[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXPANDING AND IMPROVING OPPORTUNITIES TO VOTE BY MAIL OR ABSENTEE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 16, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on House Administration
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-5011 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
Vice-Chairwoman Ranking Minority Member
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas KEVIN McCARTHY, California
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
------
Subcommittee on Elections
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas KEVIN McCARTHY, California
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
EXPANDING AND IMPROVING OPPORTUNITIES TO VOTE BY MAIL OR ABSENTEE
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Elections,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren
(chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gonzalez, Davis of
California, Davis of Alabama, and McCarthy.
Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Matt Pinkus,
Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Thomas Hicks, Senior
Election Counsel; Janelle Hu, Election Counsel; Jennifer Daehn,
Election Counsel; Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative Clerk;
Daniel Favarulo, Staff Assistant/Elections; Matthew DeFreitas,
Staff Assistant; Fred Hay, Minority General Counsel; Bryan
Dorsey, Minority Professional Staff; Gineen Beach, Minority
Election Counsel; and Roman Buhler, Minority Election Counsel.
Ms. Lofgren. As it is 2 o'clock, the subcommittee will come
to order.
Good afternoon and welcome to the Subcommittee on
Elections, our hearing on ``Expanding and Improving
Opportunities to Vote by Mail or by Absentee.''
Absentee voting and vote-by-mail are increasingly being
used by State and local governments; however, the concept is
not a new one. In 1998, it is worth noting that Oregon passed
legislation directing all elections to be conducted by mail;
and other States such as California, Ohio, Maine, Maryland,
South Dakota, Vermont and Washington have vote-by-mail or allow
for permanent absentee ballots. In fact, under a law signed by
then-Governor George Bush, Texas even allows residents to cast
absentee ballots from space.
Research on vote-by-mail shows that it results in increased
turnout, a less costly election, uniform and strict compliance
to State law through a centralized process and an automatic
paper trail. Voters find that vote-by-mail is more convenient
and user friendly. It also provides them more time to study the
ballot.
However, vote-by-mail and absentee voting is not without
criticism. Some are concerned about chain-of-custody issues,
possible voter fraud, and suppressed voter participation. While
I respect these criticisms, I believe that studies show
otherwise. A centralized location for ballot collection and
counting results in increased security and compliance with
State law. On average, vote-by-mail elections cost 30 percent
less than regular polling place elections, and I would note
that in my own county of Santa Clara, the county has bought ads
on the buses asking people to please sign up because it will
help with their budget issues on elections.
I believe also that the concern over voter fraud is
overblown. Oregon, which has been doing vote-by-mail for the
past 9 years, has only prosecuted one case of voter fraud since
1998. Vote-by-mail is also a significant tool used by States to
maintain their voter lists. Most States which use no-excuse
vote-by-mail result in about a 15 percent increase in voter
participation.
I think it is also important to note that absentee voting
can be used by our military to vote in all Federal elections.
If absentee voting is good enough and secure enough for the men
and women in the military, does it not make sense to extend
that right to all eligible voters?
Absentee voting and vote-by-mail provide a means for
qualified voters to participate in upcoming elections. Access
to the democratic process for all voters, be it at the polls or
by mail, should be made as easy and secure as possible.
Our witnesses today will discuss their experiences with
absentee and vote-by-mail and how the process has changed and
developed over the years to ensure the integrity and
accessibility of the electoral process.
At this point I would like to recognize the Ranking Member
of this subcommittee, our colleague from California, Kevin
McCarthy, for any opening statement that he may wish to offer.
[The statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.001
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you for recognizing me, Chairwoman
Lofgren.
Expanding opportunities to encourage more Americans to vote
is a goal that cuts across party lines. To that end, the
subcommittee will hear about four bills that our colleague from
San Diego has introduced, which she will provide testimony to,
and we will further discuss with a panel of witnesses.
Before we analyze those bills, I want to point out my great
disappointment with the majority's conduct in preparation for
this meeting. I believe that Congress should conduct itself
with fairness, transparency, and cooperation because in the
end, Congress needs to push aside politics and instead push
forward fair debate and the best solutions to address the needs
of the American people.
When I was sworn in this year, I listened very closely to
our new Speaker. She used the phrase ``partnership, not
partisanship.'' there are few issues in Congress that cry
bipartisanship more than those within the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee. We have the responsibility to find solutions that
ensure elections are fair and give the American people
confidence that their vote will not be diluted, miscounted, or
manipulated for one party's gain.
As you know, I produced the letter to you, Madam
Chairwoman, asking that we have a level playing field, that we
hear from all views. In the 109th Congress when the majority
was different, when I look back upon the hearings, I look at
the HAVA hearing where there were four Democrats and four
Republican witnesses. Then I studied the 527 hearings on April
20, 2005. There were four Democrats and three Republicans, when
the Democrats were in the minority party. Then I studied the
FEC-Internet hearing in this committee on September 22, 2005.
There were four Democrats and four Republicans. I went to the
Milwaukee hearing on 10/24/05. There were six Democrats and
five Republicans.
When I requested to have a panel here, that was individuals
who were able to give testimony--I know it would be 10 minutes
longer--I was denied because how hearings were held inside the
Judiciary Committee. This is the House Administration
Committee. When we had the Election Assistance Commission on
June 8 of 06 we had two Democrats and two Republicans. When we
had ID hearings when it came to voters on proposing IDs, we had
five Democrats and five Republicans.
A hearing on securing the vote of Arizona on 8/3/06, we had
four Democrats and four Republicans. On the hearing of securing
the vote in New Mexico, we had three Democrats and three
Republicans. On the paper trail hearing on September 28, 2006,
we had three Democrats and three Republicans.
Today will be different. Today, we will have one side. We
will have the testimony of the author and then we will have
three witnesses from the majority and one witness from the
minority.
That is a disappointment to me. I want to make sure
elections are entrusted, that we are given all the information
possible, and I don't believe 10 minutes is too long to hear
from all sides. There are lots of things that I wanted to
change when I ran for Congress, but one thing I wanted to keep
was House Administration being fair, honest, and being
appropriate. I will submit my statement for the record.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, your statement is submitted
for the record, and other opening statements will be submitted
for the record.
[The statement of Mr. McCarthy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.006
Ms. Lofgren. And I will take the prerogative of the Chair
just to briefly respond to the comments made. The ratio of
witnesses in committees throughout the Congress is 3 to 1, and
that does not mean we will never vary from that. But when I
received your letter, actually Friday, this hearing had already
been set.
And certainly the majority reserves the right to set the
agenda in the Congress and we hope to do that in as
collaborative a way as possible. But I do not want to take
further time from the testimony we will receive today.
So we will go first to our first witness, Congresswoman
Susan Davis, who was first elected in 2001 to represent
California's 53rd Congressional District in the United States
House of Representatives. She sits on the House Armed Services
Committee, where she served as Chairwoman of the Subcommittee
on Military Personnel. She also sits on the House Education and
Labor Committee and the House Administration Committee.
Prior to her service in Congress, Representative Davis
served on the San Diego City School Board as well as three
terms in the California State Assembly. Born in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Susan grew up in Richmond, California. She
graduated from the University of California at Berkeley with a
degree in sociology. She then earned a master's degree in
social work from the University of North Carolina. And she is
not only our colleague from California, but our colleague on
the committee and really a leader in authoring bills that deal
with this general subject. So we are thrilled to have you
testimony here today, Susan.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman
Lofgren and Ranking Member McCarthy and fellow members of the
subcommittee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify about giving all voters the option to vote by mail.
I vote at the polls because I like to. As a Member of
Congress, like you, I always have the general Election Day off,
and sometimes even cameras show up. But voting in person is not
so easy for many people.
As my colleagues from California know, anyone can vote by
mail in California for any reason. Voting by mail is so popular
that 46 percent of Californians chose to vote that way in 2006.
