all Americans, both Democrat and Republican. My remarks
today should be taken by fair-minded Republicans as well as by
Democrats to mean that we must put our electoral house in order at home
if we wish to model democracy abroad.
Now let me tell you a little bit about what I saw and heard in
Ohio's recent elections in 2004 and 2006. Sadly, I report that to
someone like me in a small town in Ohio, it appears that every aspect
of the election process was undermined by a Republican Secretary of
State's office and by many in his employ: the registration process, the
actual voting process, and the checks and balance procedures that are
supposed to occur with bi-partisan participation after any election.
the registration process
Let me begin with the registration process. We all know that
pollsters have learned that college students on certain campuses,
African Americans, and women, tended to vote in greater numbers for
Democrats than for Republicans. If elections were being closely
contested, it makes sense that if Ohio's Republican leadership could
eliminate--or suppress--the vote of these target voting groups by just
a percentage point or two, Republicans might be able to squeak out a
victory that otherwise they could not earn in a legally and fairly
contested race.
We know that the courts had ruled that college students are legally
permitted to vote in the states in which they reside while attending
college. Obviously, the only rule is that students can only vote once.
If they vote in the state in which they are students, they cannot vote
absentee in their home states. However in Ohio in 2004 and again in
2006, prior to the election, the Ohio Secretary of State's office held
by the Republican leadership sent out mixed messages when our students
at Oberlin College inquired about their voting rights. The Secretary of
State's office let it be known that election officials would vigorously
challenge out-of-state students who chose to vote in Ohio by requiring
a photo identification card with a current voting address on that card.
In 2004, such a requirement was not legal in Ohio. Yet due to the
confusion surrounding that rule, many of our out-of-state students
worried as to whether or not their votes would be counted in Ohio.
Student college photo identifications lack home addresses because
students move around from dorm to dorm or to off-campus housing. In
2004, there was so much confusion about this issue, despite the law
clearly stating that students had the right to vote in communities
where they lived and attended college, that Oberlin College President
Nancy Dye created a task force to discuss how to inform students of
their voting rights so they would not be disenfranchised. Eventually,
Oberlin College distributed a written guide to Oberlin College
students. However, some out-of-state students at Oberlin College and
probably many at other colleges throughout Ohio chose not to register
in Ohio because they feared their vote would not be counted. Others
were so confused that they did not register in Ohio and then learned
that the deadline at home had passed for absentee voting in their home
states. In 2004, these students were disenfranchised by a Republican
Secretary of State.
It is not the responsibility of Presidents of Colleges and
Universities to publish documents that clarify and defend the rights of
their students to vote in a free nation. Ohio boasts over 130 colleges
and universities. How many thousands of students were affected, one can
only wonder. Additionally, it seems that the confusion did not just
affect students but also affected poll workers who, as I will discuss
shortly, tried to enforce rules that did not exist, thus preventing
some students, African Americans and other citizens from voting when
they were legally entitled to do so.
In 2006, the Republican leadership managed to put a photo
identification requirement on the books in the final campaign period,
causing enormous confusion prior to the election. Members of the League
of Women Voters had trouble finding the rules as they struggled to
write and publish their voting guides. One of my student advisees,
Colin Koffel, hoped to publish a guide to voting procedures for
students in one of our campus newspapers. Despite calling the Secretary
of State's office at various times prior to the election, this student
had difficulty getting the Secretary of State's office to identify any
rules until the very last days before the election.
Students were not the only voters adversely affected during the
registration process by changes in the requirements for voting. Poor
people and the elderly, who lacked or had given up their driver's
licenses, faced disenfranchisement as well from a requirement that they
had to produce a photo identification in order to vote. Few voters have
photo identifications other than driver's licenses. ``Suppression of
the vote'' became a campaign tactic that was debated in Ohio as the
Republican Leadership in Ohio made the registration process a circus
that prevented Americans who are entitled to vote from exercising their
franchise.
the voting process itself
The voting processes in Ohio were undermined by manipulating the
placement of voting machines and by unlawful challenges of a citizen's
right to vote. Despite data on the number of registered voters, heavily
Democratic Party areas, particularly precincts with large numbers of
African American or student voters, were provided with so few voting
machines that Ohioans in these precincts had to wait four, five, six,
seven or more hours in line to vote. Yet, we heard not one report that
any precinct in which voters voted largely for Republicans received too
few voting machines or suffered hours of waiting on line. However, we
also heard the Republican leadership celebrating the enormous
Republican turnout. Curious.
The lines for voting in 2004 were so long that, as one of my
students, Frances Zlotnick, reported to me, she witnessed women with
young children who came up to the line, looked at its length and said,
``I can't believe this. I want to vote, but I can't stand here for
hours with these kids.'' We all know that women in a largely Democratic
community are likely to vote Democratic. Not providing sufficient
voting machines appeared to be a deliberate tactic to disenfranchise
Democratic voters, including women with children.
Professor Sandra Zagarell of Oberlin College's English Department
was trained as a Kerry for President Democratic Party Challenger and
assigned to one polling station in Oberlin for the entire voting day.
She observed the voting process from 6:30 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Professor
Zagarell reported that her polling station had lines of over three
hundred people and the wait at times lasted five hours. I have included
with my written testimony Professor Zagarell's letter to the Oberlin
Review the week of the 2004 Presidential election as Appendix A.
Early in the morning on election day 2004, when Professor Zagarell
realized that there were too few voting machines she attempted to call
the Secretary of State's office to request more machines. The line was
busy or no one answered. Repeatedly, the line was busy or no one
answered. Believing that I might have more information about what to do
and how her polling station might secure more voting machines,
Professor Zagarell phoned me. I was in a suburban (exurbia) voting
location and I, too, had been trained as a Kerry Democratic Party
Challenger. When she called she was distressed. Some voters were
leaving the polls as they had to go to work or attend classes. Oberlin
has a substantial retirement community and people who are in their
seventies, eighties or nineties cannot simply stand for four to five
hours so that they can vote. She realized that many of the elderly in
our community could lose their right to vote. I replied that all I knew
was to call the Secretary of State's office, which, of course, was
Republican controlled. I said I would try to call on my cell phone on
her behalf and we would hope that one of us would get through. In the
suburban polling place to which I was assigned, most of the time there
were no lines and empty machines. Infrequently, in this suburban
polling place, a voter had to wait for another voter or two in front of
him or her. I placed a call to the Secretary of State's office. It was
busy. I turned to my Republican counterpart, a gentleman who was a Bush
Republican Party Challenger. We had been speaking throughout the
morning and realized there was no need to demonize one another; we both
just wanted a fair election. When I told my counterpart the problem, he
said to me, I'll call the Secretary of State's office. I skeptically
replied, ``I don't think you'll get through.'' His reply was telling.
``They gave us our own number,'' he told me. He got through on the
first try. I was stunned as I realized that the Republicans had a
system to assist their party from the Secretary of State's office.
American citizens who were Democrats could not expect equal treatment
under the law.
Another colleague of mine from Oberlin College, Psychology
Professor Karen Sutton, was a Kerry Democratic Party Challenger
assigned to Maple Heights, Ohio in the 2004 election. Her polling place
had a substantial African American voting population. The poll workers,
however, were white. Although Ohio law prohibits campaign signs 100
feet outside of a voting place, signs are often posted just beyond that
point. The poll workers at this church forbid any Democratic signs from
being posted on church property but allowed Republicans to post their
signs beyond the 100 foot mark. Inside the church, these official poll
workers were no less biased. There was no legal need for a photo
identification until the 2006 election but as Professor Sutton learned
in 2004, when she walked away from the voting check-in table, a poll
worker would ask any African American potential voter for a photo
identification. If Sutton was attending to one voter explaining that it
was his or her right to vote without the requested photo identification
and looked over and saw a new challenge occurring at the check-in
table, when she rushed back to the table, the poll worker pretended he/
she had not made such a request. The poll workers were trained by
Ohio's Republican Secretary of State.
One incredibly troubling allegation was reported to me the day
after the election. A male Oberlin College student came up to me and
said that he was told I would know what to do with his information. He
had been sent with a few other Oberlin College students to leaflet at
Kent State University. The precinct to which he was assigned was using
punch card ballots. A punch card has a multitude of holes in it and you
place it into a voting booth underneath a ballot that has candidate
names listed on the ballot. The voter uses a ballot punch to punch a
hole next to the names of each candidate for whom he or she votes. The
voter sees the ballot hole and generally does not pay attention to the
punch card below the ballot on which the vote is being cast by making a
hole on the punch card when the ballot punch goes through to the card
below. Voters generally do not pay attention to their punch cards
because the cards have no writing, only holes on them. After punching a
ballot, the voter just places the card through the slot of a closed
voting can or box.
This young man reported that a number of Kent State students came
up to him and claimed that their punch cards were pre-punched for
President Bush. If they voted for John Kerry, they would have had two
Presidential punches on their card and their ballot would be spoiled;
none of their votes would count. If they voted for President Bush, they
would just make the hole already punched for Bush on their punch card a
bit larger. Their ballot would not be spoiled and all their votes would
be counted. I asked the male student if he took down the names of any
of the Kent State students with whom he had spoken. He said he had not.
I told him I was not certain what he could do. He should call the
Secretary of State's office and he should call the Democratic Party.
Stupidly, I did not take down his name. It never occurred to me that I
might be sitting here today.
