    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                H.R. 2115, THE VOTER REGISTRATION EFFICIENCY ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE

                                 ADMINISTRATION

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                      Held in Washington, DC, June 4, 2013

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

                           Available on the Internet
                                 www.fdsys.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    82-232                    WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                     CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Chairman
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
    PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia            Ranking Minority Member
    AARON SCHOCK, Illinois               ZOE LOFGREN, California
    TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 JUAN VARGAS, California
    RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida

                               Professional Staff

                          Kelly Craven, Staff Director
                      Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director

                H.R. 2115, THE VOTER REGISTRATION EFFICIENCY ACT

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2013

                              House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:03 p.m., in room
    1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Candice S. Miller
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Miller, Rokita, Nugent, and Brady.
        Staff Present: Kelly Craven, Staff Director; Peter
    Schalestock, Deputy General Counsel; Joe Wallace, Legislative
    Clerk; Yael Barash, Assistant Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood,
    Communications Director; Linda Ulrich, Director of Oversight;
    Bob Sensenbrenner, Elections Counsel; Jamie Fleet, Minority
    Staff Director; Matt Pinkus, Senior Policy Analyst; Khalil
    Abboud, Minority Elections Staff; Thomas Hicks, Minority
    Elections Counsel; Greg Abbott, Minority Professional Staff
    Member; and Eddie Flaherty, Minority Professional Staff Member.
        The Chairman. If the witness will come to the table, we
    spent a little more time in the markup than we thought, but we
    are delighted to have them here. We will begin the hearing
    portion of our committee on House Administration regarding H.R.
    2115, the Voter Registration Efficiency Act. First of all, let
    me announce that the hearing record will remain open for 5
    legislative days so that any members that want to submit any
    materials for the record may do so to be included therein.
    Again, a quorum is present so we can proceed.
        The purpose of our hearing today is to discuss the need for
    a simple legislative fix to the National Voter Registration Act
    that would assist states in their efforts to maintain up to
    date and accurate voter lists and hopefully reduce some of the
    administrative costs associated with identifying duplicate
    registrations in multiple States. And in doing those things,
    H.R. 2115 will also increase confidence in our election by
    making it less likely for voters to be registered in more than
    one State at a time, whether that is by accident or whether
    that is by intent. And obviously, if a voter is not registered
    in more than one State, it is much less likely that they will
    be able to vote in more than one State.
        According to a February 2012 study commissioned by the Pew
    Center of the States, one out of eight registrations in the
    United States are inaccurate and approximately 2.7 million
    people have active registrations in multiple States. As those
    figures show these problems are not imaginary. In 2004, the New
    York Daily News examined voter registrations in Florida and New
    York City, not even the whole State just in the city. And they
    found about 46,000 people were registered to vote in both
    States and 400 or more who had actually voted in both. That
    same year, the Cleveland Plain Dealer found 27,000 people
    registered in Ohio and Florida, and about 400 who had voted in
    both States. Because of these findings, States have taken steps
    on their own to try and reduce double registration. Kansas
    actually initiated a cross-State matching program that my State
    of Michigan and Secretary Bennett's State of Arizona have both
    belonged to that is designed to help identify people registered
    in multiple States so that the voter rolls can be corrected.
        Another program called the Electronic Registration
    Information Center has many other purposes, but it also helps
    its member States to identify double registrations. Even with
    programs like this in place, double registration and double
    voting, it is still happening. In fact, just last year a
    candidate actually in Maryland was charged with illegally
    voting in both Maryland and Florida in 2006 and 2010. This was
    a candidate for Congress that voted in two separate States,
    twice.
        Finding double registrations is only one part of the
    process. The next step is removing any of the registrations and
    as Michigan discovered when it was sued for trying to eliminate
    double registration, the NVRA makes that both difficult and
    expensive. As a former Secretary in Michigan, I am certainly no
    stranger to the challenges election officials face when trying
    to comply with section 8 of NVRA, the section which requires
    each State to implement some form of a list maintenance program
    that keeps the voter registration current.
        I was very aware of these challenges when I left office
    back in the day 2003, and since then, we haven't seen the much
    needed updates to NVRA which is now two decades old. And this
    is occurring at a time when nearly every State, and nearly
    every State really is up against severe budgetary constraints
    further challenged their ability to administer elections, no
    less implement list maintenance programs was the challenge, as
    I say, years ago and I am sure it has not gotten any easier for
    the secretaries and election administrators in those States.
        And today we are here to listen to our witnesses about
    their experiences with list maintenance and the tools or
    information that they need to keep their list current. I am
    especially interested in hearing their feedback on this bill
    that we are considering today, H.R. 2115, which Congressman
    Rokita and I introduced to help assist States with this
    mandate.
        The Voter Registration Efficiency Act is simple, it
    requires new State residents who are applying for a driver's
    license to notify the State of their intent to vote in that
    State. If so, the previous State of residence is notified and
    then the lists are updated accordingly. The NVRA requires motor
    vehicle offices to offer voter registration, this bill will go
    one step further and hopefully save States some time and money
    in their efforts to keep their lists accurate.
