[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION
IN OHIO
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
APRIL 25, 2019
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet
https://govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-134 WASHINGTON: 2019
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 25, 2019
Page
Voting Rights and Election Administration in Ohio................ 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Marcia L. Fudge....................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Fudge....................... 3
Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member................................ 5
Prepared statement of Ranking Member Davis................... 7
WITNESSES
Daniel Ortiz, Outreach Director, Policy Matters Ohio............. 13
Prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz.............................. 16
Elaine Tso, Interim Co-CEO, Asian Services in Action............. 19
Prepared statement of Ms. Tso................................ 21
Tom Roberts, President, Ohio Conference of the NAACP............. 26
Prepared statement of Mr. Roberts............................ 28
Naila Awan, Senior Counsel, Demos................................ 44
Prepared statement of Ms. Awan............................... 46
Inajo D. Chappell, Member, Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.... 58
Prepared statement of Ms. Chappell........................... 61
Mike Brickner, Ohio State Director, All Voting Is Local.......... 64
Prepared statement of Mr. Brickner........................... 66
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Tim Ryan, Representative, 13th District of Ohio, statement.. 93
Jen Miller, Executive Director, League of Women Voters of Ohio,
statement...................................................... 96
Naila Awan, Senior Counsel, Demos, submission.................... 102
Rejected: How the Provisional Ballot System in Franklin County,
Ohio Fails Voters, All Voting Is Local, report................. 107
Mike Brickner, Ohio State Director, All Voting Is Local,
responses to question on Ohio error rate for voter purges,
submission..................................................... 123
Inajo D. Chappell, Member, Cuyahoga County Board of Elections,
photos of November 2, 2008, voting precinct lines, submission.. 126
Ohio Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
Voting Rights in Ohio, Advisory Memorandum of May 2018,
submission..................................................... 130
VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IN OHIO
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Elections,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m.,
Cayahoga Community College, Jerry Sue Thornton Center, 2500 E.
22nd St., Cleveland, Ohio, Hon. Marcia L. Fudge [Chair of the
Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fudge, Raskin, Butterfield, Davis
of Illinois.
Also Present: Representatives Sewell, Kaptur, Gonzalez, and
Joyce.
Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Staff Director; Khalil Abboud,
Professional Staff; Eddie Flaherty, Director of Operations;
Sean Jones, Legislative Clerk; Peter Whippy, Communications
Director; Veleter Mazyck, Chief of Staff; Mannal Haddad, Press
Secretary; Cole Felder, Minority General Counsel; Jen Daulby,
Minority Staff Director; Joy Yunji Lee, Minority Counsel; Jesse
Roberts, Minority Counsel; Courtney Parella, Minority
Communications Director.
Chairwoman Fudge. The Subcommittee on Elections of the
Committee on House Administration will come to order.
I would like to thank the Ranking Member, my friend, Mr.
Davis, Members of the Subcommittee, and my colleagues from the
House who are with us today, as well as our witnesses and those
in the audience for being here today. I thank you.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and that
any written statements be made a part of the record.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
Subcommittee, Ms. Sewell, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr.
Joyce be allowed to sit on the dais with us today.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Good morning. I want to welcome my colleagues to Cleveland
and thank them for coming to the 11th Congressional District of
Ohio. I am proud to host this hearing. We are here to examine
the state of voting rights and election administration in Ohio.
As this Subcommittee continues traveling the country, I can
think of no better place for our next stop than right here in
my home State of Ohio.
America prides herself on being a beacon of democracy, but
the field hearings we have conducted thus far have shown us a
simple truth: America has a long way to go. The right to vote
is sacred, yet over the last decade or more, Ohio has
transformed from a State that expanded access to the ballot to
one that is drastically constricting voters' access.
In 2004, Ohio voters faced such long lines at polling
locations, some lasting into the next morning, that one court
found it left voters--and this is their word--effectively
disenfranchised. In response, Ohio adopted what would become
known as Golden Week, 35 days of in-person voting, early voting
that created five days in which voters could register and vote
at the same time.
Our progress did not last long. In 2014, the State
eliminated Golden Week, claiming the change would combat voter
fraud despite no evidence of widespread fraud. Counties across
the State are allowed only one early voting location regardless
of the population. That means there is one polling place for
more than 1 million people in our most populous counties, the
same is for our smallest counties.
In 2014, the former Secretary of State eliminated Sunday
early voting, except the Sunday before Election Day, and
evening voting after 5 p.m. Sunday voting days were
particularly important for African American parishioners and
Souls to the Polls get-out-the-vote efforts on Sundays.
Ohio has also implemented voter purging. A 2018 Ohio
Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
memorandum stated Ohio is one of the most aggressive States in
purging voter registrations.
The list of constant changes to our voting laws goes on.
These constant changes create confusion for voters. Advocates
and litigators have been suing Ohio for years over our
discriminatory voting laws.
Today, we will hear from people on the front lines of
ensuring every Ohioan has the unfettered right to vote. Their
testimony will help as the Congress examines what must be done
to ensure every eligible voter can exercise his or her
constitutional right to vote and can exercise that right in any
chosen election and that the vote will be counted as cast.
I would now turn to my friend, the Ranking Member, Mr.
Davis of Illinois, for his opening statement.
[The statement of Chairwoman Fudge follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And thank you for reminding me these mics are hot. These mics
might be hot all day.
I want to ask the crowd to give a round of applause to
Chairwoman Fudge for bringing this hearing to Cleveland, Ohio
today.
In my six and a half years in Congress, I have made a lot
of friends, and I can tell you one of the closest friends that
I have had that I have been able to make is Chairwoman Fudge.
And to be here in her hometown, it is a privilege for me also,
and I look forward to hearing the witnesses' testimony.
I am proud also to be joined by some of my Republican and
Democratic colleagues. I want to welcome on our side of the
dais the first guy I ever met when I got elected to Congress
was my good friend and one of my best friends in the world,
David Joyce.
Chairwoman Fudge. And it has been downhill ever since.
Mr. Davis. David and I met the first day of orientation. We
have been best buddies since. As a matter of fact, this is my
fourth visit to Cleveland in the last three years, and I want
to welcome him. Dave is a leader on our Appropriations
Committee and does a great job in making sure we get good
legislation passed in Washington.
I would also like to welcome one of our newest colleagues,
Anthony Gonzalez. While I miss his predecessor Jim Renacci,
more so because I like to beat him in Fantasy Football each
year, we are very glad to have a new addition to our Republican
Congressional baseball team in Mr. Gonzalez. As many of you
know, he used to catch touchdowns from Peyton Manning. I
certainly expect him to catch fly balls from Cedric Richmond
this June.
Madam Chairwoman, I want to say, again, thank you for being
here. And as the Ranking Member of the House Administration
Committee, our Committee has an extremely important task to
conduct oversight of Federal elections.
Throughout the Committee's existence, Republicans and
Democrats have worked across the aisle to create significant
election policy that widely impacted this Nation, including
legislation to eliminate the poll tax, legislation to create
easier access to members of the military and their families
when voting overseas, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002, a
landmark piece of legislation that took substantial steps to
remedy problems seen in the 2000 Presidential election.
The Subcommittee on Elections was created for the primary
purpose to be an extension of the House Administration
Committee and enhance our Committee's oversight capabilities of
Federal elections and how these elections are administered.
Chairwoman Fudge has been leading our Subcommittee with the
intention to investigate voting rights issues in order to
create a new formula that will reauthorize Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965 for the purpose of
removing racial-based restrictions on voting has historically
been a bipartisan effort. This legislation was most recently
authorized under a Republican President and a Republican
Congress.
In 2013, the Supreme Court determined Section 4 of the VRA
to be unconstitutional in Shelby County v. Holder. Chief
Justice Roberts said the Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed
extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem.
While the Court did not weigh in on whether there is still an
extraordinary problem, the Supreme Court did hold that what
made sense at one time has lost its relevance. They noted that
nearly 50 years later, things changed dramatically.
The VRA primarily remains under the jurisdiction of the
House Judiciary Committee. The House Administration Committee,
however, has an obligation to review how elections are
administered and recognize if any issues should elevate from
State to Federal level, which is why we are all here today.
To that end, a particular issue that has brought us here
today is the Supreme Court ruling in the Husted case. At the
center of this case is the practice of States performing list
maintenance of voter registration rules. Ultimately, the Court
ruled that Ohio's practice was a constitutional method of
compliance with the National Voter Registration Act.
Despite efforts to characterize this practice as voter
purging, we must weigh the benefits to voter list maintenance
that serves an important role in keeping down election costs,
minimizing any existing voter confusion, and reducing long
lines at polling locations.
As I have said many times since coming into my role as the
Ranking Member of this Committee, the greatest threat to our
system is partisanship. If there is clear evidence of
intentional widespread voter discrimination, Congress should
take steps to remedy that in a bipartisan manner. We should do
our due diligence to review the facts and the numbers
carefully, as well as hear from all stakeholders. What are the
voting registration trends? What are the voter turnout trends?
It is essential that Congress make wellinformed
decisions and understand our role in assisting States and not
overpowering them. Voting is a fundamental right for every
American citizen, and protecting that right is the
responsibility that I and my colleagues on the Republican side
of the aisle take very seriously.
Today I am here to listen. We are here to learn more from
our witnesses about voting rights and election administration.
I look forward to hearing from both panels. I am very honored
that you have agreed to share your testimony with all of us
this morning.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much.
I am going to take one quick point of personal privilege
since I am at home and since I have the mic. I have a number of
my family members that are here, including my mother. If you
would all stand, please, all my family.
Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Can I say something too?
Chairwoman Fudge. Yes.
Mr. Davis. I know my mic is not hot, but her mother came
here today after a dental visit. She is not supposed to be out,
so don't ask her to talk much, okay. But, you know, my mom died
20 years ago today, and she would have been very proud to
attend a hearing in my hometown. But to have you here, it is an
honor for every one of us sitting at this dais. Thank you very,
very much.
Chairwoman Fudge. Now we will have opening remarks from the
members of the Committee on House Administration. We will begin
with Mr. Butterfield of North Carolina.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson
Fudge, for your friendship. Thank you very much for bringing
this field hearing to the people of America.
When we first organized the Subcommittee, Congresswoman
Fudge said we are going to have five to seven of these hearings
across the country, one has to be in Cleveland, and, of course,
we knew that, and that is the way the Chair operates. But we
have had these hearings across the country, from North Dakota
all the way to Brownsville, Texas, and so it is our joy to be
here today.
Congresswoman Fudge is a members' member. I don't need to
make a speech about Marcia Fudge because you know it better
than I do. She is a great friend and a great leader.
Our purpose here today--first, let me set the record
straight--is not a political visit. This is not a political
rally. This is a very serious Congressional hearing that we are
conducting.
Our purpose is to collect evidence across the country, and
certainly here in Ohio, to substantiate or refute claims of
voter suppression and disenfranchisement. We are eliciting
evidence that will inform our debate when we take up the Voting
Rights Act amendment and legislate to make voting more
accessible.
The Voting Rights Act, as we all know, passed Congress in
1965, days after my high school graduation. The VRA was needed
to guarantee to African American citizens, particularly in the
South but not exclusively, the right to vote.
It eliminated the literacy test. We often forget that, but
the Voting Rights Act eliminated the literacy test and created
many effective provisions, the most notable of which are
Section 2 and Section 5. Section 2 granted minority communities
a right of action to challenge discriminatory voting election
systems.
Though Section 2 litigation is expensive and very time
consuming, we have used Section 2 through the years to
dismantle discriminatory barriers. The law is permanent,
Section 2 is, and it is nationwide. In 1982, a bipartisan
Congress amended Section 2 and eliminated the intent standard
as a standard of proof.
Section 5, by contrast, applied to certain States and parts
of certain States that had a sorry history of preventing
African Americans from voting. These covered jurisdictions were
required to submit voting changes to the Department of Justice
and demonstrate that the voting change is not discriminatory.
That is a very expedited way of getting voting changes
approved. It is free, and the burden is on the submitting
jurisdiction to prove that it is not discriminatory.
However, on June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court
in the Shelby case handed down a decision that was devastating.