I took the right to vote by absentee for granted until 2004,
when a nurse from Ohio that I met told me that she could not
vote for President because the polls there were only open from
7 a.m. to 7 p.m., hours that overlapped with her commute and
her shift. She called her elections office in advance to
request an absentee ballot but was told her work was not a
valid reason to vote absentee. Since she would not abandon her
patients, she did not vote. And neither did coworkers, nor
undoubtedly thousands of citizens in Ohio and States with
similar laws. Fortunately, Ohio has changed its laws to allow
no-excuse absentee voting, but 28 States and territories still
have not.
I am going to turn to the slides. On this map the States in
dark blue are either all vote-by-mail or offered no-excuse
absentee voting. The lighter blue States require certain
reasons or excuses to send an absentee ballot. Since Kansas
started no-excuse absentee voting in 1967, 28 States have
followed suit and no one has switched back.
Notice that this map does not look like the red State, blue
State map. States with both Democratic and Republican Governors
and legislatures have switched to no-excuse absentee voting.
As with poll voting, the advantage in mail voting goes to
the better organized campaign, not to the political party.
The next slide shows that the States that require excuses,
these reasons vary widely. Many even basic excuses that we
think of do not count in some States. As you can see, some
States do not even allow election responsibilities, those who
work at the polls, school, or jury duty to count as excuses.
Sometimes work counts as an acceptable reason for requesting an
absentee ballot, but sometimes it does not. And in some States
any work is an excuse, but others have odd limiting laws.
In Tennessee, you must be working outside the county with a
commercial driver's license. In Alabama you must work at least
a 10-hour shift. Every State has allowances for physical
absence, but there is a range there, too. For example, in
Indiana you must be out of the county for all 12 hours the
polls are open. And in Louisiana you must be outside your
parish not only on Election Day but for the entire early voting
period.
Illness and disability requirements vary as well. In
Missouri you must be incapacitated or confined. In Michigan you
can vote by mail only if you cannot make it to the polls
without the assistance of another person. Some States allow
people over a certain age to vote absentee. In Michigan it is
over 60, in Mississippi it is 65, and in Georgia it is 75.
Verification required for excuses also ranges and much of it is
an invasion of privacy.
On the next slide, this is the Virginia absentee voting
ballot application. By the top circle you can see that it
requires the voter to state where he or she will be
vacationing. In the next area you have to indicate the exact
hours of your work and give your employer's name and address.
On the next you must list the nature of your disability or
illness. And in the religion section, you have to explain the
nature of your religious obligation.
Does the government need to know this personal information
just to let an American citizen exercise his or her right to
vote?
In the next slide, you will see in Delaware you need to put
your location and phone number on Election Day. And here you
need a notary signature to prove that you are on vacation or
have religious obligations. The cost and hassle of this
requirement equates to a modern-day poll tax.
In Tennessee, on the next slide, there is not even an
application form. You just have to write a letter. You can see
from the requirements on the official Web site that the
voters--and I would quote--the voter's licensed physician must
file the statement with the County Election Commission stating
that in the physician's judgment that the voter is medically
unable to vote in person, unquote. It is not surprising that
only 1.7 percent requested absentees are in Tennessee.
These individual State restrictions are totally unnecessary
as they do nothing to increase security. All they do is
suppress the use of absentee ballots, which is around 1 to 10
percent in most excuse States as opposed to the 20 to 50
percent in no-excuse States. Voters have repeatedly shown that
they want to be able to vote by mail.
Allowing no-excuse absentee voting can increase turnout
from anywhere between 2 and 10 percent, and sometimes much
more. That may sound small but it would, in fact, be millions
of voters nationwide. No voting system can ever be perfect, but
absentee voting has proven to have comparatively few instances
of foul play, as the other panelists will detail. The potential
for vote suppression is clearly a much greater problem than the
potential for fraud. Our goal should be to enable people to
take part in the process, not to put up barriers.
The reality today is that people pursuing the American
dream are buying homes far from where they work. They get up
early, commute long distances, and savor precious family time.
Many people work hourly wage jobs and have to balance child
care. They want to participate in democracy, but cannot or do
not want to make a trip to the polls.
With all the referendums on ballots these days it can take
20 or 30 minutes to vote, even if you are first in line. Is a
person any less patriotic for wanting to do his civic duty at
his kitchen table rather than braving bad weather long lines
and partisan politicking at the polls? Does he or she have less
of a right to vote than other Americans?
No excuse absentee voting does not force anyone to vote by
mail. What it does is give voters a choice. Some people say the
Federal Government has no business implementing no-excuse
absentee voting. As a former State and local official, I have
great respect for the role of the States but no-excuse absentee
voting is not a violation of States rights. In fact, first, it
levels the playing field. Keeping our current system allows
voters in some States more opportunities to vote than others,
and it creates a kind of inequity when voters are voting in the
same election.
Perhaps more important on a constitutional level, State and
local officials are responsible for administering elections,
but they cannot decide who can vote. That is the job of the
Federal Government.
In a recent national poll 94 percent said they believe
society should make it as convenient as possible for eligible
citizens to vote, and 58 percent said Congress should work to
make voting easier.
I ask that the subcommittee members support my Universal
Right to Vote by Mail bill, H.R. 281. This bill would simply
require that all voters be given the opportunity to vote by
mail for any reason, and without the added burdens such as a
notary and doctor's signatures. It would not change any State
laws regarding deadlines or voter ID requirements.
I certainly hope that this Congress will expand absentee
voting and by doing so move forward in fulfilling the American
promise of democracy: A vote for every citizen.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Davis.
[The statement of Mrs. Davis of California follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.011
Ms. Lofgren. I don't know whether members have questions
for our colleague.
Mr. McCarthy. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCarthy. You have no questions?
Ms. Lofgren. I was going to defer to you.
Mr. McCarthy. I will defer to the Chair. I will go after
you.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Gonzalez, do you have questions?
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I know,
Congresswoman Davis, you already pointed out, the only thing
you are looking for, and many that are supporting what you are
doing here today, is to give the voter a choice to actually
vote by mail or drop-off. But you would not be imposing an
Oregon-style model on any State where it would be the only way
that basically you would be able to vote. That's not what you
do. You are not replacing the polling place; it is just an
alternative that we already have in many States, except that it
does require an excuse.
Mrs. Davis of California. Actually, one of the things that
we are doing is building on what is already there. Every State
allows some absentee voting. So you are building on what has
been established over many, many years in these counties. But
this, the excuses that we talked about, that people have to
demonstrate and have the doctors' or notaries' signatures, that
does not seem to create security at the polls. I think it only
creates an additional burden on the voter.
Mr. Gonzalez. Now, the fears that have been expressed, of
course, is that this provides greater opportunity for fraud.
And what would be your response? I know you say that there is
no evidence out there. I think we are going to have a witness
that will testify to the contrary. But what is your experience
or your knowledge regarding that particular fear?
Mrs. Davis of California. I think we do have some folks
here who will testify on both sides essentially of that issue.
But the check of a signature is actually quite substantive and
quite different from at the polls. I don't know, Mr. McCarthy,
if you recall, we had a discussion about this when we were
talking about other pieces of legislation. And, in fact, that
check is significant for absentee voters. And we have even
better qualified in some cases and highly trained people who
are doing that process. We have a gentleman who will testify
that they have an automatic process in terms of the check on
signature.
So I think that there are always going to be a small number
of problems. We have them whether people are at the poll site
or not. But we have found that that particular check really
does increase the opportunities for people and does not
increase the fraud. And I think there will be folks who will
testify on that.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you. I know we had a conversation, and
I was just wondering if you could--I noticed you said that you
haven't had any knowledge of fraud in absentee ballots; is that
correct?
Mrs. Davis of California. There is very little over the
years that has been substantiated in that regard----
Mr. McCarthy. You know there was a Dallas Morning News
story this week----
Mrs. Davis of California. There, again, having a
perspective on that.
Mr. McCarthy. There is a Dallas Morning News story this
week and then there is also actually a Postal Service serving
18 months that just happened this year. Unfortunately, we are
not able to have more than one witness, but there are others
who have submitted some information. You have the Indiana
Democratic Party, Dan Parker, he is the chair. He says mail-in
absentee vote fraud is the only type of vote fraud that has
ever been in existence. And I think some of their arguments
from one standpoint is when you go inside the ballot box,
nobody is around that can influence. When you vote by absentee,
no one knows who is around. There can be influence around them.