Many other troubling occurrences were reported as well. David
Ashenhurst, a volunteer on election day in 2004 and currently an
elected member of Oberlin City Council, reported that poll workers
enforced illegal rules concerning when a person could vote if the voter
had moved since the last election. In fact, questions about whether, or
if, people were allowed to vote, vote provisionally, or vote in another
precinct were contested all day. There were countless reports that in
voting places with large numbers of Democratic voters the voting
officials misconstrued the rules for provisional voting. Yet, if the
rules were not followed as legally stipulated, a citizen's provisional
vote was disqualified at the County Board of Elections or wherever else
the provisional votes were tallied. Ms. Palli Holubar, another Oberlin
volunteer on election day 2004, worked during the election and
afterwards helping to trace whether or not an individual's provisional
vote was ultimately counted. Across the state of Ohio, it was clear
that many provisional votes were not ultimately counted and it was
difficult for individuals to determine if they had been given correct
information or misinformation that then resulted in their vote being
disqualified. Ms. Holubar, who became a bit of an expert on provisional
voting, reported that the procedures used by the Secretary of State
offered voters with provisional ballots no confidence in our electoral
system.
In 2006, David Ashenhurst (noted above) became a poll worker in an
effort to be able to offer authoritative and correct information to
voters. However, he reports that the rules on provisional ballots that
were used during the training of poll workers did not match the manuals
that poll workers were given. Furthermore, on the day of the 2006
election, a different set of rules was distributed at polling stations.
The obvious observation here is that if there is confusion among the
poll workers and the rules are changed in the final hours prior to
voting, how is a voter supposed to satisfy the rules and act in a way
that protects his or her right to vote. Should a citizen who recently
changed an address go to his or her old precinct where that person is
on record, or should that person go to the new precinct? How many days
prior to an election can a voter have moved without having to re-
register? Should a voter with such a question even attempt to vote?
A great number of Ohio voters decided to vote absentee in 2006 in
order to avoid lines and also in the hopes that absentee ballots would
be less likely than provisional ballots to be disqualified. However in
2006, many absentee ballots were printed (about) two weeks late and
thus delivered late. In Oberlin, for example, absentee ballots arrived
while students and faculty were on their fall break with many away from
campus. These individuals had difficulty completing the ballots and
returning them in time so that their ballots could be counted in the
election.
In 2006, there were also concerns in Ohio that parts of the state
voted electronically with no paper trail to record the voting. In other
parts of the state citizens voted electronically and the voting
machines kept paper records. Still other Ohioans voted on punch cards.
Professor Candace Hoke, a Cleveland State Law Professor and Director of
the Center for Election Integrity, is also a member of the Republican
Party. Professor Hoke has devoted much time to investigating Ohio's
voting alternatives and also its professional staff of poll workers. In
addition to worrying about voting machines without proper paper trails,
Professor Hoke has worried about finding ways to get younger people to
work as poll workers on election days. Professor Hoke's concern is that
many poll workers are older, often retired citizens, who may be
uncomfortable with assisting voters on electronic machines or with
learning how to handle machine cards and other electronic related
procedures. The practice in Ohio of hiring unemployed workers without
sufficient screening to staff some polling places is also a concern.
Ohio Democrats are particularly concerned when we read in the
newspapers that such individuals are being assigned largely to polling
places where the residents vote in large numbers for Democrats. If
mistakes are made, we know it is likely to be Democratic votes that are
disqualified.
At some polling places in 2006 (again it seemed to be polls where
residents mainly voted Democratic, such as in Cuyahoga County), the
machine's cards were inoperable when inserted into the voting machines
on the day of the election. It took hours to correct the situation and
therefore the voting polls opened late. For many voters who had made
arrangements to vote prior to going to work, it was not possible to do
so.
Just as negative advertising has made an unwelcome entry into
American campaigns, so ``suppression of the opposition's vote'' by the
leadership of the Ohio Republican Party and perhaps even voter theft
now has entered election practices. And in the follow-up to elections,
recounts are supposed to be open and transparent, but in Ohio we
learned that this was far from the case.
the checks and balance procedures after the election
Following the 2004 election of Bush vs. Kerry, I was contacted by
so many distraught citizens that I rented a community center room in
the City of Oberlin and held a meeting. On short notice, about 85
people attended. That day we heard many accounts of irregularities. We
created an informal electronic listserve to report ongoing information
concerning election practices. We also swapped information about
recount efforts.
A posting by one of our listserve contributors forwarded an email
from a Richard Hayes Phillips who reported that in ``Warren County, the
administrative building was locked down on election night, all in the
name of homeland security.'' No independent persons were allowed to
observe the vote count.
Several members of our group of 85 volunteered to be official
representatives of the Democratic Party in the recount efforts to see
that fair tallies of votes had been reported. They were not always
successful in their efforts. An email message from Damen Mroczek
reported that: ``The meeting (scheduled for 9:00) didn't get underway
until 9:35, at which point the Board came out. . . . We were
particularly upset that the ``random'' precinct selection had already
been completed . . .''
Which precincts are selected for quality control recounts can be
critical for the outcome of a recount. Obstructing openness and
transparency in how recount precincts are chosen jeopardizes the
legitimacy of an electoral outcome.
Others reported that the poll workers were not allowing those
viewing the recounts to be close enough to actually see for themselves
each vote and to make certain that each vote was being allocated to the
correct party during the recount. If this is true, such recounts cannot
provide the information that they are intended to provide. Certainly,
such recounts cannot confirm an election outcome or support the
legitimacy of our electoral process.
conclusion
For those of us who have lived through Ohio elections over the past
six years, it is hard not to conclude that every step of the election
process was undermined by a Republican Secretary of State's office and
by many in his employ: the registration process, the actual voting
process, and the checks and balance procedures that are supposed to
occur with bi-partisan participation after any election.
As an American who travels abroad and is frequently called upon to
testify to the benefits of multi-party politics, it pains me that the
leadership of the Ohio Republican Party has systematically found ways
to undermine fair and free elections in our state. I know that when
average Ohio Republicans are witness to such activities, they do the
right thing. But apparently, the Republican leadership has such a stake
in governance, that it has not done the right thing in our recent
elections.
If there is any silver lining to the distressing reports of
irregular and/or unlawful practices at every stage of the voting
process, it can be seen in those voters who were able to devote four or
more hours to waiting in line and who cherished democracy enough to
demand their right to vote regardless of how inconvenienced they were.
These citizens could not prevent the suppression of the vote or having
the vote taken away from their fellow citizens. What they could and did
do, however, was to patiently wait their turn, to move the elderly
(those had not seen the enormous lines and driven away) up to the front
of the line so the older voters could vote quickly and then sit down or
go home. In Oberlin, school children showed up at the polls to walk up
and down the lines giving away the Halloween candy that they had
collected on October 31. Oberlin College students alerted local
merchants concerning the lines and requested assistance. A number of
local merchants provided food. Lorenzo's Pizza sent over free donated
pizza pies to help those on line to take the edge off their hunger. Our
student dining coops donated food from their kitchens. People walked
the long winding lines providing water bottles. Our former Congressman,
now Senator Sherrod Brown, visited Oberlin and brought with him water
bottles to distribute as well as encouragement and thanks.
I am attaching to this testimony two letters to the editor written
by Oberlin poll watcher Sandra Zagarell (whose letter I already noted
above as Appendix A) and Oberlin Mayor Daniel Gardner (whose letter
constitutes Appendix B) congratulating the citizenry on their
dedication and public spirit. As Ms. Zagarell notes, Oberlin College
students deserved high commendation. They came as individuals but
became an improvised community to help one another through the long
hours on line to vote. They allowed the elderly or ill to go to the
front of the line. Mayor Gardner's letter also praises Oberlin voters,
concluding: ``God, I love our town. You have restored my faith.''
Despite the cynicism and distrust created by the actions of our
highest Ohio election officials, the determination, patience, and good
will of the American citizenry in coping with adversity is admirable.
Now, I hope that the United States Congress, after hearing our
testimony today, will restore our faith in our political leadership and
work to restore free and fair election practices in Ohio and elsewhere
throughout our country.
I thank you for the honor of including my testimony today.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Conyers. I thank you so much, Professor Sandberg.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, witnesses, this
hearing has been unusual, in my mind, because we have had
literally no discussion of the responsibility of the Department
of Justice's Civil Rights Division, the voting section, which
to me can play such a very huge role in this, Mr. Neas.
And I want to put this on the record that I have had
conversations with the Attorney General Gonzalez who has
indicated a willingness to consider the issue raised by the
House Committee on the Judiciary, and this is the one that I
put forward first.
It has been my impression, and I have raised this issue in
my visits to the Department of Justice last year, that we have
very little oversight and investigation of these complaints
that are made. They almost go into a deep hole, never to be
really dealt with.
And that it is critical that we have two things coming out
of our government and particularly DOJ and that is, one, that
we affirmatively encourage everybody to vote and make it as
simple as possible; two, that we effectively monitor
complaints, violations and allegations that go to the heart of
debilitating and crippling the voting process in this country.
And I would like to have on the record your observations of
what we should be doing and could be doing to stimulate the
Department of Justice in that direction.
And I will start with Ralph Neas.
Mr. Neas. Mr. Chairman, since my work with Senator Edward
W. Brooke, a Republican from Massachusetts, and David
Durenberger, a Republican from Minnesota, I have had much
experience from the congressional side looking at what Justice
has been doing and of course with my years with the Leadership
Conference and Civil Rights Office, being now with People For
the American Way.
I must tell you, there have been some bad periods of time.
I can think of the Brad Reynolds years at the Department of
Justice under Ronald Reagan when a Republican-controlled Senate
Judiciary Committee would not promote him to associate counsel
because the Department of Justice made every effort to
undermine the enforcement of our civil rights laws. And I am
afraid this Department of Justice over the last 6 years has
compiled an astonishingly bad record in virtually every area of
civil rights laws.
But of all the areas that they should take most seriously
it is the area of voting rights, and I would hope perhaps this
legislation can serve as a catalyst for more effective work by
the Department of Justice, because with respect to deceptive
practices and intimidation of voters, it compels the Department
of Justice to do something, to start investigating, to enjoin
statements or practices that are intentionally and knowingly
committed. It makes them an active participant.
