[House Hearing, 116 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] H. R. 1: THE ``FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019'' ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ---------- JANUARY 29, 2019 ---------- Serial No. 116-1 ---------- Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available http://judiciary.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov H.R. 1: THE ``FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019'' H.R. 1: THE ``FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019'' ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JANUARY 29, 2019 __________ Serial No. 116-1 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available http://judiciary.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 37-688 WASHINGTON : 2020 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Ranking Member STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Wisconsin Georgia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas KAREN BASS, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana KEN BUCK, Colorado HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island MARTHA ROBY, Alabama ERIC SWALWELL, California MATT GAETZ, Florida TED LIEU, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland ANDY BIGGS, Arizona PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washingtqn TOM McCLINTOCK, California VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona J. LUIS CORREA, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, BEN CLINE, Virginia Vice-Chair KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida JOE NEGUSE, Colorado LUCY McBATH, Georgia GREG STANTON, Arizona MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel Brendan Belair, Minority Staff Director ------ C O N T E N T S ---------- JANUARY 29, 2019 OPENING STATEMENTS Page The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary...................................................... 1 The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary...................................................... 3 WITNESSES Vanita Gupta, President and Chief Executive Officer, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Oral Testimony............................................... 8 Prepared Testimony........................................... 11 Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Oral Testimony............................................... 16 Prepared Testimony........................................... 19 Sarah Turberville, Director, The Constitution Project, Project on Government Oversight Oral Testimony............................................... 30 Prepared Testimony........................................... 32 J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation Oral Testimony............................................... 40 Prepared Testimony........................................... 42 Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation Oral Testimony............................................... 52 Prepared Testimony........................................... 54 Adav Noti, Senior Director, Trial Litigation & Chief of Staff, Campaign Legal Center Oral Testimony............................................... 65 Prepared Testimony........................................... 67 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Items for the record submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 86 A letter for the record submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 104 A letter for the record submitted by the Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 114 A letter for the record submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Committee on the Judiciary................................ 170 Item submitted for the record from Ms. Jackson Lee............... 205 An article for the record submitted by the Honorable Pramila Jayapal, Committee on the Judiciary............................ 244 Items for the record submitted by the Honorable David Cicilline, Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 254 APPENDIX Items for the record submitted by the Honorable Louie Gohmert, Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 305 Items for the record submitted by the Honorable Matt Gaetz, Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 338 H.R. 1: THE ``FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2019'' ---------- TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2019 House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [chairman of the committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, Jeffries, Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Collins, Gohmert, Jordan, Buck, Ratcliffe, Gaetz, Biggs, McClintock, Lesko, Reschenthaler, Cline, and Armstrong. Staff present: Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director; James Park, Majority Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Constitution; Keenan Keller, Majority Senior Counsel; David Greengrass, Majority Senior Counsel; Rosalind Jackson, Majority Professional Staff Member. Chairman Nadler. The Judiciary Committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on H.R. 1, the ``For the People Act of 2019.'' I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. While the specific question before us concerns the merits of H.R. 1, the ``For the People Act of 2019,'' the broader issue is what kind of country America is and should be. H.R. 1, a comprehensive bill that strengthens our voting, campaign finance, lobbying, and government ethics laws in numerous ways, is a notable attempt to renew our nation's commitment to having a government of the people, by the people, for the people. America's promise lies in its democracy. When at its best, our nation has taken pride in being the world's oldest democracy and has defined itself not by race, religion, or ethnicity, but by its democratic and constitutionally-based system of government, one that strives to guarantee individual freedom and genuine representation of its citizens. This is what has made America a shining city on a hill in the world's eyes for over 200 years. Yet, the general arc of our nation's politics over the last generation has made it easy to be cynical, easy to say that America in that time has increasingly tended towards an oligarchy in which more and more of the political power is concentrated in fewer and fewer wealthy and powerful hands. H.R. 1 is a bold and far-reaching attempt to correct this dangerous drift away from representative democracy by reducing the role of money in politics, by restoring ethical standards and integrity to government, and by strengthening laws to protect voting. For example, the bill declares Congress's commitment to reinvigorating the Voting Rights Act by restoring the act's most important enforcement provision--its pre-clearance provision. Before the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, states and localities passed a host of voter suppression laws, secure in the knowledge that it could take many years before the Justice Department could successfully challenge them in court, if at all. As soon as one law was overturned another would be enacted, essentially setting up a discriminatory game of whack- a-mole. Pre-clearance broke this legal logjam by requiring states and localities with a history of discrimination against racial and ethnic minority voters to submit changes to their voting laws to the Justice Department or to the federal district court for approval prior to taking effect. This vital provision was effectively gutted in 2013, however, when the Supreme Court issued its disastrous decision, Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down the formula for determining which states and localities are subject to the pre- clearance requirement. In its absence, the game of whack-a-mole has returned. Predictably, some states wasted no time enacting discriminatory voter suppression laws in the wake of the Shelby County decision. In fact, North Carolina and Texas announced their intention to reinstate such measures just one day after Shelby County was decided. Although the Texas and North Carolina laws were eventually struck down by the courts, several elections were conducted under these laws and the damage was done. The 2018 report by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission confirms that many other formerly-covered jurisdictions have also become emboldened to enact discriminatory voting measures since pre-clearance was effectively eliminated. They know how difficult it is to challenge such laws after they go into effect. Restoring pre-clearance is essential to preventing the further erosion of voting rights. It does not help that President Trump has encouraged conspiracy theories about massive voter fraud as a justification for voter identification laws and other voter suppression tactics. Just this past Sunday, the president seized on tentative and unverified information from Texas election officials about potential noncitizens who were allegedly registered to vote. He sent the wildly misleading tweet about the report, calling voter fraud rampant and demanding voter ID laws. I hope our witnesses today will help dispel the dangerous myth of widespread voter fraud. H.R. 1 also incorporates the Democracy Restoration Act of 2019--legislation I introduced in the first day of this Congress that would restore federal voting rights for citizens with felony convictions. Many states deny voting rights for such citizens, permanently branding them with a scarlet letter long after they have paid their debt to society. Not only is ex-offender disenfranchisement wrong and anti-democratic in and of itself, many of these laws were deliberately designed and--admittedly at the time--designed to entrench white supremacy and they continue to have a particularly disproportionate impact on communities of color, exacerbating the racially discriminatory effect of other voter suppression measures. H.R. 1 also aims to end voter intimidation, the dissemination of deceptive voting information about times and places, and other voter suppression tactics by prohibiting such activities and adding or increasing criminal penalties for violations. In addition to enhancing voting rights protections, H.R. 1 takes aim at the increasing dominance of big money and dark money in politics and influence peddling, all of which take governing decisions away from ordinary people and diminishes their faith in government. For example, the bill outlines the many important reasons why the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which unleashed a flood of dark money in politics, must be overturned. It also closes the shadow lobbying loophole and requires that those who provide legislative, political, and strategic counseling services in support of someone else's lobbying activity is also required to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. In addition, the bill enhances the Foreign Agents Registration Act by creating a new enforcement office at the Department of Justice and giving it authority to pursue civil penalties. H.R. 1 also includes a provision that passed last year on a bipartisan basis to require the development of a judicial code of ethics that would apply to all federal judges including the judges of the Supreme Court, the only court in the country currently not subject to any binding code of ethics. H.R. 1 helps level the playing field to give ordinary Americans the voice that they deserve in how our country is governed. Now more than ever Congress must return to fundamental American ideals in leading our country out of the darkness. Passing H.R. 1 is an important first step on that journey. I thank our witnesses for appearing and I look forward to hearing from them. It is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Collins of Georgia, for his opening statement. Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we start today, I am confident that every lawmaker in this room agrees that our democracy depends on protecting voting rights and election integrity. Congress has the authority to prohibit discriminatory treatment in voting based on race or ethnicity as part of its duty to ensure the sanctity of every vote. Unfortunately, this bill actively undermines those goals. This bill before us today federalizes elections in ways that have nothing to do with outlawing discrimination. Instead, it federalizes elections in ways that actually disenfranchises state voters. H.R. 1 would deprive state voters of their own right to determine their state's voting qualifications, district lines, and means of guarding against ballot fraud. The official title of this bill is ``For the People Act.'' This bill, though, is not for the people. It is not for everyday citizens. This bill siphons power from state legislatures, local elected officials, and voters and cedes power to Washington lawmakers, unelected federal judges, and lawyers. This bill is, in particular, for the unelected elites. It is for the people who don't answer directly to the voters. Contrary to its name, this bill takes power away from the people and it does this by violating the Constitution by trampling over both the spirit and the letter of our most fundamental laws. One of the interest groups buoyed by this bill is lawyers. The ``For the Lawyers Act'' creates a private cause of action for lawsuits related to Title 3 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 called HAVA. You might well remember the whole point of this legislation was precisely to avoid the kinds of lawsuits that brought chaos to the 2000 presidential election. It required that all voting systems allow voters to verify their candidate selections before casting their ballots, provide voters with the opportunity to change their selection before casting their ballots, and notify voters when they make multiple selections for the same office. It also requires states to enable people to vote by provisional ballot. To ensure that states comply with these requirements, Congress has gave the Department of Justice the authority to bring civil actions against state or a jurisdiction whenever the facts assessed by career prosecutors justified the actions to bring states into compliance with the Title 3 requirements. To ensure that states appropriately send these--spend HAVA funds, the Election Assistance Commission has the authority to audit each state or jurisdiction. The Department of Justice Civil Rights Voting Division has the authority to enforce HAVA and develop a broad election-monitoring program to oversee the administration of elections. Since that time, we have not seen another post-election litigation nightmare like the 2000 presidential election. But under the ``For the Lawyers Act'' the possibilities of elections disruption and voter disillusionment could be limitless. H.R. 1 would upend HAVA's enforcement system. It would instead allow disgruntled voters and activist groups who are intent on getting federal judges to overturn elections the ability to file unlimited private lawsuits. Does a candidate need a million more votes to win? This bill allows the losing candidate to rely on disgruntled voters or advocacy groups in all 50 states to cherry pick likeminded judges. Those judges could then use the lawsuit to overturn election results by swinging votes from one column to another. Such lawsuits would effectively take time and money away from the state and local election officials who desperately need those resources to administer fair elections, not pay bogus legal fees. We can also call H.R. 1 the ``For the Unelected Judges Act.'' The bill denies state legislatures the right to draw district lines according to the will of the voters who elected those state lawmakers and reassigns that power to unelected commissions in a federal court in Washington, D.C. Nine states already have redistricting commissions, but theirs would be overridden by the commissions created under H.R. 1. The advisory redistricting commissions and backup commissions that have been established in eight other states would also fall victim to H.R. 1's new commissions. This section also allows for the private right of action, stating any citizen of a state who is aggrieved by the failure of the state redistricting plan, which is enacted into law, to meet the requirements for such a plan may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court for such relief as may be appropriate to remedy the failure. We see that under H.R. 1 not only can lawyers run wild after every congressional election but they can cripple duly- elected state legislatures before elections by challenging every inch of the redistricting lines drawn by the commissions under this bill. Instead of simply allowing voters to hold state legislators accountable for their actions, which happens every election cycle, this bill steals the election authority and hands the power over to unaccountable federal judges--judges who enjoy lifetime tenures and judges who voters cannot replace. I am sad to say that H.R. 1 is also a ``For the Violent Criminals Act.'' I have worked with many of my friends across the aisle on this committee to make responsible justice reforms a reality--one of our biggest successes of last Congress, Mr. Chairman. We agree that the power of redemption and necessity of rehabilitation and promoting justice and public safety. We believe in helping people who have served their debt to society become productive citizens. Any commitment we share in that area, however, does not empower lawmakers to take power away from the voters and the state representatives they elected. Yet, H.R. 1 does that. It denies state voters their ability to limit the vote to people who haven't been convicted of murder, violent felonies, or other serious crimes including, by the way, voter fraud. Do states' voters believe that a person who has been convicted of murder or perpetuating a fraud in our election system has forfeited their right to vote? H.R. 1 overrides those votes and their communities. These provisions are not just anti-democratic. They are patently, patently unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, including Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, all held just a few years ago that, and I quote, ``Surely, nothing in the Election Clause of the Constitution lends itself to the view that voting qualifications in federal elections are to be set by Congress.'' Further, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution itself explicitly recognizes the rights of states to deny the vote for, and I quote, ``in participation of a crime.'' In addition to prioritizing felons over law-abiding voters, H.R. 1 forces taxpayers to expand the dark web of anonymous donors before the politicians' bill spends your money by forcing a 6 to 1 taxpayer match based on anonymous small-dollar donations. That means that for every $1 and small-dollar--a small donation someone makes to a candidate, the bill compels American's hardworking citizens to forfeit $6 of their income to further that candidate and their priorities, even if you are morally opposed to their priorities. Not only is this system cloaked in darkness, it is abusive. There is no transparency here, no room for freedom of conscience, no room for debate--just compulsion cloaked in secrecy. If Democrats want to truly work on true campaign finance transparency, H.R. 1 would require all donations to federal candidates to be disclosed, from $1 to $2,700. It is simple. You donate, you disclose. One 2018 congressional candidate, for example, raised $100,000 basically in anonymous donations. The only listed donor on their federal filing was ActBlue. That tells voters nothing about who is supporting a candidate, why, and to what end. H.R. 1 would take more money from the voters but shines no light on the hidden web of anonymous donations that it would support. What are my colleagues trying to hide? H.R. 1 could also be called the ``Voting Fraud Act'' because it makes unlawful for states and localities to help verify voter residents by sending out cards to addresses. If the card goes unanswered within a reasonable period of time, that information could be used to help remove names from the voter rolls and the voter's true identity cannot be verified. Why would responsible officials take this step? Because they want to protect the sanctity of every vote by guarding against voter fraud. The practice is entirely legitimate when it purposes to identify individuals who are not properly registered to vote and to prevent individuals from voting illegally. Just last year, the Supreme Court upheld Ohio's voter registration which uses voter register's failure to return a card verifying their residence combined with such person's inactivity over four years as a reason to remove them from the voting rolls. This practice is authorized under the National Voting Registration Act of 1993, which President Clinton signed into law, as well as the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Justice Alito, in noting these procedures, said such are used because voters are required to live in a district in which they vote, and more than 10 percent of voters move every year so states must be allowed some means of verifying a person's address to avoid potential fraud--for example, the same person votes multiple times based on the multiple listed residences. The Supreme Court has already told us that promoting election integrity is both--this way is both legal and necessary. However, H.R. 1 rejects that decision and insists on widening the path to voter fraud. In summary, Mr. Chairman, my sense is that if your lawyer is running for--running elections supporting this bill, if your unelected justices running elections support this bill, if you are multiplying opportunities for voter fraud and registering voter rights for those who commit voting fraud, then support this bill. And, of course, if you want to take away the ability of democratically-elected representatives to write laws according to the will of the people who sent those representatives to the state legislatures, then support the bill. But if you are earnestly for the people, if you want everyday citizens to have the power that only comes through their ability to hold elected officials accountable at the ballot box, you send this bill back to the drafting table because the bill before us today throws a strong left hook to the Constitution and expects voters to take it on the chin. I look forward to working on areas of this bill we can work with and with that, I look forward to hearing the witnesses and yield back. Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Collins. I will now introduce today's witnesses. The first witness is Vanita Gupta. Ms. Gupta currently serves as president and chief executive officer of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Previously, she served as principal deputy assistant Attorney General and head of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Ms. Gupta graduated magna cum laude from Yale University and received a law degree from NYU School of Law, which is in my district. The second witness is Sherrilyn Ifill. Sherrilyn Ifill is the seventh president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She has also been a member of the faculty of the University of Maryland's School of Law where she has taught civil procedure, constitution law, and a variety of seminars. Ms. Ifill is a graduate of Vassar College and received her JD also from New York University School of Law. Sarah Turberville is director of the Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight. In this position, Ms. Turberville coordinates TCP's public education and advocacy efforts on a variety of matters relating to the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights such as independence of the courts, access to habeas corpus, policing, and surveillance. She is an elected councilmember for the town of Edmonston, Maryland, and serves on the board of the port town's Community Development Corporation. Ms. Turberville is a graduate of Tulane Law School. J. Christian Adams serves as president and general counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. From 2005 to 2010, he worked in the voting section at the United States Department of Justice. Prior to his time at the Justice Department, he serves as general counsel to the South Carolina secretary of state. He has a law degree from the University of South Carolina School of Law. Hans von Spakowsky--I hope I pronounced that--Spakovsky or Spakowsky? Spakovsky. Hans von Spakovsky currently serves as senior legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Previously, he served as a member of the Federal Election Commission and he worked at the Department of Justice as counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights. Mr. von Spakovsky is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Vanderbilt University School of Law. Adav Noti is the Campaign Legal Center's chief of staff and senior director of trial litigation. Prior to joining CLC, Mr. Noti served for more than 10 years within the Office of General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania, his law degree from NYU, and his Master's degree from Georgetown University. We welcome all of our distinguished witnesses and thank them for participating at the committee's inaugural hearing for the 116th Congress. Now, if you would please rise I will begin by swearing you in. I want to note for the record, because we are going to swear in our witnesses at every hearing, I find it a little strange but it is our custom so we will do it, for witnesses to swear that they are going to tell us the truth about their opinions. But, nonetheless, if you would please rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct, to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief? [A chorus of ayes.] Chairman Nadler. Let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and please be seated. [Discussion off the record.] Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. Please note that each of your written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude the testimony. When the light turns red, it signals the five minutes have expired. And we will begin by Ms. Gupta. TESTIMONIES OF VANITA GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS; SHERRILYN IFILL, PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR-COUNSEL, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND; SARAH TURBERVILLE, DIRECTOR, THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT, PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT; J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION; HANS VON SPAKOVSKY, SENOR LEGAL FELLOW, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, MEESE CENTER FOR LEGAL AND JUDICIAL STUDIES; ADAV NOTI, CHIEF OF STAFF, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER TESTIMONY OF VANITA GUPTA Ms. Gupta. Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the Committee, my name is Vanita Gupta. I am president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 national organizations working to build an America as good as its ideals. I previously served as head of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division where I oversaw the federal government's enforcement of voting rights. The Leadership Conference strongly supports H.R. 1 and the transformative vision for American democracy that it represents. I thank Chairman Nadler for his leadership in calling this hearing today and commend the other 226 co-sponsors of this important legislation. It is past time to build a 21st century democracy that represents our growing and diverse nation--a democracy that welcomes every person's voice and participation--because for too long voter suppression has been a shameful reality in our country, undercutting the power and representation of African Americans, Latinos, and other groups historically excluded from our political process. Our nation made historic strides in 1965 with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, which sought to end racial discrimination at the ballot box. But nearly 50 years later in 2013, five justices of the Supreme Court gutted its most powerful tool, the pre-clearance system. That system had enabled the Justice Department and federal courts to block proposed discriminatory voting restrictions in states with well-documented histories of discrimination. Mere hours after the Shelby County decision, states began to implement voter suppression laws. In striking down the North Carolina law in 2016, the Fourth Circuit described the law as ``the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crow,'' with provisions that ``target African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' There have been finds of intentional discrimination in at least 10 voting rights cases since Shelby County and litigation can take years, and unlike pre-clearance, occurs after elections, after people have been disenfranchised. This administration has only made things worse by damaging our democracy and institutions, from elections to the Census to the free press. The administration's assault on voting rights can be seen in the creation of the sham Pence-Kobach Commission, a political ploy that was ultimately discredited and disbanded. We also saw it in their defense of Texas's discriminatory photo ID law and Ohio's voter purge efforts. The administration has not filed a single Voting Rights Act case despite numerous recent state and local efforts to block access to the ballot in communities of color. A strong democracy should not be a partisan issue. Americans must have faith in their democracy and it is up to Democrats and Republicans to restore integrity and legitimacy to our institutions. This committee has done it before. In 2006, Congressman Sensenbrenner led a successful effort to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and we need you to do so again. People turned out in record numbers during the 2018 election to cast their votes for democracy reform. Not only is this reflected in the most diverse Congress in our nation's history, but voters also cast their ballot to end gerrymandering and make voting more accessible in ``red'' and ``blue'' states across the country. Yet, we know that many states continue to erect barriers to voting and that is why we enthusiastically support H.R. 1. Importantly, H.R. 1 includes a commitment to restoring the Voting Rights Act and updating the pre-clearance provision. It would also restore voting rights for people with felony convictions, a necessary repudiation of our nation's discriminatory and racially violent past. This would add more than 4.7 million voters to the rolls nationwide. Reforming felony disenfranchisement has bipartisan support. In November, 65 percent of Florida voters cast their ballots to restore the right to vote for over 1.4 million people. It would require states to draw congressional districts using independent redistricting commissions. It would prohibit the distribution of false information about elections, particularly important in the era of Facebook and social media platforms that can be manipulated to spread misinformation. It would ban voter caging, voter intimidation, unwarranted voter purging. It would adopt nationwide Election Day registration and automatic voter registration, which would add 50 million people to the rolls, and it would make sure that people running elections aren't in charge of running their own elections when they themselves are running for office. Voting and the ability to participate in our democracy is a racial justice issue, it is a civil rights issue, and we are overdue for change. H.R. 1 is a bold comprehensive reform package that offers solutions to a broken democracy. Repairing and modernizing our voting system goes hand in hand with reforms that address the rampant corruption flowing from the corrosive power of money in our elections. Both are necessary to ensuring that our government works for all people, not just a powerful few. Our coalition is committed to expanding the franchise and fixing our democracy, and we look forward to working with you until the day that these reforms are signed into law. Thank you. [The statement of Ms. Gupta follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Nadler. Thank you. We will now hear from our next witness, Ms. Ifill. TESTIMONY OF SHERRILYN IFILL Ms. Ifill. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the Committee. My name is Sherrilyn Ifill and I am the president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, or LDF. I thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning concerning H.R. 1, the ``For the People Act.'' My complete testimony has been submitted for the record. Since its founding in 1940 by Thurgood Marshall, the Legal Defense Fund has been a leader in the struggle to secure, protect, and advance voting rights for African-American voters and racial minorities. Beginning with Smith v. Allwright, our successful Supreme Court case in 1944 challenging the use of whites-only primaries in elections in the South, LDF has been fighting to overcome myriad obstacles to ensure the full, equal, and active participation of African Americans in the political process. H.R. 1 is the first major bill of the 116th Congress that contains critical reforms that promise to strengthen our democracy including restoring voting rights in federal elections to individuals with a criminal background, impacting upwards of 5 million Americans, and prohibiting the use of deceptive practices and preventing voter intimidation. The introduction of H.R. 1 also begins a larger legislative effort to restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to its full strength following a disastrous 2013 Supreme Court decision, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, which gutted a key provision of the Act. LDF litigated that case and, unfortunately, lost in the Supreme Court in a decision which ignored the overwhelming evidence Congress accumulated in 2006 that the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5 of the act were desperately needed to protect the ability of racial minorities to participate equally in the political process. I remind you that Section 5 of the act was expressly designed to address not only then-existing discriminatory voting schemes in 1965 but to also, in the words of the legislators who debated the provision, address the, quote, ``ingenious methods that might be devised and used in the future to suppress the full voting strength of African Americans.'' At its pre-Shelby strength, Section 5 would have prevented some of the voter suppression schemes that we have encountered over the last five years, including many that received national exposure in the 2018 election. The need for H.R. 1 is evident from what we are seeing on the ground and we have been collecting all of the discriminatory voting changes since the Shelby County decision in a publication called ``Democracy Diminished,'' which you can find on the Legal Defense Fund website. This is our attempt to capture a fraction of the thousands of voting changes that would have been scrutinized by the federal government but for the Shelby decision. We were also on the ground on Election Day and there we found many egregious voter suppression tactics. Many of them you know about from Georgia, well before the mid-term election. In fact, Georgia officials began placing additional burdens on voters, particularly black and Latino voters, by closing precincts and purging over half a million people from the voter rolls. The voter purge, which removed 107,000 people simply because they did not vote in previous elections and respond to a mailing, was overseen by the Republican candidate for governor, Brian Kemp, who was also the secretary of state. LDF and a chorus of others called on him to recuse himself from participating in the election but he refused. In Richland and Charleston Counties in South Carolina, voters endured extremely long lines---- Chairman Nadler. Excuse me, Ms. Ifill. I just want to clarify. I assume you meant you called on him to recuse himself from supervising the election, not from participating as a candidate. Ms. Ifill. From supervising the election. That is correct. Not from running for secretary of state. Chairman Nadler. Thank you. Ms. Ifill. And he refused. In Richland and Charleston Counties, South Carolina, voters endured extremely long lines due to poll worker and machine shortages. In Richland County, voters reported that machines were changing their votes, a problem requiring a recalibration, according to the election officials there, which resulted in long wait times. In Texas, prior to Election Day we received reports that students at Prairie View A&M, a historically black university, did not have adequate early voting sites and we filed suit to challenge that. In Alabama, we filed suit on behalf of Alabama A&M students who found themselves suddenly placed on an inactive voter list. In Florida, voters were forced to return to court on behalf of Latino voters to compel election officials to provide Spanish language ballots as they had been ordered to do by a federal court in September. The good news, however, is that on November 6th the people of Florida voted to approve a state constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to over 1 million people with felony convictions upon the completion of their sentences. This bill, H.R. 1, would expand that across the nation. And, finally, we must acknowledge the reality that racism and discrimination in the electoral process is a national security issue. Reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee describe how Russian interference in the 2016 election included a concentrated campaign to exacerbate racism and deceive African Americans. Indeed, Facebook and other platforms became high-tech venues for the kind of racial appeals and misinformation we see regularly in our voting rights advocacy and litigation. It is imperative that we resist all efforts, whether from our international adversaries or from our own lawmakers at the local level, to weaken this effort. History calls on us today. Millions of voters and the very integrity of our democracy demands that this Congress act to restore the integrity of our elections. It was in the 1880s that the Supreme Court said that the right to vote is preservative of all rights. H.R. 1 is an important and imperative response to the threats to our democracy and I welcome the opportunity to answer your questions. Thank you. [The statement of Ms. Ifill follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Nadler. Thank you. Ms. Turberville. TESTIMONY OF SARAH TURBERVILLE Ms. Turberville. Thank you, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak with you today about a short but vital component of H.R. 1, Section 7001, on Supreme Court ethics. My name is Sarah Turberville and I am director of The Constitution Project at the Project On Government Oversight. The Supreme Court ethics provision of this legislation would close a conspicuous gap in federal ethics rule requiring the Judicial Conference to issue a code of conduct applicable to each judge and justice of the United States. We support this long-overdue ethics reform. By extending a code of ethics to the Supreme Court for the first time, this legislation seeks to balance the need to enhance the public's faith in the judiciary with the imperative to safeguard the separation of powers between the Congress and the courts and, notably, a code of conduct for the entire federal judiciary has bipartisan support. In the last Congress, a bill sponsored by the former Republican chairman of this committee contained an identical provision. I would like to explain a little bit about the ethics landscape governing judges. A century ago, the ABA created the first Model Code of judicial ethics. Today, that Model Code has been adopted by two-thirds of the states as well as the Judicial Conference of the United States. The iteration adopted by the Judicial Conference contains five canons of conduct and requires that federal judges uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary, avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially, and diligently, permits that judges may engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with the obligations of their office, and that judges refrain from political activity. This code binds a wide range of judges in our federal system, from Circuit Courts of Appeal to judges on the U.S. Tax Court. In fact, virtually every individual serving as a judge in this country is held accountable to a basic code of conduct. The glaring exception is the nine justices on the Supreme Court. While Chief Justice Roberts assures us that Supreme Court justices do in fact consult the code, a snapshot from just two recent episodes make clear that the chief justice's assurances are no longer sufficient. Take, for example, the comments of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made to the New York Times in the midst of the 2016 presidential campaign where she said, ``I can't imagine what this place would be--I can't imagine what our country would be--with Donald Trump as president.'' This seems an obvious violation of the fifth canon prohibiting political activity. Or look to Justice Brett Kavanaugh's conduct during his 2018 confirmation hearing where he described the allegations of sexual misconduct against him as a partisan conspiracy, threatened that what goes around comes around, and demonstrated hostility towards senators inquiring about his fitness for office. This, rather plainly, violates canon two, requiring judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. And the comments of both justices potentially implicate canon three, requiring a judge to disqualify him or herself for a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. In essence, our federal courts operate on a two-tiered system of ethics. Lower court judges whose decisions may be appealed are held to account through a code of conduct and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Supreme Court justices, however, whose decisions are irreversible and have the widest impacts, are trusted to self- police. We believe that a code of conduct would help guide justices in ordering their financial and fiduciary affairs, help inform justices' decision-making on recusals, and assist members of the high court in scrutinizing their extrajudicial comments and activities more carefully. And from this a benefit would flow that is perhaps more important than any other. An operative code of ethics would improve the public's faith in the integrity and legitimacy of the courts. This is all the more important, as Ranking Member Collins just described, because federal judges and justices enjoy lifetime tenure and they cannot be replaced by the voters. For this provision of H.R. 1 to have the necessary impact, we also encourage the Congress to consider additional measures that would provide for robust financial disclosure obligations, transparency of recusal decision-making, and improving access to information about judges' and justices' public and nonpublic appearances regardless of whether that appearance might trigger a financial disclosure. I will close by reminding the committee that our federal courts rely on the public's belief in their legitimacy as a co- equal branch of government in order to ensure that their rulings are honored. But the prevalence of incidents like the ones I have just described erode the public's confidence in the institution. We urge you to pass H.R. 1 as it is a long-overdue proposal to address pressing ethical questions concerning the Supreme Court. I thank you very much for your time and I look forward to your questions. [The statement of Ms. Turberville follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Adams. TESTIMONY OF J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS Mr. Adams. Thank you, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins. My name is Christian Adams and I am the president and general counsel for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a nonpartisan charity devoted to promoting election integrity and preserving the constitutional balance so that states may administer their own elections. I also served as an attorney at the Voting Section at the Department of Justice and brought multiple enforcement actions under the Voting Rights Act and have litigated a number of areas addressed by H.R. 1. H.R. 1 is today before this Committee. This proposal would mark the largest transfer of power over elections from the states to the federal government in the history of the nation. Regarding the proposal, we can certainly agree on a number of things. First, it has never been easier to register to vote and to vote in America than it is in 2019. In fact, it is difficult to avoid opportunities to register to vote. Not only is registration offered every single time you go to a motor-voter office, Americans are offered registration in social service agencies, post offices, county courthouses, outside of grocery stores, county libraries, Marine Corps recruitment stations, in jails, online, in high school, in church, in mobile registration vans, on your front porch when you are visited, and at Lollapalooza, and pursuant to various settlements of the Department of Justice has entered into in the last few years, even in drug treatment facilities. It is harder to avoid opportunities to register to vote than it is to register to vote. Second, H.R. 1 radically transforms the constitutional relationship between the states and the federal government. It strips powers from states to run their own elections. Under the Constitution, states are strongly presumed to have the power to establish the rules that H.R. 1 seeks to take away. There is a reason that states were given power to run their own elections. Mainly, decentralization promotes freedom. The Constitution decentralized control over elections to the states because when power is centralized a single malevolent actor can exert improper or dangerous control over the process. This is not wild speculation. This is a simple historical fact. Decentralized elections are more democratic because each state develops systems more suited to the wishes of their citizens. The Constitution gives power over elections to the states. It says the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senator and representatives shall be prescribed by each state legislature--prescribed by the state. This is the default presumption in the Constitution and for good reason. Fifty states and thousands of counties are better suited at running elections than federal officials. Elections are less subject to manipulation when they are run closer to the people. But, alas, advocates of H.R. 1 go all in on the last part of Article 1 Section 4, which states that the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. Using this exception to the Elections Clause to justify H.R. 1 fails for two reasons. Firstly, this provision of the Constitution was only added when concerns were raised that states would suffocate the power of the new government by refusing to establish election procedures. In other words, it was added because it was feared states would refuse to enact rules for congressional elections and thus terminate the federal government. In 2019, that is a laugh line. The concern in 1787 that states would suffocate the federal government has not materialized in the slightest. Second, just because Congress can do something doesn't mean it should. Indeed, the authors of the Constitution made it clear that the power granted to Congress to alter rules should only be used, as Alexander Hamilton put it, as a last resort. Congressional power to do this is described in Federalist 59 as a means of its own preservation. I will leave it to others to opine how it is that H.R. 1's mandate for felon voting rights granted nationwide has anything to do with Congress's own preservation. Just because you can do something does not mean you should. Just because I could stay up all night, for example, playing ``World of Warcraft'' does not mean I should. Just because I can have one more drink does not mean I should. The Constitution plainly and explicitly establishes the balance between the states and federal government and makes clear who should have the power to set federal election rules. H.R. 1's constitutional offense is grave and serious and intrudes on the power of the states to run their own elections. Thank you very much. [The statement of Mr. Adams follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Nadler. Thank you. Mr. von Spakovsky. TESTIMONY OF HANS VON SPAKOVSKY Mr. von Spakovsky. Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Collins--Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Collins, H.R. 1 covers everything from voter registration, elections, to campaign finance, judicial ethics, and lobbying. My testimony today is only limited to those provisions over which the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction and not those subject to other committees. In summary, many of the provisions of H.R. 1 are clearly unconstitutional. Others are redundant and unnecessary, covering areas that existing federal law already covers. Many are just bad policy that will neither help voters nor election officials in administering a fair and secure voter registration and election process. It also interferes with the ability of states to determine the qualifications of their voters, to secure the integrity of the election process, and to determine the districts and boundary lines of their congressional representatives. Overall, it federalizes and micromanages the election process and imposes unnecessary, unwise, and, in some cases, unconstitutional mandates on the states. I can't cover an almost 600-page bill in five minutes so I will just point out a few of these problems. For example, Section 1071 prohibits corruptly preventing another person from registering to vote. Well, federal law already prohibits such behavior. It is a criminal violation of the NVRA to prevent someone from registering to vote or voting or attempting to register to vote, and punishment includes not only a fine but up to five years in prison. It is also a criminal violation of Section 11(b) of the VRA to threaten, intimidate, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote. Section 1201 prohibits election officials from using the Postal Service's national change of address system to verify the address of registered voters. Nothing about this verification process is either sinister or suspect. Instead, the National Voter Registration Act, which this Congress passed, expressly sanctions this activity. Congress previously determined, quite correctly, that the Postal Service database would help election officials indentify registered voters who have moved out of their district. Section 1401 forces the states to restore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are released from prison. This provision is, clearly, unconstitutional. The issue isn't whether this is good state--good public policy. The point is that Congress cannot override the Constitution with a federal statute, and the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly gives the states the right to take away the abilities of felons to vote in both state and federal elections and decide when to restore the right. If Congress wants to do this, you have to pass a constitutional amendment. Section 2400 forces states to establish independent redistricting commissions and, alternatively, gives a federal court the authority to draw such districts if the commission does not adopt a plan. This unfairly interferes with the rights of the citizens of the 50 states to make their own decisions either through a referendum process, as the citizens of Arizona did, or through their elected state representatives on the best way to choose members of Congress. This is an anti-democratic measure because you are mandating to the states that they replace their elected state representatives with appointed members of the commission, members who are unaccountable to voters in elections if they don't like the kind of plans that are drawn up. Section 7001 requires the Judicial Conference to establish a mandatory code of conduct for the Supreme Court. Article 3 of the Constitution states that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. All of the inferior courts--the Courts of Appeals, the federal district courts--were created by you, by Congress, and therefore you can impose a code of conduct on them. But the Supreme Court was not created by Congress. It is an independent co-equal branch. In the same way that the justices can't dictate what ethics rules apply to you, you cannot dictate what ethics rule apply to them. Section 7301 would ban political appointees of a president from involvement in any matter in which that president is a party. This would apply to any litigation against a president's policies, programs, executive orders, or his enforcement of a particular federal statute that names the president. It would prevent the president's political subordinates such as the attorney general from participating in, directing the defense of, or assisting in any matter in which the president has been named as a party. If this provision had been in the law when Barack Obama was president, the states challenging Obama's DAPA program could have easily named Obama as a specific party. Then, neither Attorney General Loretta Lynch nor DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson could have participated in the defense of the lawsuit. This violates separation of powers and prevents a president from being able to rely on his own appointees and carry out his constitutional duty to see what the--that laws are faithfully executed. Sometimes legislation proposed by Congress is bad policy, sometimes it is unnecessary, and sometimes it is unconstitutional. H.R. 1 is all three. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. von Spakovsky follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Mr. von Spakowsky. Mr. Noti. TESTIMONY OF ADAV NOTI Mr. Noti. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Collins, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of H.R. 1. My name is Adav Noti. I am senior director of Trial Litigation and chief of staff with the Campaign Legal Center, which is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to advancing democracy through law. Before I joined the Campaign Legal Center, I served as associate general counsel of the Federal Election Commission and held a number of other nonpartisan legal positions within that agency. In my written testimony, I explain our support for four particular provisions of H.R. 1 that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee. What all of these provisions have in common and what makes them important is that they each advance the right of every American citizen to a government that is accountable and responsive to voters. Campaign finance laws do that by protecting the individual First Amendment rights of ordinary citizens to meaningfully participate in the democratic process without having their voices drowned out by wealthy corporations that hold special interests. Ethics and lobbying disclosure advance responsiveness by ensuring that government officials, whether they are elected or appointed, act in the interests of the people rather than in their own interests. Disclosure gives citizens, journalists, watchdog groups, and law enforcement agencies the tools to detect and deter governmental misconduct, undue influence, and corruption. For purposes of my oral testimony today, I would like to focus on two particular democracy-enhancing provisions of H.R. 1, which are the congressional findings regarding Citizens United and the amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. First, regarding Citizens United, the bill does an excellent job of laying out exactly how the Supreme Court has completely inverted the First Amendment to deny individual Americans the constitutional right to meaningfully participate in the democratic process. In a nutshell, as the findings in the bill accurately explain, 100 years of statutory law enacted by Congress had protected ordinary American citizens from having their voices drowned out by corporations--corporations which, of course, are not voters. In 2010, the Supreme Court stripped Americans of that protection, ruling that the First Amendment actually prohibits Congress from ensuring the democratic speech rights of individuals in the face of overwhelming corporate spending. That ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, on which I personally served as a member of the litigation team, has had catastrophic effects on the campaign system, as every member here today knows well. Ordinary Americans simply cannot compete with the flood of corporate money that is being funneled into the campaign system through super PACs, dark money entities, and other--and other forms to take advantage of the Supreme Court's misguided foray into political policymaking. These spenders are utterly unrepresentative of the American public and so their domination of the campaign system is increasingly rendering our government unresponsive, unaccountable, and unworthy of our great nation. Second, as to H.R. 1's proposed amendments to FARA, it is important to note that the statute was passed 80 years ago to cover Nazi propaganda in the lead-up to World War II. No serious observer questions that preventing the secret dissemination of propaganda to American policymakers is an important measure for our national security. The question is how to enforce that measure. H.R. 1 would fix two longstanding enforcement challenges. First, it would give FARA a dedicated home and appropriation within the Department of Justice. That is not in any way a criticism of the DOJ staff who currently handle that matter. It is simply an acknowledgement that creating this dedicated home and appropriation for enforcement will inevitably help enforcement. Second, H.R. 1 would provide a mechanism for civil enforcement of FARA, which would fix the problem that under existing law the only way to seek remedies--penalties for violations of FARA is through criminal prosecution, which has been problematic for a number of reasons including that criminal prosecutions are resource intensive and they require fairly intrusive investigations. It is simply not realistic to conduct felony criminal proceedings over every disclosure violation. H.R. 1 would fix this by establishing a civil penalty mechanism that would allow DOJ to appropriately allocate its resources between violations that can be punished and deterred through civil penalties and ones that require more serious criminal action, and in my written testimony I address and support two additional provisions in H.R. 1, which are the amendments to the Lobbying Disclosure Act and 18 U.S.C. 208. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of this milestone bill. [The statement of Mr. Noti follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Noti. We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with questions for the witnesses. I will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. I will ask Ms. Gupta first. Since the Shelby County decision, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been the main statutory vehicle for protecting minority voting rights. Have you seen evidence of intent by lawmakers to use voting restrictions to suppress the vote of minority communities and how has Section 2 worked? I mean, how effectively has Section 2, in the absence of Section 5, worked? Ms. Gupta. So Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is--thank you for the question--Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remains the law of the land but is a woefully inadequate substitute for the powers that Section 5 gave the federal government and federal courts to prevent racially discriminatory voting changes in states that have longstanding well-documented histories of racial discrimination. Section 2 cases are expensive. They take years to be developed. They are filed after elections take place when voters have already been disenfranchised, whereas the Section 5 pre-clearance regime really permitted the federal government to have notice of changes being made, small and big, to voting in local jurisdictions that have this longstanding history and it was these changes that would get kind of fixed before elections would take place. They were numerous and created a quite extensive record--that was before the 2006 Congress that ultimately reauthorized the Voting Rights Act--of present-day discrimination. Section 2 litigation--while I was at the Justice Department, we filed litigation against statewide ID laws in North Carolina and Texas, for example, that created incredible restrictions. In North Carolina it was known as the monster voter suppression law, making limits to creating long lines, closures of poll sites, racial discrimination in access to the polls, and that litigation took years to actually work itself through the courts. They are a woeful substitute to Section 5, which would actually put us in a much better place as a democracy. Chairman Nadler. Thank you. In other words, we saw after the 1957, 1960, and 1964 Civil Rights Acts that the registration rates for African Americans in some of the Southern states were still 2, 3, 4, 5 percent and they only really went up to reasonable rates--reasonable levels after the passage of Section 5. Is that correct? Ms. Gupta. That is right. Chairman Nadler. Thank you. Let me ask, I suppose, Mr. Adams. In 2006, Mr. Chabot, who was seated here a few minutes ago, as then chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee and I as then ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee, presided over hearings. I don't know how many hundreds of hours. We have compiled a 15,000-page record as the basis for renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006. The renewal of the Voting Rights Act including extension of Section 5 passed in the Senate 98 to nothing and in the House 390 to 33. It was not controversial. Republicans, Democrats, almost everybody supported it. Since the Shelby County decision, which invited us to pass a new section--a new section reinvigorating Section 5 that would substitute for the old Section 4 a new test as to which jurisdictions were covered, the Supreme Court said we could do that. We have been unable to have the political support do that. We hope to change that now. What do you think changed why it was universally recognized and understood that we needed pre-clearance in order to prevent local interference with voting rights as we had seen since the Civil War for a hundred years, and today when people don't seem to recognize that and seem to think that states' rights are more important than people being able to vote? Mr. Adams. Right. And we have had a number of hearings, you will recall, Chairman Nadler, when you were on the ranking member in the last couple of years on this. I think what has changed is the puzzle of the triggers. In other words, the Supreme Court held very clearly that you have to have triggers that meet current circumstances and nobody has been able to develop a trigger that has had the requisite will. If you use the triggers that were in the '06 reauthorization, there would be one state covered. That would be Hawaii. And so I---- Chairman Nadler. Well, the 2006 reauthorization was ruled unconstitutional because the triggers were based on things prior to 1964 and the court said we have to do it on a more current basis and--go ahead. Mr. Adams. So if you use the triggers from more recent presidential elections to make it contemporaneous like the Supreme Court required, you would have the puzzle that only Hawaii would be covered. So everywhere else there is a large turnout in presidential elections. So I think what changed is a recognition that the Supreme Court set limits on the power of Congress in this area and there hasn't been a political coalescence of the majority to pass something that has satisfactory triggers. Chairman Nadler. Well, since we have seen any number of very clear voter suppression tactics--I won't get into voter ID, which--of which there is a political division as to whether it is in fact a voter suppression technique. I think it is. You think it isn't. But there are clearly--we saw one rather well- publicized incident before the last election--I think it was in Kansas--where a polling place was moved from a local college to someplace where you couldn't get to in the middle of the desert away from bus stops. We saw another in North Dakota, I think it was, where people on Indian reservations were told they had to--they could only vote if they had a street address and there were no street addresses. These are very clearly--I don't think anybody could quibble that they were in fact intended to stop people from voting. How would you deal with that? Mr. Adams. Well, the problem in Kansas--and I think you are referring to the Dodge City case--the judge found that there was not a problem and it wasn't a desert. It was moving a polling place a few miles---- Chairman Nadler. Well, how would you--regardless of that, how would you deal with local efforts that are clear to deprive people of voting rights? Mr. Adams. Right, and there are a couple of ways. One, the Voting Rights Act still has a pre-clearance catch. In other words, in Texas, the Justice Department asked that Texas be put under this provision under Section 4 that if you are found to have violated the Voting Rights Act you are subject to pre- clearance obligations. So there is that still in the Voting Rights Act and the Justice Department has used that in the Texas case. I think another way---- Chairman Nadler. How many times since Shelby County has that been used? Mr. Adams. Well, part of the problem is there hasn't---- Chairman Nadler. How many times? Mr. Adams. Well, there has been two cases filed by the Justice Department under Section 2 that has been won. Chairman Nadler. Two cases filed and won--okay. Thank you. My time is well over. So I am sorry I have to interrupt you. Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, a lot of this conversation today I think is--I think there is not a doubt we need to vote, everyone that wants to vote be a part of voting. I think the issue is how do we come about this, and some of the issues have been brought up. I do want to find one--I always like to try and maybe find one point of agreement that we can have on this. So that, you know, there are so many sides. Again, Ms. Turberville, you brought this up, and I would like for you to take for just a moment because some may not understand--I know for the attorneys who are used to dealing with ethics and judges--and explain a little bit more about the Supreme Court, you know, encourage them to put that together. Because that is something I think we can find agreement on, and I would like to hear you express a little bit more about that. Ms. Turberville. Sure, thank you, Ranking Member Collins. There is this ethics framework that governs all judges in the lower courts, for example, and that is both a code of conduct that has been promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United States. That is also the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 that sets up a mechanism, a process whereby complaints can be dealt with relative to the conduct of lower court judges. Neither of those mechanisms apply to the United States Supreme Court. And so what we propose is a code of conduct applicable to the United States Supreme Court that would be promulgated by the Judicial Conference, of which the Chief Justice is the head, and so that also, I believe, addresses some constitutional issues that have been raised here. I would also like to respond a bit to the assertion that Congress cannot impose a code of conduct on the Supreme Court because of separation of powers concerns, and I think that, you know, there are a number of instances where this body has, under the necessary and proper clause found in Article I, passed laws to govern the function of the Supreme Court. Going back to 1869, the Congress actually determines the size of the Court and said that there will be eight Associate Justices and one Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. This body passed the Ethics in Government Act in 1978, which actually imposes criminal and civil penalties on Justices, as well as other members of--other Federal officials for failure to file specific financial disclosure obligations. And then also this body set out recusal standards that are found in 28 U.S.C. 455 that also govern the conduct of Supreme Court Justices. So it would be my view that there are plenty of precedent here to support the idea that the Congress can, at minimum, require the Judicial Conference to promulgate a code of conduct that specifically applies to our Nation's highest court. Mr. Collins. Thank you. With that, look, there has been a lot said and also Ms. Ifill has brought up the State of Georgia, of course, my home State. And one of the issues that was brought up, and I think we need to be--I have no problem discussing issues and how we do it. I do--but when the implication is a malfeasance or something denoting something not there, the question would come. Is it not true--and I just read in my opening statement so you can go back to it--the issue of sending out cards and using the mail system and then also responding by lack of voting has been upheld by the Supreme Court? Is that not true? Ms. Ifill. If you are referring to the Husted decision from the Supreme Court term regarding voter purges---- Mr. Collins. Yes. Ms. Ifill [continuing]. And the ability to begin a purge process using the return of those cards, yes, that was upheld by the Supreme Court in Ohio. Mr. Collins. Okay. Okay. So, and again, in these cases, that was brought in to the--so, again, we can disagree with how we want to maintain voter rolls, but it is also the implication to say that something was illegal or was not done properly is doing a disservice, frankly, as you look at these discussions as we move forward. I think the interesting is, is that, you know, there was mentioned Georgia has 3\1/2\ weeks of early voting. We discussed the long lines all day. That actually should be applauded. We have long lines because a lot of people wanted to vote. I think there are also issues in the State of Georgia especially and many other States where locals handle which polling stations are open and which stations are closed and how many voting precincts that they put at those locations. Not the secretary of state, by the way, in the State of Georgia, has no determination on which places go where. The interesting issue of the purging of rolls, though, is something, and I think we get back into this. The question comes is when we deal in these issues and these long processes, and you even brought up one in the State of Florida, which I am glad you brought it up. The State of Florida had an issue and decided that, you know, re-enfranchising, if you would, those, that is the way it should be. Why would we want to continue again from a perspective that is not found constitutional by even the liberal, the more liberal Supreme Court Justices? Why would we want to insert into that when it is clearly nonconstitutional? Ms. Ifill. So I would have to disagree with you about whether it is constitutional or not. And I think it goes back to---- Mr. Collins. Well, excuse me. But it wouldn't actually be me you are disagreeing with. Ms. Ifill. I understand. Mr. Collins. It is the Supreme Court you are disagreeing with. Ms. Ifill. Well, it is your interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision. So I will give mine. Mr. Collins. Your reading. Ms. Ifill. I think the problem we have is that, you know, when we begin talking about the powers between the Federal and the State government as it relates to elections, it is, of course, critical that we look to the Constitution and that we look to the articles of the Constitution that govern elections. But what we have left out of the conversation, at least to this moment, is the reordering of the relationship between the Federal and State government that came with the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, in particular the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of laws and the Fifteenth Amendment prohibiting the denial of the right to vote based on race, national origin, includes enforcement clauses that gives this body, the United States Congress, the power to enforce the rights that are articulated in those amendments to the Constitution. And it is those amendments to the Constitution that provided this body the right, for example, to pass laws like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, for which all the same arguments that are being made today about the power of the States, about interference, about what the Federal Government is allowed to do and not allowed to do were raised and overcome. So the Federal Government actually does have the power, when there is evidence and when they are enforcing the rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, to actually-- your word would be interfere, but to engage robustly in the protection of the voting rights of racial minorities. With regard to the felon disenfranchisement issue, I think it is a fascinating question that you are raising about the constitutionality. Because if we look at Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, it does mention people who have been convicted of a crime, but it is mentioning it as part of the punishment scheme for rebellious States that would deny people the right to vote, deny black men the right to vote. And it mentions that provision about having been convicted of a crime within the context of when that punishment scheme could be used, and the punishment scheme is to reduce the number of representatives of that particular State. So it is not clear to me that what that provision is saying is that the Federal Government cannot or this Congress cannot, as is set out under H.R. 1, determine that in Federal elections those who have been convicted of crimes can participate. Mr. Collins. Ms. Ifill, I---- Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. Before I yield to Ms. Lofgren, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record statements from Public Citizen and from a number of other public interest groups and coalitions. Without objection, they will be entered into the record. Chairman Nadler. Ms. Lofgren. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I was going to ask that the Brennan Center statement, if that has already been included? Chairman Nadler. Without objection, that will also be entered into the record if it hasn't already been. [The information follows:] MR. NADLER FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] MS. LOFGREN FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Lofgren. Okay, very good. Thank you very much. I think this is an important hearing. You know, the American people feel that the political system is rigged against them and that their vote doesn't count or might not matter. And there is nothing more destructive to our democracy than that sense. And H.R. 1 is intended to make serious reforms so people don't have to believe that, and it also will not be true. And as we think through how we are going to proceed, there are parts of this act that are within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee; some in the jurisdiction of the House Administration Committee, which I chair; also the Homeland Security Committee. So we are all working very hard to have hearings and to refine the act. It has been interesting to listen to the testimony relative to our constitutional authority, and I really thought about our jurisdiction in two ways. One, to protect the rights of minorities under the Fourteenth Amendment, but also Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which is jurisdiction that has rarely been exercised, frankly, which says this. ``The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof. But the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators,'' which, obviously, has now been obviated by the change in choosing Senators. So we have, I mean, a substantial grant of authority, and it is not instead of. I mean, the Voting Rights Act protects voting rights whether you are voting for city council or school board. But as to Federal elections, we have really substantial authority, and I think there are reasons beyond the issue of protecting minority rights to exercise this authority. I mean, we already have a situation because of the way our Constitution is set up, that the voters in California, when they cast their vote for Senator, their vote is worth way less than the vote of somebody in, you know, Vermont or Wyoming. So that is just part of the Constitution. But when it comes to representation in the House, to further enhance disparity between the voting rights of individual American citizens to elect their own representatives by, for example, making it harder to register in one State than another or limiting how you can stay registered through purges, I mean, that really just has to do with disparity and the rights of Americans. And it is important that each one of us here in the House of Representatives has one vote. We go to the floor. So we want to make sure to the maximum extent possible that each American when they vote for whoever their representative is has the same opportunity to cast that vote. So I think that is an independent basis. We are doing the Voting Rights Act hearings. We are having a number of hearings, both in the Judiciary Committee and House Administration, on the need for the Voting Rights Act to be updated, but there is this independent obligation that we have. I am wondering, Ms. Gupta, if you--apparently--and he will correct me, I am sure, if I have misread his statement. But Mr. von Spakovsky seems to say in his testimony that the Fourteenth Amendment limits Article 1, Section 4 authority. Do you agree with that? Ms. Gupta. The constitutional bases for Congress' jurisdiction to ensure democratic participation and voting rights is clear as to those two provisions that you just mentioned. I think it is really crucial to remember, and Mr.-- two of my colleagues at this panel made a lot about this--the fact that they believe H.R. 1 is inappropriately federalizing elections. This is, as Ms. Ifill has said, part of a long line that is used often with the enactment of civil rights legislation. It has been used to try to advocate against the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the like. The reality actually is that H.R. 1 is bringing together a lot of laws and policies that States have actually enacted and experimented with, red and blue, from automatic voter registration to Election Day registration and the like. And the reality is H.R. 1 actually recognizes the need to support State and local election officials as they conduct their elections. It is not federalizing elections. There is actually appropriations to try to give them the resources to build the kinds of 21st century systems that we deserve. And H.R. 1 is rooted, as you said, in the two constitutional provisions. Congress has clear authority to ensure that the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated and to ensure through Article I and Section 4 that everyone's vote can be counted. There is--there are over 13,000 election jurisdictions in our country, and elections can be run in a multitude of ways. But it is clear that Congress has the authority to make sure that civil rights are not violated in the course of running these elections and that there are equitable national standards to guide how this is done, and that is exactly what H.R. 1 does. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. My time has expired. Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentlelady. Before I recognize Mr. Gohmert, I recognize the ranking member for a unanimous consent request. Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to enter into the record the Supreme Court case Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council. Because I don't believe that Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, or Kagan would have ignored Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendment. Chairman Nadler. You are asking unanimous consent to---- Mr. Collins. Enter into the record. Chairman Nadler. Without objection, so ordered. [The information follows:] MR. COLLINS FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Nadler. Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Adams, were you hearing the last answer? Do you have a response to the statements by the last witness? Mr. Adams. A couple. First of all, there is no question that the Fifteenth Amendment has limits. The Supreme Court made that very clear in Shelby. There has to be a high showing by Congress. The things that are in H.R. 1 I can assure you are not going to be viewed favorably by particularly this Supreme Court because they go way beyond what even Section 5 was. I mean, deciding that you have X amount of days of early voting, that doesn't have anything to do with racial discrimination, absent some high showing in Congress, which we haven't seen. Now the elections clause is different, and my written testimony goes into great detail about that, that this Congress should exercise that power as a last resort. A ``last resort'' is the term that was used by Alexander Hamilton. It was set up to preserve the Federal Government, not to mandate 30 days of early voting around the country. Mr. Gohmert. And with regard to the allegation that these constitutional claims are often raised to try to defeat civil rights actions, I will always go back to the Constitution--that is our foundational document--to see if anything, no matter whether it is Republican or Democrat, whoever is bringing a bill, does it meet constitutional muster? So I would hope that that is where we always go back to. And so when we seek to take the power away from the States in the Fourteenth Amendment that says States, basically it is up to the States that they can exclude anyone who has participated in rebellion or other crime, I mean, you need a constitutional amendment to seize that power away from the States to make that determination. And I am impressed by a political party that thinks their power will come from people who have committed felonies and that maybe are here illegally, don't speak the language that most do, at least 80 percent as a primary language. That is interesting politically, but here we are guided by the Constitution. And I want to go back to the Voting Rights Act. I was accused of being against the Voting Rights Act when I made very clear I had an amendment that would force the preclearance requirement on any area in the country that had a certain level of racial disparity. But Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers said, nope, we want to keep--in effect what their actions said, we want to keep punishing children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren for the sins of the original person back over 50 years ago, and we want to keep that standard for 50 more years. We want to just keep punishing sins of long-gone people, and that is not supposed to be what America is. And so when we had the information that clearly showed that States had improved and they were doing a better job than a district in Wisconsin, a district in Massachusetts, a district in California, why wouldn't we apply those preclearance requirements to any district where there was racial disparity? And I got much more consideration from Mr. Conyers on that issue than Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Conyers, I said, look, I have--and this was outside the hearing. I have talked to deans of different law schools, liberal and conservative, and they all say you can't keep punishing people for sins of far-gone others. You have got to punish sins that are current. And you have got to change that, or the Supreme Court is going to strike that down. And Mr. Conyers said you make a good point. Let me talk to our folks. And he ultimately came back and said you got a good point, but it has already passed. So let us just see what the Court said. Well, the Court said what I was told by liberals and conservative deans alike. It is not going to stand scrutiny by the Supreme Court. It didn't. So I would hope we don't try to go back to that. If we are going to punish racial disparity, let us go where the problem is and some arise in the future, as they have. But let us go to those districts and punish those by preclearance requirements, but not keep punishing people 50 years after they have corrected their actions. So I am hoping that when the Voting Rights Act comes up, we will look to be more constitutional than the last slam dunk on others was. And I see my time has expired. I yield back. Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you to the chairman and the ranking member. And I think what we are here today for is to assess the current and visible and sound actions of those today that are suppressing the vote in whatever manner that they can suppress the vote. So allow me just to pose questions that I think will allow you to focus on the suppression of the vote. As I do so, let me mention the fact that the Shelby case, of course, undermined Section 5 and created a roadmap or a question about the formula, the current formula. But we do know that preclearance was an effective tool for today, in the historical today that prevented suppression of voting from State and local entities. And I think that should be on the record as being very clear. I would like to pose this question to Ms. Gupta, Ms. Ifill, Ms. Turberville, and Mr. Noti. Which, in your opinion, is the greater and more immediate threat to our democracy, criminal actions by a hostile foreign power to defraud an American election--and we have heard a recounting of the place of voting rights in the Constitution--or rampant voter fraud that exists only in the imagination of the White House or the executive and other like-minded conspiracy theorists? John Dewey, the great American philosopher and education reformer, is credited with saying, ``The cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy.'' And many of us remember New York Governor Samuel Tilden's famous saying, ``The means by which a majority comes to be a majority is, in fact, an important thing, process and fairness.'' In other words, the essence of a representative democracy is representation and accountability, which can only be secured and maintained by political participation, the most effective means of which is voting. Ms. Turberville and Mr. Noti, and I am going to go to Ms. Gupta first, Ms. Ifill, but I wanted to share with you my question. Please explain the threat and danger to a functioning democracy posed by voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement efforts such as voter caging, purging, stacking, packing, and cracking, such as the representation by a report by our secretary of state that some 95,000 registered voters were found to have been identified as noncitizen and allegedly 58,000 voted in the 2016 election. Now this is since 1996, this report. Let me correct myself. Since 1996, but it is well known that data does not coincide, and many of these people may have gotten a driver's license, and they might have moved into citizenship and then moved into voting at different times. Ms. Gupta and Ms. Ifill, that first question, if you heard that first question for you, and then the second question. Ms. Gupta. I will just start by saying thank you for recognizing that the evidence that sustained the 2006 reauthorization was based on contemporary evidence, not the evidence from 1965. It is an important point to make. There was an extensive record that was developed, and we look forward to working to develop that record to show the contemporaneous reason why we need the Voting Rights Act reauthorized in 2019. I think there is no question that the--and it was documented by the recent intel report that we have foreign powers that are seeking to manipulate some of the greatest vulnerabilities, racism in America, to now use--to target black Americans and to engage in voter suppression through those efforts. That is a huge threat that many of us are very concerned is not being taken seriously enough, and social media platforms are ill-equipped to actually deal or are not dealing with these issues. And so we are facing right now a myriad of new forms of voter suppression through voter caging and voter purging that will require and often requires private litigation by organizations dedicated to that. These are some of the very changes that a preclearance regime for the Department of Justice would actually prevent to begin with. Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Ms. Ifill. And Mr. Noti, be prepared. Ms. Ifill. Let me use as an example Texas' voter ID law from your own State. The voter ID law that Texas imposed after the Shelby decision is a voter ID law that they had attempted to get precleared prior to the Shelby decision, and preclearance was denied. In other words, they were not allowed to make that law become real because of the preclearance requirement. After Shelby, the Attorney General decided that they were going to move forward with that law. It was imposed. We sued. We challenged that law, and we won. But in the 3 Ayers that it took us to litigate that case, during that time, Texas elected a United States Senator in 2014, all 36 members of the Texas delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives, the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the attorney general, the comptroller, various statewide commissioners, 4 justices of the Texas Supreme Court, candidates for special election in the State senate, State boards of education, 16 State senators, all 150 members of the Statehouse, over 175 State court trial judges, and over 75 district attorneys. We proved at trial that more than half a million eligible voters were disenfranchised by the ID law. We were ultimately successful in challenging, but it was too late for those elections. And this was a scheme that had been denied preclearance. This is the kind of thing that undermines confidence in our electoral system and that threatens our democracy. What excuse can we have as a nation for disenfranchising over half a million voters from all of the elections I just described? Chairman Nadler. Thank you. The time of the gentlelady has expired. Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, may I offer into the record, just briefly, a letter from Justice Roundtable, expressing the desperate need for restoration---- Chairman Nadler. Without objection, the letter will be entered into the record. [The information follows:] MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Nadler. Mr. Buck. Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy needed to win the State of Illinois to win the election. His brother Robert Kennedy called Mayor Richard Daley asking about the vote count in the critically important City of Chicago. When Robert Kennedy asked, ``How many votes will we get from Chicago?'' Mayor Daley responded, ``How many votes do you need?'' The Democrat Party has a long history of stealing elections in this country. Our chairman knows very well the history of New York City Democrat politics with the Democrat bosses in Tammany Hall stealing elections for decades. Whether it is Huey Long in Louisiana or the Black Panthers in Philadelphia, the Democrat Party relies on corruption and voter intimidation to win elections. In 2016, we even witnessed the Democrat Party stealing election from one of its own candidates, as Hillary Clinton's allies rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders. Now, Mr. Chairman, we are presented with H.R. 1, the Democrat Party's wish list written by special interest groups, and here we go again. This bill works like the Chicago-style Democrat machine. It does nothing to clean up voter rolls that haven't been reviewed in years, allowing dead people and those who have moved away to continue voting. A friend told me a story about his uncle who was a lifelong resident of Chicago and a lifelong Republican voter. His family learned that after he died, he cast his first vote for a Democrat. This bill fails to remove and even prevents removal of fraudulently registered individuals. It even mandates the counting of provisional ballots, whether those ballots are cast by citizens or not. Look at Texas, where officials found 95,000 noncitizens have been registered to vote, and 58,000 noncitizens voted in Texas elections. It doesn't take a genius to see that this can happen anywhere without proper oversight. This bill also infringes on a State's right to determine whether felons may vote, criminalizes free speech, and weaponizes the Federal Election Commission. H.R. 1 does nothing to make elections fairer. Mr. von Spakovsky, any thoughts on the history of election fraud in this country? Mr. von Spakovsky. Well, I would quote the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, a decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, in which they talked about the fact that, unfortunately, the United States has a long history of voter fraud documented by journalists and historians. We started a--and it could make the difference in a close election. Anyone who believes it doesn't occur can look at the news and see the Alabama mayor who was just removed after being convicted of absentee ballot fraud. We have got a database at the Heritage Foundation with documented cases from across the country. We have almost 1,200 cases, and these are not just allegations in a newspaper of someone saying they think they saw something wrong at a poll. The only thing we put in our database are cases where someone has actually been convicted of engaging in election fraud or a court has found fraud and ordered a new election. Some of these are isolated cases. One gentleman that we have who was convicted of voting in three different States, but there are other cases where it is organized, and particularly often in absentee ballot fraud cases is an organized effort to do that. How widespread is the problem? Well, we don't know that. But there are enough instances of it that the Supreme Court thought it was sufficient to justify the voter ID law that the State of Indiana had passed, and that is why they upheld it in the opinion that was written by Justice John Paul Stevens. Mr. Buck. Does H.R. 1 improve--or does H.R. 1 limit the ability of those who want to commit fraud, or does it actually expand the ability of those who want to commit fraud? Mr. von Spakovsky. Oh, I think it is going to make it easier to commit fraud. And I would point to the fact that it severely restricts the ability of States, basically amending the provisions that I think Congress wisely put into the National Voter Registration Act. But it amends those provisions to make it even more difficult to verify and check the accuracy of voter registration rolls. And remember, when it was upheld by the Supreme Court, they pointed to a report, prior report that found there are almost 3 million individuals registered in more than one State, almost 2 million individuals who were deceased who were still on the rolls. Mr. Buck. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask Ms. Ifill, I guess. The issue about felon voting rights, Tennessee has a provision in its law that says that if you are not current in your child support, you can't get your right to vote back as a felon. You can be back on your child support if you are not a felon and you can vote, but if you are a felon, you can't get your rights back. Do you know of any other State that has a such an impediment to voting? Ms. Ifill. Well, I do know that some States that have sought to restore the right to vote to formerly incarcerated persons have made that right contingent on the full completion of the sentence. Mr. Cohen. Right. Ms. Ifill. Which can also mean the payment of fines or fees, can also mean probation. And so it is not predicated simply on having been released from prison, but it carries with it all of the additional things that might go along with a sentence. Mr. Cohen. Yes, Tennessee has that. But they also have child support. Ms. Ifill. I have not heard that imposed in other jurisdictions. Mr. Cohen. It was--anybody on the panel heard of child support? [No response.] Mr. Cohen. I sponsored the bill in the Senate to restore voting rights, and that was put in by a House member, and I think it was done for pernicious basis. It is hard to keep current on your child support if you are in prison for a long time anyway, but that is still part of the law. Where are the States, Ms. Ifill, that have--most of the States that have prohibitions on people having the opportunity to vote if they have committed a felony? Ms. Ifill. Well, they have been all over the country, but certainly, there was a concentration in the South. As you may know, some of the history of these laws emanated at the turn of the 19th century, I guess the turn of the 20th century. After Southern States received back their power, they passed new constitutions. This is after the Civil War and after Reconstruction around 1900, and we saw the expansion of ex- felon voting restrictions in State constitutions during that period when there was a very robust effort to try and disenfranchise at that point newly freed slaves who had been free for several decades. Mr. Cohen. I was a history major, and so it astonishes me. It is amazing. You know, in Memphis, we had a statue of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, and it was recently taken down. And it was put up right at the turn of the 19th, the 20th century. It is amazing how that coincided with the felon voting issue. Ms. Ifill. Yes. Mr. Cohen. Just things happen, amazing. Of the States that were in the preclearance, seven of the nine were Southern States. Is that correct? Ms. Ifill. That is correct. Mr. Cohen. There were a lot of smaller jurisdictions in New York and Michigan and some other areas of the country. What percentage of the country that was in preclearance that was justified were in the old Confederacy, by population, do you guess? Ms. Ifill. Most of them. Certainly most of them. Mr. Cohen. Yes. Ms. Ifill. Most of the jurisdictions that came in that were in the North came in in the 1970s under the language provisions of the amended Voting Rights Act, and that is when three boroughs of New York, for example, became part of the preclearance regime. Mr. Cohen. And the State of North Carolina, wasn't their-- Ms. Gupta, you mentioned that North Carolina and one other State--was it Texas--that jumped right into action and put in some old bans after that? Ms. Gupta. That is correct. Mr. Cohen. So North Carolina was not one of those seven, has kind of moved up and joined the--is that correct? Is North Carolina one of the worst States now? Ms. Gupta. There were jurisdictions in North Carolina that were covered by the preclearance regime, but there are certainly, I will say--and this is exactly why we welcome the opportunity to develop a full record about contemporary discrimination. Unfortunately, we have seen an expansion, kind of a metastasization of voter suppression now around the country. It used to be that you saw these kinds of overt acts in the South, and unfortunately, the disease of voter suppression really has metastasized to a lot more jurisdictions around the country. And we saw in North Carolina, the State actually enacted a statewide law that was considered the most restrictive in the country after Shelby County. Mr. Cohen. How would you recommend to us to find the jurisdictions that are the most heinous in terms of finding ways to discriminate? Ms. Ifill. Well, we welcome the opportunity to develop a record, to give testimony. A lot of our organizations in the Leadership Conference coalition, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, MALDEF, Lawyers Committee, Brennan Center, we have been collecting this evidence as best we can, documenting small and big changes that have prevented people of color from accessing the polls when laws were changed or changes were made, both small changes and big. And it is imperative that we collect this evidence, put it before you so that you can restore the Voting Rights Act in concordance with the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Shelby and create a formula that will allow the Justice Department now to ensure before people lose the right to vote, before elections take place, that people are not unfairly and unlawfully prevented from participating in our democracy. Mr. Cohen. My time is about out, but if I can ask indulgence. You know, our Constitution is a great document, I concur. But you have to remember that the original sin of this country was slavery, and the original document was drafted with slavery in mind. That is why African-Americans were considered three-fifths. Not three-fifths for voting rights, but three- fifths for purposes of Southern States having representation in Congress and in the electoral college, to maintain the system of slavery that was in this country. It was part of our charter. And except for the Civil War and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, we would still be there, and we are still fighting it today. And it took John Lewis in 1960s to go to Selma and to march and Dr. King to march and for us to get a Voting Rights Act. We are way behind, and we need to catch up and remove ourselves from that original sin. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to begin by congratulating you on your ascent to the chair and by expressing my sentiment that though we are not members of the same party, I have every confidence that during your leadership, this committee will be more engaging and transparent and robust in the discussion than we were during the 115th Congress. Chairman Nadler. Thank you very much. Mr. Gaetz. I will say that I had hoped that at one of our initial meetings we would have been giving powers back to the States in the form of removing cannabis from the list of Schedule I drugs rather than taking powers from the States. I will also note that with some of the new additions on the Republican side, I think the committee would be very favorable to that. If we were any more favorable, we might have to start our meetings with the Grateful Dead. So I am---- Chairman Nadler. Let me just observe on your time that we may be discussing that fairly soon. Mr. Gaetz. I look forward to it. Today is about voting. I wanted to tell the story of Anthony Grant. He is from the town of Eatonville, Florida, wanted to be mayor. Ran, lost the vote on Election Day. But lo and behold, Mr. Grant got more than twice as many votes in the vote by mail system. We later found out that Mr. Grant had intimidated people who did not even live in the town of Eatonville to mail in ballots. And so my question is, I guess to Ms. Gupta, you say that your organization believes that we ought to restore automatically the voting rights of people who have engaged in felonious conduct. Mr. Grant was convicted of a felony. When he is done with his probation and community service and time, should we allow him to vote again? Ms. Gupta. The Leadership Conference would say yes. After people have completed their sentence and served their debt to society, the right to vote should be restored. I think it should be---- Mr. Gaetz. Well, I want to reclaim my time. I am a country lawyer from North Florida, but it doesn't make much sense to me that the way to make our voting system more secure and more trusted is to empower the people who have degraded that system to come back and participate in it. Another circumstance, James Webb Baker. Mr. Baker was from Seattle, but he wanted to influence elections in my State of Florida. And so he would send mailers intimidating people who participated in Republican efforts, really trying to threaten them if they would go vote. We caught up with Mr. Baker. He was ultimately convicted. So you think Mr. Baker ought to be able to vote, even though he intimidated my voters in Florida? Ms. Gupta. I don't know the specific circumstances of that matter, but I think it is very important to recognize that felony disenfranchisement laws are a product of Jim Crow. They were born in explicit racism with legislatures standing up in the 19th century, constitutional conventions deliberately bragging about their ability to use the disenfranchisement---- Mr. Gaetz. Right. But I am not asking about those people, ma'am. I am not asking about that. I am talking about the people who go out of their way to intimidate voters. And what you are saying is that then we ought to let those people back into the system. And I noted in your written testimony, you said that the reason that we have to automatically restore voting rights to felons is because of our racially violent past. Now H.R. 1, which you are here endorsing, does it make a distinction between people who have engaged in violent felonies and people who have engaged in nonviolent felonies and the automatic restoration of their rights? Ms. Gupta. H.R. 1 restores voting rights to people with felony convictions who have completed their sentence. Mr. Gaetz. Violent or nonviolent, right? Ms. Gupta. So it does not--and let me just add that when you say ``automatically get added to the rolls,'' there is nothing in H.R. 1 that replaces election officials' reviews of eligibility. They still review a registration before they are accepted into the---- Mr. Gaetz. Ma'am, I am limited on time. But that review of eligibility does not allow them to delineate between the violent and nonviolent. So I am looking at Anthony Bruton. Anthony Bruton committed sex acts with a 12-year-old at knife point, then he threatened to cut her throat and bury her. He spent 5 years in prison for that offense. And so then like if Anthony Bruton, under H.R. 1, were to move out of Florida and would have moved to the State of Missouri, where they had on the ballot a ballot question that dealt with whether or not your past criminal conduct in violent sexual acts would be considered in sentencing, would H.R. 1 have allowed Mr. Bruton to rape a 12-year-old at knife point, move to another State, and then vote against actions that would allow that to be considered at a subsequent sentencing? Ms. Gupta. Sir, our criminal justice system needs to hold people accountable for the crimes that they commit. What H.R. 1 does is uphold voting as a national symbol of equality and full citizenship. It would restore the right to vote to people who have completed their sentence and served out their debt, per the criminal justice system---- Mr. Gaetz. Yes, I get that. Ms. Gupta [continuing]. Accountable. Mr. Gaetz. I just want to make the point that it is like everybody. In the State of Florida, we passed a ballot proposition that created a path for nonviolent felons to be able to participate in the process again. But what this does is that this bill would allow someone like Nardo Harmon, who broke into the homes of people and raped 11-year-old victims. So he gets out of his house, breaks into somebody else's house and rapes an 11-year-old. But if H.R. 1 were the law, and Nardo Harmon did that, he would then be able to go vote against California Proposition 83 that would have required him to wear a GPS monitoring device. So I think that like there are some things you can do that are so bad, the degradation of people's right to vote, intimidating people from voting, raping children, that probably surrenders your right to participate in those decisions in the future. I appreciate the chairman's indulgence, and I yield back. Chairman Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the esteemed panel for your presence today. I am reminded of the trip that Justice Scalia took. It was his last one. It was to the 30,000-acre resort home with exquisite furnishings and lodging owned by John B. Poindexter, a Houston-based manufacturing industrialist who had had business before the U.S. Supreme Court the year before, which resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court deciding not to hear his case. Justice Scalia did not recuse in that matter. But anyway, he is at this luxury resort, 30,000 miles-- 30,000 acres, miles away from the nearest airport. The travel was by private jet from Washington to Texas, and then to get from the airport in Texas out to that exclusive area, which was only 30 miles away from the Mexican border, took some doing. I don't know if it was by a helicopter or by a limo. Certainly not a cab. But, and there were 35 other guests hanging out at that weekend jaunt. Mr. Poindexter admitted to the Washington Post that he did not charge Justice Scalia to come and spend that weekend at that exclusive resort or hunting preserve, whatever it is. But the fact that he was there, the fact that we don't know who paid for it, how much it cost, who was present. It could have been people with pending business before the U.S. Supreme Court, who had the opportunity in those exclusive confines to be able to discuss their case or the issues involving their case with Justice Scalia. Does anyone, particularly you, Ms. Turberville, have any problems with the--with the visual that I have tried to describe you to and what that does to the public's ability to have confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court? Ms. Turberville. Thank you, Congressman. I could not agree more that those are the types of instances that I think give rise to the public's perception that the Justices play by a different set of rules. And I think those instances also make clear that, you know, perhaps there was nothing that was inappropriate occurring at that ranch with Mr. Poindexter. But we are no longer in the position of being able to give the high court the benefit of the doubt, and it would seem to me that it is appropriate for this Court, whose decisions impact a far broader swath of America than any other court in the country and whose decisions are irreversible, to be held, at minimum, to a basic code of conduct and one that could have commentary that would address these kinds of circumstances. So I think that many Americans are bothered by instances like that. This is not a partisan issue. There have been instances of Justices from both the conservative wing and the liberal wing who have perhaps engaged in conduct that we don't know all the facts about, but the disclosure rules are not that robust either. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The fact is that H.R.--Section 7001 of H.R. 1 would require the Judicial Conference to issue a code of conduct that would apply to all Federal judges, including U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Mr. von Spakovsky, you take issue with that. Your opinion is that because the U.S. Supreme Court is constitutionally established, not legislatively, and it is coequal and independent, then it logically follows that the legislative branch cannot impose a code of conduct on the Supreme Court. Ms. Turberville, you disagree with that. Why? Ms. Turberville. Well, I think that there is a long history of this--of the Congress exercising its constitutional prerogative to pass laws that govern the form and function of the United States Supreme Court. And that includes recusal decisions. That includes financial disclosure obligations. That includes, I said this a little bit earlier, mandating the size of the Court and determining the length and the date of the term of the Supreme Court. Here, we are not even talking about looking to the sort of complaint process like that found in the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. We are talking about a basic code of conduct that the highest court of the land ought to bind itself to. And I would--I also want to let the committee know that I have looked into the most recent polling on this conducted by a group called Fix the Court, and they actually enlisted both sort of Republican-aligned and Democratic-aligned polling company and found that 86 percent of Americans support a code of conduct for the Supreme Court. You cannot get 86 percent of Americans to agree on anything. So I would suggest that this is something whose time has come, that the American people support, and that would be a very good thing for the legitimacy of our Nation's highest court. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Adams, in your written testimony on page 2, you say, ``On the other hand, H.R. 1 presents an opportunity to educate the public about how various provisions in H.R. 1 that are already the laws of some States, like California, have injected vulnerabilities into the elections process.'' And I wondered if you would expand for us on what those vulnerabilities might look like and what they are? Mr. Adams. Right. California, for many, many years after the passage of the Help America Vote Act, failed to comply with it. What was that noncompliance? The Help America Vote Act required reasonable list maintenance. Now some people prefer to call it purging because it scares people, but it is reasonable list maintenance on duplicates, deads, people who are on the rolls who have moved away. And California was supposed to implement a statewide database so you could compare Los Angeles County with San Diego County and so forth and see who is registered in multiple places. Well, California didn't do that for 20 years, and what it created is a system that the evidence has shown has voter rolls with huge numbers of inactive people who no longer live where they are registered to vote. And that is exactly the kind of thing that H.R. 1 would promote because it gets rid of reasonable list maintenance opportunities for State election officials. Mr. Biggs. Thank you. And I guess for States like Arizona that have passed an independent redistricting commission, this bill would actually basically remove our voter-elected, voter- mandated IRC format, which I am not sure I think works great, but it nonetheless is what the voters wanted and it is working the way I think the voters intended it to vote. And it would supplant it with some Federal scheme. Elaborate on the rationality of that, please. Mr. Adams. What it does is take over a power the State legislatures have in the Constitution. Now we have heard testimony that this is justified because of the Civil War amendments, that rampant voter discrimination allows the Federal Government to mandate redistricting commissions. Well, look, I couldn't even get Gingles I, which is a prerequisite for bringing a voting rights case, in a lot of these States probably--Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, maybe Washington, Idaho, Utah, maybe Kentucky, maybe Wisconsin, Minnesota. These are States you couldn't even bring a voting rights claim for redistricting probably. And more importantly, Mr. Biggs, nobody has brought voting rights claims in some of these States. So Congress, to use the Fifteenth Amendment is a dead end for independent redistricting commissions because there is no showing of racial discrimination. Mr. Biggs. And actually, it centralizes power that may not need to go there, specifically for States like Arizona that have already taken care of it. Mr. von Spakovsky, I am looking at your written testimony on page 8 and 9, and one of the things you refer to is the, for instance, the civil penalty on failure to properly comply with FARA, and maybe it is potentially a due process or certainly inconsistent with the very notion of due process principles. I would like you to expand on that, please. Mr. von Spakovsky. Sure. I mean, look, I am the first to tell you I think the Foreign Agent Registration Act is a good law passed by Congress. It is needed. We need to know if lobbyists, for example, are representing foreign government. But the problem with the amendments to it is that it adds a very large civil penalty. And look, this Congress for the past year has been looking at the issues of overcriminalization in reforming our criminal system. And yet one of the other things that needs to be looked at is onerous civil penalties that are imposed not under the kind of high legal standard that you need as in a criminal violation, but under a preponderance of the evidence standard. And I think there are due process considerations there that ought to be given serious thought by Congress before it does this, particularly because, you know, it adds this new provision in about if you are--if you don't comply with a 60- day deadline, if you are one day over that, you may have a huge civil penalty imposed. And I just think it is an important law. There has been no evidence produced that the Justice Department is failing to properly prosecute it. In fact, we have seen recent prosecutions under the law. And before you enhance it and add huge civil penalties, you should think about making sure that the due process requirements for the Justice Department to impose something like that also protect the rights of the American people. Mr. Biggs. Thank you. My time has expired. Chairman Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Deutch. Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins. Thanks to our distinguished panel of witnesses for being here today. I want to start just by saying I appreciate Mr. Buck's concern over voter fraud and would refer him to President Trump's now disbanded voter integrity commission, which uncovered no evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud. Mr. Chairman, our first priority in this committee is protecting the integrity of our democracy. Broken campaign finance laws allow limitless special interest dollars to create a wedge between the American people and their government. Dark money, in effect, loopholes promote a lack of accountability on the campaign trail, in the White House, on the bench, and in Congress. Voter suppression and gerrymandering make it harder for Americans to get to the polls and harder to have their voices heard in this Congress. H.R. 1 is a set of desperately needed repairs to the foundation of our representative democracy. Mr. Noti, January 21st marked 9 years since the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United. That decision, as you pointed out, opened the floodgates of limitless election spending that allows wealthy special interests to drown out the voices of American voters. Could you speak to how limitless election spending threatens the integrity of our elections? Mr. Noti. Yes, thank you for the question, Congressman. Limitless spending by corporations threatens the integrity of the elections because the corporations who are engaging in the spending are not voters. They distort the process by drowning out the voices of ordinary American citizens who actually are the voters and to whom the Government needs to be responsive and accountable if democracy is going to work. Mr. Deutch. But the Court claimed to be protecting First Amendment free speech rights of corporations. So how does limitless outside spending hurt First Amendment rights to participate in the political process? Mr. Noti. So the Court recognized or the Court for the first time said that corporations have a First Amendment right to engage in unlimited so-called independent spending in campaigns. What that ignored and the fundamental flaw of the opinion is that there is a competing First Amendment interest of ordinary Americans--actual voters--to participate meaningfully in that process, which is impossible if their voices are drowned out to the level of inaudibility by massive corporate spending. Mr. Deutch. Right. So in the 2016 election cycle, the National Rifle Association spent $54 million on so-called independent expenditure political ads, funneling much of it through dark money groups. Your organization, Campaign Legal Center, filed a complaint against the NRA based on its election spending. Why? Mr. Noti. There are strong indications that some of the spending that the NRA engaged in was coordinated with a number of Federal candidates in that election, which coordinated campaign spending is equivalent to a campaign contribution, which would be unlawful under a number of existing provisions of law. Mr. Deutch. And the tens of millions of dollars spent on independent expenditures violates the integrity of our democracy in what way? Mr. Noti. I think it goes back to the point we discussed earlier, Congressman, that that amount of money cannot be matched reasonably by ordinary people. And so this corporate entity can drown out the voices of the people who should actually have the main effect on elections, who are the voters. Mr. Deutch. And what impact does that have on Congress' policymaking? Mr. Noti. Well, the---- Mr. Deutch. Let me answer that for you, Mr. Noti. Here is the impact that that has. The impact that that has is that common sense gun safety measures that have the support of over 90 percent of the American people don't even get a hearing. That is the impact that it has. It is clear, Mr. Noti, Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, that the majority of American people know that Citizens United isn't working. A May 2018 poll by the University of Maryland found that 66 percent of Republicans--I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to take note. Sixty-six percent of Republicans and 85 percent of Democrats want a constitutional amendment that will overturn Citizens United to allow for limits on money in politics. Nineteen States and nearly 800 localities have passed resolutions in support of a constitutional amendment. Citizens United is not protecting the First Amendment rights of Americans. It is not giving us elections that produce governments of, by, and for the people. Citizens United is giving us a government that can't fix problems because it is paralyzed by corruption. Citizens United is standing in the way of important priorities like workers getting a living wage, finding solutions to climate change, and making our communities safer from gun violence. That is why I sponsor the Democracy for All amendment to overturn Citizens United. That is something that we need to do. H.R. 1 acknowledges what most Americans know, that Citizens United is hurting our republic, and we need to overturn it. If we want Congress and the rest of our Government to respond to the will of the people, we need to repair our democracy. H.R. 1 is a fantastic start, and I look forward to working with the committee to further examine the damaging impact of Citizens United and working to overturn it. This is only a partisan issue in Washington. Everywhere else in America, we know that we have to pass H.R. 1, and we have to overturn Citizens United and restore democracy to the American people. I yield back. Chairman Nadler. Thank you. Ms. Lesko. Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my question is for Mr. von Spakovsky. Representative Collins suggested several alternative names to this act, and I would say this bill should be calling ``Fleecing the People Act.'' It contains a provisions where Federal tax dollars from hard-working middle- class families and single mothers would be lining the pockets of politicians to pay for nasty TV ads and robocalls, and paying for politicians' personal childcare and healthcare. Under this bill, it is estimated that at least $3.9 billion of taxpayer dollars would line the pockets of House congressional candidates based on estimates from Bloomberg, and an estimated $6.25 billion would line the pockets of presidential candidates based on the formula in this bill and the 2016 election, for a total of $10.1 billion of taxpayer dollars. To me, this is an outrageous, outrageous use of taxpayer dollars. You know, Democrats recently, we were in a battle. They blocked funding for a border fence. In Arizona, border security is very important. Now, under this bill, they want to use taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of politicians. To me, it appears they would rather secure their own election than secure our borders and our Nation. My question to you is do you believe this is a good use of taxpayer dollars, sir? Mr. von Spakovsky. I don't and I would also say it is unconstitutional, the reason being that, as you know, Americans have associational rights that have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, very important associational rights, and upheld by very important Supreme Court decisions. And forcing taxpayers to provide taxpayer money for candidates running for office, particularly candidates who they don't support and whose ideas they don't like, I think violates basic associational rights. That is very different than taxes being used for government programs and government budgets. And that is why you contrast this with the public funding program that is in place. I was a commissioner for 2 years on the Federal Election Commission. We administered the public funding program, for example, that provides campaign funds for the nominees of the political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, during the general election if they agree to give up private fundraising. That money is funded not through tax dollars. It is funded through voluntary contributions by Americans. You know, there is a checkbox on their tax returns where they can agree to contribute to it. That is perfectly constitutional because you are not forcing Americans to provide political contributions to candidates that they do not support. But I think using taxpayer dollars for that same kind of program, to me is clearly unconstitutional. Ms. Lesko. Thank you, sir. And, Mr. Chair and Mr. Adams, do you have any responses to any of the previous testimony that you have heard today? Mr. Adams. Well, look, there are a lot of ideas that people have about elections. Having an omnibus Federal bill to fix everything is not the sort of thing that the Constitution envisions. I mean, to mandate independent redistricting commissions, for example, when you have States that have never had a redistricting lawsuit, and to say that somehow the Civil War amendments and the long history of Jim Crow allows Congress to impose an independent redistricting commission on Utah really pushes the outer limits of the Constitution. Ms. Lesko. Thank you. I yield my time back. Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentlelady. Congresswoman Bass? Ms. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for holding this hearing. I wanted to ask Mr. Adams, you mentioned several things. You mentioned that registering to vote is easy now, almost anybody could, power to the States. I was wondering, well, number one, when you heard Ms. Gupta and Ms. Ifill's testimony, and they described very specific incidents that happen, what is your response to that? Are they lying? Mr. Adams. They weren't lying, but it made me think of South Carolina, South Carolina, where I had brought at least one voting rights case in Georgetown County to allow African- Americans to win school board seats. In South Carolina, they had a voter ID law just like in Texas, and using the preclearance requirement---- Ms. Bass. Wait, wait, no, stop because they gave very specific examples of voter suppression. You said it is easy to vote, you know, everybody can vote, no problems, why are people interfering in this. If that is the case, then why did the incidents that they described happen? Why did that happen? Mr. Adams. I think a full hearing about what happened in Texas is worth something. Ms. Bass. But I am asking you about Georgia. I am asking you about Georgia---- Mr. Adams. Well---- Ms. Bass [continuing]. Where the secretary of state did not recuse himself. Do you think he should have recused himself? Mr. Adams. Of course not. He is the State-elected official---- Ms. Bass. So even though he was running, you thought that that was fine for him to do that. Mr. Adams. There was no legal obligation to do that when you run the election---- Ms. Bass. So what about the fact that he purged over a hundred thousand people from voting? Mr. Adams. Well, that is called reasonableness maintenance, and it was legal---- Ms. Bass. That is called reasonableness maintenance. I think that is called voter suppression. You know, I served---- Mr. Adams. But that is what the law required him to do. Ms. Bass. Wait a second. Excuse me. I serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee and I travel the world. I spent last year in Zimbabwe, the year before that in Kenya doing election observation. And I have to tell you that some of the things that have gone on in this country have been an absolute embarrassment. The fact that in the United States in 2019 we make it difficult for people to vote, we block people from voting. I mean, to use the Georgia example in Zimbabwe, you know, it is very embarrassing. And I just don't understand when you said that Alexander Hamilton, you were quoting him and you said ``just because we can doesn't mean that we should.'' So States pass laws and they passed laws right after the Supreme Court decision, and I think our chair pointed that out. Well, just because they could, they did that. So you said that just because the Federal government can pass a law doesn't mean we should. So what do you have to say for States that within 24, 48 hours after the Supreme Court decision passed an array of measures that made it more difficult for people to vote? Mr. Adams. Congress did pass a law in 1993 that allowed the secretary of state of Georgia to do exactly what he did. Ms. Bass. And was that right, just because they could? Mr. Adams. It complies with the Federal laws. Ms. Bass. So that was right. And so what about the fact that a number of these States, African-Americans, Latinos specifically have had difficulty voting? Is that all just fiction? Mr. Adams. Absolutely not, and that is why I brought multiple voting rights cases---- Ms. Bass. You have brought multiple voting rights cases, but you basically in your opening testimony described it as though there was no problem. Mr. Adams. No, that is not accurate. Ms. Bass. I would like to ask Ms. Gupta and Ms. Ifill to respond. Ms. Gupta. Ms. Gupta. Well, I think that the evidence that we have laid out about the numerous instances in the last several years around voting rights suppression efforts in Georgia, in Alabama, in North Carolina, even in the recent midterm elections, demonstrates the need to actually develop a rigorous record that would support the reauthorization and the restoration of the Voting Rights Act. Ms. Bass. Do you think that needs to happen, Mr. Adams? Mr. Adams. I am sorry. I didn't hear the question. Ms. Bass. What she just said. Mr. Adams. Whether or not Section 5 should be authorized? Ms. Bass. Mm-hmm. Mr. Adams. With constitutional triggers. That is the way to do it. Ms. Bass. Ms. Ifill. Ms. Ifill. I think it is vital that we speak honestly in this hearing about the situation with voting in this country. We have lots of euphemisms that we use, like ``list maintenance,'' to cover things like purges. And I represent people in communities all over this country who are the victims of these measures that are well known to have a disparate effect on African-American and Latino voters: exact match, the system used in Georgia, cross check, the system used by Kris Kobach in Kansas. Ms. Bass. Excuse me. Mr. Von--I do not want to mispronounce your name--do you think what she is saying is fiction? Did this happen? Mr. von Spakovsky. I think she is wildly exaggerating and claiming that discrimination is occurring in many instances. Ms. Bass. So do you think discrimination occurred in the 2018 election? Mr. von Spakovsky. May I answer the question, ma'am? Ms. Bass. Well, I am not finishing asking. Mr. von Spakovsky. I will give you a good example. I will give you a good example. North Carolina, Texas, and South Carolina all have a virtually identical voter ID law. It has a reasonable impediment---- Ms. Bass. But let me just reclaim---- Mr. von Spakovsky. It has a reasonable impediment---- Ms. Bass. Let me just reclaim my time. Excuse me. I am speaking right now. Well, I guess---- Mr. von Spakovsky. Well, you are not allowing me to answer my---- Ms. Bass. Well, you said enough, okay? You said enough. I think---- Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman---- Ms. Bass. I think what has gone---- Mr. Collins. Regular order. I mean, the witness is either going to answer the question or not. Ms. Bass. Oh, I wasn't done. He answered. He said enough. Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady will suspend. The gentlelady controls the time. The gentlelady will resume. Ms. Bass. Thank you. Let me just conclude by saying that the idea that we did not have problems in the 2018 election, the idea that all the testimony from Ms. Gupta and Ms. Ifill was just an exaggeration is really an embarrassment, and I think people should be ashamed of themselves. Mr. von Spakovsky. May I respond, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Nadler. Yes. Mr. von Spakovsky. Thank you. I did not say there were no problems. What I said was many of the problems have been exaggerated. There are still serious cases of discrimination that occur in this country, but they are rare. And the reason I talked about Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina is that all three have voter ID laws that are virtually the same in that each State has what is called a reasonable impediment exemption. So any voter can vote at the polling place even if they don't have an ID as long as they fill out a form saying they had a reasonable impediment that kept them from getting an ID. The South Carolina ID provision was upheld by a three-panel court in the District of Columbia. The Texas ID provision has been approved by the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Ms. Bass. Mr. Chair. Mr. von Spakovsky. The Fourth Circuit did not approve the North Carolina case. So you have a disagreement among Federal judges over those decisions. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman will suspend. The gentlelady? Ms. Bass. Yeah, I just wanted to know if Ms. Gupta and Ms. Ifill couldn't respond because I disagree with him. Chairman Nadler. Mr. von Spakovsky, one or two more sentences, and then Ms. Gupta and Ms. Ifill. Mr. von Spakovsky. I would also point out that the Texas voter ID law which is currently in place, at the time that an interim remedy was approved by the Federal district judge in that case, the Justice Department filed a pleading in that case agreeing and approving that an ID requirement with a reasonable impediment exemption was an appropriate interim remedy for that Section 2. And the person whose name was at the top of that pleading was Ms. Gupta. Chairman Nadler. Thank you. Ms. Gupta. Ms. Gupta. I need to make very clear that the North Carolina and Texas examples, and my colleague, Ms. Ifill, will talk about Texas, were exceedingly clear where the Federal appellate court in the Fourth Circuit in 2016 described North Carolina's monster voter suppression law, enacted just days after the Shelby County/Holder decision, described the law as ``the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crow'' with provisions that ``target African- Americans with almost surgical precision.'' That was in 2016. Chairman Nadler. Ms. Ifill. Ms. Ifill. This is the kind of testimony that I think is so disturbing because it is so misleading. The South Carolina voter ID law, which ended with the reasonable impediment provision, actually that provision was the settlement, was an agreement after the voter ID law had been challenged in court. The reasonable impediment provision in the Texas voter ID law is part of the settlement of the law that we challenged that I described to you earlier. That was the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, and the same for North Carolina. In other words, to the extent that these voter ID laws now include this reasonable impediment exception, it is because we had to litigate it over years. And the settlement of those cases came after years and years of elections in which voters were disenfranchised and unable to participate in the political process. And it is this kind of shading of the truth, shading of the reality of what it takes for lawyers and communities to challenge discriminatory voting practices, that is the reason why we need H.R. 1, because the words, ``exact match'' and ``cross check'' and all of this, masks what is the reality. If we have a long history of voter fraud in this country, we have a longer history of racism and voter disenfranchisement. It is time we stop dealing with fantasy and we deal with facts. Mr. Adams and Mr. von Spakovsky have had years to prove the existence of widespread, in-person voter fraud that would justify voter ID, and they have been unable to do that. What they have included on their Heritage website is mostly about fraud in absentee voting, and we have always conceded that to the extent voter fraud exists, that is where it happens. It is not in-person voter fraud. The facts are there. The studies have been done. What we have been citing, these are not the words of Sherrilyn Ifill or Vanita Gupta. These are the words of Federal judges in courts not known, by the way, for being particularly liberal, who have found intentional discrimination in the creation of voter suppression laws. This is a real challenge for our democracy, and we have to start dealing with facts. We have to stop dealing with fantasy. And I am grateful that H.R. 1 is taking this broad-based approach and that Congress is standing up to use the power that you are given under the Constitution to restore the integrity of our electoral system. Chairman Nadler. Thank you. The time of the gentlelady has expired. Before I yield to Mr. Reschenthaler, I yield to Ms. Jackson Lee for a unanimous consent request. Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes. Following the line of questioning that I had, I would like to introduce into the record the 12 Russians that were indicted for obvious voter fraud by the Mueller investigation, and then a statement regarding Maria Butina, who focused her efforts on forging ties---- Chairman Nadler. Yeah. Ms. Jackson Lee. I ask unanimous consent for the first document. Chairman Nadler. Hearing no objection, both documents will be entered into the record. Ms. Jackson Lee. And the---- Chairman Nadler. Both documents will be entered into the record. Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Butina where she was involved with the National Rifle---- Mr. Collins. I believe they have already been admitted, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Nadler. They have been entered into the record. [The information follows:] MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Nadler. I want to let the members know that we plan to continue until votes are called at about, I think, 1:45, it is anticipated, and we do not plan to take a lunch break. Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get to my question, Mr. von Spakovsky and Mr. Adams, is there anything that you feel that you need to respond to before I continue? Mr. Adams. Yes, thank you very much. We can talk about facts and we can talk about myth, but one thing is a fact, that it was not a settlement that led to the South Carolina voter ID being upheld. It was an opinion by the Court of Appeals. It was an opinion that the reasonable impediment provisions of that case made the South Carolina voter ID subject to Section 5 preclearance. It wasn't a settlement. What might have been a settlement were subsequent cases based on that judicial opinion. Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. von Spakovsky. Mr. von Spakovsky. I would point out that Ms. Ifill seems to have missed the provision on the Heritage website where we recommend ID provisions not only for in-person voting, but also for absentee balloting. I would also point out that in this supposed epidemic of voter suppression, during the entire 8 years of the Obama Administration, they only filed five cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. You can compare that to, I believe, 3 times as many Section 2 cases that were filed under the Bush Administration. Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, gentlemen. I just want to elaborate on what my colleague, Congresswoman Lesko, was talking about before. So I am the sole Republican and representative from Pennsylvania on this committee, and I have seen firsthand what happens when you let entities with absolutely no accountability to the voters draw district lines. Last year the Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped the State legislature's authority and, I would also argue, the authority of the executive branch as well, by overturning the existing congressional map and redrawing its own. The U.S. Constitution gives State governments the power to run their own elections. So by denying States the ability to draw legislative districts as they see fit and instead forcing them to use unelected, unaccountable commissions or the courts to decide district lines, H.R. 1 takes power away from the voters. It is my opinion that this is the opposite of a ``bill for the people.'' Rather, it is a bill against the people's rights to have their voice heard. So Mr. von Spakovsky and Mr. Adams, could you each just speak to the redistricting reform element of H.R. 1, and do you believe this provision raises any constitutional issues? Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time after the answers. Mr. von Spakovsky. Look, if the people of a State want to on their own decide, either through the referendum process or through their elected State representatives, to establish an independent redistricting commission, they have the full authority to do that. But for Congress to dictate this to all the States is, I think, an anti-democratic measure. And there are parts of this provision also that I think are potentially unconstitutional, and I will give you an example of that. This provision of H.R. 1 says that if a commission is not established or if it doesn't adopt a plan, then the redistricting lines for Congress will be drawn up by a three- judge Federal court. Now, yeah, Federal courts get involved in redistricting, but they only get involved when there has been a violation of the Voting Rights Act because there has been discrimination in the drawing of the lines or because the equal protection doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment, one person/one vote, has been violated because the districts are equal enough. And that is appropriate and courts do that. But this bill would give the judicial branch the ability to draw up lines when there has been no such violation. And so, in essence, you are taking a power the Congress gives to the legislative branches and you are giving it to the judicial branch, and I think that part of the bill is potentially unconstitutional. And the other part of it, I think, is very anti-democratic, taking away from the people of a State the right to decide whether in their State how redistricting lines should be drawn. Chairman Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for prioritizing H.R. 1. I also want to thank Ms. Gupta, Ms. Ifill, Mr. Noti, and Ms. Tuberville for your testimony and for being extraordinary patriots in helping to protect our democracy. The landmark legislation that we are considering this afternoon will do what Democrats said we would do by reducing the influence of corporate spending in political campaigns, restoring ethics and integrity to government, and restoring power to the American people. Widespread cynicism in America is caused by a deep sense that the government doesn't work for the people, caused by policies that amplify the voices of the rich and powerful to drown out the voices of ordinary Americans, and making it harder and harder for people to vote. Here in America, our great democracy will only survive if power resides with the people and not the powerful corporate special interests. The first step we must take is to make sure that every American has an equal voice in their government so that government enacts policies that advance the public good. Instead, too many Americans are getting crushed by healthcare costs, childcare expenses, housing costs, low wages, and ballooning student loan debt. They have watched Congress and this Administration rig the rules for the wealthy and well- connected while refusing to address the issues that really matter in their lives. We have also seen the voting process become an obstacle course with ever-increasing burdens particularly on eligible African-Americans and other communities of color and on young and low-income voters. These problems have only been made worse by the presence of dark money in our elections, which means anyone can secretly impact our elections, including the prospect of foreign adversaries. And that is why it is so important that we pass H.R. 1, which will repair our democracy by restoring real power to the people of this country and away from the special interests and powerful corporations. I am very proud that the legislation includes the Disclose Act, which would require that we shed light on very corrosive dark money in our elections, that it provides for automatic voter registration, which I have introduced, and finally, that it includes legislation to give the Justice Department more authority to better enforce the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Without fixing our broken system and taking power from the powerful special interests and returning it to the people of this country, it will be almost impossible to make progress on the issues that are important to the American people, like higher wages, lower prescription drug costs, reducing gun violence, and responding to the urgent challenges of climate change. Last Congress, we saw what happens when politicians respond to their donors and powerful corporations. Republicans voted to take away healthcare for 23 million Americans and raise out-of- pocket costs for millions. They gave billions of dollars in tax breaks to the rich so that billionaires could avoid paying their fair share, and then proposed paying for those tax breaks by cutting Medicaid and Social Security. And they passed legislation to please the NRA and ease firearm restrictions even after many of the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. So this bill will return power to the people and restore our democracy. It will help us clean up the culture of corruption in Washington and focus on making sure our government works for the people of this country. Republican opposition to these reforms, as seen by the almost farcical arguments that we have heard during this hearing, is obvious because they benefit from this broken system, as do their donors and their super PACs. And so I want to associate myself with the remarks of Congresswoman Bass about the sort of very disappointing positions of two of our witnesses that are, frankly, arguing to disenfranchise Americans from participating in their elections by misstating evidence and that claims are being exaggerated. But I would like to just ask you, Mr. Noti, you in your written testimony addressed the real pernicious impact of Citizens United, that from 2008 to 2016, these well-funded outside groups spent over $5 billion, and there was an increase in special interest spending of 900 percent. That decision of Citizens United that invited the corporate takeover of our democracy, which many are celebrating apparently at this hearing, was premised on two assumptions in Citizens United: one that a new campaign finance system would be a development that pairs corporate spending with effective disclosure, and two, that unlimited corporate spending would pose no threat of corruption because these would be independent expenditures. Would you describe how those two assumptions have actually panned out in the complete loss of control of our democracy by the American people and the complete hijacking of American democracy by big corporate special interests? Mr. Noti. Yes, Congressman. Those premises weren't true when they were written, and they are not true now. They are considerably less true now than they were then. As to disclosure, the inherent characteristics of the corporate form make it very easy for individuals and entities to route money through corporations ultimately to super PACs or other outside spenders, and thereby to cloak the ultimate sources of funds. So that premise of Citizens United has not played out. And to be clear, that is mostly the fault of the Federal Election Commission who could have stepped in and stopped this and has chosen repeatedly not to. As to independence, again, the Federal Election Commission has done nothing to ensure that this new category of outside corporate spending is, in fact, independent. In every election cycle, the sham of independence gets shammier, and there is more and more coordination between the so-called outside spenders and the candidates, contrary to law. Mr. Cicilline. And why does that matter? Mr. Noti. Because the premise of Citizens United, even if you take it at its face, is that independent spending does not corrupt, but direct contributions are corrupting, but a coordinated outside expenditure is equivalent to a direct contribution. So even if it is true that outside spending isn't corrupting, and it is not true, but even if it were, within the framework of Citizens United, this should still be unlawful, and there is no First Amendment right to corrupt. Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize Mr. Cline. Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations on your ascension to the chairmanship of the committee. I look forward to working with you during the session. I wanted to focus on a couple of different issues coming from the Commonwealth of Virginia where just about every one of these issues is in play right now. But first, speaking to the reality of voter fraud, which has been discounted by several of my colleagues on the other side, we need look no further than my own district where a gentleman is just finishing his prison term in the Federal penitentiary for submitting fraudulent voter registration forms to the voter registrar. And it was only caught when he submitted a registration form for a previously-deceased local judge that the registrar actually identified the name, recognized it as a local judge who had died some years prior, and alerted authorities. But we do have voter fraud. It is in Virginia and it is real, and we need to take steps to improve the integrity of our voter rolls. But also I wanted to ask, because this does focus on restoring the right of ex-felons to vote, one of the rights which is taken away from individuals when they are convicted of felonies. I would ask Ms. Gupta, does your organization support the restoration of the additional rights which are taken away from individuals when they are convicted of felonies? Ms. Gupta. The Leadership Conference has advocated for ending many of the collateral consequences that accompany people even after they have completed their sentence. There have been any number of studies that have been conducted that actually indicate that people who have served their time, and pay their commitment to the country, and who have their voting rights restored are actually less likely to re-offend, and that disenfranchisement actually hinders their rehabilitation and reintegration into their community. And so there are public safety reasons actually to support the restoration of rights once a person has been held accountable by the criminal justice system. Mr. Cline. So right to serve on a jury, for example? Ms. Gupta. This hearing is about H.R. 1 and the restoration of rights. Mr. Cline. I understand. Does your organization support---- Ms. Gupta. I don't think that we have taken a blanket position. Mr. Cline. Okay. Ability to run for public office? Ms. Gupta. Again, I don't think the Leadership Conference has an official public position. What we have said is that the restoration of rights of citizenship actually inures to the benefit and rehabilitation of people who have served their time and completed their debt to society by serving time in prison. Mr. Cline. But in keeping with that, that would be an understandable rehabilitation to restore that right. Ms. Gupta. Again, I think that the Leadership Conference doesn't have an official position on it. We have spoken more broadly to the plight of collateral consequences that, frankly, encumber too many people, too many people of color who have been subjected already to bias in the system to deliberate double sentences. Mr. Cline. Okay. Reclaiming my time, can you speak to the practicality, and actually what this is doing is enabling someone who has been convicted of a felon, either at the State or local level, to vote only in Federal elections. Is that correct? Ms. Gupta. Yes, H.R. 1 would apply to Federal elections. Mr. Cline. Okay. Do you see any problem in the application of that restoration of rights to only vote in a Federal election when there are local elections on the ballot? Let me go down to Mr. von Spakovsky on the actual ability, practicality to implement this kind of two-tiered system. Mr. von Spakovsky. I am not just an election lawyer, but I have actually been a county election administrator in two different States, both Virginia and Georgia. Local counties have big enough trouble maintaining one voter registration list, and keeping it accurate and up to date, and doing the kind of maintenance they need to. It would be very difficult-- in fact, I would say probably almost impractical--for jurisdictions to keep two separate sets of books indicating that some people are registered and can vote in Federal elections, others can only vote in State elections. It would cause great confusion, and I think you would have election officials all over the country complaining that you have just made their job even more difficult than it already is. Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also ask the gentleman in Virginia, we have a 50/50 or 51/49 legislature where the final seat in the legislature, control of the legislature came down to literally the drawing of lots after a recount, after a second recount, because it was done right before the legislature started. If this private right of action is granted, what would that do to the ability of a legislature in this situation of Virginia to actually conduct its business on time? Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Adams. There is no question that litigation will be more common if the private right of action under Hoevel was expanded and further delay certifications. Chairman Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. A great Republican president spoke of government of the people, by the people, and for the people, which has been the tantalizing and always elusive dream of American history. We have an Administration today which has converted the Federal government into a money- making operation for the President, his family and friends, and a handful of other people, completely distorting and deforming the constitutional design. They have been taking money from foreign princes, kings, and governments in direct violation of the emoluments clause. They gather every night over at the Trump Hotel, which I call the Washington Emolument because that is where you go to deposit all of your support for the Trump Administration. So H.R. 1 is serious business. It is about restoring democracy and the trajectory of Democratic enlargement and equality in our history. Ms. Gupta, let me start with you. I heard the gentleman from Florida try to undermine the idea of restoring voting rights to former prisoners by invoking two very scary specters. One is of people who had offended against democratic norms getting their right to vote back, and the other was people who had committed violent offenses. I am going to ask about both of those. Let's start with one of my constituents, for example, Jack Abramoff, who committed multiple public corruption offenses-- bribery, conspiracy, and so on--spent several years in prison, and he was restored his voting rights. Do you think that that was a proper thing to do, or do you think that he should be denied his voting rights forever? Ms. Gupta. Well, as I said, when a person serves their sentence and serves their debt to society, voting rights should be restored. We have a duty in this country to ensure participation of people in our democracy, and when people have served their prison terms, they should have their rights restored. Mr. Raskin. Okay. Thank you. What about hundreds of thousands of people who took up violent arms against the Union and tried to destroy the government, including people who were serving in government, like Senator Breckenridge from Kentucky who went over to the Confederacy and committed treason against the Union? Do you think that President Johnson and the Republicans in Congress did the wrong thing by restoring voting rights to people who took up arms against the Union and killed people who were carrying the Union flag? Ms. Gupta. Our consistent position was that that was an appropriate restoration of rights. We understand that there are things that people will do that put them in the line of criminal accountability. But the fact is that voting is a national symbol of full citizenship, and when a person has served out their term, they should be able to have their rights restored. Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. Mr. Noti, I have got a question for you. The premise of Justice Kennedy's opinion in Citizens United was that the CEOs, in taking money directly out of the corporate treasuries and spending it in politics, ``were exercising vicariously the underlying free speech rights of the shareholders of the corporation.'' Now, is it your sense that most CEOs and corporations are consulting the shareholders before they spend money in politics today? Mr. Noti. No, Congressman, and one of the premises of the opinion was that if shareholders didn't like the way their corporation was engaging in political spending, they could stop it. Mr. Raskin. Because there would be prompt and rapid disclosure on the internet, right? Mr. Noti. Disclosure and the mechanisms of ``corporate democracy'' is the phrase that was used. Mr. Raskin. Okay. So we have neither disclosure nor democracy in terms of the shareholders controlling. Would you favor a proposal which would say that no corporation can spend any money in our politics without a prior majority vote of the shareholders, which is the rule that exists in the United Kingdom? Mr. Noti. That would be an appropriate measure for either this body or the SEC to impose. Mr. Raskin. Okay. Thank you very much. Ms. Ifill, let me come to you quickly. I have learned something astonishing in this hearing, which is that our colleagues across the aisle now are openly championing gerrymandering, which is reviled by the vast majority of the American people. But they are standing up both constitutionally and politically for gerrymandering, which is quite remarkable, and if I read any of them wrong, I would happily be corrected. But can you talk about the way that gerrymandering is used to nullify the democratic rights of the people? The gentleman from Pennsylvania spoke, complaining apparently about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling, which gave us the first reasonably fair elections in Pennsylvania in a very long time. Before that, a State that is basically a blue State or an evenly-divided State had 13 Republicans and 5 Democrats in their delegation. The North Carolina delegation has 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats, again, in a 50/50 State. In Ohio, it is a 3 to 1 split where there are 12 Republicans and 4 Democrats. And do you think that that kind of partisan lopsidedness is justification enough for them to embrace and advance gerrymandering as a reasonable constitutional and policy for America? Ms. Ifill. Let me begin by saying I represent a nonpartisan civil rights organization and have litigated, you know, for many years on that basis. However, the very premise of our democracy is that no one group has all the power all the time. The whole premise of a democracy is based on shared power, and it is based on the ability to know that if you don't have power, you may have power tomorrow. Any scheme that seeks to lock in the power of one group into perpetuity undermines the very foundation of our democracy, and it breeds cynicism within the electorate and turns people away from participation in our democracy. I would also point out that partisan gerrymandering very often is accompanied by racial gerrymandering, and that the affiliation of various racial groups with political parties means that a very serious partisan gerrymander usually has consequences that submerge and silence the voice of racial minorities as well. Mr. Cicilline [presiding]. Thank you very much. The time of the gentleman has expired. Ms. Jayapal, the gentlelady from Washington. Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is indeed a great day that we get to have a hearing on a bill that really seeks to restore Americans' faith in our democracy. And I want to spend most of my time on a fairly little-known provision, which is the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA. Two years ago, former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, retroactively registered as a foreign agent under FARA, a law that initially Congress enacted in 1938 to address increasing concern about the influence of Nazi propaganda. Mr. Flynn's FARA registration indicated that the Turkish government paid him more than $530,000 to serve as a lobbyist while simultaneously working as a Trump Campaign adviser. Months later, reports emerged that he worked on a $15 million plan to kidnap a political enemy of Turkish President Erdogan and fly him to an island prison. In addition, former Trump Campaign manager, Paul Manafort, pled guilty to conspiracy against the United States to violate FARA in regards to his failure to register as an agent of Ukraine's government. The events of the past few years, I think, have truly illustrated how important it is for us to exercise proper oversight over how foreign agents are trying to influence U.S. policy. And so let me direct my questions to Mr. Noti. You are the senior director of trial litigation and the chief of staff for the Campaign Legal Center and an expert on FARA. How are Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort able to get away with this, and is this a problem for our democracy? Mr. Noti. They are examples of the enforcement problem that I mentioned in my opening statement. Basically, there is an under-resourced unit within the Department of Justice charged with FARA enforcement, but because of the resources they have, all they can do is look at the filings that come in and send follow-up letters. There is nobody who is charged with looking more broadly to see whether there are foreign agents out there who are not registered who should be, and that is one of the things that H.R. 1 would correct. Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I think it is quite incredible to me that the Department of Justice has only pursued seven criminal enforcement actions for FARA violations from 1966 to 2015, and as you say in your statement, it is not a slam on the Department of Justice. There simply haven't been the resources. But let me ask you if the provisions in H.R. 1 are sufficient to address these problems in our current system. Mr. Noti. Well, I think one additional gap in FARA that the examples that you raise point out is what has come to be known as the LDA loophole, the fact that somebody who is registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act need not register under FARA. There was bipartisan support last Congress for eliminating that loophole. It needs to be eliminated and would have addressed, in all likelihood, the two situations you raised. Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. One other thing I am concerned about is that some political activities to capture promotional or informational activities on behalf of a foreign principal may not be captured. And I think that is particularly concerning given Russian actions to interfere in our elections. Do you think that FARA should cover these sorts of activities? Mr. Noti. Absolutely. I mean, going back to the original purpose, the whole point of the act was to make sure that the American decisionmakers and government officials and the public weren't subjected to foreign propaganda without at least knowing that it was foreign propaganda. So if there are gaps in FARA's current coverage that are allowing that activity to be conducted, those should be closed. Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. And I would like to briefly mention one more concern of mine regarding lobbying on behalf of foreign countries. Last month, the New York Times reported that ``The targets of U.S. sanctions are hiring lobbyists with ties to President Trump in order to avoid sanctions.'' So, for instance, last June, following personal intervention by President Trump, the Commerce Department rescinded sanctions that could have seriously damaged the Chinese technology behemoth, ZTE. The President acted after a $1.4 million, 3- month lobbying push on behalf of ZTE. Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous consent to enter this article into the record. Mr. Cicilline. Without objection. [The information follows:] MS. JAYAPAL FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. Let me just ask Ms. Gupta to clarify something that I think I heard from some of the witnesses earlier, which is there seem to be some indication that people are trying to say that we are somehow inflating the concerns about voter suppression. I would like to ask you to comment on that and specifically this claim that there is no problem with voter suppression, which I think is what I heard, but I am sure I will be corrected if not. But please comment. Ms. Gupta. There has been trial after trial in the last several years that laid bare the amount of evidence of voter suppression. And I feel like it is important for members of Congress to understand that Mr. von Spakovsky has made a career out of giving misleading testimony. In fact, as recently as June of 2018 in a case called Fish v. Kobach, U.S. District judge Julie Robinson, opined on Mr. von Spakovsky's expert testimony around a proof of citizenship requirement. She said that ``The Court gives little weight to Mr. von Spakovsky's opinion and report because they are premised on several misleading and unsupported examples'' of what was in that instance non-citizen voter registration. She pointed to his ``myriad misleading statements,'' said that ``His advocacy led him to cherry pick evidence in support of his opinion,'' and said that ``lack of academic rigor in his report, in conjunction with his clear agenda and misleading statements render his opinions unpersuasive.'' We represent organizations that have been long in the business of fighting voter suppression, and this is why these misleading statements are deeply, deeply troubling and misleading to members of Congress. Mr. Cicilline. Thank you very much. Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Cicilline. The gentlelady's time has expired. There is a vote which the time has run out. I am going to recognize Mr. Correa for his 5 minutes, and then we will take a recess so folks can vote. Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cicilline. We will come back immediately after votes. Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the members of this panel for being here today. This is such an important issue, my first Judiciary Committee hearing, and thank you very much for your service today. I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 1 because I believe that when people vote, America is strong. When people vote, democracy is stronger. And I strongly believe that to protect our voting rights system, everybody eligible to vote, his or her rights have to be guaranteed. We have to do everything we can to make sure every eligible American voter votes. My district, I am home to a huge group of American veterans, many veterans from the Greatest Generation still with us, many highly decorated for their bravery. And my district also, we are also home to many new Americans. In fact, many people call my area the new Ellis Island of America. One thing we all have in common is we all work hard. We are all blue collar folks. Like my parents, these new immigrants work really hard, obey all the laws to the best of their ability, work hard for the American Dream to someday earn the right to vote as American citizens. Then something interesting happens. Folks begin to try to figure out how to suppress votes. In my district, you got subtle things like robocalls, people getting phone calls saying you shouldn't vote, it is against the law for you to vote. And then there are things that aren't so subtle. In my district a few years back, we had a whole guard voter incident. Whole guards were hired to guard the polls in the mainly ethnic areas of my district. A few years later, a letter went out to primarily Hispanic voters saying be careful. If you break the laws, you are a felon. Be very careful. And you know what this does? Maybe on its face that letter was legally correct, but most of my voters who are new citizens have worked so hard to follow the law, that anything at all that threatens them, threatens their status, they run away from those situations. In these two cases, after the elections we were able to find the court system to address these issues. But my question to you, Ms. Gupta, is, what do we do before the election? What happens when these incidences come to our attention? Can we protect our voters to make sure that they know that their rights as American citizens are to be protected? What is our recourse? Ms. Gupta. Well, our recourse used to be that changes in local voting patterns would be reported to the Justice Department, and there would be recourse for the Justice Department to ensure that racial discrimination was not animating these changes and preventing people from exercising their franchise. As we said, in 2013, the United States Supreme Court gutted that key tool of the Voting Rights Act, and it is why H.R. 1 is such an important act in order to restore the Voting Rights Act, and to restore the ability of the Justice Department and Federal courts to actually prevent these kinds of nefarious actions from taking place before elections. Litigation is crucial, and groups have risen to the challenge to file Section 2 cases. But they are time intensive, they occur after elections after people have already been disenfranchised, and can take years to come to adjudication, during which elections are taking place. And so that is why it is incumbent and necessary for Congress to restore the provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Correa. So H.R. 1 will help protect the rights of my American citizens to vote before the election. Ms. Gupta. H.R. 1, yes, expresses a commitment to restoring the Voting Rights Act, and that is what we hope to achieve in this Congress. H.R. 1 also contains a slew of protections that have become proxies for racial discrimination around list maintenance and unwarranted voter purging. H.R. 1 seeks to remedy those so that people can have their rights guaranteed before elections take place. Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. Cicilline. What a gentleman. I am going to ask unanimous consent to include in the record a Brennan Center for Justice report entitled, ``Non-Citizen Voting: The Missing Millions,'' which makes clear that these claims about voter fraud are completely unsupported by the evidence; a second article by the Brennan Center entitled, ``An Insidious Foreign Dark Money Threat: New Reports about Russian Money Going to the NRA Could Prove Watchdog's Fears Correct;'' an article by The Hill entitled, ``Most Dark Money Spending in Recent Elections Came From 15 Groups;'' and finally, a GAO report entitled, ``Post-Government Employment Restrictions and Foreign Agent Registration: Additional Action Needed to Enhance Implementation Requirements.'' Without objection, so ordered.[The information follows:] MR. CICILLINE FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Cicilline. I thank the witnesses. We are going to stand in recess, and we will return immediately after votes. [Recess.] Mr. Richmond [presiding]. I am going to call the hearing back in order so the Judiciary Committee will resume, and with that, we will have Mr. McClintock will be recognized for five minutes. Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Gupta, you take a very expansive view--over here--take a very expansive view of our constitutional authority to write state elections laws as they pertain to federal elections. Florida, we have heard, allows felons to vote. Does Congress have the constitutional authority to override such a law and prevent felons from voting nationally in federal elections? Ms. Gupta. It is well within Congress's power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent racial discrimination in voting and devices that perpetuate racial discrimination, and that would be the basis for restoring the right to vote for people with felony convictions in federal elections. Mr. McClintock. I am not talking about restoring the right to vote. I am saying if Congress has the right to draft and enact elections laws binding the states in federal elections, I would assume that would include forbidding felons to vote, which is recognized under the Fourteenth Amendment. Ms. Gupta. Well, Congress can restore under the Fourteenth Amendment. I am not sure that I--that I understand your question. Mr. McClintock. So they can do the things that you think need to be done but can't do the things you don't want to see done. Ms. Gupta. Well, I think it is---- Mr. McClintock. That seems to be a bit of a double standard. Let me go on. Mr. von Spakowsky, seems to me there are two fundamental principles in voting. Number one is that every citizen who wants to vote and is qualified to vote should vote without any fear of intimidation or discrimination. The other principle is one citizen one vote. Every fraudulent or illegal or multiple vote that is recorded cancels out a citizen's legal and legitimate vote. Our laws have to reconcile both of those principles. Could you give us an assessment of this bill? Mr. von Spakovsky. I think that is very true. In fact, when Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, that was what a number of members of Congress said. They want to be sure that everyone who is eligible to vote gets to vote and that their votes are not stolen or diluted through fraudulent votes. So, now, there is a---- Mr. McClintock. Does H.R. 1 threaten these principles or support these principles? Mr. von Spakovsky. I think H.R. 1 does not support these principles. In fact, it is going to make it very difficult for states to have the kind of integrity and security that they need in the election process. Also, H.R. 1, as I said, to me there are provisions in here that are anti-democratic, taking away the right of voters to make their own decisions in particular states on how they want their congressional representatives picked. That is--that is not a good idea. It is not only bad policy; I think it is potentially unconstitutional. Mr. McClintock. What university studies are you aware of that estimate the number of noncitizens who are currently voting illegally? Mr. von Spakovsky. I am aware of a number of studies. Mr. Adams actually could speak to this more clearly. The Public Interest Legal Foundation has done a number of reports on various states including Virginia and I think Michigan and others where they went and got actual election records from county election departments, asking them for the lists of voters who, on their own voluntarily, contacted election departments and said, ``I am not a U.S. citizen. I need to be taken off the voter rolls.'' And they found that there were thousands of such voters in various states on their reports. Mr. McClintock. How many thousands? Tens of thousands? Mr. von Spakovsky. Well, Mr. Adams can answer that. Mr. McClintock. Mr. Adams, can you help us? Mr. Adams. Right. Thank you. What we found was a pervasive problem with noncitizens on the rolls. If you look at my written testimony, I actually include two examples. I do screen shots of voter registration forms--one from Virginia, one from New Jersey--and these are but two of many that we have harvested, where the applicant actually marks on the voter registration form that they are not an American citizen. Mr. McClintock. So just in terms of numbers, what kind of estimates are there? Mr. Adams. It is hard to know. It is hard to know. I mean, it is significant, and in a state like Virginia all it takes is one where control of the House flipped. Mr. McClintock. Mr. von Spakovsky, just very quickly. My understanding of Citizens United is that it upheld the right of individuals to pool their resources so that they can compete in the marketplace of ideas against billionaires, for example. What have I got wrong on that? Mr. von Spakovsky. Yeah. I am always surprised at this criticism of the Citizens United decision, particularly the idea or the claim that it somehow helps the rich. If you go all the way back to Alex de Tocqueville in his ``Democracy in America,'' he talks about something that we all know is true, which is that Americans use associations for many reasons including in the political arena. For the average person like me who is not rich, if I want to get my ideas across to Congress or other folks I join a membership organization. There was a lot of criticism here earlier of the NRA. But the NRA represents millions of Americans who have a particular view of the Second Amendment. That is not any different than millions of Americans who are members of Planned Parenthood or NARAL. The whole point of Citizens United was that there was a federal law barring all corporations and unions, and corporations included nonprofit corporations and membership organizations like the NRA, like NARAL, like the NAACP, from engaging in independent political speech. That was, clearly, a violation of First Amendment. It is unconstitutional and I think it was a great decision by the court. Mr. Richmond. The gentleman's time has expired. We will recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our panel for participating in this. And I have to tell you, after being in Congress for six years I have come to find that there are so many issues that my Republican colleagues and I agree on and that the American people agree that we have reached consensus on, and that ranges from reducing gun violence to addressing climate change to finding health care solutions. But my constituents ask and people I encounter across the country always ask, if we have reached consensus where 90 percent of Americans think we should have background checks, the majority of Americans believe that climate change is happening, 90 percent of Americans think we should have the DREAM Act, why can't you guys even vote on these issues? And I have concluded that it is the dirty maps and the dirty money. It is rigged gerrymandered maps where politicians from both parties protect their friends and the status quo and it is the outside unlimited nontransparent money where Republican colleagues have told me, ``I am with you on this issue--I am just--'' and I have had someone say this to me, ``I am afraid about how I am going to be scored,'' meaning that these outside groups will give scores based on how you vote and if you are not with them they will primary you with more money in an unlimited kind of way, and that is poisoning our politics and preventing us from reaching consensus. So I think we have an opportunity in this bill, the ``For the People Act,'' to empower everyday voices. And I want to start with Ms. Ifill, and if it is okay I want to call you Professor Ifill because I don't know if you remember--you were my civil procedure professor at the University of Maryland. [Laughter.] Ms. Ifill. I love that. Mr. Swalwell. You wouldn't remember me. I remember you. I was not a standout student at all. But, Ms. Ifill, according to your testimony, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would have prevented some of the voter suppression schemes that we have encountered over the past five years, and I was hoping you could articulate some of those schemes today. Ms. Ifill. Yeah, just a few of them. Earlier, I spoke about Texas's voter ID law, an ID law that had been denied pre- clearance prior to the Shelby decision. Two hours after the Shelby decision, the attorney general of Texas tweeted out his intention to resuscitate that law, which he did, and we spent three years litigating it. We ultimately prevailed. But in the ensuing three years there were elections for all kinds of offices--a law that, clearly, could not have survived pre- clearance. Just in 2018 we were on the ground in Georgia on Election Day doing election protection work. In Grady County, the polling place had been changed two weeks prior to the election. A notice had been placed in a very small community newspaper, but otherwise there was not real notice provided to the community. And so people arrived at the old polling place and community residents had to spend the day standing outside the old polling place directing people to the place of the new polling place that had not been properly identified. Under Section 5, the moving of a polling place is the kind of thing that you had to submit to pre-clearance and have it approved by the Justice Department before it could be implemented. Now, there were a number of people that day who could drive to the new polling place. But there were a number of people who had just taken off work and had a limited amount of time to vote and could not drive to the new polling place and so went back to work and were unable to participate in the political process. Those are just two small examples--well, one big and one small--but both consequential of the kinds of changes that would very easily have been--have been averted and the problems that would have been averted had Section 5 been in place wouldn't have required litigation--would have simply required a review by the Department of Justice and an opportunity for the community to resist that change or to at least be informed of that change in a timely way. Mr. Swalwell. Thank you. Mr. Noti, it is my hope that in our lifetime we have publicly-financed campaigns. I hope you will briefly speak to whether you believe that could occur. But I also have one concern with super PACs today. As I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, if a candidate contacts a donor and tells the donor that there is ABC super PAC working on my behalf, that candidate can solicit a contribution up to the maximum that candidate could receive federally. So I think it is, you know, $2,700 today. But as I understand it, there is no disclosure requirement by that candidate that they made that ask and, of course, there is no way to know if the donor made the contribution or not because of the lack of transparency. Is that something that you think maybe we should address is having the candidates affirmatively, you know, tell the public that they have made requests for super PAC help? Mr. Noti. That is correct, Congressman. But I would go farther than that. Candidates should not be soliciting for super PACs, period. Mr. Swalwell. Agreed. Yeah. Mr. Noti. Right, so that the---- Mr. Swalwell. But the FEC allows that today. Mr. Noti. Currently, the FEC allows that. The FEC probably has the authority to put an end to it. Congress certainly has the authority to put an end to it as an implementation of Citizens United. But if it is going to be happening, yes, the public should certainly be aware and journalists and law enforcement should be aware that that is happening. Mr. Swalwell. And, quickly, will we see publicly-financed campaigns in our lifetime? Is that something we should aspire to? Mr. Noti. Absolutely. The momentum for publicly-financed campaigns, for small-dollar matching in particular, is growing. More and more jurisdictions are considering them or implementing them. The District of Columbia just this year implemented a matching system. I think that will rise up from the municipalities and states to Congress, yes. Mr. Swalwell. All right. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Richmond. The gentleman's time has expired. I will recognize Ms. Scanlon for five minutes. Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. As a newly-elected member of the Pennsylvania delegation, my constituents and I know all too well the importance of the reforms included in this bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania mentioned earlier that our congressional districts were redrawn last year but he neglected to mention that the redrawing occurred because those districts had been unconstitutionally gerrymandered as part of the red map strategy that was funded by dark money. Our democracy doesn't work when special interests push gerrymandering and other voter suppression tactics that weaken our representative system of government and I am sure my colleague, Congresswoman Dean, will agree with me that what happened in Pennsylvania is exactly why we need legislation that prevents gerrymandering and gives voters fair representation so that they can choose their elected representatives rather than the other way around. I am extremely proud that H.R. 1 contains a commitment to restore the Voting Rights Act as well as measures to prevent gerrymandering and other forms of voter suppression. I am also proud that my first bill, the Inaugural Fund Integrity Act, has been included in this landmark legislation. That bill would put limits on donations to presidential inaugural committees and require public disclosure of all donations and spending by such funds in order to expose and reduce opportunities for corruption. H.R. 1 also provides measures to modernize our elections while maintaining security so that all citizens can participate in our democracy. Therefore, I am also proud to be a leader on language in this bill to increase access to voting for individuals with disabilities. To that end, Ms. Gupta, could you discuss whether there are particular issues that impact voters with disabilities? Ms. Gupta. Yes. There are a number of issues that impact voting for people with disabilities. There are inaccessible poll sites in too many places that don't meet the criteria established by the Americans with Disabilities Act. There are accessible machines that don't work. Poll workers may not be trained in how to interact with people with disabilities and, you know, there are also individuals with disabilities--many veterans actually with disabilities who seek to vote securely and independently and are unable to do so in the same manner as every other voter, and H.R. 1 seeks to--with a specific provision focusing on access to voting for individuals with disabilities. It requires states to promote access to voter registration and voting for people with disabilities as well as grants to improve voting for people with disabilities and creates a pilot program that would actually allow people with disabilities to register and vote from home as well as provide necessary training for poll workers to make sure that nobody with a disability is prevented from exercising their franchise. Ms. Scanlon. And these measures, in addition to helping our veterans, would also help seniors, wouldn't they? Ms. Gupta. Yes, they would absolutely help veterans, seniors, and others with disabilities--intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, and the like. Ms. Scanlon. As someone who has organized and participated in election protection work and as the representative of a vibrant and diverse community, I know all too well the impact of voter suppression. Ms. Ifill, can you speak to turnout gaps among different ethnic and racial groups and how Congress might help reduce some of that? Ms. Ifill. Thank you very much, and I am glad you asked the question because Congress recognized in the passage of the Voting Rights Act that the ability to participate in the political process equally is actually the focus and that casting the ballot is actually only part of that. It is casting the ballot, it is having that ballot count, and it is the meaningful opportunity to participate in the political process. And, in fact, the more individuals, particularly from minority groups, do not see their ballot counting, the less they are incentivized to turn out and participate in the political process. And so what we see across the board when we are engaging with the communities that I represent is we are often seeing low registration numbers. We are often seeing low turnout numbers. We are often seeing people who turned out but couldn't vote because they waited on long lines. We are seeing a whole menu of ways in which minority communities are discouraged from participating robustly and fully in the political process, and that means that their voices aren't heard and that lessens their confidence in our political system, in our justice system, and in their rights as free citizens in our society. Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I have to say that that accords with what I have seen when I have been working at polling places myself throughout my district. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Richmond. The gentlelady's time has expired. I now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Garcia. Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me just say that my remarks are really going to be about direct experience. You know, I have heard today some statements about how things are exaggerated, that things are fiction, that this isn't really the way it happens. But let me just tell you about some of the things that have happened to me personally as a voter. I got a letter from our voter registrar when I was an elected county commissioner. An official just two floors down from me sends me a letter that I got in the mail that told me that I would be purged from the voter list because there was a discrepancy between what was on my driver's license and what the post office said. That is an example. Then I thought things were straight. But then when I was a senator--an elected senator--I went to Election Day and I was told that I was not on the rolls. It was a little bit later on. Many years had passed. Thought it was fixed. I was not on the voter rolls and it was just--it turned out to be confusion between the spelling of my name because sometimes it is spelled S-Y-L-V-I-A or sometimes S-I-L-V-I-A. So well, all right. Just another problem. Well, lo and behold, when I was in the primary for this particular race for the United States Congress, I went to my polling place and a huge line. But it wasn't because they were all there to vote for me. It was because the machines were broken. They had not even started. So I had to stand in line probably for an hour, an hour and a half, before they got the machines working. Now, you tell me that is all coincidental or you tell me that I am just a problem voter. Or is it because my last name is Garcia? I mean, I don't know. It just seems that in my district whenever we have an election--and it is a 77 percent Latino district--we always have to make sure that we got people to answer the phones, that we know where to call for the hotline with the secretary of state, who to call at the county. I mean, they are all in my phone, and I am lucky because when all of these things happened I pulled out my phone and called officials directly. But your average voter doesn't have the capacity to do that. So, to me, that is why we need the Voting Rights Act. That is why we need so much of what is in this bill. So I wanted to start with you, Ms. Ifill, and it is good to see you again. I know that you and I both testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the extension of the Voting Rights Act some years ago. So here we are again on this side of the House. You talk about how the changes or you are beginning to see a lot of voter suppression post-Shelby and, again, because I keep hearing this fiction and exaggeration. Can you give us examples of some of them, particularly in my state who seems to be the king of voter discrimination of late? Ms. Ifill. Well, I think it is just this week that your new secretary of state sent a letter out to counties indicating his belief that there is the potential that 95,000 noncitizens are on the voter rolls or have been voting, and we have already sent a letter along with the Texas Civil Rights Project and other civil rights groups asking him to rescind that letter. We have received no information about how he compiled that list. We are asking for transparency. This is the kind of thing that can result in voter fraud prosecutions. Even if they are unsuccessful, they have the effect of deterring people from wanting to register or participate in the political process. I have already talked about the Texas voter ID law. We are also challenging Alabama's voter ID law and that case is pending before the court right now. We have talked about polling place changes. We have talked about the use of exact match in Georgia, even though it is well documented the disproportionate effect that this has on both African Americans and Latinos. There is a myriad of voting changes that have been implemented despite the clear knowledge that they will have a disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos, and all of this is pursued with the--with the idea that somehow this is going to bring--what was the name of the commission that my two colleagues sitting at this table served on--the Election Integrity Commission--that this is going to increase the integrity of elections---- Ms. Garcia. This---- Ms. Ifill [continuing]. That this is going to stop voter fraud. And yet, we don't have the evidence of widespread voter fraud. We just heard Mr. Adams say it is difficult to say how many, if there are sizeable numbers of noncitizens who have voted. But, by contrast, we can tell you precisely how many voters were disenfranchised by Texas's voter ID law. We could tell you precisely how many were disenfranchised by Wisconsin's voter ID law. We can tell you precisely how many were disenfranchised by North Carolina's omnibus voting bill. We can tell you the effect of ending early registration on Sundays when African Americans do ``Souls to the Polls.'' So we have all of the evidence that these measures suppress the votes of racial minorities. Ms. Garcia. Thank you. And---- Mr. Richmond. The gentlelady's time has expired. Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Richmond. I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Neguse. Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Also, I want to extend my thanks to Chairman Nadler for hosting this important hearing and to extend my gratitude to Congressman Sarbanes for his leadership in crafting this important piece of legislation that provides much-needed reforms to our democratic process. Access and transparency, I know we can all agree, in our voting system is vital to the integrity of our democracy. In the 2016 election, 92 million eligible Americans did not vote and in 2014 we witnessed the lowest voter participation rate in 72 years. For the nation's democracy to function properly and for government to provide fair representation, all eligible Americans must have the opportunity to vote and be encouraged to do so, which is why I am so excited about supporting this piece of legislation. Last week I introduced legislation that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to register to vote ahead of their 18th birthday to ensure that every first-time voter has the ability to engage in our political process early on. The bill, largely, emulates legislation that was successfully enacted in Colorado, in my home state. We already see that when young voters are registered they participate at rates comparable to older voters, which is why pre-registration is so important. Voting really is a foundational right and it is essential that there are as few barriers as possible for registration and participation in our democracy. I believe if we start this process at a younger age we can spur political participation and engagement in all Americans. And so my questions are for Ms. Gupta and Ms. Ifill. I guess I am curious about your thoughts around pre-registration and, in particular, if you have seen any data or anecdotal evidence to suggest that when youth are engaged in the democratic process early in their lives that they are more likely to stay engaged. Ms. Gupta. Well, thank you, Congressman, for--both for the legislation and for your comments. I think that it is really important, the kind of access that we provide through registration and at what point we provide it. It is both automatic voter registration, making that the default rather than the kind of--the thing that people have to affirmatively take steps to do--but also your bill of really focusing on pre-registration so that when a person turns 18 they can actually exercise their right to vote. These really signal the kind of country we want to be and the kind of democratic participation we want to have. We saw extraordinary youth turnout in the 2018 mid-term elections. In Florida, there was a recent study that showed the extent to which young people in Florida turned out to vote and felt more connected with government than they had ever felt before. And we have had a historic, I would say, problem with people--young people in this country feeling disenfranchised and alienated and marginalized from government and when they feel like government is corrupt or does not work for them they do not want to participate. And so that is why H.R. 1--so much of what it is doing, frankly, is about restoring the legitimacy of government and the role of civic participation in young people's lives, and as young people become more and more kind of connected to the issues of the day it is really important for the kind of democracy we want to be that we provide ample opportunity to have them register as early and as frequently as possible, and that is why H.R. 1 with AVR nationwide would go a long way. Ms. Ifill. Just very briefly, I would say I think there is no more damning reality about the crisis in our democracy than the failure for there to be widespread bipartisan support to ensure that young people are pre-registered to vote and that we are introducing them to their citizenship obligations as adults as soon as possible. It is impossible for me to understand how that can be controversial, how that can be partisan, and the fact that it is speaks volumes about the crisis that we face in this country. Mr. Neguse. Thank you both. Last question relates to the gerrymandering piece of this or the piece of legislation that targets the practice of gerrymandering. A core component of H.R. 1 looks at partisan gerrymandering in our country, and ensuring that every voter and district is represented equally instead of carving out districts so that one party is favored over another is critical to restore Americans' faith in our democracy. This last elections voters were loud and clear about their opposition to partisan gerrymandering and that includes my home state of Colorado where voters passed an effort to create independent commissions for redistricting. So my question is to Ms. Gupta. I know in your capacity you travel the country quite a bit, you know, meeting with folks about these issues including the need for gerrymandering reform. I am curious about--certainly, in my state it is very clear that there are a plethora of people who want this change and they expressed that at the ballot box. I am curious about your conversations in other states and whether this is something that is top of mind to the folks that you have visited with. Ms. Gupta. There is a reason why voters in ``red'' and ``blue'' states in 2018 voted for--to create independent redistricting commissions around the country. I think people are fed up with thinking that the parties can own their voters and, in fact, voters want to be able to choose their politicians, not have politicians choose their voters. In 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided that it was perfectly consistent with the Constitution to make sure that legislators weren't drawing their own lines. We stand unique in the world for allowing that kind of thing to happen. Gerrymandering is a uniquely American phenomenon, and yet, H.R. 1 really goes a long way to prevent intentional manipulation of district lines for partisan advantage and it goes through a very carefully calibrated and described process of having five Democrats, five Republicans, five independents, sit--all randomly chosen from a pool of applicants--sit on an independent commission. There are specific criteria about how district lines would get drawn and a plan would need majority support to be enacted, including the backing of at least one Democrat, one Republican, and one independent. And, as you said, in California, Arizona, and Colorado-- your state--we have seen improvements in representation, in voter confidence and trust, and how district lines get drawn and in competitiveness. And so this reform embodied in H.R. 1 is really important to restoring legitimacy in how district lines get drawn. Mr. Richmond. The gentleman's time has expired and I will recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Mrs. McBath. Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to each of the witnesses that are here today sharing your expertise on these very, very important issues. And I just want to take a moment to really acknowledge my own father, who was the only black dentist in Joliet, Illinois, in the early 1960s and he was also the president of the Illinois branch of NAACP for over 20 years and also served on the executive board. So I am no stranger to the civil rights movement. My mother was also a nurse and she also was actively involved in the civil rights movement. Now, from the time that I could walk with my family I marched alongside my family and my parents and fellow demonstrators, shouting for equality and calling for justice, and I often say the very first song I ever learned was ``We Shall Overcome.'' And my father, he actually planned those marches and I can still picture him presiding over the meetings at my kitchen table in our house filled with poster boards and preparations and hope. So when it comes to voting rights, my father's work is still completely unfinished. Now, but today we are starting all over again. What I witnessed my father and my mother fighting for, we are fighting for all over again with preparations, with resolve, and with hope. And I would like to make reference to an article by Vox.com, if you have a chance to look at it. It is entitled, ``Why Long Lines at Polling Places are a Voting Rights Injustice.'' And my question today is both for you, Ms. Gupta, and also Ms. Ifill. My colleague, Congressman Collins, said earlier today that he thought that long lines to vote in Georgia were a good sign, and I know many of--many of his Republican colleagues absolutely believe the same thing and I can tell you I do not. Might I say I witnessed firsthand voter suppression in the state of Georgia, having come through those very elections in November. Would you two both be willing to explain to me why long lines, at best, are a sign of underinvestment in voting and, at worst, a form of extreme voter suppression? Ms. Ifill. Thank you. Let me tell you what we saw on Election Day. We do election protection work every Election Day, whether there is a federal election or not, where there are primaries and general elections, and the long lines that we see are a testament to our failure. They are a monument to the failure of our democracy to invest in the casting of ballots and in the right that the Supreme Court has said is preservative of all rights. I cannot imagine how anyone could think that voters waiting on line in the morning for four hours in Gwinnett County, Georgia, because the machines lacked the power cords, how anyone could think that was a good thing. I don't understand how anybody could see the lines--I actually have video of it--I was told I couldn't submit video-- of the lines in north Charleston, South Carolina, Election Night as elections are being called and African Americans are standing in line for two and three hours. I cannot imagine how we can think it is positive that in Harris County the election judge had to extend the polling place hours because people had to stand in line so long because the machines were malfunctioning. I can't imagine how we could think it is something positive when machines are flipping the votes in South Carolina, in Florida, in Texas, causing voters to stand on line, have to move to a provisional ballot line--how voters arriving on Election Day--I was there in November 2016 doing election protection work in Alabama and I cannot tell you how many elderly African-American couples came to vote together and only discovered, living in the same place for 25 and 30 years, that one was on the rolls and one was not. One could cast a ballot and one had to cast a provisional ballot. I don't know how we could possibly think that is a good thing. This is not a partisan concern. This is about whether or not we are a healthy democracy, and it is an embarrassment and a disgrace that we compel people to spend four hours standing on a line to exercise their right as citizens to participate in the political process. Ms. Gupta. I would just like to add I think that there is simply no reason that the United States of America, the wealthiest nation in the world, would not have sufficient poll sites and number of poll sites so people can vote and not have to wait in four-hour lines. There is simply no excuse for it, and in the aftermath of the Shelby County decision the Leadership Conference, in conjunction with other civil rights groups, compiled a list of poll closures--thousands that happened in the aftermath of the Shelby County decision because these small minor things were undetectable anymore to national organizations, the federal government, and the like. These are the ways in which we have cut voting access by a death by a thousand cuts since the Shelby County decision and these are the kinds of things that would have been forced--have been pre-cleared by the Justice Department or federal courts around simple things like the closure of poll sites that can seem pretty innocuous or efficient actually carry with them incredibly detrimental impacts on voter access. And so part of what H.R. 1 does is actually both seek to enhance the jurisdiction of the Election Assistance Commission that has a responsibility to make sure that machines work. But the restoration of the Voting Rights Act here, again, the case must be made as to why it needs to be restored so that these kinds of seemingly minor changes actually that result in the disenfranchisement of voters are detected in advance. Mrs. McBath. I want to thank you very much for explaining the truth. Mr. Richmond. The time of--the time of the lady is-- gentlelady has expired. I will recognize the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just as a clarification, I appreciate the gentlelady being here and congratulating her on being a part. But also she said there does need to be truth and I would not say that my comment on long voter lines were a indication of incompetence on poll officials who wouldn't put a plug on a voting machine. Indications of long lines is people actually showing up to vote, which I think Ms. Gupta--Ms. Gupta and Ms. Ifill would agree with. Having in my state of Georgia, in which some of the counties that have the longest lines are the ones who chose. In Georgia it is the local officials that choose how many voting machines they put into their place of polling. It is how many they would--and if they have two years, most of them, between times to figure out how to plug in a machine, then maybe we need to change the election officials in those counties. But to say and to imply that I would say that long lines are--a showing of problematic system in our voting or elections is--no, mine was a compliment because actually in--between 2014 and 2018 in the state of Georgia we saw an 11 percent increase in black male voting. We saw a 14.58 percent increase in black female voting. We saw an 18 percent increase in Hispanic male voting and a 24 percent increase in Hispanic female voting. Mine is to let everyone vote that wants to vote, that registers and gets there and we have a very generous early voting. I just want to make that clarification for the record. I yield back. Mr. Richmond. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized, Mr. Stanton. Mr. Stanton. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to be a new member of this Congress and I am proud that in the 116th Congress the very first bill that was introduced is the ``For the People Act.'' We are going to make very positive reforms to help the American people have more confidence in our democracy, obviously, including a plan to restore the Voting Rights Act, nonpartisan redistricting commissions, ban shadow lobbying, banning corporate contributions and dark money, and many other things I think would be very positive steps, moving it forward. I am proud to be a co-sponsor. I come from Arizona where we do have clean elections and it works out very well--publicly-funded elections--and both Republican and Democrats in the state of Arizona have successfully used the clean election system to get elected to public life. We have a nonpartisan redistricting commission that has been mentioned. We passed it in 2010. It has created very competitive congressional elections and state legislative elections. I think it has built confidence by the people of Arizona, more confidence in the electoral system. And I was mayor of the city of Phoenix and we saw the big problem as it relates to dark money and the influence of dark money. We put banning dark money on the ballot as a municipal initiative. It passed with 85 percent of the vote. Our next- door neighbors in the city of Tempe, also in my congressional district, they did even better. A ban on dark money in the city of Tempe passed with 91 percent of the vote. The American people in a bipartisan way are in favor of these positive reforms. Now, I also come from a state with a very large Native American population and we are blessed to have a very large Native population, and I want to ask the witnesses here, particularly Ms. Gupta and Ms. Ifill, to talk about the benefits--if this Congress does do the right thing and restore the Voting Rights Act, maybe some of the specific benefits to our Native American citizens. Ms. Ifill. I am glad you mentioned that. You know, I think many people are aware of what happened in North Dakota with the voter ID law that required a street address. You know, we have over the years worked with the Native American Rights Fund and those lawyers in Alaska where there are very particular problems of voter--of voter suppression that have occurred over the years. And if you are not familiar with Native American reservations, if you are not familiar with what it means to be in these rural areas, if you are not familiar with the customs and practices of those communities, you can think that these measures that are--that are described as efficient have no effect. And I think that North Dakota law--that voter ID law--was the perfect example. The idea of requiring a street address might sound innocuous to many people. But it was in understanding that many Native Americans did not have a street address and seeing that community come together to try to quickly create street addresses to comply with the law on one hand is maybe one of the positive things is seeing people want so much to vote that they are willing to try to comply with the law. But it is actually terrible that they have to come together to try and meet a law that puts this onerous burden on them-- that requires this of them even though their communities are not situated in such a way as to make compliance with that law easy. So we should remember when we think about the Voting Rights Act we talk about the African-American population, we talk about the Latino population. The Native American population is also part of this as is the Asian-American population in terms of language, minorities, and the kind of ballot assistance and materials that they need as well. Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much. Ms. Gupta. Yeah. I will just say that when I was at the Justice Department one of my great regrets is I don't think that we were ever able to fully approach voting rights for Native Americans in the way that the struggles that they were actually facing in many, many parts of the country in rural communities. The poll sites are simply too far and too few and they are--there were instances in Alaska where people would have had to travel for a hundred miles to get to a poll site. It was simply--it was not even conceivable that this was appropriate in our modern-day time. And so part of what is needed is when we think about restoring the Voting Rights Act is really focusing on the availability of poll locations in Native American communities to address this very serious problem. Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. I have one follow-up question actually for Mr. Noti in a different direction. As a new member of Congress, I am learning a lot about something called shadow lobbying where--which apparently is a huge loophole in the lobbyist registration requirements--people being hired to provide strategic consulting whether or not they have any expertise in the area simply because of relationships they may have formed. Obviously, the case of Michael Cohen is the most famous one where he was paid a significant sum in areas outside of his expertise. Talk about shadow lobbying and how this H.R. 1 would fix that loophole. Mr. Noti. Right. So the Lobbying Disclosure Act is an important transparency measure that allows citizens to know the influences that are being brought to bear on lawmakers. One existing loophole in it is that it only reaches sort of the last individual who actually talks to the policymaker. And so what some enterprising folks have figured out is that if you just keep yourself one step removed from that--you do all the same work, the same advice, the same guidance who to talk to, what to say, but have somebody else actually conduct that activity--under existing law there is a perception that does not count as lobbying and therefore doesn't trigger either registration or other financial disclosure obligations. H.R. 1 would close that loophole by designating strategic support--strategic counseling in support of lobbying as lobbying. One of the criticisms I believe I heard today was that it is broad and amorphous--who knows what strategic consulting is. It is not strategic consulting generally-- strategic consulting in support of lobbying. Mr. Richmond. The time of the gentleman has expired and we will now have the gentlelady Dean from Pennsylvania. Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the ranking member and all the members of the committee. I also thank all of you for coming to testify on this very important measure. I, too, am a brand new member of Congress. I come from Pennsylvania--from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. So you will note that our experience in Pennsylvania will be threaded in my remarks and in my questions. I wanted to start with a sentence out of your testimony, Ms. Gupta, which I applaud. You write, ``Our democracy works best when everyone, no matter who they are or what their color, can fully participate.'' I couldn't agree with you more and I share, Ms. Ifill, your bafflement that we are actually having a debate over whether or not we should get full participation--full voter participation or should we allow things to stand in the way of full voter participation. Two areas that I wanted to focus on--and I will direct my question for you to enlighten us, to both Ms. Gupta and Ms. Ifill--are the recent kind of incubator experiences of Pennsylvania in the area of voter ID and in the area of redistricting--incubators in the case of good and in bad. The bad would be in 2012 a Democratic legislature with a Democratic governor--this is a presidential election year, you will recall--passed, and this is pre-Shelby--Pennsylvania is not a part of that--passed voter ID. Seemingly innocuous. Euphemistically, of course you should show your identification. I came in two months later in a special election to the Pennsylvania House and we saw the collateral damage that that did, the lack of trust that voters had. We went to nursing homes after nursing homes to try to help older people who no longer had identification cards, who couldn't access, in many cases, their birth certificates. We know that it disenfranchised or attempted to disenfranchise students, young people, poor people, and, clearly, people of color. Our speaker of the House was caught nationally, you will remember, saying, ``Voter ID. We got it. That will get us Mitt Romney,'' or whomever. So I ask you to tell us about how this important legislation will speak to those very corrosive types of legislation, and I will flip over and then give it to you both to say the very good news that happened. Just one year ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that our congressional lines were palpably gerrymandered, palpably unconstitutional. And so I am a little baffled, again, by my colleague on the other side of the aisle from Pennsylvania who found that to be a troubling decision. It was a constitutionally-based decision and I, frankly, wouldn't be here if it weren't for that Supreme Court decision, which rectified a 13 to 5 delegation in Pennsylvania to a 9-9, matching our voter registration. Can you talk about both of those issues and how H.R. 1 will give us the opportunity to rectify those problems? Ms. Ifill. Let me start, briefly, and then I will turn it over to Vanita and particularly on the voter ID piece, which you very eloquently describe that experience in Pennsylvania, which I think is really instructive for us. First of all, the idea of the need for voter ID laws and their proliferation around the country, even pre-Shelby, really comes out of a set of kind of voter suppression tactics and ideas that were being circulated, frankly, and that is why it is so important for us to speak the truth in this moment and to say these are not ideas that came about because there was evidence of widespread voter fraud. That has still not happened despite the many years that many experts have had to try and prove it. They have not been able to prove it. Ms. Dean. It was actually stipulated in that Pennsylvania case---- Ms. Ifill. That is correct. Ms. Dean [continuing]. That they couldn't come up with a case. Ms. Ifill. They could not even demonstrate that it existed. So this was an answer in search of a problem. This was not some good government measure designed to address ballot boxes that were being subjected to some kind of fraud. This was a move designed to control the population, to control the electorate, and to control the outcome of elections, and people understood exactly what it meant and what it was. The reality is that we have members of the population for whom it is difficult to get the kind of ID that is required by these laws either because they are in situations where they no longer have their birth certificate, where they don't have the underlying documents because they have to pay for the underlying documents, or because, in some cases, as in Texas and in North Carolina, the legislatures actually picked forms of ID that they knew that minority populations were less likely to have. This is a terrible thing in a democracy to have a legislature meet and pass a law whose purpose is to disenfranchise a segment of the population. And so it is critical in H.R. 1 that we address this issue, that we call a spade a spade and stop pretending that these voter ID laws are some good government measure. They are a disenfranchising measure, they have metastasized around the country, and it is time for the United States Congress to address it. Ms. Dean. Thank you. Mr. Richmond. The time of the gentlelady has expired. I will now recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to thank Chairman Nadler for holding this important hearing here today. Thank you to all the witnesses for appearing in front of us today. I think that we all agree that so many Americans in this country are losing faith in our government and there are so many reasons for this, and I am glad that we are finally addressing some of them in this hearing. I know that Americans do not want their elected officials to be improperly swayed by campaign contributions. Americans do not want their neighbor's vote to count more than their own vote and we, in the Congress of the United States, must do everything we can to ensure that an individual's right to vote is not impeded. And it reminds me near the end of Justin Ginsburg's dissent in the Shelby County v. Holder. She suggested a simple analogy to illustrate why the regional protections of the Voting Rights Act were still necessary. She wrote that, quote, ``Throwing out pre-clearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' I am a representative of Florida. I don't throw away my umbrella. So with that, I wanted to ask Ms. Gupta, Florida was one of the states that required pre-clearance before the Shelby County decision. Can you provide us with an example of a change to the voting laws in Florida that were enacted since the decision and what sort of impact it has had? Ms. Gupta. Thank you, Congresswoman. There have been a significant number of poll site closures in the state of Florida which have created a lot of issues around long lines and accessibility of poll sites. These kinds of changes, as I have said, they seem minor because they happen in different places and they are small in-- you know, closing a poll site doesn't seem like it would rise to some kind of nefarious effort. But taken collectively, the Justice Department was unable to have any clear indication of what was happening with the number of poll sites being closed locally, and that is the kind of thing where those kinds of changes would have been pre- cleared or not by the Justice Department to prevent racial discrimination. There are any number of these kinds of minor and major changes that Florida has made since the Shelby County decision that have not been detected by the Justice Department as a result of the Shelby County decision and these are the things that ultimately corrode people's confidence in the government and in elections and make people decide to opt out of voting altogether when they feel like their vote won't be counted or that the system is so rigged against them that there is no kind of accountability for the kinds of these local changes and subtle--more subtle changes that are getting made in previously pre-cleared jurisdictions. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Ms. Gupta. And I just wanted to follow up on Mr. Gaetz's comments about Amendment Four. You know, as we all know, Floridians approved this amendment to the state constitution so that we can restore the franchise to most former felons. How does H.R. 1 ensure that Amendment Four is effectively and quickly implemented? Ms. Ifill. Ms. Ifill. Well, it is certainly a complement to the Florida--to the Florida law that recently passed and I think it is really an important one. I heard Mr. Gaetz's colloquy with my--with my colleague and I, to be honest, was mystified by it. As I understand it, in Florida, for example, formerly incarcerated persons can contribute to campaigns, which means a wealthy former felon like Jeffrey Epstein, who has been in the news very much, can and does contribute large sums of money to political campaigns. I am not sure why we would regard someone who had served their time for a crime that they had committed and been convicted of voting--why we would consider that more pernicious than the ability to contribute to campaigns. We live in an American system of justice in which once you have paid your debt to society you should be restored as a citizen. That means that you should be able to get a driver's license. That means that you should be able to get a job. That means that you shouldn't be banned by the misuse of criminal backgrounds checks from being able to do a job and it also means that you ought to be able to cloak yourself in the ultimate expression of citizenship in a democracy, which is the ability to cast a ballot and vote. So I don't see the making a distinction in terms of the crime. Our criminal justice system should ensure that someone is released only when we feel confident that that person is no longer a threat to society, and if our criminal justice system has made that determination then it seems to me it is entirely appropriate for that person to return and also receive the franchise along with their other citizenship rights. Thank you. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Ms. Ifill. Mr. Richmond. The time of the gentlelady from Florida has expired. I now recognize the other gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Demings, for five minutes. Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of our witnesses for joining us today. I know it has been a long day but, believe me, it is an important day. For the time that I was able to be here I was mystified too, Ms. Ifill, by some of the things that were said. For someone who spent 27 years in law enforcement and then to hear my colleague from Florida talk about when a person has paid their debt to society, that is decided by a judge that they still should be further disenfranchised. Let me just start here. You know, someone said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Now, I have heard it said several times that we live in the greatest country in the world and, believe me, I know that we do. But America--when we are deciding what we need to do, moving forward, many times America has to take a look backwards and our past in this area is painful and it is ugly and it is deep. Let me just, in case we--because we are the decision makers and you all help us make those decisions--let me just kind of remind you about black and brown people who simply wanted to exercise the right to vote, were--many of them were the victims of hangings, beatings, burnings, bombings, dismemberments, disfigurements, all for wanting to exercise their basic right to vote. And then when America became more sophisticated, we moved from physical harming to poll tax and literacy tests, questions like how many bubbles are on a bar of soap or how many feathers on a duck. We further, in the greatest country in the world, did everything that we could, those who were in decision-making positions, to humiliate, to embarrass, to disenfranchise. How long will we have to still, as we sit here in 2019, continue to have to defend a person's right to cast their vote? The good man who made the decision, and women, with the Voters Rights Act of 1965 didn't do so because there wasn't a problem, and when we talk about that was old and that is in the past, no, that was in my lifetime and it was actually in the lifetime of several of the members who sit here on this panel. They did so because there was a significant problem, particularly in Southern states, for which I am a representative of one of them. And so if we are serious about America being the greatest country in the world, then we all should play a role in making it easier for our citizens, regardless of their race, their sexual orientation, their gender, to exercise that basic right. I am proud of Florida in spite of the role that my colleague called earlier--four people who were violent felons. Well, a judge decided they had paid their debt to society. I would also like to know the race of those four individuals and we are going to check into that. But let me ask Ms. Gupta. As we try to identify ways for people to continue to vote, could you talk a little bit about independent redistricting commissions and how effective they have been? Ms. Gupta. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman. Independent redistricting commissions exist right now, for example, in California, Arizona, Colorado. We heard from members of Congress in Pennsylvania talk about the ruling that declared that the way that Pennsylvania was drawing district lines was tantamount to unlawful gerrymandering. They will now also have an independent commission. A number of states in November, just this past November-- ``red'' states, ``blue'' states--actually created independent redistricting commissions out of a recognition that voters, frankly, are fed up with unlawful gerrymandering. And these redistricting commissions they have been authorized by the Supreme Court which, as I said, decided that it is perfectly okay for legislators to make sure that they aren't participating in a drawing of their boundary lines, and in places like California, Arizona, and Colorado that have had these commissions for a while we have seen improvements in representation and competiveness of elections and in voter trust. And so this is why these provisions in H.R. 1 are so important. Mr. Richmond. Thank you. The time of the gentlelady has expired. We have votes. We will go on to Ms. Escobar, the other gentlelady from Texas, who is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my privilege to serve on this committee and I would like to thank and express my gratitude to Chairman Nadler and to Representative Sarbanes for this outstanding bill, and thanks to all of you on the panel for spending time with us today to answer our questions and to be sure to share what you know with the American public. I come from El Paso, Texas, a great community on the U.S.- Mexico border--the safe and secure U.S.-Mexico border--a community that is 80 to 85 percent Latino in a state that really has played a significant role in trying to suppress turnout. Texas is one of the states that has most aggressively moved to purge the rolls and the voter ID law--thank you for challenging the voter ID law. It has proven problematic for a number of reasons and for one reason that I want to bring to light here today just to shed more light on the myriad of issues that we have heard about today. But our local county elections offices, which are already strained and have very few resources, when they have to continue to adapt to these changing laws they have to use the precious few resources that they have in order to open up more polls and to hire more staffing and move it to educating people about the changes that have occurred with voter ID. My own county elections office in El Paso thankfully has a leader at the helm, Lisa Wise, very interested in increasing turnout, educating voters. But it stretches precious resources in a very thin way. And when you have misinformation on top of these laws, it creates an even worse situation. And, Ms. Ifill, you mentioned our new secretary of state and the letter and the press release and kind of the subsequent fallout that occurred after he essentially tried to scare the state of Texas about folks voting who maybe should not vote. Can you share with us what the consequences of doing something like that are? When people sound that kind of alarm, as you mentioned, without transparency, without information, without backup, what happens? What are the consequences? Ms. Ifill. Well, first of all. For voters, themselves, it scares people into, you know, being afraid of participating in the political process because they don't know if they are going to be checked. They don't know if they may have said something or written something that was inaccurate. You know, when you fill out these registration forms under penalty of perjury, you know, the fear that maybe you got something wrong that you thought was right really frightens people. Many people, particularly in the Latino community, live in mixed homes. By mixed, I mean some people are documented and some people are undocumented, and so the fear of exposing relatives or other people to legal authorities or that this may in some way be opening up some new investigative unit that might frighten voters. But here is the other thing that it does. It also emboldens and empowers those people who want to challenge the right of Latino voters and minority voters to participate in the political process. It emboldens those individuals who are white supremacists in some instances, who are racists in other instances, who believe that they have the right to challenge anybody at the polls. It makes them feel that they have the state at their back in making the kind of unfounded challenges that many of them make and that intimidates voters from participating in the political process when they are challenged in that way or when they see challenges happening at the polling place. It is frightening, it is intimidating, and the secretary of state should exercise more responsibility before unleashing that kind of panic. Ms. Escobar. Thank you very much. I yield. Mr. Richmond. Well, thank you. Before I conclude the panels, let me just say, and to Mr. Adams and Mr. Spakovsky, we are all a product of our life experiences and I won't assign any ulterior motives to you or any hidden agenda. But I will just say that my life experiences are much different than yours. Minorities had to fight for the right to vote. Women had to fight for the right to vote. We were not born with it. That is what makes the right so precious and why we fight so hard to protect it. But I do agree with my colleague, Mr. Collins, from the other side of the aisle that the goal is for everybody to vote in a very meaningful fashion. But my fear is that we have run around this country talking about voter fraud and we have hyped up a problem that does not exist, all in an effort to justify adding a little bit more fear to those people who had to fight for that right. So my mother, who is from the poorest place in the country, one of 15 brothers and sisters, who does not miss an election not because her son is in Congress but because she had to fight and march for the right to vote. So I would just hope that you take that for what it is and just giving you the benefit of my life experiences. And to Ms. Gupta and Ms. Ifill, Ms. Turberville and Mr. Noti, thank you all for being here. Mr. Adams and Mr. Spaskowsky, I didn't say thank you for being here. So thank you for being here, also for being distinguished witnesses at today's hearing. Without objections, all Members have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 2:24 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] APPENDIX ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]