When you vote by absentee, someone puts it in the mail. I
know you and I talked about the voter check on the signature.
Do you think that is sufficient for everybody across the
country to have that?
Mrs. Davis of California. Well, I think it is a strong
check. And there are ways that, if they receive at the
registrar a signature that does not match, they contact that
individual.
Mr. McCarthy. They contact them now? Like if I voted in
Kern County and my vote did not count, they would call me?
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes. I know that from personal
experience because my husband's signature has gotten less
legible than it used to.
Ms. Lofgren. He is a physician.
Mr. McCarthy. So everybody who votes gets contacted?
Because I have had a different experience.
Mrs. Davis of California. It depends. I can't speak for
every county, but I know that----
Mr. McCarthy. How does that work? If I vote absentee, isn't
it in California there are certain people that can--you cannot
turn in your absentee--you could also turn it in at a polling
place and it could not be you who turns it in. Who all can turn
in an absentee ballot?
Mrs. Davis of California. If it is signed, my understanding
is that somebody can bring it to the polls.
Mr. McCarthy. Anybody could? If I am a neighbor, I could
pick it up and turn it in if they signed it?
Mrs. Davis of California. I believe they can, yes. Once
that person has voted. Again, you can tell if it has been
tampered with after somebody has sealed it.
Mr. McCarthy. One of my prior jobs was working for a member
who was on this committee and we did many contested elections.
One was Charlie Rose, who happened to be Chair, and we found
voter registration absentees were a great deal. One happened to
be Dornan and Congresswoman Sanchez. And in California you can
only be a relative. And in L.A., one of the contested races
when they were going through--what they do is when they send it
in, you sign it, they run the absentee, which the ballot is
inside, and they don't open it until they check. So they put on
and have one person checking, based on the voter registration,
to see if it has ever changed. On there it asks you what member
of the family you are. If you leave it blank, they assume you
are a member and count it. If you put in that you are a
neighbor, they throw it away. And they never contacted that
person that it was going through. So I have some concerns from
that perspective.
Now on your slide, you put up Tennessee as one of your
States. Is your goal here to get greater turnout for Tennessee,
because absentee would provide that?
Mrs. Davis of California. The goal is to allow someone who
wants to vote absentee to be able to do that without an
unnecessary burden of having a notary sign that, of having a
physician--perhaps your physician is not available to be able
to sign for you that you, in fact, are ill and are not able to
go to the polls that day.
Mr. McCarthy. What was the percentage you said in
Tennessee? Because they had a problem such as that, correct?
Mrs. Davis of California. About 1 percent request absentee
ballots in Tennessee; 1.7 percent.
Mr. McCarthy. And you believe--and that is based upon that
they have to get a physician's signature?
Mrs. Davis of California. I don't know what it is based
upon. I am just suggesting that that is a very low percentage
of people requesting absentee ballots.
Mr. McCarthy. How many people in Tennessee vote early
voting?
Mrs. Davis of California. A larger number vote early
voting. And we actually had some numbers and we wanted to check
those thoroughly. But I don't believe--I don't know how they
put those together. But we have the 1.7 percent of those who
request absentee ballots.
Mr. McCarthy. California has absentee. How many vote
absentee in California? Is it 30 percent?
Mrs. Davis of California. It depends on the number. I
think, as they will testify in Santa Barbara, far larger
numbers than that request absentees or have permanent
absentees. And, again, you have high voting turnout in those
particular communities.
Mr. McCarthy. Unfortunately, I am sorry, we had a couple of
witnesses that have studied this and are experts in it. And
their argument from one standpoint is on the studies that
absentee voters turn out more when it is a local election, but
when it is taken over the whole State you don't get greater
turnout. Tennessee, you said, there was 1.7. But I have a fact
that 50 percent of them vote early voting. I would love to be
able to question them and go back on their statistics. Is that
because they can vote 2 weeks in advance, vote in shopping
centers and others, is that why they are not requesting
absentee because it is fulfilling the need? They know they are
going to be gone that day at work. We are solidifying their
problem, but the other fact they have is you don't get a
greater turnout.
So I wish that we would be able to have that dialogue and
that debate, but unfortunately we won't today.
Mrs. Davis of California. As I testified, sometimes it is a
few percentage points. But if you count those up nationally it
is a significant number.
Ms. Lofgren. I will just make one comment and then get to
our witnesses. One of the arguments that is made in opposition
to absentee ballots is that somehow there might be undue
influence. And this has always mystified me because the person
who asked for the absentee ballot gets to fill it out wherever
they want. They can fill out at the dinner table or in the
backyard. It is their choice.
I don't see how you could ever be oppressed by that when it
is the voter making the decision on what they want to do. I
mean, do you understand that?
Mrs. Davis of California. I don't understand that. I know
that certainly in families we also influence one another in
our----
Ms. Lofgren. We try.
Mrs. Davis of California. We try. Exactly. I remember--
maybe you have had this experience--of going to a door and
asking for somebody and them saying, ``You talk to me.'' You
don't talk to the person you just asked for.
Obviously there is a certain amount of influence, but
again, you point out that they are doing that by choice. And I
think that certainly in California we have very complicated
ballots. And I think that is one reason why absentee voting is
very popular because people can take the time. They don't feel
stressed, they are not standing in line, they are not worried
if a machine is going to break. All those things.
And I think across the country, you want to have it equal.
So everybody who has a desire to be able to vote in that frame
is able to do that. It does not put any pressure on them to do
it, but it does allow them to do it, and I think the map is
quite striking that we haven't had any kind of a universal
plan--up until this time, hopefully.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. And with that, we will
ask you to join us up here on the panel and we will ask the
next witnesses to come forward.
Mr. McCarthy. Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
Mr. McCarthy. As we have been discussing over the past few
days, I would like to make my request again that Mr. Curtis
Gans--who is in the audience today and we have submitted his
testimony--be allowed to testify and answer questions as part
of the second panel. I strongly believe that as this is the
subcommittee that conducts oversight of Federal elections and
considers legislation effecting the way in which Federal
elections are administered, it is crucial that this
subcommittee hear from and have the opportunity to question
witnesses with the broadest spectrum of opinions as possible. I
ask again that Mr. Gans be invited at that time to the panel.
Ms. Lofgren. I would be happy to make his testimony a part
of the record by unanimous consent. And I will just say that I
think this is a stunt on your part, Mr. McCarthy. I got this
letter, it was late. If you were serious, you would have talked
to me personally.
I am not ruling out the opportunity to do various ratios in
the future. The majority has the responsibility to set the
agenda in the Congress. Certainly when the Republicans were in
the majority, that was the case. And I am not going to be
willing to deal with a stunt here the day of the hearing.
I would note also that by practice the majority also always
issues the invitation to the witnesses, and the minority has
varied from that practice in this case, which I find
disrespectful.
So with that, we will ask the witnesses to come forward.
Mr. McCarthy. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the
written testimony of Mr. Curtis Gans be included in the record.
In addition, the minority has just received written testimony
from Indiana Secretary of State, from John Fortier from the
American Enterprise Institute, and from Norm Ornstein. I
believe that they have some important opinions to share with us
on this topic and I ask unanimous consent that their written
statements----
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, the written statements will
be entered into the record.
[The statement of Mr. Gans follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.018
[The statement of Mr. Rokita follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.021
[The statement of Mr. Fortier follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.033
[The statement of Mr. Ornstein follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.017
Ms. Lofgren. Will the witnesses please come forward.
I would like to first introduce Ruth Goldway who was
appointed Commissioner of the United States Postal Regulatory
Commission by President George W. Bush in November 2002 to
serve a second term ending in 2008. She was first appointed by
President Clinton in April of 1998. The PRC oversees the rates
and classification system of the U.S. Postal Service. Ms.
Goldway has written on postal matters for national newspapers
and submitted congressional testimony.