And I have talked before about election protection. We had
35,000 American citizens volunteer to go into 3,500 precincts
over the last couple of elections to make sure that we were
monitoring what was happening in terms of voter intimidation
and mistakes and lack of education. That should not be the
responsibility of the non-profit community.
The Department of Justice should be leading on this issue,
and, unfortunately, in 2000, it was a whitewash with respect to
Florida, with respect to much of what happened in 2004 in Ohio,
what happened in Maryland and Virginia over the last year with
the robo calls, the other kinds of deceptive practices.
What did the Department of Justice say: ``We are not going
to investigate.'' It pretty much is close to malfeasance, as
far as I am concerned, in terms of what they should be
responsible for, what they should be doing. And I hope the
attorney general will work with you to enact this legislation.
Mr. Conyers. Well, it may require a more specific hearing
from the Committee on Judiciary on these unacted-upon
allegations, separate and apart from this legislation, as
important as it really is.
Mr. Neas. I would hope such hearings occur in the very near
future. I am sure that both the Democrats and Republicans would
like to get the Department of Justice up to address the civil
rights issues and many others they have responsibility for,
and, quite frankly, I do not think they have been enforcing the
law in many areas but especially in the Civil Rights Division.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Ms. Brazile. Mr. Chairman, Ralph mentioned non-profit
organizations and organizations such as his, but just imagine
the amount of money it costs for both parties to have to deploy
thousands of lawyers across the country to train poll watchers
to put out correct information when if we had our government
and our Justice Department committed to fully enforcing the
law, we wouldn't have to appropriate this type of money for
political expenditures.
So, it would help us also on the political side if the
Justice Department got involved and intervened and ensured that
there is no hanky panky at the ballot box.
I mean, it has gotten outrageous. I have been involved in
politics since I was 9. I know that is a little younger than
most people, but in Louisiana, we got involved early. Right
after the assassination of Martin Luther King, I felt compelled
to go out there and go bicycle to bicycle urging people to
vote. Why? Because we were promised a playground.
Today, many young people don't want to get involved and get
out to register people, because the barriers have been set up.
They have been told in some cases that if they submit a name
and misspell it as incorrect, they could go to jail. So it is
becoming harder and harder to get people involved and to get
people excited about our electoral process where we have set up
all of these impediments.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much.
I turn now to the Ranking Member of the Judiciary
Committee, Lamar Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to ask unanimous
consent to put the testimony of Mr. Fund in the record, as well
as three other reports.
Mr. Conyers. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Neas, out of the utmost respect for your mother who is
sitting 10 feet from you, I am not going to ask all the
difficult and pointed questions I had in mind. However, I would
like to read into the record a description of what the
Department of Justice has been doing in the area that is under
discussion today.
Mr. Chairman, in 2002, the Justice Department announced an
initiative in which it required that all components of the
department to place a high priority on the investigation and
prosecution of election fraud. As of last year, 195 election
fraud investigations were currently pending throughout the
country. As of then, and since the start of the initiative, 119
people were charged with election fraud offenses and 86
individuals have been convicted.
In Missouri, the Justice Department is conducting an
investigation because the State's voter rolls, in some cases,
have 150 percent of the voting age population listed on the
voting rolls.
So the Department of Justice I am sure can do more but at
least they are taking good initiatives to try to address the
serious problem of voter fraud.
Also, Mr. Neas, you mentioned the robo calls. There are
probably enough misused robo calls on both sides of the
political aisle to bear investigation. Now, I hear about those
where Republicans are being targeted, no doubt you hear about
those where the Democrats are being targeted. But, clearly,
they are overdone and can be investigated at the appropriate
time.
Ms. Brazile, first of all, I want to compliment you. I have
enjoyed reading your columns over the years, and I have always
found them particularly insightful. There are a lot of people
that charge good money for the good advice you give, but I do
enjoy reading your perspective on politics.
Let me ask a question and direct it toward you, Ms.
Brazile, and this is based upon the Carter-Baker commission
report I think that you are familiar with. Among their findings
was that Florida has more than 140,000 voters who apparently
are registered in four other States.
That is an astronomical figure for duplicate registrations,
in my judgment. By the way, that includes 64,000 who are
registered not only in Florida but in New York City alone. More
than 2,000 people voted in more than one State in the last
election, clearly something that we should be concerned about.
The Carter-Baker commission elaborated and said this is
what their proposal was and this is what I want to ask you
about. They said, ``We propose a uniform system of voter
identification based on the Real ID card or an equivalent for
people without a driver's license. There is likely to be less
discrimination against minorities if there is a single uniform
ID than if poll workers can apply multiple standards.
Don't you think that a uniform identification requirement
would, in fact, reduce discrimination against minorities at the
polls?
Ms. Brazile. Thank you, sir, for your excellent question.
First of all, let me just say that I support a requirement
that forces States to have a uniform statewide voter
registration list that can be verified and also, from time to
time, cleaned at an appropriate moment, giving citizens the
right to appeal if they have been selectively purged. So I
support a uniform cleaning.
Look, right now, I think political parties maintain a
better voter registration list than State parties, so I support
that. And we have duplicates all over the place, because many
States, quite frankly, don't have the resources required to
clean up their electoral rolls after election.
In terms of the restricted ID requirements, in my judgment,
that is more likely to disenfranchise people of color, the
elderly, individuals with disability, rural voters, young
people, the homeless, low-income people, frequent movers and
persons in large households. I don't support the Real ID
requirement, because I do believe that there is a chance that
it can discriminate. Twenty million Americans do not have any
form of State-issued ID. Most, perhaps a large majority, do not
have it because they lack the resources to be able to obtain a
State-issued ID.
I also found that the ID requirements that are sometimes
called for in some of these States apply differently in
different populations. My own sister who resides in Florida, I
don't know if she is in Mr. Feeney's district, I think she has
moved, but in Florida, in 2000, I will never forget the call.
She called me and said, ``How many forms of ID do I need to
vote?'' and I said, ``One.'' I mean, at the time, it was one.
She had her driver's license, she had her voter registration
card, and she had to produce a utility bill.
So I do not support these restricted ID requirements that
often discriminate against people of color.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Brazile, let me interrupt you and squeeze in
one more comment here. You, yourself, admitted, though, that we
have problems with voter registration lists. Wouldn't a uniform
identification obviate the need to rely upon these very flawed
voter registration lists?
Ms. Brazile. Well, 42 percent of Americans who registered
to vote in 2004 obtained their voter registration status at a
government facility, so they had to show a form of ID in order
to vote. So this is a duplicate requirement again. In certain
States, some people say, ``I need your library card,'' some
say, ``I need your voter registration card.'' And as long as we
have 20 million Americans, many of them elderly, many of them
poor, without any form of State-issued ID, I am opposed to
these real ID cards.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Well, I am not going to convince you
otherwise, but it seems to me that all the examples you just
gave points exactly to the need for one uniform identification
where you don't have all these other types of identification. I
think it would simplify the process, and, as individuals have
testified, it would also reduce discrimination. I think that is
just an honest difference of opinion.
Ms. Brazile. If it is not another form of a poll tax, sir,
if we can ensure that every American has access to that form of
ID and it is not another barrier to participation, maybe we
could find common ground.
Mr. Smith. Good. If we could get past the financial cost.
Ms. Brazile. Open up your wallet, I might open up my heart.
Mr. Smith. I am going to take you up on that common ground
comment.
Ms. Brazile. All right, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Brazile.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Robert Scott, Virginia?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank all of the witnesses for their testimony.
Let me just start with a quick question to Mr. Neas. This
bill only prescribes communications that are false and designed
with a specific intent to deny someone the right to vote. There
is no constitutional right to defraud people. Do you see any
free speech implications in this legislation?
Mr. Neas. Mr. Scott, when we first started working on the
bill, this issue came up, of course, immediately, because we
are not only a civil rights organization but also a civil
liberties organization. But I think this bill has been
carefully crafted. For me, there is no doubt that Congress has
a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of elections
and the right to vote by ending these kinds of deceptive
practices.
I think very importantly, the standards that you chose,
that Chairman Conyers and Senator Obama chose, that it has to
be knowingly and intentionally deceiving the voters, creates a
very high standard that has to be met.
Mr. Scott. And not only false but with the intent to
defraud someone out of their vote.
Mr. Neas. Exactly.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Brazile, there is an old saying about the cure being
worse than the disease. We have heard of a handful of people
who might be getting onto the rolls improperly. You kind of
alluded to this in your previous testimony and answers.
Comparing the handful that are getting on illegally, do we
have any measure of how many people might not vote because
their health department didn't complete the paperwork in time
for the election to give them a birth certificate or how many
people might not vote because they couldn't come up or didn't
want to come up with the $20 that it might cost to process all
this stuff?
Do we have any estimate of the number of people who may
lose their right to vote if we initiate some of these Real ID
requirements?
Ms. Brazile. Well, you know, there is an old saying that
you have a greater chance of being hit by lightning than
finding large evidence of voter fraud. The truth of the matter
is, is that we know from our study that 3 to 5 percent of
Americans were impacted by some of these illegal schemes and
tactics used to suppress turnout--fake monitors, assigning off-
duty policemen at various polling sites, sending faulty voting
machines into certain precincts.
So while I don't have the honest number in terms of the
millions of Americans, but we do know that it impacts between 2
to 5 percent of Americans.
Mr. Scott. Okay. But there is no question that the number
of people who would not be able to vote who should be able to
vote would certainly be more than the handful of people
nationwide that illegally get onto the polls. So the cure, in
fact, would be worse than the disease.