Many of us did not fully understand it, but now we do. First, I
need to set the record straight. It did find--the Shelby
decision did find Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to be
constitutional, but it determined that the formula, Section 4
we called it, the formula was outdated and in need of
amendment.
And so the Court has invited Congress to fix Section 4 and
adopt a formula to require preclearance in jurisdictions that
have fallen short using recent and relevant evidence. And we
have come today to hear the Ohio story because reports are not
good. The reports that we get about Ohio are not good, to say
the least. Hopefully, we can craft good, bipartisan legislation
that will protect the right to vote, not just to African
Americans or to Latino Americans, but--or Asian Americans, but
protect the right to vote for every American.
And I want to thank you Chairwoman for your leadership,
thank you for your extraordinary leadership on this subject,
and I look forward to the hearing as we go forward today.
Since I have 55 seconds remaining, I too want to recognize
a friend in the audience, Dr. Beverly Armstrong Norman, who is
a young lady that grew up with me in North Carolina. We grew up
together many, many years ago. Thank you, Beverly, for coming
out today.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin of Maryland.
Mr. Raskin. Well, it is a great honor and a great privilege
to be here in the beautiful 11th District of Ohio, home of our
beloved Marcia Fudge, the Chair of this Subcommittee, and a
very distinguished Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
And I appreciate Mr. Davis' remarks, and I will try to pick
up on the bipartisan theme by invoking a great Republican
President, Abraham Lincoln, who spoke of government of the
people, by the people, and for the people. And this has been
the tantalizing, beautiful dream of American democracy.
It is, of course, not the way that we started. We started
as a slave republic of white male property owners over the age
of 21, but it has been through social democratic struggle and
constitutional and statutory changes that we have opened
America up.
You can, in fact, look at our Constitution and the Bill of
Rights and all the amendments that have followed it as the
chronicle of the expansion of our democracy. You know, we have
had only 17 Constitutional amendments since the original Bill
of Rights. Most of them have dealt with the expansion of the
suffrage and franchise in attempt to perfect democracy.
The 15th Amendment eliminated discrimination in voting
based on race. The 17th Amendment shifted the mode of election
of U.S. Senators from the State legislatures to the people. The
19th Amendment gave us women's suffrage. The 23rd Amendment
said that people in the District of Columbia could vote for
President. The 24th Amendment abolished poll taxes And the 26th
Amendment lowered the voting age to 18.
And then, of course, we have had, as Mr. Butterfield
reminds us, the Voting Rights Act, which is an important part
of our work here today to try to repair the damage that was
visited upon it by a five to four decision of the Supreme Court
essentially knocking the wind out of the Voting Rights Act by
striking down the coverage formula which is necessary for the
preclearance requirement to work.
Now, I think that we have--we have kind of dueling impulses
in our society going back to the beginning. On the one hand,
nothing is more precious and beloved to us than the idea that
every citizen has the right to vote. And that is the ideal
embodied in that beautiful phrase, one person, one vote, which
was the rallying slogan of Bob Moses in the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee in the civil rights movement in
Mississippi in the early 1960s when they went at great pains
and great personal risks to themselves door to door trying to
register people to vote in--basically in apartheid state.
And the Supreme Court adopted that language of one person,
one vote in the one person, one vote cases, Reynolds v. Sims
and Wesberry v. Sanders. So that is a very deep part of our
value system. But at the same time, we know that there have
been recurrent efforts to keep people from voting, to stop
people from voting even while we have this value, this ideal
that everybody should have the right to vote, and there have
been repeated efforts to keep people from voting.
And, again, this has been a bipartisan thing. It is not one
party or other. And certainly, our party on our side of the
aisle has a lot to repent for in terms of what it did in the
middle of the 20th century in the Southern States. But I am
proud of the fact that today we are very much the champions of
giving every single citizen the right to vote and protecting
that right to vote.
I happen to think that our--the right to vote is too weak
because we don't have in our Constitution what most of the
constitutions of democratic countries around the world have,
which is a universal affirmative grant of the right to vote to
everybody. We have these anti-discrimination voting amendments,
like the 15th Amendment and like the 19th Amendment. You can't
discriminate against this group, you can't discriminate against
that group.
But what we don't have is the affirmative grant of the
right to everybody to vote and to be represented, which is why
we have millions of unrepresented people, like people who live
in Washington, D.C., the only residents of a national capital
who aren't represented in their own national legislature. We
have got millions of former prisoners, people who live in the
territories, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands who can't vote.
I think we have got some constitutional weakness here and
from that flows a structural weakness that it is so
decentralized and fragmented. We have got to look at that as we
try to repair the Voting Rights Act and move forward to make
sure that everybody has the right to vote and to participate.
I yield back. And thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman,
for convening this in Ohio.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
If you hadn't noticed, Mr. Raskin is a former
Constitutional law professor. Now you know why all that stuff
is on the top of his head.
We are going to begin with our testimony from our
witnesses. Each witness will have five minutes to give us their
testimony. You will see a light system. When the light turns
green, you begin. When it turns yellow, you will have about one
minute left of testimony. When it turns red, I would ask you to
please start to wrap up.
Let me introduce our witnesses for you today. Daniel Ortiz,
who is the Outreach Director for Policy Matters Ohio. Mr. Ortiz
joined Policy Matters Ohio in 2016, bringing thirteen years'
experience in organizing campaign strategy and education.
Elaine Tso. Is that--did I pronounce it correctly?
Ms. Tso. Tso.
Chairwoman Fudge. Tso, okay. Interim Chief Executive
Officer of Asian Services in Action. In 2015, ASIA, along with
15 other organizations across the State, launched the very
first ever new American-focused civic engagement network
focused on voter registration, voter education, and voter
turnout.
Mr. Tom Roberts, President, Ohio Conference of the NAACP.
Mr. Roberts previously served as a member of the Ohio General
Assembly where he represented the interest of residents in the
Dayton, Ohio, area for more than 22 years.
Mr. Ortiz, you are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF DANIEL ORTIZ, OUTREACH DIRECTOR, POLICY MATTERS
OHIO; ELAINE TSO, INTERIM CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASIAN
SERVICES IN ACTION; AND TOM ROBERTS, PRESIDENT, OHIO CONFERENCE
OF THE NAACP
STATEMENT OF DANIEL ORTIZ
Mr. Ortiz. Good morning, Chairwoman Fudge, esteemed Members
of Congress, and staff. Thank you for convening these hearings
and for the opportunity to testify about voting rights and
election administration in Ohio.
My name is Daniel Ortiz. I am the Outreach Director for
Policy Matters Ohio, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
working for a more vibrant, equitable, sustainable, and
inclusive Ohio. My experience with elections began when I
joined my parents when they went door-to-door canvassing for my
father's first election to city council. Since then, I have
organized youth with curriculum on the struggle for voting
rights and worked professionally for political campaigns to
coordinate voter protection programs.
The integrity of our elections relies upon broad access to
the vote, a transparent process to safeguard the integrity of
the ballot, and straightforward access to the polls.
Unfortunately, our country has a sad history of making it
difficult for racial minorities and other groups to vote. The
2013 ruling of Shelby County v. Holder took away many
protections, and the loss of preclearance for areas with
historic voter disenfranchisement has opened a flurry of
activity to depress voting.
Reports of obstacles to voting, such as polling location
closures, voter identification requirements, language access
problems, mail delivery issues, low voter turnout rates, and
flexible work schedules and transportation issues are rampant.
While these challenges are most widespread in States formerly
protected by the Voting Rights Act, they are alive and real in
Ohio as well.
Ohio's struggles are not the same, but they are similar. In
2016, the legislature and then-Secretary of State Husted
eliminated Golden Week, the period when citizens could register
to vote and cast an absentee ballot on the same day. Since
then, Ohioans have experienced a steady and subtle erosion of
our voting rights with devastating results.
In Ohio, the closure of polling locations and consolidation
of precincts, combined with the lack of reliable transportation
options and paid time off from work make it hard for many
vulnerable communities to vote. Since 2012, Ohio has closed
more than 300 polling locations across the State, a
disproportionate number in urban areas.
Reports from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections show in
that period there were closures that eliminated 78 polling
locations in Ohio's second largest county. That obstacle alone
will sideline many voters, especially those who do not own
cars.
For decades, Ohio has underinvested in public transit,
spending just 63 cents per capita on public transportation,
ranking 40th among States. This presents an intersection of
challenges to individuals with disabilities, people of color,
and low-income people that is reminiscent of past struggles for
civil rights.
The 2018 Supreme Court decision of Husted v. A. Phillip
Randolph Institute made it easier for States to purge voters
from the voting rolls. I would like to echo the dissenting
opinion of Justice Sotomayor that Congress crafted the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993 with the understanding that
while States are required to make a reasonable effort to remove
ineligible voters from the registration list, such removal
programs must be developed in a manner that prevents poor and
illiterate voters from being caught in a purge system which
will require them to needlessly re-register and prevents abuse
which has disparate impact on minority communities.
Sotomayor goes on to point out that a majority African
American neighborhood of Cincinnati had 10 percent of their
voters removed for inactivity compared to only 4 percent of
voters in suburban neighborhoods.
Most people who follow campaigns and elections will attest
to you that you win in the margins. This partisan urge to lock
in an electoral advantage by manipulating the law will continue
until there are new laws to stop it.
In my work to support community voter education
initiatives, I find that Spanish language resources are often
lacking and staffing levels are low. Our Nation's current
atmosphere of fear and intimidation threatens to reduce civic
participation in the growing Latino electorate. This is
especially true for Ohio's Latino community and the recent
arrivals coming from Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico is currently in the midst of a migratory wave
with 5 million people leaving the island between 2006 and 2016,
and as many as 176,000 people migrating to the mainland United
States in the one-year aftermath of Hurricane Maria. This will
likely eclipse the wave of migration that brought my parents to
Ohio in the 1950s.
Prior to the hurricane, Ohio's Puerto Rican population
nearly doubled in size between 2000 and 2017, growing from
66,000 to just below 125,000. Ohio's Puerto Rican population is
considerably younger, less educated, and more likely to be poor
compared to Puerto Ricans on the island or in other States.
Over 18 percent of Puerto Ricans in Ohio reported speaking
English less than very well.
In northeast Ohio, many recent arrivals' biggest concern is
the struggle to find stable, long-term housing. The instability
combined with Ohio's system to purge voters is a cause for
concern for anyone who cares about the voice of the diaspora
community and would like to see more active participants in our
democracy.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but differences in Ohio's
electoral process, coupled with a lack of appropriate cultural
context in most civic education initiatives, will lead to low
participation rates.
Any changes to the Voting Rights Act should reinstate
preclearance and expand it in their coverage to States like
Ohio. Voting somewhere near your home, on a major transit line,
with a ballot in your most familiar language should be the
norm, not the exception.
We should be making it easier to vote. Voters should not
have to worry about what rights they are losing between
elections, if their early voting period is being cut, whether
they have been purged from the voter rolls and need to re-
register, if their polling location has been shut down or
combined, and how far they will have to travel to vote.
I cannot tell you what the future of the Voting Rights Act
looks like, but I do ask that you consider what justice looks
like. Help us bridge the divide. Consider solutions for those
most burdened people in high poverty with language barriers,
with low educational attainment, and less experience voting. If
we make our elections work for them, our county, State, and
country will be better for it.
Thank you. And I look forward to answering any questions.
[The statement of Mr. Ortiz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much.
Ms. Tso.
STATEMENT OF ELAINE TSO
Ms. Tso. Thank you, Chairwoman Fudge, Ranking Member Davis,
Committee Members, and staff for the opportunity to speak with
you today. My name is Elaine Tso. I am the interim co-CEO of
Asian Services in Action, and I am here today to speak on
behalf of the community we serve.
Asian Services in Action, also known by the acronym ASIA,
provides services to immigrants and refugees in northeast Ohio.
ASIA was founded in 1995 by four women who saw a need to
improve the quality of life for Asians and Pacific Islanders in
northeast Ohio. Today, the organization is the largest Asian
American and Pacific Islander focused health and social service
501(c)(3) organization in the State of Ohio.
Each year, ASIA serves tens of thousands of individuals and
families at its offices located in Cleveland and Akron, Ohio.