She represents the Commission on the State Department
Delegation to the Universal Postal Union. Born in New York
City, Ms. Goldway attended the Bronx High School of Science,
earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan and
received a master's in English literature from Wayne State
University.
Next, Deborah Markowitz, the Secretary of State of Vermont,
is joining us. She was elected Vermont's Secretary of State in
1998 and is currently serving her fifth term in office. During
her tenure Secretary Markowitz has made it a priority to
improve Vermont's democracy and promote good citizenship. She
has created resources to help Vermonters participate more fully
in their annual town meetings and develop civics education
curriculum materials, and implemented an ambitious election
reform agenda.
Secretary Markowitz is widely respected as one of the most
knowledgeable resources in the State on legal and ethical
issues for local officials and she has presented locally and
nationally on effective leadership skills.
Secretary Markowitz received degrees from the University of
Vermont and Georgetown University Law Center. She was a
founding director of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns
Municipal Law Center and the founder of the Vermont Women's
Leadership Initiative. She is the immediate past President of
the National Association of Secretaries of State and serves on
the board of advisors for the U.S. Election Assistance
Commission.
Joseph Holland is the Clerk of Santa Barbara County. He was
first elected to the Office of the Clerk, Recorder and Assessor
on March 5, 2002 and reelected to a second term on June 6,
2006. He currently manages an $18 million budget and 120 staff
employees encompassing three functional divisions: Assessor,
Elections and Recorder.
Mr. Holland earned his bachelor's and master's degree in
economics from UC Santa Barbara and graduated from the UCLA
Anderson School of Business in 2001.
And finally Jonathan Bechtle, the Director of Citizenship
and Governance Center at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, the
minority's witness. Mr. Bechtle serves as Director of
Evergreen's Freedom Foundation, Citizenship, and Governance
Center, a think tank advocating for liberty, free enterprise
and responsible government. Prior to joining EFF, he served as
the senior legal assistant for a nonprofit legal advocacy firm
in the Washington, D.C. area. He also worked as an aide to
State senators in both Georgia and the State of Indiana.
Jonathan earned a juris doctorate from the Oakbrook College of
Law in Fresno, California.
And we welcome all of you.
STATEMENTS OF RUTH GOLDWAY, COMMISSIONER, POSTAL REGULATORY
COMMISSION; DEBORAH L. MARKOWITZ, SECRETARY OF STATE, VERMONT;
JOSEPH HOLLAND, CLERK, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY; AND JONATHAN
BECHTLE, DIRECTOR AND LEGAL ANALYST, CITIZENSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
CENTER, EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION (EFF)
Ms. Lofgren. And if we could begin with you, Ms. Goldway.
I would note you have seen the little machine there. We are
operating under the 5-minute rule. We would ask that your
testimony be about 5 minutes. You will notice I am not too
heavy on the gavel. When the yellow light goes on, it means you
have a minute, and when the red light goes on it means you have
used the whole 5 minutes. Your full statements will be made a
part of the written record.
So we would ask, Ms. Goldway, if you could begin with your
5 minute statement.
STATEMENT OF RUTH GOLDWAY
Ms. Goldway. I will do my best to be brief.
Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member McCarthy and members of
the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to present my
views at today's hearings. I have served as Commissioner at the
Postal Regulatory Commission for 9 years. I would say that I am
familiar with how the mail stream works, how 700 million pieces
of mail are delivered each day, and how reliable our Postal
Service is.
My comments reflect my personal views, not those of the
Commission as a whole.
Like this subcommittee's Chair and Ranking Member, I am
also from California. And since the introduction of voter
choice permanent absentee registration there in 2002, I have
witnessed, myself, that absentee ballots have become ever more
popular; and in California, they were over 40 percent of the
vote in 2006. We found that it works.
And I applaud the efforts of Representative Susan Davis,
another Californian, for putting forward legislation to expand
the opportunities for absentee ballots and vote-by-mail
throughout the Nation.
In 2000 and 2002, absentee ballots accounted for about 16
percent of the votes cast nationally. However, there was a
great disparity between those States that allow no-excuse
absentee ballots and those restricting them. And while about 29
States currently allow for no-excuse absentee ballot, even many
of those require requests for absentee ballots at each
election, a requirement that may limit a citizen's use.
Offering citizens the option of voting by mail provides
significant advantages, including the potential to increase
voter turnout for national, State, and local elections. Voters
would not need to take time off from work, find transportation,
locate the right polling place, get baby-sitters or rush
through critical yet sometimes complicated ballot initiatives.
As the former Mayor of Santa Monica, I know how important
these initiatives are. Voters appreciate the opportunity to
read a ballot slowly in the privacy of their homes, and to drop
it in the mail, exercising their voting franchise thoughtfully
and carefully.
We all know that public confidence in the accuracy of vote
counting is at an all-time low. Yet in the national polls, the
Postal Service is rated as the most trustworthy of Federal
Government institutions. I advocate voting by mail because the
U.S. mail provides a secure way for citizens to cast their
ballots. In fact, it is against the law, a Federal crime to
tamper with the mail, and the U.S. Postal Service employs the
U.S. Postal Inspection Service to ensure the security of the
mail throughout.
I am an advocate of the advantages of a verifiable and
transparent paper trail offered by mail voting. The Postal
Service can provide a system of hardcopy distribution and
collection that many voters believe is the best way to protect
their votes.
After seeing the decline in first class mail due to the
Internet, the Postal Service began working with State and local
officials to promote its election mail program and to make that
process simpler and more accountable. The Service has
designated election mail representatives in field offices
throughout the country to work with election officials, and has
created a section on its Web site entitled ``Election
Officials' Mail Resources.'' It has developed an election mail
logo for the exclusive use of election officials' mailings that
makes election mail easily identifiable as it moves through the
mail processing system and alerts mail handlers to promptly
move the mail to the voter or back to the appropriate local
election official.
The intelligent-mail bar code technology currently being
implemented by the Postal Service for bulk mailers could be
adapted for use with ballots, thereby allowing voters to check
on the location and status of their vote by entering a tracking
number by phone or over the Internet.
After the 2000 elections, at the urging of Congress, the
Postal Service developed an expedited national standard to
handle overseas ballots for military and U.S. Government
personnel called the APO-FPO Ballot Express. Similar procedures
can and should be developed for local and State mail-in
ballots. National standards regarding the counting of ballots,
based on postmark rather than the arrival in the election
office, should be evaluated by Congress in consultation with
the Postal Service, as should the idea of establishing a first
class stamp as the uniform ballot rate regardless of the
ballot's weight or size, or instead offering prepaid postage
for mail ballots.
The U.S. Postal Service is the only Federal agency that
provides truly universal and reliable service to every resident
6 days a week. It should be called upon to meet the latest
challenge to the integrity of our democracy resulting from the
electorate's distrust of electronic voting and their skepticism
about the truthfulness of electronic election outcomes.
As a regulator of the Postal Service I will do what I can
to ensure that the election mail process becomes an important
part of the mail stream and that service standards for the
various classes of mail are consistent with the unique needs of
election mail.
As a citizen, I am here to support mail-in ballots as a
secure and efficient alternative to in-person voting, I think
it is a win-win proposal.
Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member McCarthy and
members of the subcommittee. I respectfully request that my
written statement be included in the record and I will be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
Ms. Lofgren. It will be entered in the record.
[The statement of Ms. Goldway follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.041
Ms. Lofgren. Secretary of State Markowitz, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH L. MARKOWITZ
Ms. Markowitz. Well, thank you so much. Thank you,
Congressman Lofgren. I want to begin by thanking you for
inviting me to come speak to you here today, and thank the
committee members for taking this testimony. You do have a copy
of my written testimony and I thought I would sort of make some
highlights--highlight certain parts of it.
First of all, I was first elected in 1998. In that election
there were about 10 percent of our voters voting by no-excuse
absentee voting. And indeed it was 1991 that Vermont first
dropped the requirements for an excuse in order to get an
absentee ballot. And I would like to note that it was a couple
secretaries--a couple before me who really promoted this
effort. He is currently our Governor, Jim Douglas, a
Republican. So in Vermont it was not seen as a partisan issue
at all.