        Obviously the foundation of our democracy is the
    fundamental right to vote as we just had this very large debate
    here during the mark as well. And the Constitution tasks each
    State with the immense responsibility of administering and
    protecting that right. And as we seek ways to help the States,
    we must keep in mind their challenges and avoiding costly
    mandates that inhibit their ability to protect the integrity of
    our system, and instead, try to find ways to alleviate those
    burdens.
        This bill, again, I think serves to do just that. And I do
    believe we can agree certainly on two things, all eligible
    voters should have the opportunity to vote, but just one time
    in any election. And our State election administrators should
    be given every tool to allow them to protect the integrity of
    the process. I believe this legislation is going to help
    provide States with just such a tool to ensure more accurate,
    qualified voter lists and to preserve the integrity of our
    electoral process.
        I certainly appreciate both the witnesses coming, all three
    of the witnesses for coming, and I will be making a more formal
    intro in just a moment. But I would like, at this time, to
    recognize my colleague and ranking member of the committee, Mr.
    Brady, for his opening statement.
        Mr. Brady. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I thank you for
    holding this important hearing. I appreciate the chairman's
    work in linking State voter registration processes to apply for
    renewing a driver's license. In 1993, Congress enacted the
    National Voter Registration Act, better known as the motor
    voter law. While motor voter has registered thousands of voters
    who may not have registered otherwise, it is not perfect.
        Congress can strengthen motor voter in many ways such as
    what is proposed here, the legislation we are discussing today
    is a welcome start to improving the administration's for
    elections for Americans. I ask any consideration of this
    legislation we examine the inclusion of some sort of failsafe
    voting procedure to ensure this bill results is no
    disenfranchisement whatsoever. No American should lose the
    right to vote because of a clerical or bureaucratic error. And
    I thank you for, Madam Chairman, again, for holding this very
    important hearing. I look forward to the testimony from our
    witnesses today.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman very much. Does any
    other member wish to give an opening statement? The gentleman
    from Florida.
        Mr. Nugent. Just briefly I just want to make a point when
    you start talking about duplicate voters, once again Florida
    stood out when you brought that up, but back in 2004, there was
    a New York Daily News article that found 46,000 New Yorkers
    were eligible to vote in both New York and Florida. And so I
    think that anything that we can do to strengthen, say, one vote
    per person. I came from Chicago, and it used to be vote early
    and often and dead vote twice. But we want to make sure that
    one vote per person, and I think this goes a long ways in
    ensuring that, so with that, I yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. It is interesting
    because when you come from a State like Michigan or New York,
    Pennsylvania, whatever, we all like to winter as we get older
    in Florida, and that is apparently what is happening with this
    dual voter registration. So we think this bill will be an easy
    way to assist the respective States.
        Let me just take a moment to introduce our witnesses. First
    of all Secretary of State Ken Bennett, we welcome you so very
    much taking time to come and talk to the committee. The
    Secretary was appointed by Governor Jan Brewer to replace her
    as Secretary of State. He has been serving there since 2009, he
    served four terms in the State Senate from 1999 to 2007, served
    as Senate President in his final 4 years. He served as
    Republican floor leader in 2002, was chairman of the Senate
    Education Committee. And prior to joining the legislature,
    Secretary Bennett was a member of the Arizona State Board of
    Education for 7 years. President of the Board in 1996, and then
    in 1998, and he also served on the Arizona charter schools
    board for 3 years and was the founding member of the
    Educational Leaders Council in Washington, D.C. So we welcome
    you very much, Mr. Secretary, for coming.
        Mr. Bennett. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Chris Thomas actually has been our elections
    director in Michigan since 1981, not to date you, we are dating
    ourselves here. He served under four different Secretaries of
    State, including myself, and certainly continues to serve under
    our current Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson. And I would just
    say this sincerely, he is the go-to guy I think nationally on
    elections. And I don't just say that because you happen to be
    sitting in front of me. I think that is widely known by the
    NASS, National Association of Secretaries of State, I know he
    is the president of NASED, National Association of Election
    Directors. And many of the improvements that have been made in
    Michigan, Secretaries of State like to take credit for, but I
    will tell you the brains behind most of it, really, has been
    Chris Thomas. He has got a great vision for how we keep our
    elections open free and fair; how to make sure that every
    person who is eligible to vote is registered to vote; how we
    can do a better job all the time on increasing participation
    from all of these who are eligible.
        And I would just point out it was sort of interesting, you
    actually began your career, I think, on this committee back in
    the day, back in the day I won't mention the year, back in the
    day. And then went onto the FEC, et cetera, et cetera. So
    again, we just appreciate you coming, Chris, and look forward
    to your testimony on this.
        And our third witness, Ms. Elisabeth MacNamara, we
    certainly welcome you to the committee. We appreciate you
    taking the time to come here today. Ms. MacNamara is the 18th
    president of the League of Women Voters in the United States,
    chair of the League of Women Voters Education Fund, served in
    this position since 2010. She joined the League in 1983, and
    has since served in leadership roles at all levels. In 1984,
    she joined the board of directors of the DeKalb League serving
    as court criminal justice chair, education committee chair,
    vice president, secretary, et cetera, has been President of
    that league as well. And she joined the board of directors of
    the League of Women Voters in Georgia in 1999, served as
    President of that board beginning in 2001, et cetera. A long
    distinguished career, and we certainly welcome you, welcome all
    the witnesses as well.
        We have received your written testimony, all the members do
    have that. And at this time, the chair would recognize
    Secretary Bennett for his testimony and the floor is yours,
    sir. Thank you.