These services include culturally and linguistically focused
medical care provided through our Federally Qualified Health
Centers, as well as wraparound social services so that each
client is treated holistically according to their individual
needs.
ASIA serves some of the most vulnerable members of the
community, newcomers to this country, who are learning to--
learning how to navigate and adjust to a new environment with
different rules and unfamiliar procedures. ASIA's mission is to
reduce barriers and obstacles for new arrivals to this country
and empower them to contribute to the strengthening and growth
of America.
According to a 2018 report from the Ohio Development
Services Agency, Ohio's Asian American community consists of
more than 324,000 people. In 2012, ASIA's new American civic
engagement project began. It was part of an effort to increase
Asian American/Pacific Islander participation in the
Presidential election. This work grew into a movement to
educate and push for civic participation among new American
communities throughout Ohio and is now known as the ACE
Network.
Through the ACE Network, ASIA has supported numerous
community-based organizations, ethnic groups, and student
associations to increase voter participation and civic
engagement within the AAPI community. You know, as voting is
the foundation of democracy in this country, ASIA strives to
ensure that new Americans are included in this process.
Significant investment of resources and collaborative
effort has been made to increase voter turnout in the State of
Ohio in the Asian American/Pacific Islander community. This
year, ASIA is working with 15 diverse partners across the State
who are organizing at the grassroots level to register and turn
out new low-propensity voters. In 2018, in partnership with
members of the ACE Network, ASIA contacted over 36,000
registered voters across the State.
For many members of the immigrant and refugee population
that ASIA serves, the right to vote is a new and unfamiliar
experience. A refugee, almost by definition, comes from a
country where the institutions necessary to protect the freedom
and safety of citizens have failed or have never existed.
In that context, many of ASIA's clients arrived in this
country with little understanding of the features of a
functioning democracy. Some of ASIA's clients have not even
voted in their countries of origin. So ASIA's civic engagement
team not only registers new voters, they also educate new
Americans about the voting process.
Additionally, some members of the new American community
have language challenges with limited English proficiency. The
combination of voting being a new concept for the new American
community plus a language challenge magnifies the effect of any
barrier to voting. So frequent changes to election
administration procedure has a disproportionate effect on new
Americans.
Therefore, it is important for the government to consider
the impact that these challenges have on what should otherwise
be free, fair, and equitable access to the right to vote. I say
equitable because what is needed for fair access to voting may
be different for a new American than for someone who has lived
in this country for a long time.
I will stop here because my time is running out, but I will
welcome any questions.
[The statement of Ms. Tso follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much.
Mr. Roberts, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TOM ROBERTS
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Chairwoman Fudge and Ranking Member
Davis. Thank you for being here in the State of Ohio, the
Buckeye State. As some of you may know, we often say the road
to the Presidency comes through the State of Ohio, and for many
of us that has been true for many, many, many years.
I, first, want to bring you greetings on behalf of our
Washington Bureau President, Hilary Shelton, who has dealt with
many of you at our Nation's capital. As you know, the NAACP was
founded in 1909. It is our Nation's oldest, largest, most
rightly recognized grassroots civil rights organization.
And despite the fact African Americans and other racial and
ethnic groups are guaranteed the right to vote by the 15th
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, States like Ohio are using
outright intimidation to stop people from casting free,
unfettered ballots.
I want to share with you some of what is going on in Ohio.
There are many other issues I could share with you, but I want
to take these three because they deal specifically in your role
as Members of the U.S. Congress, as that is what I was asked to
share with you.
The first of one is purging. In 2006, Ohio had 7,860,052
registered voters. At that time, 416,744 registered voters,
that is 5.35 percent of those total were removed or deleted
from the rolls in 2006. The number of voters purged vary
significantly, range as low as, in your district, Madam
Chairwoman, 20,353 were removed from the rolls in 1998 and
1999, in Franklin, Ohio, for failure to vote in the previous
four years, 170,000 names were removed from the rolls in
Cuyahoga. Let me flip that. Madam Chairwoman, yours is 170,000.
Franklin was the 20,000.
Chairwoman Fudge. Correct.
Mr. Roberts. The low to the high. All the purging of voters
was done as part of a so-called annual voter roll maintenance
process required by what we all thought was a positive law, the
National Voter Registration Act. The Ohio Secretary of State
was canceling these registrations.
The supplemental process targeted voters who did not vote
in two consecutive Federal elections. Voters purged in the
process often did not see and often showed up at the polls and
realized they were not able to vote. This required groups
like--and some of them are present today--Ohio's A. Phillip
Randolph Institute to file a lawsuit against the Ohio Secretary
of State.
The case ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court unfortunately ruled on behalf of the Ohio Secretary of
State. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court decision allows
States to treat the fundamental right to vote as a use-it-or-
lose-it right.
Let me talk about the other one that I think the Chairwoman
shared. Golden Week was created in 2005 with a newly--with new
early voting legislation allowed voters to cast absentee
ballots up to 35 days before the election. This allowed for a
week of overlapping with a deadline of voter registration. The
number of people who took advantage of this opportunity was
considerable.
During the 2012 general election, approximately 90,000
people cast votes during Golden Week, which translates to about
14 percent of the total early voting. Golden Week and early
voting opportunities have been much debate in the State of Ohio
and others.
In 2014, the Ohio House passed Senate Bill 238, which
eliminated Golden Week, followed by a directive from the
Secretary of State setting widely early voting hours to be used
in the forthcoming election. Shortly afterwards, the NAACP,
with the help of the ACLU, filed a lawsuit against the
Secretary of State. In 2015, a compromise was reached in which
Husted agreed to restore some weekend and evening to voting
hours. This agreement expired when the Secretary of State was
elected Lieutenant Governor.
Restrictive legislations. This is the third issue. Since
2013, members of the Ohio General Assembly have introduced no
less than nine bills to restrict voting in the State of Ohio.
Madam Chairwoman, and Members of the committee, I look
forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Roberts follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Just a warning to everyone, we are being live streamed
nationally, so sometimes the camera is on us and sometimes it
is on you. So just giving you a heads-up about that.
With that, we will begin our questioning. And I will move
to Mr. Butterfield, and I will save my comments until the end.
Mr. Butterfield, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman. You got
to me pretty quickly.
First, let me thank the panelists for your testimony today.
It has been very insightful. And if you didn't get to portions
of your testimony, it will certainly be included in the record.
As I said in my opening statement, this is an official
Congressional hearing, and so your remarks today are officially
in the record of the House of Representatives and will be used
as we take up legislation in the upcoming months so thank you
so very much.
Let me start off with you, Mr. Ortiz. Your testimony, I
read a portion of it in my binder and listened to you here
today. And obviously, you are very hands on, and just thank you
for your activism.
As--well, first of all, you said that Section 5 does not
apply to the State of Ohio, it never has, but Section 2 does.
Section 2 is nationwide and it gives minority communities the
right to litigate whenever they feel that their votes are being
diluted. Have there been instances of Section 2 litigation in
Ohio?
Mr. Ortiz. I cannot speak to that.
Mr. Butterfield. Do any of the others of you--I know NAACP
and other States has been very active in Section 2 litigation,
at least the Legal Defense Fund has. Do you know, Mr. Roberts,
if there has been litigation in Ohio?
Mr. Roberts. I am not aware of it, but I almost believe
there was at some point, but I can't speak to it.
Mr. Butterfield. And to the second panelist?
Ms. Tso. Yes. I am not aware of any, and that is outside of
the scope of the work that the Asian Services does. But I would
be happy to find that information for you.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And we are not being rude to witnesses when we cut them off
like this. This is kind of the way we do it. We have 5 minutes
to cram all of this stuff in, and so don't think we are being
disrespectful when that happens.
In reading the material and just watching Ohio politics
over the years, it seems that there are constant changes in
your election laws. Nothing is static. Nothing stays the same.
And it seems to me that--I like to call these second-generation
barriers anytime you talk about purging voter rolls.
I mean, I don't even know why it is necessary to purge a
voting roll. They are not being done by hand. They are being
done electronically. And so if you have people who just happen
to be inactive, they may just decide, well, I am not going to
vote again until I have someone on the ballot that I want to
vote for. And so they may just choose to sit out for two or
three elections, and so the voter purge evidence that I have
heard is very disconcerting.
Early voting, that seems to be a trend across the country,
not just in Ohio, but a trend everywhere, because there are
groups of people in our country who want to suppress votes of
people who will not likely vote for their political party,
whether it is the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. I
mean, this thing can go in either direction.
But there seems to be a concerted effort on the part of
groups of people across the country to do very subtle things.
They are not trying to eliminate the right to vote. They want
to suppress the right to vote. And so if a purge
disproportionately affects a minority community versus a
majority community or an early voting change disproportionately
affects one community over another, then that is where the
focus seems to be, and that is what we call voter suppression.
And it appears to be happening in this great State, and so we
have got to find a way to level the playing field to make sure
that all of our voters get an equal opportunity to participate.
Am I wrong in believing that there have just been constant
changes in your election laws, Mr. Roberts?
Mr. Roberts. Chairwoman Fudge, Congressman, you are
absolutely correct. To date, 270,000 voters have been purged
from the voting roll. When I mentioned the nine, let me just
tell you, SB 47 made it difficult for voters to repeal
unpopular laws. This is the initiative that we are guaranteed
under the Constitution of Ohio.
One of my former colleagues in Cincinnati, because the
polls, I think, opened up late, he got a court to allow an
extension. Legislation was introduced to attempt to make it
more difficult to keep these polls open, even though it was a
technical----
Mr. Butterfield. Sure.
Mr. Roberts [continuing]. Reason for that happening.
Mr. Butterfield. Let me get to my final question then. Do
you see any emerging issues, voting issues that may be
surfacing? I know redistricting is right around the corner and
the census is on the horizon. Do you see any emerging issues
that we haven't talked about today? Yes.
Ms. Tso. Well, one issue that I think we didn't talk about
extensively is there was a bill that the Ohio General Assembly
considered to reduce the number of poll workers per precinct
from four to two, and that would disproportionately impact
anyone who needed additional assistance at the polls, whether
that is inviting a helper for a limited English proficient
voter or anyone who needs an accommodation of some sort,
because that would need some approval from a poll worker.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. That is very helpful.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Fudge. Ranking Member Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairwoman Fudge.
And thanks again to the witnesses. I enjoyed listening to
your testimony.
It is a privilege for me to represent central Illinois. Mr.
Roberts, Springfield, Illinois, particularly in my district, it
is the birthplace of the NAACP. We are working to take
artifacts that were unearthed during a project of the race
riots of 1908, which began the movement toward the NAACP and
get those artifacts into the Smithsonian Museum of African
American History. When we are successful, I hope you can join
me out there. Thank you for your service, and thanks for your
testimony.
I also have a chance to represent part of Abe Lincoln's old
congressional district, where he served as a member of the Whig
Party for one term. There is a joke in Illinois that in some
parts of Illinois Abe probably could still cast a vote. So when
we are talking about voter maintenance issues, you know, that
is--I guess we have got to figure out a process, how do you
move deceased voters from the rolls.
Voter maintenance, voter list maintenance, Mr. Roberts, is
a practice used by 44 other States and is required by the
National Voter Registration Act. And as your testimony and the
testimony of others have stated, it has been upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Additionally, the State of Ohio has an extremely low error
rate. It is--the error rate is .001 percent with their
practices. Yet all three of you are opposed to Ohio's list
maintenance. Please, how do you square this, Mr. Roberts?
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Ranking Member Davis. And let me
just say, under the leadership of Illinois's president Teresa
Haley----
Mr. Davis. Teresa is great.
Mr. Roberts [continuing]. We have been to Springfield last
year for a regional meeting, so I am very familiar with your
artifacts there.
I think the answer would be it is not the issue of dead
people because Ohio law is clear on how that is taken care of.
I think it goes to one of the other comments, and that is, if I
choose not to vote, there is no way in the world that I should
be taken off the rolls.
One of my former colleagues from the House said we should
have put on the panel ``none of the above,'' because that
should give me an opportunity to say I don't like that person.