Since 1998, my office has made a great effort in educating
our public about their rights under the law generally. And as a
result of some great collaborations we had with particularly
our business community, the chambers of commerce, our largest
employers, and with the organizations that work with our low-
income Vermonters and also Vermonters who are not confidently
literate, we have increased participation from 10 percent in
1998 to 20 percent. This is participation using the absentee
ballot. And so in this last election, we had over 20 percent of
our voters choose to vote using the absentee ballot.
What we have learned in Vermont essentially is that voters
really like having this option. We could not turn away from it.
Our voters really like having the convenience of voting by mail
or stopping off at the town clerk's office to pick up a ballot
to mail it in later. We find actually that it is the bigger
elections where more voters are interested in using an absentee
ballot. It is the Presidential elections, because people are
worried about lines at the polls. And people feel more
interested and compelled to make sure their vote is cast.
What we have also found is our elections administrators
really like this option. They were afraid in the beginning as
the numbers grew that it was going to be too much work for
them. But what they found instead is that it spreads the work
over a period of time. You can begin voting by absentee ballot
30 days in advance of the election. And what they found is that
it spreads the workload so that on Election Day there is less
pressure, there are fewer lines, and things run for smoothly.
That being said, I would suggest that there are a couple of
safeguards--important safeguards that you take into account as
you look at possible legislation and as you evaluate this for
the country. First of all, in our elections systems we want to
have transparency and accountability at every step of the way.
And one of the ways with our absentee ballots that we do this
in Vermont is, it is public record who has requested an
absentee ballot; it is public record when that ballot is
mailed; and it is public record when it is returned. And that
allows the campaigns, the candidates, it allows the public to
let us know if they think there is any funny business, because
it is transparent. People know who is voting early and who is
voting by mail.
In Vermont, we investigate all reports of violations. We
take that very seriously. I think that is important. But we
found that the best way to prevent problems is with good
training and public education. We train the election workers,
we train the campaign workers, because campaigns like absentee
ballots because it is a way to reach hard-to-reach voters and
to make sure they actually vote. It is easy to get them to say,
yes, I support the candidate. But it is harder to get them to
take that second step which is to actually cast the ballot.
We also have a very strict bipartisan process of handling
the ballots and I think that is critical. There needs to be, at
every step of the way, systems in place to prevent collusion,
to prevent fraud. And as the ballots are received and
processed, it is with pairs of election workers who are a check
and a balance against each other.
We have procedures in place to preserve voter privacy. If I
get one concern from the public it is: Will people know how I
vote or not? And so it is important to have very transparent
measures for protecting that privacy.
And, finally, it is important to have public education so
that folks know if they are going to vote 28 days in advance,
things might happen that might lead them to change their mind
and they don't get that ballot back. Once it is submitted, it
is as if it is in the ballot box. You can't get it back. It is
important for the public to understand how the process works.
I am very happy to take your questions and I want to thank
you again for inviting me.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Markowitz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.045
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Holland.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH HOLLAND
Mr. Holland. Chairwoman Lofgren, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for having me here. I am County Clerk
for Santa Barbara County, and as the registrar of voters it is
my duty to run the elections for Santa Barbara County. I am
also a member of the board of directors for the California
Association of Clerks and Election Officials, and as a member
of this board, I am also heading up an ad hoc vote-by-mail
committee that is focused on identifying relevant issues and
best practices for California counties in providing vote-by-
mail voter services for California voters.
California has had no-excuse absentee voting since 1978.
With the advent of no-excuse absentee voting, Californians have
increasingly chosen to vote by absentee ballot in each
election. In the most recent November general election, over 40
percent of the votes cast in California were ballots cast
through the mail.
If you will look at your first attachment in the handout
that I provided you, there is the history of voting in general
elections in vote-by-mail in California dating back to 1976--or
1978. And you can see that with the advent of no-excuse
absentee voting, it really did not start off all that quick. It
was a gradual increase to get to where we are right now, but
with this increase we do expect it to continue to grow at this
rate.
Beginning in January 2002, new legislation took effect that
allowed California voters to sign up to become permanent
absentee voters. By registering with permanent absentee status,
California voters are assured of being mailed an absentee
ballot to their residence 29 days before each and every
election. This permanent absentee status remains in effect
until the voter fails to cast a vote in two consecutive
statewide elections.
Permanent absentee voting has proven to be very popular in
California. For those counties that have chosen to promote this
voting choice, we are seeing as much as 50 percent of the
registers voters signing up for this. In Santa Barbara County,
85,000 voters are signed up as permanent absentee voters. This
represents 48 percent of the 183,000 registered voters in the
county.
If you turn to the second chart in your handout, there is
the Santa Barbara County absentee voting as a percent of
registration or total ballots cast. And you can see it was very
low back in the 1970s. But today, as a total of ballots cast,
over half of the ballots cast in Santa Barbara County are cast
absentee. In the June primary it was 60 percent.
Many people ask, Does the increase in absentee voting lead
to higher turnout? In my opinion it does. Let's look at the
statistics for Santa Barbara County. On average, going back to
1998 and through 12 general primary and special countywide
elections, we find that absentee voters return their ballots at
a 74 percent rate. That is on average. This compares to an
average polling place turnout of 52 percent for the same
period.
Now if you turn to the next chart in my handout, you will
see down at the right there in the yellow, I have highlighted
it, and those are the return rates. There is a 52 percent
return rate for the polling place over those 12 elections; 74
percent return rate for absentee ballots.
Now if you turn to the next chart in the handout, what I
did was I just put together a quick little scenario here. If
you look at the top box, that is the current situation in Santa
Barbara County with 48 percent absentee voters; 48 percent of
183,000 is 88,191 voters. If they return their ballots at a 74
percent rate, that is 65,000 ballots returned.
For the polling place voters there are 49.6 percent; that
is 91,000 times 52 percent, 47,000. So what you get is 115,000
returned ballots using those statistics. That is almost a 63
percent turnout rate.
If we go back to the 1990s in scenario two when Santa
Barbara County only had 25 percent absentee, you apply those
same statistics and you can see that we are only going to get
106,000 voters actually voting, for 58 percent.
So just with this little--these are just pure statistics,
we are showing that by increasing your absentee voting, here
was a 5 percent increase. And if you went from no absentee
voters to more, then you could increase it even more.
There are a lot of issues involved with absentee voting. I
have a list there going from cost, security, to voter file
maintenance. I am happy to answer questions on any of those,
and thank you very much for having me.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Joseph Holland follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.047
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Bechtle, we are pleased to hear from you
now.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN BECHTLE
Mr. Bechtle. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the
committee. My name is Jonathan Bechtle and I am an attorney and
director of the Voter Integrity Project at the Evergreen
Freedom Foundation, which is a nonprofit nonpartisan group in
Olympia, Washington.
My purpose today is to share my concerns about the proposal
to expand the use of mail ballots. Washington's elections are
almost entirely vote-by-mail, and based on the State's
experience I believe that vote-by-mail is an inherently
insecure system because election officials cannot verify who
received the ballot, who actually votes it, and who actually
returns it.
There was an incident recently in Washington that I thought
illustrated this well. There was a woman named Jane Balogh from
a suburb of Seattle who was disturbed about the insecurity she
saw in Washington's election system. So she decided to call
attention to the problem by registering her dog, Duncan, to
vote. She sent a registration form in for Duncan and
subsequently received a ballot for him in the mail. She did not
actually want to cast an illegal ballot, so she wrote void
across the ballot and stamped it with a paw print on the
signature line.
Of course, she quickly got a phone call from election
officials asking about the odd signature, and she explained
what she was doing. They said dogs actually cannot vote in our
elections. But the dog received ballots in two more elections
before he was finally removed from the registration rolls.
Under our vote-by-mail system, if Jane had actually used a
signature on that ballot instead of a paw print, she could have
cast those ballots, they would have been counted, and no
questions would have been asked.