     STATEMENTS OF HON. KEN BENNETT, SECRETARY OF STATE, ARIZONA;
     ELISABETH MacNAMARA, PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE
      UNITED STATES; AND CHRIS THOMAS, STATE ELECTIONS DIRECTOR,
                                MICHIGAN

                     STATEMENT OF HON. KEN BENNETT

        Mr. Bennett. Thank you, Madam Chair and members, I am Ken
    Bennett, Secretary of State from the State of Arizona. I never
    really anticipated being the chief election officer of my
    State, but I have been such for the last 4\1/2\ years. Arizona
    has about 6\1/2\ million residents, about 3.2 million
    registered voters, about 36 percent Republican, about 33
    percent Independent, we have a large independent group of
    voters in Arizona, about 30 percent Democrat.
        I am happy to be here to testify on this legislation,
    Arizona supports this legislation. In fact, we supported it so
    much we have been doing something very similar to it. Since
    about 2008, 2009, we were one of the first seven States that
    joined the Interstate Cross-check Program where we began
    sharing our voter data with seven other States that has now
    grown to 22 States. And once an election occurs in Arizona we
    share our file as to who voted, obviously not how they voted,
    but who voted.
        We share four pieces of information, their last name, their
    first name, date of birth, and the last four digits of their
    Social Security number. In our most recent cross-check which
    was done on the votes that occurred in the 2012 election, the
    22 States, including Arizona, shared about 84 million records
    of voters who had voted in those 22 States.
        Obviously, that would have been much more if it were
    nationwide. But essentially, we do this voluntarily at no cost
    to any of the States to help ensure that our voter registration
    files are as current as they possibly can be. Of the data that
    was shared in 2012, we had over 45,000 duplicate records
    affecting voters in Arizona that came back to us from those
    other States.
        Typically, if we didn't have this program, we would wait
    for another two Federal election cycles for NVRA, to kick in,
    and for those 45,000 to eventually be removed from our rolls,
    but this allows us to--after checking and making sure that the
    matches are, in fact, hard matches, there is a soft match and a
    hard match process. We take very seriously when a match occurs
    and each one is checked and verified, otherwise we would have
    waited perhaps 4 or more years for the removal of those
    duplicate registrations.
        This program is not unlike what we really do in our State
    as a part of HAVA, our office is the chief elections office,
    serves with our statewide voter database to allow the counties
    to communicate with each other. In Arizona, we have 15
    counties, county recorders oversee the voter registration in
    Arizona, we have eight Democrat county recorders, seven
    Republican recorders, but they work very closely together. And
    just since HAVA came in to being in Arizona and throughout the
    country, we have processed over 670,000 duplicate registrations
    as people move from one county to another. Over 300,000 death
    records, over 75,000 court records.
        So it is an important part of how we maintain current and
    up-to-date voter registrations within our State.
        H.R. 2115, I think, would be a very positive step forward
    in causing that same type of interaction and communication
    between the States, between our motor vehicle record offices,
    and then their contact back to the chief election officials in
    the counties from there.
        Obviously, the main goal of this legislation is to enhance
    the accuracy of our voter registration records throughout the
    country, but I think a side benefit would be to deter duplicate
    voting, because of this interstate cross-check program that we
    have been running in Arizona. In the first cycle, after we
    shared data with the other States, we had about ten couples
    that--probably about 15 individuals because there were some
    couples and individuals who were found to have voted in Arizona
    and another State. We had a couple who voted in Kansas and
    Arizona. Two individuals had voted in Colorado and Arizona, and
    one couple that voted in Nevada, Arizona and attempted to vote
    in Kansas. So we are using this information to deter that and
    actually in these cases they are being prosecuted.
        The last thing I will say, I see my time is short, it is
    very critical and I applaud the legislation that it keeps the
    notification process away from a one-size-fits-all type of an
    approach and we would be happy as a member of the national
    associate personally, as a member of the National Association
    of Secretaries of State to offer our organization or sister
    organizations to help make sure that the details of how the
    notifications go from State to State are worked out. But I will
    be happy to answer any questions as we get into those details
    if you have any questions.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you very much
    Secretary Bennett.

        [The statement of Mr. Bennett follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.005

        The Chairman. At this time the chair recognizes Chris
    Thomas, State Elections Director, for his testimony.