I think that is not the issue. It is not the dead people. It is
that I should have the choice to vote or not vote and not be
removed from the rolls.
Mr. Davis. Don't you--I mean, Ohio is different than
Illinois. I am learning too from your testimony about other
States' practices, but, you know, the State legislature can't
offer a choice of none of the above. The State legislature can
offer some additional, you know, opportunities.
From what I have seen in my research, there have been
multiple times where the voter list registration and the
Secretary of State has gone above and beyond to send mailers
out. Doesn't the voter also have the chance to send that back
to verify that, hey, I do live here?
Ms. Tso. If I may, I can speak to just an illustration.
There are--we are aware of a voter--they were not directly
counseled by ASIA, but we are aware of a voter who worked in a
submarine away from his Ohio residence for many months, you
know, like majority of the year he was working on this
submarine. The official notice came after a period of
inactivity, to his residence that he intended to return to
after his service.
And it is situations like that where, you know, the period
of inactivity, having nothing to do with an intention or non-
intention to remain on the roll.
Mr. Davis. Are you aware of that individual not getting a
chance to cast a vote?
Ms. Tso. Yes.
Mr. Davis. So that individual did not--was not able to
vote?
Ms. Tso. They were purged. That individual was purged from
the roll and then had to re-register.
Mr. Davis. But was that individual stopped from voting in
that particular election that you were counseling him on?
Ms. Tso. We did not counsel this individual. This is
something that we are aware of, but we----
Mr. Davis. Do you know whether he was able to vote in a
future election?
Ms. Tso. I do not.
Mr. Davis. Okay. Mr. Ortiz, you mentioned that the national
trends are that voter turnout is lower. I don't think that
squares with the facts. I think, you look at this recent
midterm, voter turnout was at exceptionally high levels. We
were in North Dakota recently where they have a--they don't
even have a voting registration system and there was record
turnout in the midterm election.
Can you clarify that comment for me?
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you for the question. I would speak to
some of the points that you have made. I think when we look at
the process for purges, I don't disagree that people are given
opportunities to reply to a postcard. But when we have such
very quick process to bring people into that pipeline of
potential purge, depending on how that data gets shared, we
need to review to see if that is being done equitably, if it is
being done to where all folks in a county, irregardless of
which neighborhoods they are living in, are being brought into
that process.
And then also, there is some concern that certain
communities will be intimidated by written correspondence from
government, and that could be something that they may be less
likely or inclined to reply to.
Mr. Davis. Does that--we are going to have government
mailers from the IRS, Selective Service. You know, are they--if
they are intimidated, do they not have to respond to those?
Mr. Ortiz. It is not that they don't have to respond to
those. I think it is also that we need to have adequate
services and funding for people to make sure that there is
clarity in how we are communicating that things are being
communicated in languages that are going to speak to the folks
who are receiving those mailers, and that there are staff that
can answer questions to clarify and dispel myths.
I think that sometimes the active imagination of what is
going on in our politics can get the best of us, and many
people can have a distorted view of what is happening with our
government. And I think it is upon all of us to help explain
with a very clear and transparent process how their voices need
to be heard and they are a part of this process as citizens of
this country.
Mr. Davis. I yield back. I don't have any time to yield
back.
Chairwoman Fudge. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
So, Mr. Roberts, let me start with you. Do people--people
have a constitutional right to vote, we think, under the Equal
Protection Clause. Do people have a constitutional right not to
vote?
Mr. Roberts. Representative, I think so. I think they have
a right not to vote.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. If people have a Constitutional right to
vote but you throw them off the rolls for not voting, you have
basically violated their right not to vote by denying their
right to vote. Right?
Mr. Roberts. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. You testified that hundreds of thousands of
people were purged from the rolls, removed by this statewide
mechanism. And it is not just a question of some people not
wanting to vote, not liking the choices. Ohio doesn't make it
particularly easy to vote, does it?
I mean, it is not very easy to vote in America generally.
We don't do it on the weekend. We do it on a weekday. Working
people have to go to work. They have to drop the kids off at
school. They have to pick the kids up from school. You have to
get dinner ready. There is not a lot of time to vote.
And then, as I understand it, getting testimony that the
legislature cut early voting days in half, it eliminated the
requirement that poll workers direct people to the right
precinct if their precinct place has moved, and the last
weekend of early voting was eliminated.
So they are restricting people's ability to go vote. Then
if they don't vote they use that as a reason to take them off
of the rolls for the next election. And if they miss the
postcard or it gets lost in a stack of bills or something,
tough luck.
Mr. Davis suggested that the error rate was .01 percent,
which is remarkable to me, if that is true. I would love to----
Mr. Davis. .001.
Mr. Raskin. Say it again?
Mr. Davis. .001.
Mr. Raskin. .001. I am reading that to be one in 100,000
people. They purged 400,000 people and only four people were
falsely purged? I mean, that is hard--it is hard for me to
believe, but, I mean, I would love to see some documentation of
that. It just strikes me as an extraordinary practice, you
know.
And Mr. Davis said something I really agreed with at the
beginning, he said that the principal antagonist to the right
to vote is partisanship. And, again, that applies across the
board. There are no clean hands in American history when it
comes to trying to deprive people of the right to vote based on
partisanship.
But, you know, I know of Ohio, it is the pathway to the
Presidency. It has produced, what, seven Presidents of its own.
It is a very closely divided State. My beloved friend, Marcy
Kaptur, keeps me apprised of what is going on in Ohio politics.
You have got one progressive Democratic Senator. You have got
one conservative Republican Senator. It is a basically 50/50
State, but when you look at the congressional delegation, it is
12 to 4 because it has been so heavily gerrymandered.
Now, that is not just a Republican problem, because in my
State, which is a Democratic State, we have got seven Democrats
and one Republican. I am opposed to gerrymandering across the
board. That is why I am proud I voted for H.R. 1, which
eliminates gerrymandering by mandating independent
redistricting commissions in every State in the country.
But even if we could live with gerrymandering for a while,
until we get rid of it, certainly we can't live with the
gerrymandering of elections by throwing hundreds of thousands
of people off of the rolls when they have got a right to vote.
That is a very different kind of thing.
So what are the efforts in Ohio to stop this practice? What
is going on? Mr. Ortiz, you are involved in it. Is there any
hope of ending this practice of these systematic purges of
voters?
Mr. Ortiz. I would say that we are going to continue to
organize. We are going to work with our coalition partners to
make sure that this is something that we can bring more voice
to, more awareness to.
I know that with specific regard to the point on
gerrymandering, that is also something that Ohio has begun to
address with ballot initiatives to--and that have passed and
been successful--to make changes to how we are going to
redistrict going into 2020 and beyond. But I also think----
Mr. Raskin. I mean, gerrymandering does look like a really
important obstacle to full voting rights. If one party,
whatever it is, the purple party, the red party, if one party
gets in control, then they can slice the deck in such a way
that they end up with not a 2 to 1 advantage, a 3 to 1
advantage in the State's congressional delegation and in the
State--something like that in the State legislative makeup.
And then they use that to pass laws that make it more
difficult for people to vote, not just in their district
election but statewide election. That is a serious dysfunction
in the democracy, right?
So, I don't know, Mr. Roberts, if you would comment on what
could be done about this.
Mr. Roberts. NAACP, League of Women Voters, and
Environmental Council and many others worked together to have
legislation passed we thought was very progressive
gerrymandering legislation. The proof is in what happens, in
2021 what happens. And I think we have passed that legislation.
We will see what happens.
Ohio has addressed those issues. And I just want to say
that the current secretary of state is a little more receptive
to working with various groups than the previous secretary of
state.
Mr. Raskin. I yield back. Thank you very much, Madam
Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is an honor to
be here with you in the county we share.
Chairwoman Fudge. Yes.
Mr. Joyce. And while the dean of our delegation, Marcy
Kaptur as well, as well my friend Anthony, and the rest of our
members that we welcome aboard. It just goes to show that
northeastern Ohio, we all work together. And I just have two
quick questions, and I will defer the rest of my time to
Representative Davis.
Mr. Ortiz, if I heard you correctly, you said that there is
an uptick, if you will, in Hispanic voters. Is it not true that
Lorain and Cuyahoga County both offer bilingual ballots?
Mr. Ortiz. That is true.
Mr. Joyce. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.
And, Ms. Tso? Tso?
Ms. Tso. Tso.
Mr. Joyce. I am sorry. You had brought up the fact that
there are bills reducing the poll workers from four to two.
Isn't it a fact that we are having a problem finding poll
workers that is part of that process, so in order to make sure
we can run the elections, that if we reduce the number of poll
workers, we will be allowed to run the election more
efficiently?
Ms. Tso. I mean, I think that that is part of the
infrastructure in the State of Ohio that perhaps needs to be
enhanced or strengthened. Perhaps if there was additional
funding for additional poll workers, then it would be able to
recruit more poll workers. I know that in our community, we
are--we actively encourage our community members to be poll
workers.
Mr. Joyce. I know from my time as a prosecuting attorney
that it is--that you are about minimum wage for all the work
that you put in by the time you are through with the day as a
poll worker, and I know it is really hard to recruit them.
I defer back to my colleague, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Joyce.
I wanted to give the figures that got us on the .001 error
rate. The new Secretary of State, Secretary LaRose, sent an
additional mailing to try and re-register 270,000 that did not
respond to the voter maintenance list mailer. 540 responded.
540 people responded.
When you look at voter turnout, you look at list
maintenance processes, does--I mean, I asked the question last
time, how do our local officials abide by the law, abide by the
Supreme Court decision that was a decision based upon a suit
filed here in Ohio? What is their choice, and what have they
done lately?
I know, Mr. Roberts, you gave us some statistics, but the
most recent one was 13 years ago, in 2006. And the other
statistics you gave us were 20 years ago. What about now?
Mr. Roberts. I think the panel after us will have a lot
more details because they are dealing with it intimately. I
think they will have those numbers that they can share with
you.
Mr. Davis. I certainly hope so, because statistics from
2006 and from 1998 and 1999 aren't as relevant today. And I
would like to, for our knowledge and for the record, understand
what is happening today.
And, you know, I am glad you mentioned Secretary LaRose is
open to working with you. I think his office spent $130,000 to
send an extra mailer out to get only 540 responses.
And, Mr. Ortiz, now, I know you didn't clarify about voter
turnout being--trending lower. I want to give you another
chance to clarify your comments on low voter turnout when
clearly the facts are that voter turnout is up nationwide and
up here in Ohio, even in predominantly minority precincts.
Mr. Ortiz. Congressman, yes, lower turnout was up in the
2018 election. I would also say that, you know, to the question
that you bring and pose on the purges, I think, to the earlier
point that I made citing Justice Sotomayor, that we need to be
looking at this and make the reasonable effort that any people
removed, any ineligible voters, are done so and we develop
processes that prevent poor and illiterate voters, illiterate
voters specifically from being caught in this purge system.
I am familiar with the statistics that you shared on the
response rates from the mailer from Secretary of State LaRose,
but I do think that we aren't being mindful of all the
challenges certain communities that may be receiving this
mailer face.
Mr. Davis. Well, again, government mailers come all the
time. Folks, no matter where they are, what their literacy
level is, unfortunately don't get a break if they don't respond
to the IRS. We have seen your local officials send multiple,
multiple mailers out, and we got a .001 response rate. I think
the local officials are doing their job. I don't have a lot of
time left, so I am just going to ask you to raise your hand.
With the Census coming up, we are going to get an accurate
count of all the folks that live in each of our States. Raise
your hand if you think it is okay--raise your hand if you think
it is okay to have more registered voters in counties than
people who are counted in the Census.
Voice. That makes no sense.
Mr. Davis. It does when you don't maintain your voter lists
because we have counties in my home State of Illinois that have
more people registered to vote than were counted in the Census.
That is a problem. Is that an okay process? Raise your hand if
you think it is okay. All right. I yield back.
Chairwoman Fudge. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms.
Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I just want to
say to those from Ohio here today, we are so proud of Marcia
Fudge that she has the gavel for this Subcommittee and for the
country. We are so proud of her. Thank you, Marcia. We know
through your mother, who, by the way, comes to my Congressional
district, too, to every meeting, right, how hard she works, as
well, for the interests of our country and for the greater
Cleveland and Ohio communities.