Ms. Brazile. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Scott. Now, with this cure being worse than the
disease, there are certain groups that would be
disproportionately impacted. I think you gave a list of people.
Is it clear that this would have a disproportionate impact on
certain groups? Obviously, if people can't vote because they
can't come up with $20, obviously that would have a
disproportionate impact on low-income Americans.
Could you read that list again of those who, if you enforce
all this Real ID, which groups might be adversely affected?
Ms. Brazile. In 2001, the National Commission on Federal
Election Reform recognized that between 6 and 10 percent of
Americans do not have any form of State-issued photo ID
driver's license.
And in the State of Georgia--I was listening to one of the
earlier questions of Senator Obama--according to the Georgia
chapter of AARP, 30 percent of Georgians over 75 do not have a
driver's license. So across the country more than 3 million
Americans with disabilities do not have a driver's license or
State-issued photo ID. And, of course, for minorities and in
poor communities and certain rural communities, the numbers are
even higher.
Mr. Scott. Now, if you don't have identification now, would
the number of people who would not be able to complete the
paperwork to identify themselves be greater or fewer than the
people that might sneak on the rolls illegally?
Ms. Brazile. There is no question, it would be greater,
sir.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, sir.
Steve Chabot, Cincinnati, Ohio?
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the Chairman knows, I was tasked with the responsibility
in the last Congress as the Chair of the Constitution
Subcommittee to help to shepherd the Voting Rights Act through
the last Congress, and we worked in a very bipartisan manner
and got the job done. So I think my credibility relative to
voting rights is well-known, at least among the Members of this
Committee.
Some of the allegations relative to Ohio I have to admit,
professor, we disagree, and I do thank you for your testimony;
however, I believe there is no right more fundamental than the
right to vote and that protecting the integrity of the
electoral process to ensure fair and free elections is critical
to our democratic system of government.
Part of ensuring fair and just elections is conducting non-
biased and independent oversight, but I think that some of the
allegations that you made relative to Ohio I think are--you
know, I think it is real questionable whether they are unbiased
or independent or accurate.
As the representative from the first district of Ohio,
which is Cincinnati, I spent considerable time at diverse urban
and suburban polling locations in both 2000 and 2004 and 2006,
and I disagree with your assessment, that there was some type
of Republican conspiracy going on.
In fact, it appears that any electoral irregularities in
Cuyahoga County, for example, which is the largest county in
the State, were in fact caused by the incompetence of a
Democrat. And I have with me a number of recent articles
reporting the resignation of the executive director of the
Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, Michael Vu who, again, is a
Democrat, because of a number of electoral irregularities.
And all of these articles confirm that Mr. Vu was hired in
2003 with the support of the Democratic Party to administer the
electoral process in Cuyahoga County. The articles go on to
describe the electoral irregularities that occurred in that
county under Mr. Vu's watch, similar in what you have described
in your testimony, such as long lines and complaints over
provisional ballots, not only in 2004 but also in 2006.
Professor Sandberg, putting partisan politics aside, can we
agree that at least in Cuyahoga County that it was a Democrat
appointed with the support of the Democratic Party who was
largely responsible for any electoral problems that occurred in
2004 and 2006 there? And if so, how can one say that every step
in the election process was undermined by Republicans? And how
is this type of biased reporting helpful in correcting the
electoral problems that occurred in the past and ensure that
they don't happen in the future?
And I also have to say that I heard reports, maybe you
didn't, but there were long lines in predominantly Republican
areas as well. I heard about them over an over on Election Day
that people were waiting in long lines there too. I can see by
shaking your head you disagree, but if you could respond, I
would appreciate it.
Ms. Sandberg. Thank you. Thank you for your question.
There were some instances where, frankly, incompetence
complicated what was going on.
The reason that I am focusing on the Republican State
leadership, part of what is in my written testimony and I
wasn't able to present in my oral testimony because we only
have 5 minutes--and this is, to me, very telling: In Oberlin,
we had 5-hour lines, 300 people waiting, and I was in an
exurbia community, as we now call them, we use to call them
suburban, but exurban community, where there were many voting
booths.
I received a phone call from the poll watcher in Oberlin
saying, ``Eve, is there anything you can do? What can I do? I
can't get through to the secretary of state's office. I can't
get through.'' I tried calling----
Mr. Chabot. Wrap it up quickly because I have got only a
minute left.
Ms. Sandberg. Okay. I tried to get through to the secretary
of state. I turned to my Republican counterpart and said,
``This isn't fair.'' He said, ``Oh, they gave us a different
number.'' And he called and got through.
Mr. Chabot. I read that in your testimony. I saw that. I
assume my colleagues did also.
Ms. Sandberg. Okay. So Republicans had systematically, the
Republican leadership----
Mr. Chabot. Let me just follow up. When you talk about
systematically, in the election, the elected official you are
talking about, Ken Blackwell, was running for governor. How did
that race turn out that Republicans were orchestrating to steal
the elections? Who won that election?
Ms. Sandberg. Wait. This testimony here was from 2004, and
he was hoping----
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Well, I am talking about 2006 now.
Ms. Sandberg [continuing]. And he was hoping to be a leader
of his party.
Mr. Chabot. I am beyond that. We are talking about 2004 and
2006 in your testimony.
Ms. Sandberg. In 2006, in this last time, he won.
Mr. Chabot. Who won the governor's race?
Ms. Sandberg. Mr. Strickland and----
Mr. Chabot. And it was a pretty wide margin, right?
Ms. Sandberg. He did, right.
Mr. Chabot. He won 60-plus percent to 37 percent that
Blackwell got. You had an incumbent Republican Senator who lost
by more than 12 points to Sherrod Brown. You had four of the
six statewide offices that Democrats won. Yet there is still
this contention that there was a Republican attempt to steal
the elections. To me, that is just beyond comprehension.
Ms. Sandberg. One of the reasons that that happened is I
believe the second time that--the Democrats had a slew of
lawyers all over the State looking for--because people like
you, and I believe you, Mr. Chabot, that you are someone who
really wants free and fair elections. But because we had shined
a light on it and because the Democrats this time--the first
time we were taken by surprise, and I say, ``we,'' because now
I am a partisan Democrat in Ohio. Otherwise, you know from my
testimony previously I was not in other States. We were taken
by surprise.
A slew of lawyers came in, we had a slew of people watching
who were legally trained, who were experts and the polls--I
mean, to have taken the election this time, the polls so
demonstrated that there was a tide, a Democratic tide. It would
have been incomprehensible.
Mr. Chabot. Well, I know my time is up, but let me just
conclude by saying that I think this is one issue where it
really should be bipartisan, that you ought to have Republicans
and Democrats agreeing that everybody ought to have the
opportunity to vote, every vote ought to count.
We ought to make sure that people, our citizens, I know
there is some disagreement on to what extent we go there, but
it ought to be--this was a Democratic year, it was a great
Democratic year. A lot of Republicans lost. Sometimes it goes
one way or the other.
But I really think in my heart of hearts in Ohio that
elections aren't stolen. I mean, there are incidences where
there are abuses, but, in general, I think we need to do a
better job. I think we ought to keep the politics out of it as
much as possible.
Thank you.
Ms. Sandberg. May I say one more thing? I am the one who
actually researches and writes in international affairs, and if
I can just say this. It has nothing to do with any of the bills
that are present. But if we could--one of the things that
happens when we go abroad and we are trying to promote
democracy, the cynicism abroad about our democracy is painful
to me, and I agree with you, we have to get our house in order.
And perhaps we could take a page from some of those late
industrializing countries that have taken the election process
in States and taken it away from a secretary of state that
belongs to one party or another and put it in a bipartisan,
independent election council. Because when someone is trying to
be a leader of their party in the future and they want to
deliver an election and there is other circumstantial evidence,
it is hard not to think that that is what they are doing.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
Ms. Sandberg. Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, witness and Mr. Chabot.
We now turn to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Mel
Watt.
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this important hearing. I apologize for being unable to
be here for the first panel, but I wanted to certainly be here
to hear these experts.
Let me ask a question that probably has little to do with
either the bill that we are considering or much else.
There seems to be people dropping bills now who would like
to do away with robo calls, and I noticed, Mr. Neas, you
mentioned that in your testimony, not doing away with them
completely but erroneous information robo calls.
As a general proposition, do you think it would be
constitutional to do away with all robo calls?
Mr. Neas. I don't think it would be. Mr. Scott asked a
somewhat similar question before, and before we were trying to
strike that balance between the right to vote and other kinds
of civil rights and civil liberties. And I think this bill has
been carefully crafted to strike that balance.
Mr. Watt. Yes. I am not suggesting that this bill goes near
that issue.
Mr. Neas. Right. And the intent test about knowingly and
intentionally deceiving the voters, I think, helps with the
constitutional issue.
Mr. Watt. Professor Sandberg closed her last statement here
talking about a Federal commission of some kind that would
oversee elections. One of the impediments to that notion seems
to have been this whole notion of federalism. I am wondering
whether anybody has done any expensive research on the
interplay between article 1, section 2, and article 1, section
4, of the Constitution to try to more precisely define the
outer limits of what we can do at the Federal level and what is
protected at the State level.
Are you aware, Mr. Neas or Ms. Brazile or Dr. Sandberg, of
anybody who has really gone at that issue aggressively and
tried to define what the outer limits of Federal authority is
in setting the qualifications for elections?
Mr. Neas. Mr. Watt, I personally am not knowledgeable in
this area. I am sure that my excellent legislative and legal
counsels might have something to report back to you and that we
could share with you.
Mr. Watt. They are helping you back there behind you----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Neas. I am sure they are.
Mr. Watt [continuing]. Wanting to get to the table to
answer the question.
Mr. Neas. If there is anything out there, we would gladly
share it with you and the other Members of the Committee.