                       STATEMENT OF CHRIS THOMAS

        Mr. Thomas. Good morning, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to
    be here before you at the helm of this committee. And I must
    say that I enjoy working with you for your two terms as
    Secretary of State in Michigan, we did great things for
    Michigan's election system during that period. I also extend
    Secretary Johnson's greetings to you and members of the
    committee. I thank you and Congressman Rokita for introducing
    this bill and holding a hearing on 2115, the Voter Registration
    Efficiency Act.
        I believe it is appropriate to make sensible adjustments to
    the National Voter Registration Act as we celebrate the 20th
    anniversary of this good law. This amendment to the NVRA adds
    one new requirement: The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
    will ask an applicant for a driver's license whether the
    applicant intends the new State to serve as his or her
    residence for voting purposes.
        Currently, the DMVs require every applicant coming from
    another State to surrender their driver's license from their
    former State of residence. Every State has a good reason to
    ensure that drivers don't have multiple driver's licenses in
    their wallets or purses. Further, the DMV has informed the
    former State of residence of the surrendered driver's license.
    The problem addressed by this legislation is the unnecessary
    retention of voter registration records of individuals who have
    left the State and applied for a driver's license in their new
    State of residence.
        The vast majority of these voters who have moved from one
    State to another have no intention of remaining as a resident
    of the former State for voting purposes. In fiscal year 2012,
    we had over 73,000 individuals reported to Michigan as having
    moved to another State. Under current practices, these
    individuals must remain on our qualified voter file for two
    November Federal elections after cancellation notice is sent to
    them. They may remain on the file for as long as 4 years after
    the notice is sent.
        To be clear, there are instances where an individual who
    makes a temporary move to another State is required to apply
    for a driver's license, even though the individual is not
    relinquishing his residence in the former State. Both the NVRA
    and the Help America Vote Act have as their purpose: The
    improvement of the accuracy integrity of voter registration
    files used in Federal elections. Retaining tens of thousands of
    non-residents on our voter registration files does not further
    the purpose of either Federal law.
        H.R. 2115 would leverage the relationship established by
    the NVRA and HAVA between election officials and motor vehicle
    administrators to make voter registration files more accurate
    by permitting the removal of records of voters who have moved
    to another State and have affirmatively stated to the DMV that
    they now reside in a new State for voting purposes.
        The conclusion of a 2008 Federal court case in Michigan was
    that a voter may reside in one State for driving purposes and
    in another State for voting purposes. The court found that
    States do not determine whether applicants moving to a State
    are intending the new State to be their residence for voting
    purposes. An affirmative statement that the new State is the
    residence for voting purposes was the necessary requirement
    under the court's reasoning.
        Recent Federal legislation and interstate driver license
    compact all have a similar requirement in regards to residency,
    one license, one record. The Federal REAL ID Act of 2005
    prohibits a REAL ID driver's license applicant from holding
    more than one REAL ID driver's license. Further, the American
    Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators has adopted a
    commonsense policy: One license, one driving control record.
    Michigan, like all other States, have implemented this policy
    through the State vehicle code.
        In summary, H.R. 2115 requires the DMV to ask new
    applicants two questions. The first as already being asked, did
    the individual reside in another State prior to applying for a
    license? The second is new, does the individual intend the new
    State to serve as the individual residence for voting
    registration purposes? Under the amendment, the DMV will attach
    an indicator to the list of those who have surrendered their
    license as already being sent to the former State of residence.
    The indicator could be as simple as yes or no under the column
    heading ``residence for voting purposes'' where now licensed.
    The residence information will be then transmitted to the State
    election official thus providing confirmation from the
    applicant necessary to retain or cancel the voter registration.
        This amendment is a commonsense adjustment to the NVRA that
    protects voters who are only making a temporary move to another
    State while enabling States to more efficiently manage their
    voter registration file for the vast majority of applicants who
    are making a permanent move to a new state.
        I thank the committee for the opportunity to testify on
    this amendment, and personally thank Chairman Miller for
    introducing the legislation. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
        [The statement of Mr. Thomas follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.013

        The Chairman. At this time, the chair recognizes Ms.
    MacNamara for her testimony.