I wanted to offer some perspective. When I was born a few
years ago, the Nation had 146 million people. We are headed to
over 325 million now, headed to 350 million, so Ranking Member
Davis, we thank you for traveling a great distance to be here,
and all of the members of this Subcommittee, obviously, but it
is sort of obvious that you are going to have more people
voting when your population has doubled and tripled, and we
are--hopefully, we will have more people voting. By 2050, we
will be up to about 350 million or could be over that as a
country.
I think population growth accounts for additional voters,
and also that we work very hard to register people, but I
wanted to give some perspective what troubles me about the
system that has been set in place in Ohio.
When I was a little girl, we used to be able to walk to the
precinct, and I would go with our mother. And it is one of my
precious memories. The PTA would have a cupcake sale, that is
probably why I went, and mom would hold me up, and in those
days, we had paper ballots, and I would be able to mark the X
for her. That is probably why I am in Congress. But I remember
that she would give the ballot to our neighbor, who was a
Republican, and he would put it in the box. And I would leave
there completely perplexed not understanding why our mother
would do that. And--but voting was very personal. We knew
everybody at the voting table, the booth workers. They were
from our neighborhood.
What has changed so dramatically over the years, even where
I vote, is that our precinct has now been moved multiple times.
The street that I live on was sliced right down the middle, and
I don't think it was by accident. When, unfortunately, a few
years ago, I was forced to be in a runoff with a Congressman
from Cleveland named Dennis Kucinich, the mapping that was done
in Columbus by a legislature controlled by the opposite party,
drew the line around his house and my house.
I am trained as a city planner. I pay attention to maps.
And I thought they have got it down to the granular level. And
what has happened in the region where I vote, now we have to
drive to go to the precinct so mothers in my neighborhood and
fathers can't walk their children to the polls like we used to
do. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. I
represent Lorain, Ohio. It has no transit. How are people
supposed to vote? I hope that this Committee considers how to
endorse community at the most local level as precinct lines are
drawn, because what is going on is wrong for our country.
The other thing that has been happening in Ohio, our booth
workers are shifted. So rather than someone from my
neighborhood being hired to work right there, they take someone
they hire from my neighborhood and put them in a totally
unfamiliar place. This is amazing. It can't only be happening
where I live. It has to be happening in thousands of precincts
across this State. So when we used to walk into the precinct,
people would know who we were, because they were our
neighborhood, and, yes, they were Republican, and, yes, they
were Democrat, but we--it was community. And I think there is
something really gone afoul in this State that the--we are
becoming almost faceless in the voting process. I am sure my
time has expired, but I just want to say----
Chairwoman Fudge. You get 25 seconds.
Ms. Kaptur. I have got 25 seconds left. I just think that
we need local training of booth workers. We need to go back and
see where people actually live and use the schools as a way of
measuring that, but don't provide all this disruption to
people. And in the poorest neighborhoods I represent, I
guarantee you that in many communities I represent when the
children come to school in September by the next May, there are
the same number of children in the school, but two-thirds to
three-quarters of the children have changed in the lowest-
income communities I represent. They have a right to vote, too.
And we have to figure out a way to deal with our
provisional ballot situation much more efficiently, and we have
to have people in those precincts who know the neighborhoods.
Thank you so very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you. Our newest member of our
delegation, Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. First, I want to thank Chairwoman Fudge, my
new friend, for bringing this hearing to Cleveland, Ranking
Member Davis, Tri-C for hosting us today and everybody for
being here. Additionally, I would like to thank all the
witnesses for taking the time to be here and discuss this
important issue. The opportunity to participate in democracy by
casting a ballot is one of the most important and fundamental
rights in this country. My grandparents fled Communist Cuba and
the Castro regime because they believed in the strength of our
values and the strength of our Constitution. The belief in the
right to vote, after watching what happens to a country when
that right does not exist, was central to the inspiration that
led them to our great Nation and is, frankly, why I am sitting
in this chair.
Just recently, I had the opportunity to participate in a
civil rights pilgrimage in Alabama, led by the legendary Rep.
John Lewis. There have been few experiences in my life that
have been as impactful as seeing this painful part of our
history through his eyes as he and his civil rights brothers
and sisters fought to gain the promises enshrined in our
founding documents.
America's democracy is healthy and strong when everyone who
has the right to vote uses that right freely and securely. Ohio
has had a storied history in Federal elections as a swing
State, often playing a major role in determining the winner in
Presidential elections.
I was glad to see my friend, Frank LaRose, elected to the
Secretary of State position last November to take over as chief
election officer in Ohio. I believe that it is worth noting
that this past election set a record for the highest turnout in
a midterm in the history of our State. We have never had more
voters.
As a State legislator, Frank led the fight on reforming our
redistricting process, and to expand registration options to
include online registration. Just yesterday, he announced a
bipartisan initiative to ensure that when a citizen updates
their information at the State in one place, say, on tax
filings, that the new address will be automatically transferred
to the Secretary of State's Office as well, for updating the
voter rolls. This will ensure that more people are kept on the
rolls and being properly counted.
While I recognize that there is always room for
improvement, I would like to highlight several aspects of the
Ohio election system that I feel are particularly strong. At 28
days, Ohio currently offers one of the longest early voting
periods in the Nation, providing flexibility to voters who are
unable to vote on Election Day. This even includes early voting
on weekends.
Additionally, Ohio has no-excuse absentee ballot voting,
meaning that voters are able to vote absentee, even without a
stated reason. It is not the practice across the country.
Practices like this encourage participation in our democracy,
and I am proud that Ohio has been an example for other States
who currently have not enacted these policies.
In turning to questions, I just have a couple, and then I
will turn it back over to Mr. Davis if we have time. Mr. Ortiz,
I want to get back to something you said, which is that voter
suppression reduced the vote in the Latino community in the
previous election. Can you share the data with that
specifically?
Mr. Ortiz. So, Congressman, thank you for the question. I
would say that there is a number of data sources that I can
share after this and follow up, but I will also say, I
appreciate hearing your story, and I think as a child of
immigrants, you know, you can appreciate that right now, the
atmosphere in our country is particularly challenging. Just
earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments
talking about the Voting Rights Act as it relates to this
upcoming Census and addition of a citizenship question.
Many advocates across the country are united in thinking
that this is going to produce a depressed count, and when
everyone doesn't count on the Census, that turns all sorts of
data that is reliable that everyone uses, regardless of what
side of the aisle, whether you are working in business or for
the public good, we all rely on that data. So with that as a
prospect on the horizon, and forming the mood of specific folks
in the Latino community who may not have the same experience
that you had, but who may be the descendants of immigrants that
feel intimidated, it could provide a shift in how folks view
communications from government. So I do think that it is
something that we need to be mindful of on how that can be a
disruption for all sorts of things, including appropriations.
Mr. Gonzalez. I don't mean to interrupt. My time is going
to expire in a second.
Mr. Ortiz. Okay.
Mr. Gonzalez. Just to verify just really quickly, the claim
that Latino turnout was down as a result of voter suppression,
do you have the data source for that specific claim?
Mr. Ortiz. I will follow up with additional data sources.
Mr. Gonzalez. Please. I look forward to that, and I yield
back.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much. And last, but
certainly not least, my colleague that represents not only
Shelby County but Selma, Alabama, Terri Sewell from Alabama.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman. I want to
thank everyone for participating in today's field hearing,
including our extraordinary panelists who have committed
themselves to the great work of making sure that our civil
rights and our voting rights for every American is ensured. I
would also like to thank all my colleagues on the House
Administration Committee, the Subcommittee on Elections, for
allowing me to be here today, even though I am not on the
Committee. Especially Chairwoman Marcia Fudge, for her
leadership on the issue of voting rights.
I am the chief sponsor of H.R. 4. And H.R. 4, the Voting
Rights Advancement Act, is a seminal piece of legislation,
which seeks to restore Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965. I have the great honor of not only representing Alabama's
Seventh Congressional District, which includes Birmingham,
Montgomery, Tuscaloosa, and my home town of Selma, Alabama.
I know that people in my district bled, fought, prayed,
marched, and many died for the right to vote for all Americans
in this great Nation. It is important to me, and I know it is
important to all the panelists here today, as well as to my
colleagues on the dais, that we get to the bottom of why it is
that people are not voting in the numbers they should be
voting.
The reality is that we live in a society where, human
nature being human nature, we realize that by restricting the
opportunity to vote to some people in this society, we actually
can change elections. That is just a fact. Now what do we do
about that fact? I think it is important that we realize that
the fundamental base of our democracy is the right to vote.
Also, the right not to vote. But it is important that we
realize that you don't lose that right to vote simply by not
voting.
I think that there are several myths here that I would like
to challenge. The first myth is just because you have higher
turnout and higher voter registration doesn't mean that we
don't have voter suppression. Let me repeat that. As Rep. Marcy
Kaptur so eloquently said, she knows more about the population
in Ohio than I do, the population of Ohio has grown
exponentially, so you would think that the number of people
voting, registering to vote, turning out to vote, would also
increase. But that, nevertheless, doesn't invalidate the fact
that in certain vulnerable communities, it is harder to vote.
What do I mean by that? You know, just because we no longer
have to count how many marbles are in a jar, or if you saw the
movie Selma, recite how many counties, all 67 counties in order
to register to vote, doesn't mean that State legislatures
across this country are not imposing harder barriers for people
to vote.
In North Dakota, this Subcommittee was just there, instead
of allowing people to register to vote by any mailing address
that they have, the State legislature imposed a physical
address requirement. It should not be surprising to you,
although I am sure it was not intentional by that legislature,
that tribal lands and those Native Americans that live on
tribal lands often vote by P.O. Box, not physical address.
Now, I am sure that the State of North Dakota's voter rolls
are much higher than they were in the 1960s. I am sure that the
State of North Dakota's voter registrations are higher than
they were in the 1960s, probably record high, since their
population has grown. But that, nevertheless, does not
invalidate the fact that only by looking at physical addresses
to be able to register to vote in that State doesn't cause
voter suppression.
Let's be clear. We should be, especially as elected
officials, all about making sure that it is easier for people
to vote, not harder for people to vote. I think of my own
State, the State of Alabama, where my dad, who recently passed,
he was able to vote the latter part of his years after a
massive stroke by a validly issued Federal ID called a Social
Security card. But after the Shelby decision, it just so
happens that the State of Alabama State legislature changed the
requirements of what is required in order to go and vote.
The ID that you can show now does not include a Federal ID
called a Social Security card. Rather, now it includes a much
more limited number of IDs. I find it to be really hard to
believe that you don't--you can't show a University of Alabama
ID, but you can show a hunting license ID and go and vote. The
State of Alabama is picking and choosing who should vote. They
are prioritizing hunters over students, and it is wrong.
So I want to thank this Committee for allowing us to see,
in real time, and go out in the field and talk to constituents,
talk to voters, nonvoters, those who wish they could vote
because they don't have transportation. We have to think about
all the reasons why people don't vote, and we should be
encouraging that instead of limiting access to the polls. Thank
you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to participate today.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. I want to thank this first panel, and I
want to thank all my colleagues, as well. And I just want to
wrap up by saying a few things. We are as segregated and
separated in this country today as we were in 1968. Our schools
are more segregated; our neighborhoods are more segregated. And
so, I think it is important that we understand what is
happening in this country today.
And I think that when Chief Justice Roberts wrote his
opinion in Shelby, the things that he said that I agree with,
is that there is still discrimination in this country. What he
said was that the information and the data that we had was old.
He said there are still places that need to be precleared, but
we need contemporaneous new data. That is what we are doing
here today and around the country is collecting the data. He
did not believe for a minute that everybody is treated fairly
in this country and that the right to vote is the same for
everybody in this country. He is a Supreme Court Justice. I
agree with him on that, that there is still discrimination and
we need to address it.
You know, it is interesting that we talk about the numbers
of people voting. Because we vote in spite of difficulties
doesn't make those difficulties right. I mean, just because the
bar is raised, and we have to find a way to jump over it, it
doesn't make it right that we go to Standing Rock a week ago,
and they tell us that they are voting at chicken coops, that we
go to Brownsville, Texas, and they tell us that they are voting
in police stations knowing that the people who live in those
communities are afraid of the police.