While Jane did not exploit the weakness of vote-by-mail by
casting illegal ballots for her dog Duncan, our 3-year
investigation of Washington elections has shown that is not
always the case. Due to the inherent insecurity of vote-by-mail
and mail ballots, compounded by voter roll errors and misplaced
trust in signature verification, hundreds of mail ballots have
been cast unlawfully by ineligible voters.
Washington State had a historically close Governor's race
in 2004. By our research over 1,600 absentee ballots were
miscounted or cast unlawfully in that election. That was 12\1/
2\ times the 133 vote margin of victory in the Governor's race.
It wasn't a grand conspiracy by anyone; it was individual acts
by voters made possible by an insecure vote-by-mail system.
The 2004 election wasn't just a fluke. We have continued to
find mail ballots unlawfully cast and counted. Last year we
filed 30 complaints of double voting using mail ballots, and
nearly all of them have been verified by law enforcement to be
illegal double votes. We also have found that the insecurity of
vote-by-mail is compounded by errors in the voter roll. Every
flaw in the State's voter roll becomes a potential vote,
because if the person is active on the roll, they get a ballot
under vote-by-mail.
So every dead voter, every noncitizen, and every felon on
the rolls will get a ballot. Every duplicate registration will
get two ballots and some of these will be unlawfully voted.
For example, a county in Washington mistakenly sent out
3,500 ballots to voters twice, so the voters received two
ballots. 230 of the voters returned both of those ballots, and
35 percent of those were counted despite security measures
designed to prevent that type of double voting.
Vote-by-mail insecurities are often obscured by a misplaced
trust in signature verification. The reality of signature
checking in Washington's election system is that it was done by
a crew of temp workers who, after a few hours of training by
the State patrol, are expected to sift through thousands of
mail ballots trying to subjectively determine if the signatures
match. We found dozens of situations where two ballots were
cast by one voter with completely different signatures, yet
they were both counted, and I included some of those in my
packet that I turned in today.
Unlike a polling place where trained workers can monitor
who is voting and who is signing the poll book, mail ballots
cannot be properly monitored. This has been demonstrated not
just in Washington State but across America. I have submitted
also a list of the many instances of absentee ballot fraud
nationwide, as well as quotes from election and law enforcement
experts of all political stripes who believe mail ballots are a
primary source of voter fraud.
Now, the desire to make voting more convenient or easy is
an admirable one, but it shouldn't be done at the cost of
security. Our investigation of Washington's vote-by-mail system
demonstrates it is an inherently insecure system that has
harmed public confidence in elections. A 2006 poll of
Washington voters found that 53 percent of the voters in our
State believe that voting fraud is a serious issue facing us.
So in the interest of ensuring security and confidence in
our elections, I would recommend against requiring or
encouraging the unfettered spread of mail balloting. Thank you
for your time.
[The statement of Mr. Bechtle follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.057
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you all for your testimony.
Those bells that were ringing tell us that we have votes on
the floor. We have one 15-minute vote and two 5-minute votes.
So I think that given that there are questions, I am sure, for
all of you, I wonder if we could agree to come back. Usually it
takes us longer than 15 minutes, but to be back here at 3:30
and we will get to our questions. And, again, thank you very
much for your testimony, and we are in recess until 3:30.
[Recess.]
Ms. Lofgren. Well, we said 3:30, and it is not too bad for
Congress time. It is 3:37. So we will now begin the time in our
proceedings when we can engage in questions under the 5-minute
rule.
And I would like to recognize first Mr. Gonzalez for his 5
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Gonzalez. And I thank the Chairwoman.
The reason she is deferring to me is that I am going to
have to absent myself in a minute, so I apologize to the Chair
and my colleagues here, but there is a markup in Energy and
Commerce, and I have to discuss some parts of the bill with
some individuals. I will be brief.
Mr. Bechtle, like any system, there is cost-benefit
analysis and such, and so there are always different concerns
and factors. One that we seek, of course, is increase in
participation. You do that by making it more convenient for
people to vote. I know there are many people out there who
really don't understand that, even with early voting in Texas
and such, it is still difficult for individuals to vote. And so
that is why I find the no-excuse mail ballot such an attractive
proposition.
But you pointed out what was an obvious abuse; that was by
Jane--I guess it is Balogh? In Texas, you register to vote,
right? And then you get a voter registration. So I take it that
this dog had a voter registration? Or how did it work in that
State?
Mr. Bechtle. Right. She filed a voter registration form for
the dog.
Mr. Gonzalez. And did the voter registration also bear a
paw print.
Mr. Bechtle. No. She must have put a signature on the----
Mr. Gonzalez. Oh, exactly. That is what I am getting at,
you see.
Mr. Bechtle. Right.
Mr. Gonzalez. And I know that that is a--it is kind of a
cute example but so misrepresentative of what really is going
on out there. What really happened there--I don't know the
facts of that case, but it tells me that there was a voter
registration card obtained invalidly and fraudulently, and she
should have been prosecuted for that. It was a cute trick,
then, to cast the ballot when, in fact, she was already party
to obtaining the voter registration fraudulently. So I think we
have to be real careful with that.
But don't you think that, given what we already have
experienced in other States where fraud has not been
demonstrated but an increase in voter participation has been
experienced, isn't this a worthwhile endeavor in what we are
seeking, some of us here in Congress, especially Congresswoman
Davis?
Mr. Bechtle. Thank you for the question.
I talked to a lot of different audiences in Washington
State about this issue, and I agree that this is a convenient
system; it is convenient for the voters.
But when I have talked to voters about, ``Do you want a
convenient system,'' and then also talk to them about, ``Here
are the problems we have seen in Washington State,'' I have
never had someone come to me and say, ``I wouldn't mind doing a
little extra to make sure that my ballot is secure.'' They
don't want to give up security just for the sake of
convenience; they want that to be balanced.
And that is what we are going for here. Convenience is not
the end goal here. It must be convenient and secure. And we
don't see that in this system, from our experience.
Mr. Gonzalez. There is no absolute guarantee that any
system is not subject to some sort of fraud. It is just a
question of degree. And, I mean, people would love to say, why
would we have any system that would allow any kind of fraud?
Well, that is the reality. And I am just saying I think we have
to really look at the big picture.
I will share some of your concerns; I just don't think to
the degree that you do. And I just think that we really need to
have a really good-faith debate on the issue.
And so, with that, I will yield back. Thank you very much.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCarthy. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
If I could ask the Secretary of State Markowitz--is that
correct?
Ms. Markowitz. Yes.
Mr. McCarthy. In your comments, you had stated that you
weren't the Secretary of State at the time that thought of the
idea of going to absentee ballots, no excuse.
Ms. Markowitz. That is right. It was before my time.
Mr. McCarthy. So how long did it take to implement?
Ms. Markowitz. Oh, it was implemented immediately. Well,
you know, because there was already----
Mr. McCarthy. Well, no, the person that started it is
Governor now. How long did it take from when he requested it to
it being implemented to the voters? How long did it take to do
it in the State?
Ms. Markowitz. You mean how long was it debated in the
State, or how long did it take to implement it once it was
passed?
Mr. McCarthy. Once it was passed.
Ms. Markowitz. Oh, it was inconsequential; it was
immediately implemented. And that is because we had a system
already in place for absentee ballots for people with excuses.
All it took was changing the forms.
Mr. McCarthy. Just changing the forms.
Ms. Markowitz. Just changing the forms, yes.
Mr. McCarthy. So you already had the absentee balloting.
How much would a State take that doesn't have any absentee
balloting to go into absentee balloting?
Ms. Markowitz. Well, every State has some kind of excuse
absentee ballots. So I believe that every State would have the
same experience. It would mean, you know, printing up new forms
that have taken out the excuse provisions.
Mr. McCarthy. And do you use the computer, like they do in
L.A., to check the signatures?
Ms. Markowitz. We don't. And, in fact, in Vermont, we don't
have signatures; we don't require a signature. We don't require
signatures for voters coming in either.