                    STATEMENT OF ELISABETH MacNAMARA

        Ms. MacNamara. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chairman,
    members of the committee, I am very pleased to be here today to
    voice the League's support for the basic goal H.R. 2115,
    providing a mechanism to ensure that voters are not registered
    in more than one State, and to make some suggestions for
    avoiding possible unintended consequences that could result
    from the legislation as currently drafted. The Census Bureau
    reports that approximately 4 million individuals, age 16 and
    over, moved from one State to another between 2011 and 2012.
    Though we are not aware of solid data on the number of voters
    who move from one State to another, certainly a significant
    number has been indicated here this morning have done so. Thus,
    H.R. 2115 aims at a worthy goal. We are concerned, however,
    about the specific mechanisms of the bill.
        Our concerns come in four areas: First, the mechanism will
    likely result in inaccurate removal; two, it could interfere
    with the motor voter registration process; three, it is
    technologically outdated rather than modern, efficient and cost
    effective; and four, the legislation does not deal with a
    larger but similar problem. In our view, these are all
    surmountable problems.
        The mechanism in H.R. 2115 will likely result in erroneous
    removal to properly registered voters because of inaccurate
    data for matching individuals to voter registration records
    without adequate safeguards. For example, errors likely will be
    introduced under H.R. 2115 at multiple steps beginning with the
    motor vehicle authority in one State copies the data from the
    applicant's paper application form and sends it to the second
    State's motor vehicle authority.
        The best way to improve accuracy would be to require the
    data be handled electronically. The benefits of electronic
    transfer are demonstrated by the fact that many States are
    already providing for it. According to the Brennan Center, at
    least 23 States currently or will soon have fully or
    substantially automated voter registration at DMVs. When the
    voter registers or updates their information at the DMVs, the
    information is electronically transmitted to election
    officials.
        In addition, the Help America Vote Act already requires
    States to maintain their lists on a statewide computerized
    voter registration list. In any case, it is vitally important
    for the legislation to make adequate safeguards to prevent
    incorrect removals. The best way is to provide written notice
    to the voter as in the NVRA, but H.R. 2115 does not seem to
    maintain this fundamental safeguard for interstate movers.
        We are also concerned that the current mechanism in H.R.
    2115 could interfere with the voter registration process.
    Again, this is a solvable problem. The motor vehicle
    registration application form under the NVRA is simple, clear,
    and unambiguous. H.R. 2115 as currently written, however, adds
    three new requirements for applicants to answer that will
    likely result in erroneous rejections as well as confusing the
    applicant and providing ambiguous or inconsistent information
    to election officials.
        Under H.R. 2115, even if the applicant is fully eligible to
    vote, and fully and correctly fills out the motor vehicle form,
    failure to answer any of the three questions could result in
    rejection because of these new requirements.
        In addition, by requiring duplicative information, the
    draft legislation creates confusion for the applicant. For
    example, the motor vehicle form already requires the intent to
    register in the new State, that is what an application is. By
    requiring the intent question to be answered a second time, the
    legislation simply confuses.
        In addition, the requirements add ambiguity for election
    officials. What if, for example, the applicant provides
    apparently conflicting answers? What happens if the applicant
    indicates he or she does not intend for the new State to serve
    as the voting residence, but still fills out the motor voter
    application form?
        The most effective way to reduce confusion and ambiguity is
    to modify those elements of the proposed legislation that are
    duplicative or the current processes under the NVRA. Much of
    the information from the driver's license applicant required in
    H.R. 2115 is already included on the National voter
    registration application form under the NVRA. The purpose of
    H.R. 2115 could be fulfilled by requiring information from the
    voter motor voter application to be transferred to another
    State when the applicant was previously registered to vote in
    another State.
        The Census Bureau also reports that nearly 23 million
    individuals moved within a State between 2011 and 2012. And
    with approximately 5 million moving from one county to another.
    And I see that I am running out of time but would be happy to
    answer questions about our concerns about interstate moves. The
    League looks forward to working with you further on this
    legislation and thank you very much.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady very much for her
    testimony and I thank all of you for your testimony.
        [The statement of Ms. MacNamara follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.021