It doesn't make a difference when we talk about all the
things that--and I happen to like LaRose, so I am really
pleased that he is the Secretary of State, but the former one,
the former one, you know, he would send us postcards that look
like junk mail. Who looks at that? That is the first thing. It
looks like junk mail.
The second thing is that he would believe that we should do
everybody--treat everybody the same. Now, in theory, that makes
some sense, except for that if I live in a county with one
million people, and I have one place to vote with 30 parking
spaces, and somebody that lives in a county with 5,000 people
has one place to vote with 30 parking spaces, is that fair to
me? Absolutely not. Equity and fairness are two very different
things. And we have to understand the difference.
Also, the poor are disproportionately hurt, because poor
people move more, so they don't get the junk mail. We don't
have permanent housing. And if you look at places like Standing
Rock, where most people do not drive, what do you need a
driver's license for? What do they need a particular ID for? So
when we make them go and get one, it is a poll tax. If we make
them go and buy a $15 ID, it is a poll tax, that is exactly
what it is. And so, I think it is important that we understand
what we are doing in the name of democracy. We will support
democracy in Venezuela, in Russia, in China, every place but
here.
We should be making the franchise open to everyone as
opposed to trying to make it more difficult for people to vote.
And every time we change the rules, which we do in every single
election, we make it more difficult for people to vote. If you
are confused about what day you can vote it is suppressing your
vote.
Now, is it incumbent upon us to know the rules? Yes, it is.
But I would suggest to you that as elected officials, it is our
responsibility to make sure that every American feels that they
have the unfettered, unabridged right to vote. We should not
say because you didn't vote today, I am not going to let you
vote next week. The Constitution says you have a right to vote.
It doesn't say if you don't vote, I am going to take it from
you.
So let's talk about what the Constitution says. Jamie, I am
not a constitutional lawyer, but I know a little bit about it.
The Constitution gives us the right to vote, and if we are
going to be the kind of Americans we say we are, then America
needs to live up to its promise, and Ohio needs to live up to
its promise, and that is to be sure that everyone who is
qualified and wishes to vote can vote.
I thank you all so very, very much for your testimony.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Fudge. Guys, you can tell I am at home. We thank
you, and if the next set of witnesses would please join us.
Thank you all so much. Oh, you know what, let me do this while
they are getting up. There are a number of elected officials,
judges, council people. I saw the majority leader of city
council. Just all the elected officials just stand up, would
you please? The State Department of Education, it is a lot of
people here. Thank you all so much for being here, thank you,
thank you, thank you.
[Applause.]
[Recess.]
Chairwoman Fudge. We are ready to begin our second panel.
We are going begin, and we will just let Mr. Brickner join us
when he returns. Okay. We are prepared to begin, so we would
start today with--oh, let me introduce the witnesses. Naila
Awan is the Senior Counsel at Demos. Naila is a civil and human
rights lawyer, who joined Demos in 2015. She serves as local
counsel in the A. Philip Randolph Institute v. LaRose case,
challenging Ohio's practice of and procedures for purging
infrequent voters from the registration rolls; and Mays v.
LaRose, a case challenging Ohio's practice of denying eligible
voters detained in the days preceding an election from
accessing absentee ballots in jails.
Inajo Davis Chappell, a member of the Cuyahoga Board of
Elections. She was appointed in April 2007. She is a partner at
Ulmer Berne in Cleveland where she chairs the firm's nonprofit
group.
Mike Brickner, Ohio State Director, All Voting is Local, a
new campaign that seeks to work proactively to expand access to
the ballot. Prior to joining AVL, Mike worked at the ACLU of
Ohio for 14 years, most recently serving as its Senior Policy
Director. Ms. Awan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF NAILA AWAN, SENIOR COUNSEL, DEMOS; INAJO D.
CHAPPELL, MEMBER, CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS; AND MIKE
BRICKNER, OHIO STATE DIRECTOR, ALL VOTING IS LOCAL
STATEMENT OF NAILA AWAN
Ms. Awan. Thank you, Chairwoman Fudge, Ranking Member
Davis, and to all the Committee members for the invitation to
testify today. My name is Naila Awan, and I am senior counsel
at Demos, a think and do tank that powers the movement for a
just inclusive multiracial democracy. My testimony will focus
on two voter suppression issues that Demos has been actively
combating in Ohio. I will discuss Ohio's controversial practice
of targeting voters for removal from the registration rolls
simply because they could not or chose not to vote, as well as
Ohio's restriction on absentee voting in jails.
An Ohio purge procedure, known as the supplemental process,
treats the right to vote as a use it or lose it right. Under
this process, Ohio uses an individual's failure to vote over a
two-year period as an indicator that they have moved. It sends
such registrants a confirmation card and then removes them from
the voter rolls if they do not respond to the card or vote in
the subsequent 4-year period. Representing the Ohio A. Philip
Randolph Institute, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the
Homeless, and Larry Harmon, a long-time Ohio resident and
military veteran who was purged under the supplemental process,
Demos and the ACLU of Ohio brought a lawsuit in 2016
challenging Ohio's supplemental process on two grounds: First,
that the use of nonvoting to initiate a purge practice violated
the national Voter Registration Act; and second, that the
confirmation card Ohio sent to voters targeted for removal
under the process did not satisfy the informational
requirements set forth in the NVRA.
Last year, in Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Institute, the
U.S. Supreme Court considered the first of these two claims,
and determined that Ohio was not violating the NVRA by
targeting voters for removal, based only on their failure to
vote. However, that does not make the supplemental process wise
or right. A brief filed by 36 current and former Ohio election
officials recognized that the supplemental process ultimately
results in the disenfranchisement of thousands of Ohioans,
undermines the ability to maintain up to date and accurate
voter rolls, and other more targeted roll maintenance practices
could be adopted without disenfranchising duly registered
Ohioans.
Further, the Supreme Court's decision did not consider the
constitutionality of Ohio's purge practice or whether it
unlawfully discriminates on the basis of race. In her dissent,
Justice Sotomayor did recognize that barriers to the ballot box
that are experienced by communities whose voices have been
traditionally marginalized through the political process render
them particularly vulnerable to unwarranted removal under the
supplemental process.
Time and again, Ohioans across the State show up to vote
only to be told at the polls that their names are no longer on
the voter registration rolls. We were able to secure court-
ordered relief, commonly referred to as the APRI exception on
our first claim for the November 2016 general election. This
relief allowed over 7,500 eligible voters in Ohio to
participate in 2016 who would have otherwise been
disenfranchised, and the exception has remained in place for
each Ohio election since that time.
Even after last year's Supreme Court decision, the Sixth
Circuit determined that the APRI exception should remain in
place in November 2018 to provide relief for purged voters who
likely received insufficient notice.
We are concerned that Ohio continues to use the
supplemental process and that the availability of relief to
prevent the disenfranchisement of voters who are unlawfully and
illegitimately purged remains in question.
A different voting problem that Demos is currently engaged
in within Ohio is that registered voters who are arrested and
held in jails after the absentee ballot request deadline and
detained through Election Day, are prevented from obtaining and
casting an absentee ballot, despite remaining completely
eligible under Ohio law.
On November 6, 2018, Demos Campaign Legal Center in
MacArthur Justice Center filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of two voters who were detained on misdemeanor charges after
the time when they could request absentee ballots, and
approximately 1,000 similarly situated voters who were impacted
in each election, challenging as unconstitutional the State's
practice of locking these late jailed voters out of the
political process. A Federal judge in the Southern District of
Ohio issued a temporary restraining order requiring that Ohio
deliver ballots to our named clients and count their votes,
finding that our clients would likely succeed on their claim,
have the right to vote, and no mechanism by which to do so.
This and other barriers to voting, such as the topic some
of my fellow panelists are addressing, make it more difficult
for Ohioans, particularly those traditionally marginalized in
our democracy to cast a ballot. We at Demos look forward to
working with this Committee to increase access to the ballot
and better protect the right to vote.
[The statement of Ms. Awan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you. Ms. Davis Chappell, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF INAJO DAVIS CHAPPELL
Ms. Chappell. Thank you, Honorable Marcia Fudge,
Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Elections, for this
opportunity today and the invitation to be here. Thanks also to
the Elections Subcommittee Members, Butterfield and Davis, and
all the distinguished Members of the United States House of
Representatives who are present.
I am currently a member of the Cuyahoga County Board of
Elections, where I have had the privilege of serving as a board
member since 2007, and as immediate past board chair for the
last 6 years. I am also a former member and Chair of the Ohio
Board of Voting Machine Examiners. Please know that my
testimony and comments today reflect my personal opinion and
viewpoint, and I am not here in any representative or official
capacity as a member of the Board of Elections. I am a
nongovernmental witness, but my thoughts, conclusions, and
statements here today are informed by my experiences in
election administration as a member of the Cuyahoga County
Board of Elections, and as an active voter in Ohio.
Notwithstanding my disclaimer that I don't represent
anybody here that is also on the board with me, I am very much
an advocate of voting rights, full enfranchisement of all
voters, especially in my home county of Cuyahoga County, and
for robust ballot access, which includes unfettered
opportunities for early voting in person and vote by mail.
For those of you that do not know, Cuyahoga County is the
largest voting district in Ohio. It has the greatest number of
registered voters, and most recent Cuyahoga County election
statistics from November 2018 are an indicator of size as
follows: 903,046 registered voters, 973 precincts, 345 voting
locations, 59 municipalities. We have 91 employees, and we use
a significant number of temporary staff in any given election.
For instance, in the November 2016 election, we hired 321
temporary staff resulting in a payroll of nearly $1 million.
Although a smaller election in November, significant temporary
staff were hired with payroll process totaling more than half a
million dollars.
I am going to skip some of those details because I want to
focus on today what I--on what I believe to be challenges in
election administration and the importance of early voting. One
of our--the ongoing challenges faced by our Cuyahoga County
Board of Elections concerns the ability to set our own rules
around early voting.
In Ohio, at least since 2014, a decision was made by the
Secretary of State, the Ohio legislature, and our trade
association, that uniformity in the rules governing elections
administration would be the key organizing principle for the 88
county boards of elections. Although these county boards in
Ohio are very different in size, number of voters, staffing,
and available resources, uniform rules have continued to be
adopted and continue to be implemented in a manner that limits,
rather than expands, ballot access.
While reasonable minds fairly disagree about the extent to
which uniform rules have hindered voter participation in
Cuyahoga County, I personally believe that limited early voting
hours, particularly in large-scale election cycles, run counter
to basic democratic principles, and has excluded urban poor and
older voters from the process. Some argue that this issue has
now been well-settled, a negotiated result has been codified,
but I view the uniformity principle and practice of having the
same in-person early voting hours for every county as a missed
opportunity, both for efficient election administration and
robust voter participation in the largest voting district in
Ohio.
Early voting remains a key tool for efficient election
administration. The opportunity to cast ballots, other than on
Election Day, is important for voters and for those of us
charged with counting those ballots cast. Since 2010, early
voting numbers represent anywhere from 35 to 40 percent of the
total votes cast in elections in our county. Early voting has
had a positive impact and effect on election administration,
and wait times allows for preliminary processing. It results in
efficient use of our staff time.
Because of the importance of early voting, it should be
noted that a significant challenge to election administration
exists. That challenges the State limitation codified at Ohio
revised Code Section 3501.10(c), which prescribes early voting
only at one location operated by a Board of Elections where
voting is permitted.
I am going to have to skip over the statute because I am
running out of time, but there are pictures that I have asked
to be shown to you to show the effect of early in-person voting
and the restriction to one location.
Chairwoman Fudge. Can you stop? Can you see these screens?
Ms. Chappell. This is our early voting location in Cuyahoga
County at East 30th and Euclid Avenue. At this one location, we
have significant space constraints. Parking is limited, and the
site is congested. Difficult to manage during heavy periods of
voting. So we have pictures from 2008 early voting, 2016
Election Day with lines wrapped around blocks around our
building. We have 2018 in-house early voting pictures both
inside of outside of our building.