Instead--understand, Vermont is a small, rural place, so I
am not sure that I would recommend this system for L.A. County,
you know, for larger, urban areas. But, in Vermont, the
accountability comes from the fact that we all know each other,
in our smaller communities especially, and we have this
transparency and accountability.
Mr. McCarthy. So if I mail it to you, it is just because I
wrote on the front my return address?
Ms. Markowitz. No, no, you still have to sign. You are
signing a sworn affidavit, and it is on the envelope. We don't
do a signature match, though. We don't keep a signature for
voters, and we never have. We haven't had any problems----
Mr. McCarthy. But if I showed up at the poll, you would
know me because you had seen me. If I voted by mail----
Ms. Markowitz. No, we also trust you. So we might know you,
or we might not know you. But you come in and you state your
name. There are poll watchers, who are observing. It is a
public process, and if they know that you are not you, they can
say, ``Hey, I am challenging. I don't believe he is him.'' And,
in fact, in the last election, we had a person coming in to
vote for his father----
Mr. McCarthy. But if I mail one in, and I didn't give it to
the post person and I gave it to the mailbox, how do you know I
did it?
Ms. Markowitz. Because it is on the public record, and so
if somebody knows that it could not have been you, they will
report that.
In fact, in the last election, we had that happen, where,
in the town of Stowe, there was a belief that a father voted a
ballot for a daughter. And it was investigated and, indeed,
found that the person who believed a certain set of facts was
indeed mistaken, and the daughter swore that it was her own
ballot. So it was followed up with.
Mr. McCarthy. If I could ask Ruth Goldway, in your bio, it
says you are postal regulation committee. Is that correct?
Ms. Goldway. Commissioner, yes.
Mr. McCarthy. Commissioner, yes. And then you stated--
correct me if I am wrong--from the standpoint that you felt
absentee balloting was rather safe, one of the safest.
Ms. Goldway. Yes.
Mr. McCarthy. Have you had, as the postal regulator, any
history or any knowledge of any problems with absentees going
through the mail with any postal workers?
Ms. Goldway. No, I have no knowledge of complaints
regarding missing absentee ballots. We have received occasional
complaints about missing mail of one sort or another, but we
have certainly never received anything about absentee ballots.
And to the extent that we receive complaints about missing
mail, it is more likely advertising mail.
Mr. McCarthy. More that.
Are you familiar with--here is a January 20, 2007--a postal
carrier had been sentenced to 18 months in jail and found
guilty of conspiracy to prevent others from exercising their
right to vote, where they actually took the ballots when they
came. There was 13 other people charged in the process.
Ms. Goldway. I am not familiar with the case.
Mr. McCarthy. Is there any chance, based upon the job that
you have as postal, that you can request from the Postal if
they have had any reports in any other place such as this one,
of someone going to jail, that is causing any problems?
Ms. Goldway. I would be happy to.
Mr. McCarthy. Okay. I appreciate that.
If I could--Santa Barbara. You made the statement--and this
was interesting, because, unfortunately, there are some
people--and I tried to get to the bottom of it, too. In my
household, my wife votes absentee and I go to the ballot box.
And part of your conversation is you think it gives you a
greater turnout, because 70-some percent of those who apply for
absentee ballots return them, and of those who go to the ballot
box it is only 52 percent, correct?
Mr. Holland. On average.
Mr. McCarthy. On average. Is there any deadwood on those
that are just on the voter file, though? Do you still have
deadwood, or have you cleaned all that out?
Mr. Holland. If you look at the statistics on the chart
that I have up there, you can see, if you go back to 1998,
that----
Mr. McCarthy. You had more. You had 200-and-some-odd----
Mr. Holland. We had 244,000----
Mr. McCarthy. And now you are down to 190-something----
Mr. Holland. And now we are down to about 183,000. I think
you will see the same trend across the State of California,
because, with vote by mail, you tend to better maintain your
voter file, because you are sending absentee ballots. If they
come back, then----
Mr. McCarthy. In California, I can also select what I got
in the mail this week, permanent absentee ballots. So once I
send that back in, you will always send me a absentee ballot,
whether I request it or not, correct?
Mr. Holland. That is correct.
Mr. McCarthy. How do you check when somebody moves, knowing
the mobility of people?
Mr. Holland. Well, what we do is, about 120 days before
each and every election, we send a postcard to all permanent
absentee voters reminding them that they are an absentee voter,
that they will be receiving a ballot, and if they have changed
their address, to let us know. If we get those back as
undeliverable, then we outreach to them again to try and get
their correct address.
And then, if you are not a permanent absentee voter, we are
actually sending you an application to ask if you want to be an
absentee voter. Again, if we get that back as undeliverable,
then we will outreach to those folks too.
So what we are doing is we are better maintaining the voter
file that way, in addition to all our regular voter-file-
maintenance efforts. But this is really just an outreach effort
as part of our ongoing absentee process.
Mr. McCarthy. And then, if I could just refer back to the
Secretary of State, just since I have you here, because this
committee had another debate on H.R. 811. Are you familiar with
it, Holt's bill?
Ms. Markowitz. Yes.
Mr. McCarthy. Do you support that?
Ms. Markowitz. I support pieces of it. I----
Mr. McCarthy. Do you support the bill entirely, as it is
written today?
Ms. Markowitz. I have would have to take a look at all the
provisions before I could tell you that answer.
Mr. McCarthy. Okay.
Madam Chair, I don't know if this is an appropriate time,
but I have several articles that I referred to during
questioning that I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, they will be entered into
the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.076
Ms. Lofgren. And the gentleman's time has expired.
I now turn to the gentlelady from California, our colleague
and the author of the bill, Congresswoman Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you to all of you for being here.
Secretary Markowitz and Mr. Holland, I am just wondering,
in your communities, if you announce that no longer were people
able to vote no-excuse absentee balloting, what do you think
the reaction would be?
Ms. Markowitz. Well, I would very shortly lose my office.
You know, our voters in Vermont think this is really a terrific
asset. And actually, the thinkers, the political scientists, in
Vermont who spend time looking at, you know, who isn't voting
and how can we encourage them to vote, see voting at home as
the way to reach those voters.
In Vermont, we have a problem with literacy, particularly
with a number of our adults. And we find that a person who is
not confidently literate or a person who has disabilities that
wouldn't prevent them from coming to the polling place but make
them uncomfortable doing so are much happier taking their time
at home with the ballot and sending it back by mail.
Mr. Holland. And in Santa Barbara County, I think there
would be a huge uproar about it. People are very comfortable
having that choice. And, as I see it, absentee voting, or
permanent absentee voting, is about choices. It is about
improving services for our voters. And they would be very
upset.
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes.
Mr. Bechtle, you sounded like you thought that the voters
in Washington State were very uncomfortable with the process in
their State. What do you think would be the reaction?
Because, actually, as I read the statistics, it looks like
it has caught on like wildfire in Washington State. But you are
saying that you think people are really uncomfortable there. Is
that correct?
Mr. Bechtle. Not quite, Representative.
Mrs. Davis of California. But if they did away with that
process, what do you think the reaction would be?
Mr. Bechtle. Well, I think it depends on whether you told
folks and explained to them the reason why there were concerns
about it. I think that if all they are hearing is that it is
more convenient and that it is going to be easier to do, yes,
it is a very popular system. But when you talk to them about,
well, here are the problems that there are, then they say
maybe, you know, I would like to change back the poll voting.
And I know lots of folks who have made a change back to poll
voting because of the concerns they have had with vote by mail.
Mrs. Davis of California. That is interesting. Because it
certainly looks like if it is spreading and people had a level
of confidence, I guess I would wonder whether, in fact, they
have the questions that they do. But I appreciate your
response.
I wonder, Commissioner Goldway, you mentioned tracking of
mail and overnight packages and that using a bar code is a
pretty inexpensive system. I actually have an interest in this,
as I think you know, for tracking absentee ballots. And I am
just wondering what you think, what is the best way to do that?
And are there advantages or even disadvantages to trying to
track by bar code, so that people know when the ballot is
received by the registrar, when it is actually verified by the
registrar and actually goes into the count.