Mr. Watt. Okay. That would be great, because I often hear
people raising that as an issue. It doesn't seem to be that
difficult reading the language of the two sections of article
1. I will just read them into the record, just quickly.
Article 1, section 2, says, ``The House of Representatives
shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the
people of the several states, and the electors,'' I assume that
is the voters, ``in each state shall have the qualifications
requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state
legislature.''
So I guess whatever qualifications that a State put on to
be eligible to be a voter for the State legislature under that
provision would be applicable to Federal elections.
Section 4 says, ``The times, places and manner of holding
elections for Senators and representatives shall be prescribed
in each State by the legislature thereof,'' and that sounds
like a way-out statement, but then it goes on to just whack the
legs from under it by saying, ``But the Congress may at any
time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the
places of choosing Senators.''
So it seems to me, I have guess I have heard too much legal
speculation, classroom academic speculation about this. The
language seems pretty clear to me, but if you all have any
additional research, I am sure these brilliant lawyers who are
seated behind you will provide it to me.
So I appreciate you being here and appreciate your
testimony.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
We now call on our distinguished Member--oh, Steve King is
here, former witness on panel one is now back in his more
normal role in panel two and is recognized.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sitting here next to you
is not quite my normal role, but I appreciate that, and I
appreciate this hearing here today and the tone and the tenor
of this hearing and the serious nature of how we approach the
election process in America.
And I made some statements earlier about how important I
believe the integrity of our system is. I sincerely and
fervently believe that it goes beyond even the facts. Every
vote should be legitimate, no one should be intimidated to keep
them from voting.
I don't know how you actually get that written into law,
but I want all our electoral process to be as absolutely clean
as it can be with a max amount of integrity in the system. And
if we can do that, I said earlier that I would be willing to
sacrifice, in a level playing field, I would be willing to put
a majority at risk, a presidency at risk because the people
ought to make that decision, and then the political parties
then can adjust their politics to go back and compete for their
majority or their presidency.
That is the way it is designed to be, and if we lose the
integrity, it isn't just if it doesn't work right, but if the
American people lose their faith in it, even if it works right,
then we have lost our constitutional republic. So this is a
very, very important hearing.
I regret that I wasn't able to listen to all the testimony
of the second panel of witnesses, the nature of this Hill being
what it is. And so I am going a little bit at maybe a haphazard
fashion here, but I am very interested in Ms. Brazile's
approach to this, because you have a long and active and a
fairly public involvement in these things.
As I read through your testimony here, I see on page four,
and I am going to tell you, I agree with this statement,
``There is no place in our democracy for last minute
attempts,'' and I would add to that, any attempts, ``to purge
eligible citizens just because they may vote for your
opponent.'' Just exactly right, well-said, and I support that
statement.
I would ask, though, Ms. Brazile, and here is a
philosophical question, in a way, is where I am getting to. I
am going to just ask you, were you a supporter of the
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act we did last year?
Ms. Brazile. Yes, sir. Not only was I a supporter, when the
White House called to invite members of the community to come
over to the White House, they called me to ensure that they had
all of the great champions of civil rights. So, absolutely,
sir.
Mr. King. Okay. And I didn't want to make that presumption,
but I did want to give you an opportunity to say so on the
record.
Ms. Brazile. Thank you.
Mr. King. And the motive behind that, and I believe, for
the most part, is pure, but I call into question this statement
right above that on the same page where it says, and it is a
quote from your testimony, ``There is no place in our democracy
for election practices that target citizens based on the color
of their skin or their partisan affiliation.''
Ms. Brazile. That is correct.
Mr. King. And right on its face, I agree with that, but I
would point out that in the Voting Rights Act, and as objected
to substantially by Georgia, that there are practices in the
redistricting process that certainly affect the integrity of an
individual's vote that are based upon race.
And my question to you is then, there have been a couple
circumstances, Justice O'Connor essentially suspended the 14th
amendment for 25 years and the affirmative action cases until
such time as we can put racism behind us. And this
reauthorization for 25 years sentences the people in the
covered States and the districts within those States to the
label of racism for 25 years.
It occurs to me that a lot of the people that were labeled
such in the original passage of the Voting Rights Act have
passed into the next life and maybe their children are there
voting or their children have moved out, and so it looks to me
like racism is heredity like skin color by the analysis of
this.
Is there a time that you think we can get to this point
where we can erase these divisions and then not have
classifications and not be redistricting based upon race?
Ms. Brazile. Well, sir, I hope in my lifetime we do arrive
at that day, but, unfortunately, we are not there today. I know
of too many instances, even in my own home State of Louisiana,
where people are still selectively purged because of the color
of their skin.
I could tell you and attest, even if you go back and look
in Florida in 2000 when there was a young man, well, Wallace
McDonald, 64, he was purged from the Florida voter rolls
because of a conviction. Now, Mr. McDonald's crime was not a
felony for which Floridians forfeit their voting rights forever
but merely a misdemeanor, which should not affect voting rights
at all. Mr. McDonald had been convicted for falling asleep on a
bench. One-third of eligible Black men have lost their voting
rights.
Mr. King. Ms. Brazile, you know I am with you on that. I am
with you on that. That is a deplorable thing to see happen. And
there was earlier testimony that said that perhaps of the
purging of the votes there were maybe 20 percent error rate, or
at least the comment was made, I believe, by Mr. Nadler.
Do we have any numbers that tell about how many felons are
actually allowed to vote by mistake. If we are going to have
errors on one side of the database, did we have them on the
other side, that you are aware?
Ms. Brazile. Very few, sir. I mean, the fact is less than
100 cases. And I can submit all of this for the testimony. The
Brennan Center for Justice has done an outstanding job of
putting forward information on felony disenfranchisement in
this country, and I think this is one of the most egregious
errors that we have made.
And I just recently saw the governor of Florida in the
green room at CNN, and we have agreed to begin to work together
on this issue so that we can get rid of the backlog in the
State of Florida. Many citizens in that State are eligible to
vote but because of the law that tells them that they have to
go back and reapply and then they have to get a status report,
so we need to find ways to ensure that every eligible citizen
can vote.
Mr. King. Would it occur to you, as it has to me, that with
the computer databases that we have, that we could actually
have an interconnected computer database of all voter
registration in America for Federal elections so that we could
crunch that database and eliminate the duplicates, the
deceased, the felons where it is appropriate, according to law,
and also get that all cleaned up so that we don't have mistakes
for Federal elections? Would that be something that you could
support?
Ms. Brazile. I would, but Congress, first, must properly
fund the Help America Vote Act so we can ensure we have the
funds. As you well know, many States when they are looking for
extra dollars, the one area that they are not trying to put
those extra dollars is in election administration, and I would
hope that you would fund it.
Mr. King. And we did that for the first time to reach into
that, but I understand what you are saying.
I have another concern and you brought up the 2000 election
in Florida, and as I watched that, and I watched it closely, as
many Americans did, probably more closely than most, though,
and I see that there were issues with people had difficulty
managing the ballot, understanding how to vote, how to get to
their polling place.
And the thing that seemed to be a common denominator that
we all agreed on, whether we are Republicans, Independents,
Democrats or the media, was that the people that intended to
vote for Al Gore had more difficulty getting the ballot figured
out than those that were intending to vote for George Bush.
Could you speak to that as to why that would be the case?
Ms. Brazile. Well, sir, we still have a problem of literacy
in this country, we still have a problem where some Americans
don't have the transportation required to get to their ballot
box. Look, in some communities in this country, especially in
rural areas, the polling site is often five, ten miles away,
and when Americans, as you well know, are stressed out, working
two, three jobs, so we try in our political party to make it
easier for people to vote. That is why we suggest and recommend
early voting, what we call no excuse absentee voting. So we try
to ensure that people can get to the ballot box.
I think of those residents in Palm Beach County who voted
mistakenly for Pat Buchanan, knowing that they wanted to vote
for Al Gore. That was the butterfly ballot. So I think we need
to eliminate some of these structural barriers, the ballot
errors and other things, and make it easier for people to
exercise their right to vote.
I hope one day that we cannot just clean up our computer
systems but we can allow for, and some of my friends will not
like this, but I hope one day that we can allow for Internet
voting. As you know, many of our military personnel overseas
were allowed to either fax in their ballot or vote by Internet,
and hopefully one day we can clean up the system and have a
fail-proof system so that we can make voting easier for all
eligible citizens.
Mr. King. I thank the gentlelady, and I yield back.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you for your questions, Mr. King.
The gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, the set of hearings that we have already had in
this Committee has set a new tone and a new day for justice in
America, and I thank the Chairman. I don't know if we would
have had a hearing as quickly as this on the questions of
issues of great concern that I believe need addressing.
I would like to define this hearing for what I think it is,
and I hope the witnesses will help me and correct me if I am
wrong. I believe this is about voter suppression and voter
intimidation.
And as I have listened to the witnesses and also my
colleagues who have asked questions, let the record be clear
that none of us adhere to voter fraud. I think each of you at
the table would speak vigorously against it, probably join in
in helping to find any legal basis to overcome or eliminate
voter fraud.
I have seen fraudulent activities happen, whether it is
stuffing the ballot, whether it is manipulating the count. That
is fraudulent, and I don't believe that we would counter to
that.
But let me go back to the 2000 election, and I have to talk
very quickly, because I think intimidation is clear.
And let me associate myself with Chairman Conyers, this is
a great bill, and I am looking forward to possibly the
germaneness of an amendment dealing with an election. I filed a
holiday bill for Election Day. I file that bill frequently. It
has a lot of entanglements to it, but I hope that we have
finally give Americans a day to vote, particularly in Federal
elections, and I join the Chairman in that.
And I also want to mention, as I give examples of voter
suppression, two distinct examples, Prairie View A&M and
Florida A&M, Florida A&M in particular.