Because of the limit in Ohio, and the statutory provision,
it is a proviso of the code section I mentioned, voting lines
are long, especially during the Presidential election cycle. So
there is clearly a substantial challenge in our county with
this one site limitation for early voting. It is my hope that
legislative initiatives from our State for vote centers will be
established, and will move forward. Such centers, of course,
would need to be identified and located in a manner that is
equitable, fair, and strategically sited to serve both suburban
and urban voters.
In 2018, in the 132nd General Assembly, Representative Dan
Ramos introduced House Bill 596 that would have allowed
counties to add additional early voting sites, an additional
site for every 60,000 registered voters. The bill was referred
to committee and appears to have died there. Sadly, no new
legislation on this matter has been introduced. Additional
opportunities for early voting sites would clearly enhance
election administration capabilities.
As a general comment, I wanted to share my observation over
the years that major impediments to efficient elections
administration in our county include last minute changes to
process and voting rules, constant litigation even on expedited
track, and the politicization of voting rights in the elections
process.
So when I look at turnout, we talked about turnout, we can
provide you with data that just over the years, you just can't
look at one election. We have got some suggestions for you
about things you can do. They are in my written testimony. But
the constant clamoring about rampant voter fraud is
discouraging voter participation, and my experience over the
years permits me to say with confidence that claims of voter
fraud in the elections process are wholly without merit.
[The statement of Ms. Chappell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much. Mr. Brickner. And we
would like to try to get the photographs. Mr. Brickner.
STATEMENT OF MIKE BRICKNER
Mr. Brickner. Thank you to Chairwoman Fudge, Ranking Member
Davis, and Members of the Subcommittee on Elections. My name is
Mike Brickner, Ohio State Director for All Voting is Local, and
I submit testimony on the current State of voting rights and
election administration in Ohio.
All Voting is Local launched in 2018 as a collaborative
campaign housed at the leadership conference education fund in
conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,
the American Constitution Society, the Campaign Legal Center,
and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. We fight
to protect and expand the right to vote working directly with
disenfranchised communities to fight for a democracy that works
for us all.
Ohioans, particularly people of color, face needless
barriers to the ballot, including polling places that are
moved, leaving voters confused and frustrated, and high
rejection rates of provisional ballots, leaving voters at risk
of losing their sacred right to vote. As a State and as a
Nation, we must fight to eliminate these obstacles to voting.
Ohio must do its part to ensure elections are administered
freely and fairly, so that all voices are heard.
Ohio voters increasingly cast their ballots before Election
Day. Despite its success, Ohio politicians have proposed
restrictions to early in-person voting. NAACP v. Husted
challenged the elimination of evening and weekend early in-
person voting hours, and the elimination of same-day voter
registration during a portion of early voting, stating the cuts
would discriminate against black voters, and, in fact, that was
a claim brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. While
the Ohio Secretary of State agreed to some evening and weekend
hours, the settlement agreement is no longer in force, and
there is no law guaranteeing these hours.
In January 2019, All Voting is Local analyzed early in-
person voting from the 2016 and 2018 general elections in six
representative Ohio counties. We found that early in-person
voting was popular in all areas: urban, rural, and suburban.
The most popular times to cast a ballot included weekend hours,
and the week before Election Day. In recent elections, voters
waited in long lines at early voting locations, not just in
Cuyahoga County, but in many places across the State.
Given the success of early in-person voting hours voting
hours should be formalized in State law and should be expanded
on the week prior to the election and on weekends. Polling
place changes cause confusion and frustration for voters, which
nonpartisan poll monitors noted in Cuyahoga County in 2018.
Between 2016 and 2018, the county eliminated 41 polling
locations, and nearly 16 percent of all precincts changed
location. While polling places were reduced countywide,
majority black communities were particularly harmed.
In Cleveland's 17 wards, 8 are majority black, comprising
from 98 to 72 percent of the population. Of the city's 45
precincts with polling place changes, the majority, 29, were in
black majority wards, while only 16 were in black minority
wards.
For voters who rely on public transportation, have
inflexible work schedules, or have a disability, the burden of
traveling to a new polling location cannot be overstated. At
one polling location in a black majority Cleveland ward,
officials told a voter she was at the wrong location. She told
the poll monitor she was simply going to go home and would not
vote. The poll monitor encouraged her to call the Board of
Elections and go to her correct polling location, but the voter
left frustrated and discouraged. We don't know if she voted.
At another poll location in a black majority ward here in
Cleveland, poll monitors reported assisting 40 voters who were
at the wrong location. Both of these poll locations in these
examples had changes between 2016 and 2018. State law requires
that election officials notify voters with a postcard if their
polling location has changed. Elections officials must do more
to ensure these changes do not have a disparate impact on
voters of color. Elections officials should clearly post
signage outside any poll location with changes.
In addition, officials should partner with community groups
to solicit feedback about potential changes, and increase
outreach of changes are made so that voters are informed.
Lastly, provisional ballots are often the last resort for
voters who have problems at the polls. While provisional
ballots can be beneficial for voters who might otherwise be
turned away, their use should be minimized. Ohio has one of the
highest overall number of provisional ballots cast nationwide.
In 2018 in Franklin County, the rate of provisional ballots
cast countywide was only 1.84 percent. However, we did some
analysis, and we have some maps that show this, our analysis
found that people of color, millennials, and low-income voters
were significantly more likely to cast a provisional ballot. If
you--if the maps come on, you will see that there are areas of
Franklin County; the blue are black voters, the pink are
millennial voters, and the green are low-income voters. The
orange dots are where provisional ballots were cast in the
county. There are certainly people living in those areas
without shading, but there were hardly any provisional ballots
cast in those areas. Those are mostly white, affluent areas
where there are older folks who live there as well.
So, in our analysis, we found, again, people of color,
millennials, and low-income voters were more likely to cast a
provisional ballot. If you look at just three polling locations
near Ohio State University's campus, nearly one in 10 voters
had to cast a provisional ballot. At the Ohio Union polling
location, nearly 65 percent of those provisional ballots cast
were rejected by the Board of Elections.
Franklin County's rate of provisional ballot rejection is
troubling. In the 2018 general election, over one in five
rejected provisional ballots statewide came from Franklin
County. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Brickner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. I thank you all. We will now begin our
questioning. Mr. Butterfield, you are recognized.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I won't
consume the full five minutes. I have to head to the airport.
Thank you for your testimony. It has been very insightful. I
mentioned to the other panel the question about Section 2
litigation. Counsel, do you know if there has been any Section
2 litigation in Ohio?
Ms. Awan. Yes, and I think Mr. Brickner spoke to this as
well. The challenges to the State's elimination of the early--
same-day registration period and cuts to early voting brought
in 2014, and there was some litigation brought later on on some
of the----
Mr. Butterfield. Under the Voting Rights Act?
Ms. Awan [continuing]. Were brought under Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act, as well as the Equal Protection Clause. So
there were challenges related to the disparate impact that
those cuts had on people, based on the basis of race as well as
the impacts that it would have on individuals.
Mr. Butterfield. So just one lawsuit that you can recall?
Ms. Awan. Yes. Well, there were at least two lawsuits
addressing the cuts to early voting and then----
Mr. Butterfield. What about at the local level?
Ms. Awan. That I am not entirely sure of.
Mr. Butterfield. Are you aware of the costs associated with
Section 2 litigation? I know in my State of North Carolina, it
is very expensive. I did VRA litigation back in the 1980s, and
even back then, it was several hundred thousand dollars, and I
suspect now it probably has exceeded $1 million.
Ms. Awan. I mean, so I cannot speak to the actual numbers,
I would say that I would assume that the cost would be quite
high based on----
Mr. Butterfield. But you stipulate it is very expensive?
Ms. Awan. Yes, and I would say, too, that they fund other
voting rights litigation that I have been involved in that
doesn't require expert reports to the extent that Section 2
litigation does. You can, just going through the preliminary
injunction process and some of the depositions, be ranging into
the millions, right, or so----
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Chappell, does
changing the laws constantly affect the ability of the Board of
Elections to effectively administer the elections?
Ms. Chappell. Absolutely. You know, in Cuyahoga County, our
Board of Election is the subject of, or involved in a number of
suits, and it impacts even when the suit is filed in an
expedited track, it impacts our ability to prepare for the
election. It impacts staff time. And it is just the uncertainty
about knowing are we putting something on the ballot? Are we
taking something on a ballot? Do we have to have the messaging
needed at the polling location to make sure people are aware of
what the change is? So the litigation absolutely impacts us in
an adverse way.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. Thank all of you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Fudge. Mr. Joyce?
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. Ms. Chappell, what would you
recommend is a cure for that problem? I understand that a lot
of times when there is potential--there is lawsuits about the
ballots, you are already stuck, the administration of picking--
purchasing ballots and then potential to repurchase ballots
because if something goes on or goes off. Do you have a
recommendation of what should be a time set certain for all
litigation to be filed by to allow boards to have more time to
do that?
Ms. Chappell. Well, yes, I mean, I thank you for the
question, and I do think one of the ways in which we can try to
reduce some of the litigation is to do exactly what this
Committee is doing, and come to some real understanding about
what is happening, what is triggering the litigation. You know,
looking at elections, not just in a vacuum, one election at one
time, to reach a conclusion about what it is saying, but over
time, looking at what the patterns are, and coming to some
basic fundamental conclusions which resonate, I think, for most
voters that voting is so critical and intrinsic to our
democracy that you don't forfeit your right to vote, you don't
lose your right to vote, and there ought to be a way to balance
the need to maintain voting records with the need to ensure
that there are opportunities for full access to the ballot. So,
I mean, if we hit some of these issues, I think the
litigation--the cost and litigation itself will be driven down.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. Another one that is not necessarily
right on point with what we are discussing today, but since you
have the expertise here in Ohio regarding it, I understand the
Secretary of State is working with the counties to purchase, or
procure new voting machines for everyone. I understand from my
time working as a prosecutor that the system we had in Geauga
County, for example, is ES&S, Election Software and Systems, I
believe. And to allow fixes the day of elections, they had a
back door that was set up so that people could come into the
computer, come into the scanner and do some changes. What do
you see, and what needs to be done to make sure that no one has
the ability to hack those voting machines?
Ms. Chappell. Well, that is a great question. We also have
ES&S as our vendor here in Cuyahoga County. I think one thing
at the Federal level you can do is really put some teeth into
the EAC, really look to make sure that the testing labs that
are used because there aren't that many that there are enough
that they are testing the equipment to make sure that there is
no way to hack in. Most of our equipment is not connected to
the internet. There has been extensive cybersecurity intrusive
testing, and we have been on the forefront of making sure--at
least making the effort to ensure that we are not hacked, but
there is a lot around cybersecurity that needs to be done, and
so, yes, there has been money allocated to allow us to continue
that effort.
Mr. Joyce. And you are going to be part of that study to
make sure it doesn't happen to us?
Ms. Chappell. I would be happy to be a part of it,
absolutely.
Mr. Joyce. I yield back.
Chairwoman Fudge. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. It is on.
Chairwoman Fudge. It is on automatically. It is on. Just
start talking. You turned it off, I think.
Ms. Kaptur. There. All right. Thank you very much. I wanted
to ask a question about provisional ballots. And, first of all,
thank you all for what you are doing. What you are doing is so
important to the country and to this State. You went over the
data very quickly, Mr. Brickner, but what would you say to the
people gathered today about what Ohio could do to fix the
problems with provisional ballots? Why do we have so many? Why
are so many rejected, many on the basis of signature? Why is
that? What is going on in this State with provisional ballots?
And I can tell you from the counties that I represent, and I
represent parts of five due to very sinister gerrymandering. I
could say plenty. But this is mathematical. And it isn't just
Ohio. And it is the reason that we have such trouble in
Congress, because the system defaults to extremes, and both
parties have their share of those members now who cannot reach
compromise, and it is mathematical.
So I want to ask you, in terms of provisional ballots, talk
about the big picture of provisional ballots in this State. I
have seen so many voters misdirected at the precinct level. We
need greater training of our booth workers, and they need to--
it has to happen at the local level, at the most local of
levels by wards. But I want to ask you, on the provisional
ballot issue, get us inside that system, tell us a little bit
about what is going on in this State?
