[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