And, Mr. Chairman, if you had Kareem Brown in this room, I
don't think we could contain still the kind of degree of
upsetness, but I recall distinctly suppression of college
voters. There was a specific desire to suppress that vote in
Prairie View A&M, legitimately registered student voters who
have been suppressed. And let me remind you that they were
suppressed again in 2006 when we marched again.
And so I hope, as we look at this bill, 1281, that is a
very fine framework, that there will be some germaneness to
provide some specific prohibitions against suppressing college
vote. Now, that would include individuals of all colors and
creeds who happen to have a jurisdictional right to claim a
residency and vote in that area, and I am going to pose a
question.
The other one was the felon question in Florida--and I am
going back again to 2000, maybe because the spirit is still in
my heart--of the thousands, as I understand it, a Texas company
who had on the list felons who were not felons.
And I would vote, Mr. Chairman, an amendment might be
germane in terms of some sort of credentialing of so-called
voter companies, whatever they may be, whether they be a felon
list or a purged list. I want some kind of criteria for them to
exist in this arena.
Because it is not a business, Mr. Chairman, it is an
infringement of a constitutional right.
And let me finish this so I can pose a question. I,
frankly, think the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment--somebody can
rise up and challenge me--gave rights to White Americans as
well and other Americans. Let me just say it gave rights to
Americans. It had some specific historical criteria, but they
gave rights. They gave a due process right to Americans,
equality rights, a non-enslavement right, if you will, so that
we cannot hold anyone as a slave here in this country and
deprive them of their rights.
Might I quickly ask each of the persons, as the light goes,
to tell me whether suppression is the key element of what we
are saying here, which wraps in deceptive practices, that we
want what is provided, the constitutional right or the right to
vote, and that is what we are trying to get at in this bill and
that we can, in all manner, deal with fraud if it is
documented. But it is the question of fraud.
Why don't I start with you, Mr. Neas, in terms of your
work.
Mr. Neas. There is no question that there is extensive
evidence from the last three elections of voter intimidation
and deceptive practices. People For the American Way Foundation
along with the NAACP and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
has put out three separate studies that go into hundreds of
incidents in many parts of the country.
Of course we are against fraud. I think the fraud issue is
a red herring. There was just a report by Columbia University
this week, ``Voter fraud of any type is extremely rare with
only 24 people convicted nationwide between 2002 and 2005.''
And I can cite you report after report, statistic after
statistic. It is a red herring to give justification for some
of these voter ID bills.
Where some of these voter ID bills have occurred, like
Indiana, Missouri and Arizona, in all three States, the
governor, the secretary of state or the State has testified in
court there is no voter fraud in these States. There is no
documentation that would justify these kinds of voter ID bills.
So we are totally in agreement, and anything that makes it
easier to vote, that brings down the barriers that prohibit
people from voting and making sure that votes are counted and
counted accurately, we are behind. I think this bill will be a
significant move in that direction.
Mr. King, by the way, I do applaud you for your work on the
voting machines thatou demonstrated in the last Congress, and I
hope you will join Rush Holt and others, if you haven't
already. I take very seriously a number of things that you said
about how you want to remedy that situation.
I think you looked at the machines and the
disenfranchisement by voting machines, not just the DREs but
different kinds of voting machines, and the issue of voter
intimidation and suppression, provisional ballots, the
equitable distribution of resources, especially machines that
we heard in the testimony regarding Ohio in 2004. And Mr.
Chabot is not here to talk about Ken Blackwell, but what he did
with the paperweight of the voter registrations and the purging
and the challenges----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I was there.
Mr. Neas [continuing]. Was quite reprehensible.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And I thank you. Mr. King has been
bipartisan on many issues.
Can I get the last two witnesses, please, to quickly--
particularly this college suppression that I think you
experienced, Ms. Brazile, directly in the State of Florida.
Mr. Neas. We were co-counsel on that issue, by the way, and
I thank you for all the efforts.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Brazile. Madam Congresswoman, I mentioned in my
testimony the students at Prairie View and also I know about
the students at Florida A&M, and I know of many other cases
where students had particular problems in getting their
absentee ballots, even voting on campus, so even having the
facilities available to them.
At Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, the students there
wanted to put in a polling site, and they went to the town
council. New Hampshire is one of the States that has same-day
registration. The students had problems actually getting the
polling site closer to campus, because many of them did not
have access to public transportation that would take them to
the town hall place.
So, I think we have to find ways to ensure that our young
people have opportunities to cast their ballots, and when they
request their absentee ballots, they get them in a timely
fashion. Every semester, at Georgetown, after an election, I
try to get a show of hands of how many students voted, and many
of them raise their hands. To the two or three that fail to
raise their hands, I say, ``What is the problem?'' They say,
``Didn't get the ballot. We requested it in time but it didn't
come.''
So this is a problem. We need to focus on students, the
elderly, the poor, racial minorities, language minorities,
people with disabilities.
You know, as these elections become more and more
polarized, the Nation is divided. We have 29 so-called safe
States, 21 so-called battleground or swing States. If you look
at these incidents of voter deception, voter intimidation,
voter harassment, illegal voter purges, they are taking place
in these so-called swing States where there has been a
deliberate attempt to try to suppress the vote.
Just recently, in Michigan, there was a State
representative, I believe his name was Mr. Papageorge, who said
that in order to win in Michigan, we have to suppress the votes
in Detroit. Now, that is wrong. You should win outright, lose
outright. I have won many elections, I have lost some, but I
think for people to put illegal barriers in front of voters,
that should be outlawed.
One thing on these robo calls, once upon a time, I thought
robo calls were the sexiest thing in politics, because you can
get celebrities and others to tape a 15-second, 20-second
message and then put it on right before the election, and
people got really excited and say, I heard from Bill Clinton, I
heard from Bill Cosby, whoever on the Republican side.
Now, those calls are placed in the middle of the night,
they don't identify who the caller is, and it is a form of
harassment. And many voters called us last year to DNC and
said, ``Stop the phone calls.'' Well, we were not making phone
calls at those hours. I am sure you heard in Missouri there
were even live phone calls, push calls, as they are commonly
referred to.
So we need to clean up, and I have committed myself. I have
talked to Ken Mehlman, the outgoing chairman of RNC, I have
talked to Ed Gillespie, the former chairman. I have committed
myself to working across the partisan lines, because I think we
need to clean up our system. If we want to have the best
democracy in the world, if we want to march for freedom in Iraq
and Afghanistan, it should begin here at home.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you want to comment quickly?
I thank the Chairman for his indulgence.
Ms. Sandberg. I would comment quickly. And this is where I
had a good-faith disagreement with the congressman from
Cincinnati, from Ohio.
And the reason that I said that it looked like it was an
organized suppression, not just incompetencies, even there were
instances of incompetence, was that in addition to the fact
that there was a double track for poll workers to get to the
secretary of state, we could not get correct identification
from the secretary of state in the 2004 election to the point
that the president of our college, Nancy Dye, had to create a
task force to figure out how to record and inform students of
their voting rights so they wouldn't be disenfranchised.
In 2006, when the League of Women Voters were trying to get
the rules to publicize them, and one of my students, who was
writing for one our local newspapers, called the secretary of
state's office regularly to try to get clarification. No one
there could give him clarification, which means that if you are
a student trying to vote and you are trying to find out how you
can do that and under what conditions and if you are a student
who moves from dorm to dorm and you don't have an address on
your photo identification card and that is what they said they
were going to want, then in the end they didn't, it means that
you have missed the opportunity to register to vote because you
don't know the rules and you can't even vote absentee if you
happen to be from another State.
So that is why I said there was something going on that
seemed more than just mild incompetence, and it was in the
secretary of state's office. And that is my perception. I was
invited here to talk about my perception from where I was and
what I viewed, and that is what I saw.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what we
are hearing is that voter fraud is something that we all will
stand unified against but that the chief culprit of races of
past and maybe in the future is suppression of voters of all
kinds, elderly, as well as students, as well as others, and as
well as legal immigrants who may be categorized as undocumented
just by the nature of their name. And I hope that we can move
forward on this legislation.
I yield back to the gentleman. I thank him very much, and
thank you.
Mr. Conyers. And thank you for the interesting questions.
From Ohio, we have yet another Member of Congress, Mr.
Jordan. Would you ring in with your perspective on this with
our three witnesses?
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to pick up
where Congressman Chabot was.
Professor, in 2006, which party did better in Ohio?
Ms. Sandberg. In 2006, certainly the Democrats did better.
Mr. Jordan. Which party controlled the secretary of state's
office in 2006?
Ms. Sandberg. The secretary of state's office was
controlled by Republicans and----
Mr. Jordan. Who controlled the secretary of state's office
in 2004?
Ms. Sandberg. The Republican Party.
Mr. Jordan. Who controlled it in 2002?
Ms. Sandberg. Republican Party.
Mr. Jordan. Who controlled it in 2000?
Ms. Sandberg. I can't remember that far back, sir.
Mr. Jordan. The Republican Party. What was the name of Ohio
secretary of state during those last four elections?
Ms. Sandberg. It was Ken Blackwell.
Mr. Jordan. And what office did he run for in 2006?
Ms. Sandberg. He ran for governor.
Mr. Jordan. And what was the result?
Ms. Sandberg. The result was that there were----
Mr. Jordan. What was the result, who won?
Ms. Sandberg. The result was he lost, and I think that the
context as to why is as important as the question----
Mr. Jordan. Let me ask you this----
Ms. Sandberg [continuing]. As the answer.
Mr. Jordan. But your point is, you come with this grand
conspiracy that is going on in the State of Ohio that you have
laid out. In fact, you said, over the 6-year timeframe it is
hard not to conclude that every step of the election process
was undermined by the Republican secretary of state's office
and the many in his employ.