Ms. Goldway. The Postal Service is developing and is
currently implementing on a pilot project an intelligent mail
bar code for all automated mail, which would mean all bulk mail
and all advertising mail. It would not necessarily be needed
for an individual letter. But any mail that was provided by an
election official could easily have that bar code, as well.
And what they are anticipating is that, by 2009, all the
mail that has these bar codes will be tracked within the Postal
Service system. The Postal Service will know when it is
received and when it gets to the letter carrier, so that if the
election officials can work with the Postal Service to develop
a supplementary code that tracks when the ballot leaves the
printer to go to the voter or when the ballot is received at
their office and then is tracked through the system to be
counted and verified, et cetera, you could have a seamless
system for very little money. Because the technology is already
there, and it is bar code technology, which has been used for
20 years. It is a question of just getting the systems to
coordinate.
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes. I wonder if you, just
quickly--I know that my time is up--just the question of
whether the fraud and error rate of absentee voting versus poll
voting, how that stacks up. Do any of you have, I guess, a
figure commenting on that error rate of absentee voting versus
poll voting?
Mr. Holland. In my opinion, I think that absentee voting or
voting by mail is actually just more secure and less chance of
fraud.
In Santa Barbara County, in our mail ballot processing
center, we have cameras on everything. Anybody that works there
has an ID badge to get into the facility. We have a separate
room where we store our ballots that has cameras in there. Our
election computers are in a separate room with cameras. It is a
very secure environment.
And, again, we check those signatures against the
signatures on file in our database. And those signatures that
are on file in our database have been checked against the State
database to make sure that they have a California driver's
license number that matches that shows that they haven't voted
anywhere else.
So there are a lot of checks, and, to me, it is very
secure. And I think that there are some opportunities for fraud
at the polling place and more opportunity for error.
Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Bechtle, I am just going to
let you respond. And do you have a rate that you believe is a
fraud rate, either for absentee voting or at the polls.
Mr. Bechtle. I don't, but I would be happy to do some
research and get an answer to that back to you, if you would
like.
Mrs. Davis of California. Great. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Mr. McCarthy. Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. Yes?
Mr. McCarthy. At the end, I just want, pursuant to the
House Rule XI clause, hereby request that minority members of
the Subcommittee on Elections be granted a minority date of
hearing on the matters related to expanding and improving
opportunities of the vote by mail.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.077
Ms. Lofgren. This will be dealt with according to the
rules.
Now I am going to engage in my brief questioning. I know
that the Secretary of State has to leave for the airport, so I
will be quick.
I just want to say that the idea of one first-class stamp
being enough for postage is such a good idea. I hadn't really
thought of that before your testimony today. And I remember, I
think it was last year--in California, we have these
initiatives. And the weight of this thing, and people didn't--
in the end, the County of Santa Clara paid the difference, and
people didn't know if their vote would count, and in some
counties it didn't. So that is really a good idea, and I thank
you for sharing that with us.
I would like to ask--Mr. Bechtle has raised a series of
concerns in his testimony. And I am wondering, the two
witnesses we have here who actually run elections, if you have
any comments on those concerns and how they can be dealt with,
if at all, or whether you share those concerns.
And maybe we can start with you, Ms. Markowitz, since I
know you have to leave.
Ms. Markowitz. Thank you so much.
You know, when you are making decisions and considering
voting systems, you are always making a cost-benefit analysis
of some sort. And I would suggest that there is no perfectly
secure way of voting. You know, in Vermont, we had somebody
come in and vote for his father. His belief was that he was
voting the way his father told him. You know, he was picking up
his prescription, and he was doing chores, and this was just
another chore.
And so, I think the challenge for election administrators
is public education, so the public knows what is required of
them.
You know, we hear statistics a lot about felons improperly
voting. And part of the time, in many cases, it is because they
don't know they no longer can vote. They are not aware of that
rule. Of course, in Vermont, felons can vote from prison. I
mean, we have a different rule. In fact, we elected a
Congressman, you should know, from prison; he won re-election
from prison.
So it is a cost-benefit analysis. And, in my view, the risk
of fraud is low. The issue is whether or not there is a risk
that a person voting at home will be the subject of undue
influence. And we don't have a record of that. We don't have
any indication that that is true.
And the way I think we would be able to see it if it were
happening is we would be receiving complaints. We would hear
rumors, it would come to the surface, and then be prosecuted.
But without real good evidence that there are abuses and
fraud, you know, why would you limit something that obviously
the public likes quite a bit? It is a big benefit to those of
us who run elections on Election Day by reducing the lines, by
making it less crazy. And it give us a measure of control over
those ballots.
And you heard from Ms. Goldway that, you know, people like
voting by mail because it is a paper vote in places where they
are not comfortable with the machines. You know, you have heard
also that there can be many safeguards in the opening and
processing of those votes to prevent problems on Election Day
and problems with accounting.
So I would suggest that it has been very successful in
Vermont, and I don't see why it wouldn't be successful in other
places.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Holland.
Mr. Holland. Thank you.
Mr. Bechtle did mention one thing I jotted down to note. He
said that he had an instance where somebody voted twice. That
can't happen. When your absentee ballot hits our mail ballot
processing center, we immediately know that you voted, and you
can't send in another ballot, because we will know that you
voted. It would be like, "Whoa, where did you get this other
ballot?" Well, of course, we have never had that happen. There
is a unique ID on that ballot.
We had one case where a woman whose husband had died 2 days
before she signed his ballot. Well, our signature-verification
machine kicked that out, and we did not allow that ballot to be
voted. The lady ended up getting a letter from the District
Attorney's office.
But those are just two examples of how we are managing the
security of our vote by mail.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
I just, before we close, I just would like to know--we got
a call from the Secretary of State's office in the State of
Washington, and they wanted to correct the record on the dog-
voting incident. I am going to report what that said, which is
that Washington only requires residency and that the woman, the
dog owner, changed the name on her utility bill to the dog's
name, and then sent that bill in with the absentee ballot, and
that she was prosecuted.
So I would just note that, although we want to make sure
that we have safe and secure elections, we also want to make
sure that people have the ability to vote.
And I think--I was walking over to the vote on the House
floor with Mr. Gonzalez, and we were talking about primary
elections. In California--we are always in Washington on
primary elections. I love going--I mean, I am one of those
people who just loves Election Day. I mean, I love to go down
there. I used to like it as a little kid when I was
volunteering. But I can't do that; I wouldn't be able to vote
at all on primary election day.
So, really, it is a very popular initiative. I think,
really, your testimony has been food for thought.
And I really do appreciate, again, Congresswoman Davis for
the leadership that she has shown in bringing this matter
forward.
Mr. McCarthy. Madam Chair, can I have a point of personal
privilege?
Ms. Lofgren. Certainly.
Mr. McCarthy. Just to correct the record. You had stated
earlier, from one standpoint, you said something that I had
done was a stunt, that you received a letter on Friday. I just
wanted to correct that I provided the letter within 24 hours of
the notice on Wednesday, that I did talk to you in person
Monday night, but I did try to get a hold of you. You called me
over the weekend, got my voicemail, unfortunately. I called you
back within 2 minutes. Unfortunately you were busy, and your
staff would not provide me a cell phone.
So, one is it is not a stunt, asking that we have parity.
Two is I talked to you in person. Three, I gave it on
Wednesday.
I do believe in the concept that--I understand I am not in
the majority. But every 10 years, we take a census and we make
these districts equal. I represent Republicans, Democrats,
independents, Green Party. And I don't believe that they are
any less than constituents of any other district. And I just
believe, when we take election law forward, that it is equal
to, especially based on what has gone on in this committee in
the past, that we maintain the ability to have ideas on both
sides, so we are well-informed.
Ms. Lofgren. Before we recess--I don't want to unduly
delay this. I just will say I didn't get the letter until later
than you delivered it; I don't know why. I do believe that your
behavior here today has been in the stunt category, but
hopefully we will be able to move beyond these kinds of antics
in the future.
And this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40511A.093