        The Chairman. I had just taken a couple of notes while were
    you talking here. The gentlelady mentioned about the electronic
    registration, et cetera, 23 States which I have a list of all
    the different States here, but I will just mention in
    Michigan--again, I am mostly familiar with Michigan more so
    than obviously the other States, but I think we are the
    forerunner of the electronic registration, what we still
    continue to call the qualified voter list, which was an
    incredible product really, and I don't say that without some
    prejudice, but I will note that we were noted in the Ford,
    Carter Presidential Commission report as a national model. And
    in Michigan, unlike many other States where usually the
    counties operate the voter registration rolls in our State, it
    is every city, every village, every township clerk, to the
    extent that we have almost 1800 various voter registration
    lists that were individually maintained previous to our
    qualified voter file unless we did that electronically.
        And it was a little bit easier for us, I will agree, than
    other States because Michigan is only one of only three States
    in the Nation where the Secretary is also the motor vehicle
    administrator. I think it is Michigan, Illinois and Maine, I
    believe are the three. So the motor voter had its genesis in
    Michigan, so we had the data already, we had the database
    already, but we went through our file and eliminated three
    quarters of a million registrations once we were able to
    electronically meld this in our State and dedupe all of that.
        And one thing that we also did, I am just mentioning this
    because I think it has some bearing on why we introduce this
    bill trying to help make sure that these lists are always up--
    as clean as they possibly can and using technology, I think
    through the advantage of the voters, et cetera. We also passed
    a bill that said we don't care where you register to vote, but
    your voter registration address must match your driver address,
    wherever that is. And that deduped an incredible amount, as you
    might imagine even from the college towns in particular. I am
    always of the impression that if you are smart enough to go to
    college, you should be smart enough to get an absentee ballot
    and vote AV. And that is a criteria that is allowed in Michigan
    law. But again, it really helped, I think, clean up the list to
    make sure we didn't have duplicate registrations across the
    State because people are moving a lot, particularly college
    students as they are going to college as well.
        Mr. Thomas mentioned that the driver's licenses right now
    can't be duplicate in various States, and that is all through
    the database shared by AMBA I suppose, and so that is an
    important thing as well. And also I mentioned that 73,000
    people moved just in the last year, and yet you are required in
    our case, in our State, I am not sure how many moved--a lot of
    us moved to Arizona, unfortunately we are going to stop that.
    We keep our folks in Michigan, a lot of people do move, and
    yet, we are required under the current law--you can't take
    those off the list for at least 2 years, maybe 4 years which
    just does not seem to be a very good practice.
        As well, I guess my question, I would first start with
    Secretary Bennett, our whole impetus for this bill when we
    introduced it is to again make it as easy as possible for the
    secretaries for all the voting administrators to expedite their
    process, keep it free, fair and open. Is there anything that
    you would see in this particular bill that might cause that not
    to be a better situation or an expense, an expense as well?
        Mr. Bennett. Madam Chair, I don't see anything, I think the
    points made by Ms. MacNamara are cogent and can be considered
    as this legislation moves forward. I think some of the concerns
    about you are already asking one question, why ask it again, I
    think the points made by Mr. Thomas are that the first ask of
    the question, whether it is on a paper form or electronically,
    can serve as the question proposed by 2115. So I don't see
    anything here, Arizona is not one of the States that has motor
    voter under the Secretary's office, but because we were the
    first State to do online voter registration, and most of our
    citizens who do so do so coming through from our Motor Vehicle
    Department. We have very close ties with them and I don't see
    anything in the legislation that is going to complicate that or
    make it more expensive.
        The Chairman. Really, I would think that that is not
    particularly inherent to Arizona; it would seem like in every
    State, you would be much more likely to go to the DMV or the
    Secretary of State or whatever the case is to change your
    driver's license or address before you think about your voter
    registration. That, at least, has been our experience, I think,
    there as well. One of you, I think Mr. Thomas mentioned about
    REAL ID, which I was involved with. I also sit--I am vice chair
    of the Homeland Security Committee in the House here, I tell
    you before anything, we are Americans. And your identification,
    driver's license in particular, is your foundation of
    identification, you are using it to get on an airplane or to do
    anything else.
        So having good safeguards there and then working with voter
    registration as well is such a natural transition I think.
        So again I just appreciate all of you coming. I think this
    bill, if we can get it to the floor and get it moved, does have
    the potential to be a real step forward.
        I hope it will be embraced by the Secretaries of State as
    well nationally, and the election officers as well nationally.
    My only other question before my time expires here is that,
    curiosity, I was thinking as you were talking, Mr. Thomas, what
    has been the experience in Michigan, and I am not sure if other
    States are talking about utilizing new technology, the
    electronic poll books, and how would this impact that if at
    all?
        Mr. Thomas. It will definitely impact the Kansas project
    interstate cross-checks, it really eliminates errors by
    election officials in terms of scanning voter history. The
    electronic poll books are far more accurate. What we have seen
    already is that when it shows somebody has voted, there is very
    little question whether that is accurate data, which has proven
    to be very beneficial. In terms of looking at what can be done
    with the data coming from the DMV, they use driver's license
    numbers for all their matching criteria.
        When that comes back to Michigan, it comes back with a
    driver's license number, and in some cases, the State even
    makes a copy of the license and send it back to Michigan. It
    makes a very accurate match, then, in terms of which voter has
    moved out of State. It is not whether the name and birthday and
    all that are accurate. It really goes number to number, which
    is a very efficient way to do that.
        The Chairman. So regardless of how an individual votes,
    whether they vote absentee, whether they show up at the polls
    or what have you, they really should assist?
        Mr. Thomas. Yes.
        The Chairman. Yes. At this time the chair would recognize
    the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Brady. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My only question