So you have got this grand conspiracy. How in the heck--I
mean, the secretary of state for 8 years now running for
governor, still controlling the secretary of state's office, if
there is some grand conspiracy, helicopterscircling the State
house, how in the heck could he lose that bad in 2006?
Ms. Sandberg. No helicopters circling the State house, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Let me point to one thing in your testimony.
Ms. Sandberg. Okay. I would love to answer.
Mr. Jordan. Then I will let you respond.
Ms. Sandberg. All right.
Mr. Jordan. You say this: ``A young man''--this is in your
testimony, page five--``A young man reported that a number of
Kent State students came to him and claimed that their punch
cards''--this is in the 2004 election----
Ms. Sandberg. Right.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. ``Their punch cards were pre-
punched for President Bush. I asked the male student if he took
down the names of any Kent State students with whom he had
spoken, he said he had not. I told him I was not certain what
he could do, he should call the secretary of state's office and
he should call the Democratic Party. Stupidly, I did not take
down his name. It never occurred to me that I might be sitting
here today.''
So you had the foresight to ask him did he take down their
names, you didn't take down his name, and yet you come in front
of the Judiciary Committee in Congress, some nameless guy, with
nameless students who had pre-punched cards for President Bush
in 2004 and cite that in your testimony, and yet if it is that
grand a conspiracy, how in the heck did Ken Blackwell lose so
bad in 2006?
Ms. Sandberg. There are two answers to that. The first is
that I was invited here to talk about what it looked like to me
on the ground, what did I see, what did I hear. I didn't
conduct an investigation, I wasn't invited to do research as to
what happened in the election. I am invited here as someone who
is on the ground and who is able to report what I saw and heard
so that you folks can do that investigation.
I put that in there and I put that it was an allegation,
and I put that it was an allegation because I hadn't
substantiated it, but it certainly is troubling and somebody
should be investigating that.
Mr. Jordan. A nameless guy, with nameless students, in
front of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. Sandberg. I am sorry. If I am oversees and I am an
election observer and someone wants their election certified, I
know the people are trained to say, ``If there are reports,
give us reports, we will look into it, and we will see whether
or not the election procedures need fixing.'' In that same
spirit, I come to you today and say, we heard enormously
disturbing things. And my testimony today, again, is not the
result of research on my part but to raise as issues that were
troubling that we heard.
As far as how the secretary of state do so poorly in this
election, it was the same question I had previously, is the
polls overwhelmingly showed that he was going to do poorly, and
this time the Democrats were a little more prepared. They had
lawyers all over the State.
You folks, blessedly, and I have to say from both sides of
the aisle, and as you know in my testimony, I said I am not
saying all Republicans, I am talking about particular
individuals who did your party, I believe, no honor, that there
were folks all over the State who had shined a light on what
was going on in Ohio. The difference in the polls was so great
and people were prepared this time in a way they weren't before
so they could counter some of the tactics that had been used
before so that the election went forward in a more accurate
way.
Mr. Jordan. It couldn't have been that maybe the people who
won in 2004 got more votes than the other individual on the
ballot, and those in 2006 who won got more votes than the
other. It couldn't have been that simple, could it?
Ms. Sandberg. It could have been that simple, except that
there were so many irregularities, and I am someone who was
invited here to inform you of all those irregularities so that
if you investigate them and you find this is a pattern in other
places where there are swing States or where there has been
closely contested elections, that it is your job to figure out
a way to prevent those irregularities.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you. We have heard from about three
Members of Congress from Ohio, so I am so happy that Professor
Sandberg was here this afternoon.
Our final but certainly one of our most important
contributors is the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Artur Davis,
who is recognized.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I ask my questions, I just want to respond to my
friend from Iowa's comments. Earlier, Mr. King made an argument
that you hear every now and then that we have had 42 years of
improving conduct under the Voting Rights Act, so perhaps we no
longer need it.
A proposition, obviously we are a less racist country than
we used to be, people don't discriminate as much. Does anyone
on the panel think that we don't need title 7 because of that?
Okay. I think that makes my point.
Let me ask you all several questions regarding the scope of
this hearing. Voter ID, we have a number of people who believe
that voter ID is important. I think the Ranking Member of the
Committee made some observations about the number of
enforcement actions brought by the Civil Rights Division.
Let me ask this question: Do any of you on the panel know
how many prosecutions have been brought anywhere in the
country, in the last 5 years, based on people walking into a
polling place, claiming to be someone they are not?
Ms. Brazile. I believe the Justice Department put out
figures of 11.
Mr. Davis. And that would be 11, Ms. Brazile----
Ms. Brazile. Yes.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. In a span of 7 years, which is an
average of a little bit more than one a year. And, of course,
normally, this institution doesn't try to pass or typically we
don't try to regulate conduct that yields one known violation a
year, as I recall. We try to be more conservative than that.
Let me ask you another set of questions, and maybe I am
just uninformed about this, so I will just ask the whole panel.
We know of all of the issues raised around election
irregularities in Florida in the year 2000, we know of the
179,855 ballots that weren't validated.
Looking at established democracies, I don't mean countries
having their first election, but looking at the countries
around the world that are established democracies, do we know
of another country in the last 6 or 7 years where the
presidency or the leadership of that country has resulted from
an election with so many questions around contamination of
ballots?
Anyone on the panel know of another? Maybe I am just not
informed.
Mr. Neas. I certainly cannot recall one, and I think Donna,
quite eloquently, a few minutes ago was talking about how we
want to be a model to the rest of the world and we say we are a
model to the rest of the world, but over the last 25 years, in
particular, and it is certainly not just Republican versus
Democrat, because I certainly am old enough to remember what it
was like in the 1950's and 1960's with voter intimidation in
the South and suppression, and we still have that in Georgia
and elsewhere, and that is why we need the Voting Rights Act.
But when you look at our reports that we did with the
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the NAACP and
People For, they are entitled, the long shadow of Jim Crow or
the new face of Jim Crow or Shattering the Myth, which is in
large measure about Ohio in 2004. This is a disgrace----
Mr. Davis. Well, let me stop you there, because----
Mr. Neas [continuing]. Mr. Davis, and we should reform it,
and I hope this Committee will move forward on it.
Ms. Brazile. But I think Mexico had problems in their last
presidential election.
Mr. Davis. And the counter to that, though, I thought
someone might say Mexico, the only issue is there was an
independent electoral commission that was appointed in Mexico
that closely scrutinized the process and issued a finding that
despite much controversy, there was actually no real evidence
of contamination. Does anyone on the panel know of an
independent commission that made that kind of assessment around
the 2000 election? Because of time, yes or no.
Okay. You all agree----
Ms. Sandberg. There are many other countries. If you think
of the recent Zambian election----
Mr. Davis. I am talking about established countries, not
countries where they are just learning this process. I am
talking about established democracies who have a history of at
least 25, 30, 50, 70 years. I don't know of another instance
when the election of the president or the chancellor or the
prime minister--similar question: Do any of you know of any
election in an established democracy where a judicial
determination has been the dispositive factor? Again, major
established democracy for president, chancellor? I can't recall
one.
Let me end on this observation: Normally, what Congress
tries to do and what public policy aims to do is to try to find
areas where there are major problems and to step in and address
those. That is what we try to do with our regulatory reach. It
seems to me the biggest problem that we have with elections in
this country is that significant numbers of people who are
eligible to vote are still not registered to vote.
In my State of Alabama, in your State, Ms. Brazile,
Louisiana, your native State, 58 percent of the Blacks who were
eligible to vote are registered. It is consistent across the
South. That strikes me as a somewhat important problem from a
policymaker's standpoint.
On the flipside of that, I think we have some general
agreement in this room that we know of scattered instances
where people walk into polling places claiming to be John Jones
when they are Mary Smith. We know of scattered instances when
people are regularly engaging in that kind of fraud that some
people want to regulate with voter ID.
Doesn't it make sense to all of you that we should be
aiming our laws and our policy to what appears to be the bigger
problem instead of something that appears to be an aberration.
Mr. Neas. Absolutely.
Ms. Brazile. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. All right. Thanks.
Mr. Conyers. I think this brings to a conclusion the
beginning of a very important inquiry, and it is my hope that
we will be able to move on this matter and document some of the
very disparate numbers that have been exchanged here today.
Wouldn't it be nice to know accurately, to the best of our
ability, the actual numbers of people who have committed fraud
or who have been denied to vote or have tried to vote more than
once or immigrant attempted voting? All these things do have
some numbers behind them, and I think the Department of Justice
has a huge responsibility in that area.
And so to Mr. Neas, to Donna Brazile, to Professor
Sandberg, we are indebted to you, and all of our witnesses--but
wait a minute. I haven't recognized Mr. Ellison, and I
apologize for that.
Mr. Ellison. Mr. Chair, a lot of the questions that I had
have already been asked and I have already had a chance to ask
the first panel some questions. So I just want to say, quite
clearly, I want to thank all the witnesses who have come
forward so eloquently, and I want to thank the Chair.
I think this is one of the most fundamental and rudimentary
problems in our society, and we have really got to focus our
attention on getting more people to participate in our
democracy and not straining at a net on who may or may not have
voted when they weren't who they said they were. Because I
think while that may be a problem, it is relatively small in
the greater scheme of things.
So, again, thank you, Mr. Chair, and, certainly, I want to
thank all the panelists.
Mr. Conyers. Well, thank you very much, Keith Ellison.
Your participation on the Judiciary Committee has been
welcomed by many. And I think that, although many of our
remarks and some of the discussion went beyond the parameters
of the bill that we have in front of us, unless we look at this
in a larger scope, we tend to just focus on particular issues,
singular issues, when I think all of us see that there are a
great many things that can be done.