    would be that I understand from State to State, change your
    driver's license, you get taken off the previous State which I
    happen to support and agree with. Would it make any sense to
    have some registration materials maybe mandatory provide that
    they have some registration materials that you are being taken
    off a State giving them the opportunity, not mandatory asking
    you to register, but giving them the opportunity with the
    materials here that they could register right there, to
    register in a new State? Anybody?
        Mr. Thomas. Well, Congressman Brady, that is the law, the
    DMVs are mandated by Federal law to offer voter registration
    opportunity to every single person who comes in and either
    renews or applies for a new driver's license. When that person
    moves to the State, they should be asked. Now if you go look at
    the figures that come out every 2 years that the EAC publishes,
    unfortunately I think it shows that not all States are doing
    that equally. When you start seeing the percentage of
    registration far below 50 percent coming out of the DMV, then
    some serious questions need to be asked whether those DMVs are
    really offering voter registration opportunities. That is
    really more of an enforcement question.
        So what I like about this bill is it says, look, we are
    going ask you this question, and we are going to be mandated to
    ask the question, ``is this your State for voting purposes,''
    whether or not you register to vote? But I certainly and
    sincerely hope that the DMVs' next step in the application
    process is offering that person the opportunity to register.
        Mr. Brady. When you asked the question that you want to
    relinquish your ability to vote in the previous State, is it
    mandatory that you ask them at that time? We do have materials
    here that allow you to vote in this State that you register for
    your driver's license.
        Mr. Thomas. It seems like the reasonable time to ask that.
    Different States do it at different points within their
    process. But really the question is not so much are you
    rejecting your former State, the question is, is this your
    State that you are applying for a license for? Is this your
    State for voting purposes? And if they answer ``yes'' to that,
    it seems to me the next obvious question is ``would you like to
    register to vote.'' We are going to sign you up right now on
    the spot, and that is the way it should be done.
        Mr. Brady. I appreciate that, thank you.
        Ms. MacNamara. Mr. Brady, I think that question is one of
    the concerns that it the League has, no matter how well
    educated you are. A lot of folks do not understand our election
    process, it is complex and varies greatly from State to State.
        Our concern with asking the question is this the State that
    you intend to register to vote in, is what is implied in that
    is that, you can chose whether or not the State of your
    residence is the State that you want to vote in.
        My son just recently moved from Virginia back to Georgia
    and had to go in and apply for a driver's license. He just
    graduated from medical school, and he has had a lot of exposure
    to elections through his mother. I promise you if you had asked
    him that question, he would have to call me, and say does this
    mean that I have an opportunity to say I would rather leave my
    registration in the State of Virginia and move my driver's
    license to Georgia, that is what we are concerned about, is
    that that is going to be confusing for voters. The mere fact
    that they are offered the opportunity to register, chose to
    register on the NVRA application should be sufficient evidence
    of intent because you are applying to register to vote in the
    State to which you were moving. And so we would just suggest
    that in achieving this very worthy goal that that question
    could be very confusing.
        Mr. Brady. How would you pose the question?
        Ms. MacNamara. I would suggest that everyone is supposed to
    be offered, under motor voter, the opportunity to register at
    the motor vehicle office. There are applications available for
    that. If you fill out that application, I think your intent is
    obvious, you are intending to register to vote at that time
    through the DMV.
        Asking the additional question, I do think suggests--we
    would suggest that you leave off the additional question and
    make the requirement that if the person fills out the motor
    voter registration form, that that is evidence of their intent
    that can be sent back to the State when--where they were
    registered and we would also suggest that that be done
    Secretary or election official to election official as opposed
    to having everything go from one DMV to an election official
    from the DMV to another DMV to another election official.
    Because we see since all States aren't doing this the same, we
    do see a lot of opportunity for transcription errors and
    matching errors that can make it difficult for election
    officials to determine whether or not they are taking the right
    person off the list.
        So that would be our suggestion, let's streamline the
    process, let's use the NVRA, the motor voter registration form
    as your indication of intent.
        Mr. Brady. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Bennett. Madam Chairman, Mr. Miller, at the same time
    that Ms. MacNamara's concerns point out a concern about whether
    that question is going to confuse somebody, I think it also
    represents an opportunity to see in the legislation how this
    could help people who, whether they are just graduating from
    college--I talk to a lot of people in Arizona who assume that
    when they move their driver's license, that it automatically
    moves their voter registration and that is not necessarily the
    case. And what this legislation will do, I think in a very
    positive way, is cause all of the States to at least go through
    that process, whether electronic or paper, or in front of a
    person, and reinforce the concept that the voter needs to make
    the decision of whether they want to be registered in the new
    State.
        As Mr. Thomas pointed out, it is not such do you want to
    give up your registration where you were previously, but it is
    a wonderful opportunity and will cause all of the States to ask
    voters, who I think many of them now assume that by moving my
    driver's license, my voter registration is going to
    automatically follow, and this will help them understand that
    that is not necessarily the case. And if we ask the questions
    in the right way, which I think the legislation can be
    constructed and with the assistance of organizations around the
    country to implement it correctly, we will have a very positive
    effect on many voters who find themselves in that situation.
        Mr. Brady. Thank you. If I have any further questions, we
    will submit to you in writing. And I do want to be supportive
    of the bill and support our chair. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlemen.
        Mr. Bennett. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Indiana, the cosponsor of the bill, Mr. Rokita.
        Mr. Rokita. I thank the chair. Appreciate the discussion
    here, regarding intent versus confusion. Using just a little
    bit of my time, I would like Mr. Thomas to chime in on the
    subject. You may have touched on it earlier go ahead based off