And I intend to maximally involve the Department of Justice
who I think that a huge responsibility goes on, not just toward
enforcement and protecting the rights of citizenship, but of
encouraging and making more simple the balloting process. It
has been observed here that actually we have hundreds, if not
thousands, of different systems going on because of the
Federal-State dichotomy.
What we want to do now is ponder, and I invite our
witnesses who are free to continue to contact us, how we
proceed next and how most effectively.
This Committee's agenda is so large that being efficient
really counts for something here, and so we will include
received statements from the NAACP, the Brennan Center for
Justice, ACORN, the Project Vote report. And, without
objection, they will all be included in the record.
And the record will remain open for 5 legislative days for
the submission of other materials.
I thank you all for your devoted commitment to this subject
matter and to your active substantive contributions made here
at the hearing today.
Thank you, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 7:04 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of John Fund, Columnist, The Wall Street Journal
I want to thank the Commissioners for addressing this important
issue because we may be only three weeks away from repeating the 2000
Florida election debacle, although this time not in one but in several
states with allegations of voter fraud, intimidation, and manipulation
of voting machines added to the generalized chaos we saw in Florida.
It's time to acknowledge the U.S. still has in many places a
haphazard election system that is more befitting an emerging nation
than the world's leading democracy.
Walter Dean Burnham has called our system the world's sloppiest
electoral process. How sloppy? Just ask the residents of Maryland last
month who saw their primary election thrown into chaos after electronic
voting machines couldn't be activated. Thousands of voters gave up and
went home surrendering their right to vote.
Now we have the prospect of both candidates for governor in
Maryland, the Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich and the Democratic
challenger, Mr. O'Malley, calling on voters to cast their ballots by
absentee. This shows a complete lack of confidence in our election
system, and this presents us with two possible problems.
If Donna Brazile and others are legitimately worried about voter
intimidation, the easiest ballots to intimidate voters over are
absentee ballots because they're cast outside of the purview and the
authority of election officials, and we have a long history in this
country of people being intimidated either by their spouses, their
relatives, their employers, union officials, or others into casting an
absentee ballot a certain way. More absentee ballots equals more voter
intimidation.
In addition, absentee ballots are the most easy method to commit
voter fraud, again, because they're cast outside the view and the
authority of election officials.
The 2000 Florida recount was more than merely a national
embarrassment. It left a lasting scar on the American political psyche.
Indeed, the level of suspicion is such that many Americans are
convinced that politicians can't be trusted to play by the rules and
will either commit fraud or intimidate voters at the slightest
opportunity.
Now, the 2000 election did result in some modest reforms at the
federal level, such as the Help America Vote Act of 2002, but the
implementation has been slow. Although I will say one positive outcome
of the HAVA Act is that Donna Brazile's sister, if she did not produce
all of the ID that she thought she needed to produce, would have been
allowed under HAVA to request a provisional ballot. That provisional
ballot would have been counted later after she had established her
eligibility.
So under the current system if you don't have the ID, you're
allowed a provisional ballot. That provisional ballot will be counted
if you are, indeed, an eligible voter.
America's election problems go beyond the strapped budgets of many
local election offices. More insidious are flawed voter rolls, voter
ignorance, lackadaisical law enforcement, and the shortage of trained
volunteers at the polls.
Something like 70 percent of our poll workers are going to be
retiring in the next year. It's an old person's occupation. We need to
find some way to bring young people, college students, high school
students into the process.
All of this adds up to an open invitation for errors, miscount or
fraud. Reform is easy to talk about, but difficult to bring about. Many
of the suggested improvements, such as requiring voters to show ID at
the polls, are bitterly opposed. Others such as improving the security
of absentee ballots, which Professor Pastor mentioned, are largely
ignored.
And of course, the biggest growth sector of our election industry
has been the turning of election day into election month through a new
legal quagmire, election by litigation. Every close race now carries
with it the prospect of demands for recounts, lawsuits, and seating
challenges in Congress. Some people joke that they're waiting for the
day that the politicians can just cut out the middle man and settle all
elections in court.
That gallows humor may be entirely appropriate given the
predicament we face. The 2000 election may have marked a permanent
change in how an election can be decided. We need to restore public
confidence.
Ironically, Mexico and many other countries have election systems
that are more secure than ours. It wouldn't be possible in Mexico to
have a situation that we have in many of our American cities where the
voter roles have more names on them than the U.S. Census lists as the
total number of residents over the age of 18.
Philadelphia's voter roles, for instance, have jumped 24 percent in
the last ten years at the same time the city's population has declined
by 15 percent. Something is going on there, and it probably does not
lead us to greater accuracy at the polls.
In the U.S. at a time of heightened security and rules that require
us to show ID to travel and to enter most federal buildings, only about
25 states require some form of documentation in order to vote. A recent
Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll confirms every other poll that I've
seen on this subject. It found that over 81 percent of those surveyed
supported the requirement to show photo ID. This included two-thirds
majorities of African Americans, two-thirds majorities of Democrats,
two-thirds majorities of Hispanics. In fact, I will make a stipulation
I normally don't. If you can bring me evidence of a major public policy
question which has the levels of support that we see on photo ID, 81
percent and greater, I'll make a donation to your favorite charity.
There simply, you don't get beyond 81 percent. You simply don't.
Andrew Young, who is the former U.N. Ambassador and the former
Mayor of Atlanta, makes a very good point about photo ID. Of course we
have to make sure this is accessible. Of course we have to make sure
this is accessible. Of course we have to make sure that it's free to
anyone who can't afford it. Of course we have to make sure that it's
not another barrier.
But there's also an advantage to photo ID. In modern 21st Century
America if you don't have photo ID, you are cut out of the mainstream
of American life. You can't really travel. You can't really apply for a
job. You can't really do a lot of things in life that, frankly, would
bring you into the mainstream and make your life more rich.
Andrew Young points out we are helping the poor. We are helping the
indigent. We are helping many people out of the mainstream of American
life if we get them a photo ID. They need to have it to be fully
participatory in America's life.
Election fraud, whether it's phony voter registrations, illegal
absentee ballots, shady recounts or old fashioned ballot box stuffing
can be found in every part of the U.S. Fraud can be found in rural
areas and in major cities. If you want to find some interesting
witnesses for voter fraud, I suggest you go to St. Louis and Detroit
where we've recently had Democratic primaries for mayor.
In these Democratic primaries, the losing candidates have presented
some compelling evidence of either massive voter official incompetence
or outright fraud. Freeman Hendrix, the losing candidate for Mayor of
Detroit in the Democratic primary in the last election, says that the
election was conducted under conditions of massive fraud. There's an
ongoing FBI investigation into that, and he has called for photo ID at
the polls, and he's a Democrat and a minority.
Investigations of voter fraud are inherently political because they
often involve touchy situations which people, frankly, don't want to
address fully, conditions that harken back to the great debates we had
over the civil rights struggle in the 1960s.
And I want to address that because we fought a great civil rights
hurdle in the 1960s to make sure that poll taxes and other barriers to
voting would be dropped and would never again stain America's
conscience. We need to continue that struggle. It's one of the reasons
we just extended the Voting Rights Act for the next 25 years.
But I would remind people that there is another civil right at
stake here. When voters are disenfranchised by the counting of
improperly cast ballots or outright fraud or, frankly, the incompetence
of election officials, their civil rights are violated just as surely
as if they had been prevented from voting. The integrity of the ballot
box is just as important to the credibility of elections as access to
the ballot box is.
Voting irregularities have a long pedigree in America, stretching
back to the founding of the nation. Many people thought that those bad,
old days had ended, just as many people think that there no longer is
any form of voter intimidation.
That's not the case. Voter intimidation does continue. Voter fraud
does continue. Let me give you an example of how historical ghosts can
come back to haunt us.
In 1948, pistol packing Texas sheriffs helped stuff ballot box 13,
stealing a United States Senate seat and sending Lyndon Johnson on his
road to the White House. That's been documented in Robert Caro's
biography.
Amazingly, 56 years later came the 2004 primary election in that
same part of Texas with Representative Sero Rodriguez, a Democrat and
chairman of the Hispanic Caucus in the U.S. House, charged that during
the recount a missing ballot box once again appeared in south Texas
with just enough votes to make his opponent, the Democratic nominee, by
58 votes.
Political bosses, such as Richard J. Daley or George Wallace, may
have died, but they do have successors. Even after Florida 2000, the
media and others tend to downplay or ignore stories of election
incompetence, manipulation or theft. Allowing such abuses to vanish
into an informational black hole in effect legitimizes them.
The refusal to insist on simple procedural changes, such as
requiring a photo ID, improving absentee ballot procedures, secure
technology, and more vigorous oversight, accelerates our drift towards
more chaotic and contested elections.
In conclusion, I would remind you that I never expected to live in
a country where officials in places like Miami and other cities would
hire the Center for Democracy, which normally oversees voting in places
such as Guatemala or Albania, to send election monitors to south
Florida and other places in the 2002 and 2004 elections. Scrutinizing
our elections the way we have traditionally scrutinized voting in
developing countries is unfortunately a necessary step in the right
direction.
Before we get the clearer laws and better protections, we need to
deal with fraud and voter mishaps. We need to have a sense of the
magnitude of the problem we have. I hope and trust that you as
Commissioners of this body can help in that process.
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Ralph G. Neas, President and
CEO, People for the American Way
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Donna L. Brazile, Chair,
Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute, Adjunct
Professor, Georgetown University
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Newspaper Articles, from The Washington Post and The Westside Gazette,
submitted by Donna L. Brazile, Chair, Democratic National Committee's
Voting Rights Institute, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Hilary O. Shelton, Director,
NAACP Washington Bureau
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Lillie Coney, Associate Director, Electronic
Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Coordinator National Committee for
Voting Integrity
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]