    these two excellent witnesses, how would you referee the
    differing viewpoints since you are unelected.
        Mr. Thomas. Yes, I am unelected and nonpartisan, it is a
    great bill and I think you ought to pass it.
        Mr. Rokita. But you are a politician?
        Mr. Thomas. No, I think it asks the right question, and I
    don't think--there is always room for confusion obviously, but
    this is a straightforward question, ``is this your State for
    voting purposes,'' yes or no? If they say ``no'' the question
    asked by Ms. MacNamara and her testimony is ``what would happen
    if they don't answer, or they answer `no.' '' Well, then,
    particularly if they say no, then we won't take any action,
    they we will be presumed to stay on the file in Michigan and
    won't send them a notice and spend that money. Where now they
    surrender that driver's license, we are getting that
    notification and we are sending them a notice. If they happen
    not to vote in those next two Federal elections we are
    canceling them. Whereas if this voter says, ``no, I am not
    moving to this State for voting purposes,'' we are going to
    leave them on the file. If they don't answer it, then we will
    just use the regular NVRA process and send them a notice.
        Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Chris, I appreciate that. Excuse me,
    Mr. Thomas, I didn't mean to cuss at you by calling you a
    politician. I apologize for that. I want to thank the witness
    for being here, it was very instructive, appreciate it.
        I would like, Madam Chair, to indicate for the record,
    reemphasize for the record that the National Association of
    Secretaries of State, I believe, have just offered to help with
    the particulars about the process and the details. And I know
    by personal experience, as do you that they can put together
    committees in a very bipartisan, nonpartisan way to accomplish
    that, and I think as this bill moves forward, we ought to take
    them up on that. Without objection, if that could be noted.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Mr. Rokita. The time I have remaining I want to focus on my
    friend, Ken Bennett's remarks, when he talked about--I think
    Ken when I was still a Secretary of State, it was interstate
    compacts, or some kind of agreement that we had to have State
    by State to share the newly-organized statewide voter
    registration data. Is what you describe in your testimony an
    outcry of that or is that same kind of concept that we were
    dealing with?
        Mr. Bennett. Madam Chair, Congressman, I was coming into my
    role as Secretary of State about the time you were leaving so I
    don't know that I was----
        Mr. Rokita. You mentioned there are 22 States now.
        Mr. Bennett. Yes. We call it the interstate cross-check. It
    wasn't so much a compact in the formal sense of what I would
    interpret compact to mean, but it had just been originated by
    the previous Secretary, now Governor Brewer. Her office had
    joined with six other States and it was just a voluntary
    program to share our data to see if we were having duplicate
    voters.
        Mr. Rokita. I want to unpack that, because I want to see
    how this bill will impact other States going into that.
        Mr. Bennett. Okay.
        Mr. Rokita. And then I will have Mr. Thomas comment. Do you
    have any demographics on these States, are these 22 States, is
    the chief election officer an elected official? Are they
    Secretaries of State? Are they more blue States? Are they more
    red States? If I am looking like you don't have that answer, I
    ask that for you to provide----
        Mr. Bennett. We can get that information to you and the
    rest of the members of the committee. I am sure we have that
    data, and get that to you.
        Mr. Rokita. We are looking for what drives States, the 22
    which is a big number from where we started but only half the
    total number roughly what drives that. And Chris, if you want
    to comment as well, Mr. Thomas.
        Mr. Thomas. Yes, the driver, again, is trying to clean the
    files up; we participated in 2010 and 2012. And the combined
    number, this is the gross number that has not been worked out,
    is over 300,000 duplicate records across these 22 States.
        Mr. Rokita. So the fact that this legislation, if enacted,
    would be a requirement on every State, which as you heard from
    earlier part of today's proceedings I am sensitive to, would a
    silver lining in this legislation be more States entering into
    these compacts to get the job done or not?
        Mr. Thomas. I think so, I think it would be worth their
    while to do so, and this would sort out the 300,000. I am sure
    half of them are people who have moved and are just sitting in
    our files because we sent the two notices and have to wait
    through two Federal elections. If we could move them off and
    leave them where they have now permanently moved, then this
    cross-check really gets down to the nuts and bolts of what is
    left and that is the serious stuff.
        Mr. Rokita. Thank you. In the 20 seconds or so we have
    left, Ms. MacNamara, you worked--the bell or the light ended
    your testimony. Is there anything else you want to get on the
    record?
        Ms. MacNamara. Well, yes. And thank you very much.
        Mr. Rokita. Now you are out of time. Really quickly, in ten
    seconds or so.
        Ms. MacNamara. Right. We would also like the committee to
    consider the interstate-intra-State moves, an awful lot of
    folks move within their State and are completely unaware that
    they need to reregister in most States in order to keep their
    registration active. And so if we were looking in electronic
    ways, and we are looking at compacts as we are looking at ways
    to make our voting rolls more accurate, certainly we would like
    to focus the committee's attention on the fact that many, many
    more folks move within a State than move between States, and
    that also can be a barrier for voters.
        Mr. Rokita. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlemen and certainly thank all
    the witnesses and the gentlemen was mentioning about NASS and
    NASED really helping with the questions. I mean, the whole
    impetus of the bill is to make sure that people are not
    duplicate registers, right? That they are not registered in two
    different places. It would seem part of the question is do you
    understand you can only be registered to vote in one place? So
    pick your place, only once so you can only be registered in one
    place. I just throw that out as a NASS or NASED would be
    looking at this there might be a way to phrase a question that
    would answer your concerns as well, I think.
        With that, I certainly again want to thank all of the
    witnesses. I think this is--this bill may be not perfect, I
    think maybe we can make it work. I am appreciative of the
    support that we receive for this bill, we look forward to
    reporting it to the House.
        And with that, I, without objection, would mention that all
    members will have five legislative days to submit to the chair
    additional written questions for the witnesses, which we will
    forward and ask the witnesses to respond to promptly as they
    can so that their answers will be part of the record. And with
    that the hearing is adjourned. Thank you all again.
        [Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82232A.045