Mr. Brickner. Absolutely. So if you look at provisional
ballots, again, Ohio is an outlier with other States. We cast
far too many provisional ballots and far too many people of
color particularly cast provisional ballots. With rejections
and why people cast provisional ballots, the number one reason
why a person has to cast a provisional ballot in the State is
because they are not in the poll book, and that has to do, I
think, with our outdated voter registration system. If you look
at the fact that we don't have automatic ways to update your
voter registration or same-day voter registration that would
allow somebody who recently moved into the State, or is a
student, to be able to go on Election Day, or during the early
voting period, to register to vote, that becomes a major
barrier. Most people don't think about voting 35 days before
the election, or in excess of that. And so, you know, we tend
to leave things up to the last minute. Having an automatic
system and same-day voter registration would help that.
I think to your other points----
Ms. Kaptur. Is Ohio--I am going to interrupt you, sir, and
I am going to ask Ms. Chappell also to comment. Is Ohio
effectively applying for and using the election assistance
dollars at the Federal level to help solve some of these
issues?
Ms. Chappell. Well, let me just say, thank you for the
question. The implementation of electronic poll books is going
to be helpful, we believe, in reducing the number of
provisional ballots cast. Because the e-poll books are able to
when the ID is swiped, to tell the voter you are in the wrong
location, and not only you are in the wrong location, this is
the place you need to be, so it will direct the voter to the
correct location. The provisional ballots, unfortunately, are a
necessary evil because I would rather have somebody vote
provisionally than not vote at all. We do have a robust way of
reconciling those votes. We have seen the numbers come down. We
are always looking at ways to try to figure out what is
happening with the numbers. And, you know, there is a disparate
impact, but we have got--we have got to continue to have it
because we need people to vote.
Ms. Kaptur. There was one other question this afternoon, or
this morning, regarding hacking into our election systems, and
I just want to say that in reading the Mueller Report, I can
assure the American people, the hacking into our election
systems was significant and continues. And here in Ohio, for
those responsible, it is very important for us to think about
how we gird ourselves against what this election year and the
next is going to yield and how we really armor ourselves
against hacking. And I heard what you said about not being
connected to the internet, but we need really good oversight.
Do you think our State has the capability to do that well, and
our counties?
Ms. Chappell. I think we are starting to. Under our
Secretary of State LaRose, we have. There has been dollars
allocated for cybersecurity measures for--each county in Ohio
was required to undergo to take advantage actually of a
cybersecurity consultant to begin some of that process. I think
there is a lot more work to be done there though, but steps
have been taken.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Fudge. Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. Thank you, witnesses, for being
here, and for your participation. Ms. Chappell, I want to read
something from your written testimony that I don't think you
were able to get to and just kind of cosign on that. I am just
going to quote you here. It says, ``I was pleased that just a
few months ago, our new Ohio Secretary of State and chief
elections officer, Frank LaRose, stated that voter fraud was
rare. We need more truthful public statements like this.'' Amen
to that. Completely agree. Thank you for stating that.
I will give another kind of cosign, Mr. Raskin earlier, and
we talked a lot about the partisan gerrymandering that takes
place. I am thrilled that we passed, in Ohio, the law that we
did on our last election cycle to hopefully stop that. I think
our democracy functions far better when the districts make more
sense candidly. But let me get to some questions, and also,
obviously, Ms. Chappell, I want to thank you for all the
service on the BOE. My wife voted in Ohio for the first few
times. She is new to Ohio, and the process was seamless, and I
know that that was, in large part, due to your leadership and
Pat McDonald's leadership and everybody at the board, so I
really appreciate all the work you do.
Ms. Chappell. Thank you. Thank you for that.
Mr. Gonzalez. My question, and I only have one, is one of
the main reasons our bipartisan county boards of elections
eliminate precincts and polling locations is, in part, due to
the fact that it has become harder to find people willing to
work as precinct election officials on Election Day. That is
partly due to the fact that pay for this vital service is very
low, and because county boards of elections are unable to raise
the pay threshold due to various administrative challenges. For
example, if a PEO makes more than $600 in a year, even if they
are working three or four elections, the Board of Election
would have to begin issuing 1099s or W-2s for these workers.
There is also the issue of OPRS retirees being unable to work
part-time at the board or as booth workers because of the U.S.
Treasury rule resulting from the ACA.
So I guess my question would be: first, do you support
studying ways to remove barriers at the Federal level to make
hiring part-time election workers easier, and then what would
those be? Help us understand that?
Ms. Chappell. Yes, no, I do appreciate the question. We
have--we hire a huge group of individuals to work the polls. I
mean, the number is staggering. We have to do it. One of the
suggestions, I actually, in my written testimony, had a few
suggestions for you guys. One would be to let's move the
marathon day of voting to the weekend. It would help us recruit
poll workers. People would get relief time. We would have two
days to administer the election instead of one crazy, long day.
And I think it would--we would be able to improve the numbers
and the quality of the poll workers that we get for that kind
of weekend voting. Again, vote centers would allow us, I think,
to do that and have a major effect on poll workers.
Mr. Gonzalez. Great. Anything else on just kind of the
availability piece of finding poll workers? I think that is a
reasonable suggestion we should look at, but anything else?
Ms. Chappell. We have had a pretty robust program over the
years of, you know, engaging our poll workers, training our
poll workers. We have a program that allows for repeat folks to
work with us so we don't lose their expertise. I think there
have to be--one of my recommendations, you know, we should have
Election Day be a national holiday and people should be off
from work and really allowed an opportunity to exercise the
franchise. We would see greater numbers of poll workers if we
do something like that.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. And I will yield back the balance
of my time.
Chairwoman Fudge. Ms. Sewell.
Ms. Sewell. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I also want to
thank this panelist for providing a lot of the statistics and
facts about why it is that it is so important that we--maybe
that is the question I should ask. Is it important that we
restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?
I think that there are--I started my questioning in the last
panel about myths, and one of the myths that I think that
people often espouse is that voter maintenance, voter roll
maintenance, which is very important, don't get me wrong, I
think that that is important, but is it more important that we
purge people than he encourage people to go and vote?
I mean, to say that we are--voter maintenance is about
cost, you know, we are trying to lower the cost of
administering elections. At the end of the day, though, isn't
our job also to promote democracy? And isn't democracy about
promoting access to the ballot box and making sure that we are
encouraging? Has the Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlived its
time? That is really, I guess, the question I would ask you,
Mr. Brickner.
Mr. Brickner. Absolutely not. We are, you know, in full
support of the VRAA and having a new formula for Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act. And I think your point around data
collection, really understanding the problems, is a really
important one to remember when we are thinking about the Voting
Rights Act, because, certainly, under the formulas that are
being proposed, they are very flexible, and it is important for
us to collect data to show what is really happening in a
jurisdiction to see if pre-clearance is needed in that
jurisdiction.
Ms. Sewell. And would you say, given the fact that you have
given us a lot of data, both in your written testimony but also
in your oral, do you think that the data shows that we need to
figure out a formula to put back the full protections of the
Voting Rights Act?
Mr. Brickner. Absolutely, and that we need a system to also
look--keep the data for the entire country and for longer
periods of time. We as a nonprofit organization put this
together. I think that the government has a role in keeping
that data and analyzing those things.
Ms. Sewell. Well, let's go along that same line of
questioning. So, Ms. Chappell, first of all, thank you so much
for your years of service to the board of registrars. You do an
admiral job that is critically important in protecting our
democracy.
Does the Federal Government have a role to play? So often I
hear that the Federal Government is setting up barriers. But I
think that many of us, especially those of us who come from
States like Alabama that were part of the former confederacy,
that literally I wouldn't be a Member of Congress let alone
Alabama's first black Congresswoman had we not gotten the right
to vote and civil rights, and last time I checked, it was the
Federal Government and the Federal court systems that actually
gave us that right.
We are coequal branches of government, just like the
judiciary, and we have a role to play in making sure that we
promote this democracy. So I guess my question to you is, when
you think about the many barriers and impediments to what you
are doing in your role, is the Federal Government the biggest
impediment?
Ms. Chappell. No. Thank God for the Supremacy Clause and
thank God for Federal preemption. I really think you guys have
got to really give some--and what you are doing today is
important to oversee what is happening at the State level. You
know, we have to get--you know, numbers can be made to say
anything, and we can parse out and numbers are important and
the data collection is important.
Ms. Sewell. They are critically important.
Ms. Chappell. The data collection is important. But it has
got to be overlaid with some basic fundamental principles that
the vote cannot be forfeit. You cannot forfeit your vote. How
can you forfeit your vote? So I think we have to have the
Federal Government absolutely involved.
In my testimony, written testimony I actually gave you a
specific thing you might consider, authorizing a subsidy
perhaps to the U.S. Post Office that would cover the cost of
processing and delivery of absentee ballots.
Ms. Sewell. Absentee ballots. I like that.
Ms. Chappell. And, you know, I mean, we have got a lot of
ideas here at our Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, but we do
think the role of the Federal Government and your role is key
to allowing full and unfettered access to the ballot.
Ms. Sewell. So in closing, I just want to say I had the
great opportunity of being the Member of Congress representing
Alabama during the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery
march. And I had as my special guest Ms. Amelia Boynton
Robinson at the State of the Union in 2015. She was the oldest
living--at the time--survivor of being bludgeoned on that
bridge in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. She was at the time 103
years old.
And I had the opportunity to meet with her and for her to
meet President Barack Obama in this small little room off of
the Capitol before he gave his speech. And to a person--
everyone came in and kneeled down where she was sitting in her
wheelchair and said, ``Ms. Boynton, you know, we are where we
are, Ms. Amelia, because of you and your sacrifices.'' ``We
stand on your shoulders,'' is what they kept saying.
So by the time President Obama came in, all of his Cabinet
members had all said the same thing, we stand on your
shoulders, we stand on your shoulders. When Eric Holder said
it, she said, get off my shoulders, all of you. Do your own
work, is what she said. There is plenty of work to be done and
we must do our own work.
And I just want to remind this panel of our constitutional
responsibility. We have to do our own work. Progress is
elusive. Progress never, ever, ever stays the same. We have to
fight to hold on to the progress that we have made in this
country and advance it for future generations. And I just want
to make sure--I know that this panel has very important work
that has to be done, and I look forward to seeing us continue
to do that and do our constitutional duty.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Chairwoman Fudge. Mr. Davis for his closing comments as
well as questions, if you have some.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And thank you again to the witnesses. I appreciate your
attendance here.
Quick question, any of you can answer it or all of you.
Now, since the Supreme Court's 2013 decision on Shelby County,
have you noticed any enforcement trends related to Sections 2
and 3?
Ms. Awan. I mean, I can't cite numbers, but what I would
say is we have seen an increase in the number of Section 2
Voting Rights Act lawsuits. Prior to, you know, the States,
especially where there was previously preclearance in place----
Mr. Davis. So there are an increase in lawsuits, but you
are not seeing any enforcement actions?
Ms. Sewell. Because enforcement law is not there.
Ms. Awan. Well, and, I mean, some of these Section 2
lawsuits have been successful requiring there to be changes in
the law, right, as a result of that. I mean, prior to Shelby
County, there were very few vote denial cases brought, right.
Everything was under the vote dilution section of Section 2 of
the VRA almost where it was addressing gerrymandering.
But now we are seeing things brought about voter ID,
elimination of same-day registration, and early voting
opportunities, elimination of preregistration. So, you know, I
think that we have seen an uptick in the need for that.
Mr. Davis. Anybody else?
Ms. Chappell. I don't have any data to be able to be
responsive to that.
Mr. Davis. Okay. Mr. Brickner.
Mr. Brickner. I would agree with Ms. Awan.
Mr. Davis. Okay. So number one, thanks again for being
here. This has been a great opportunity to hear from our
colleagues. This is a great opportunity to understand what
happens in a State that is not our own.
You know, as somebody who is from Illinois, as somebody who
has a--coincidentally four public universities in his district,
I obviously don't know how that happened with the Democratic
super majorities and a Democratic governor in 2011, but that is
clearly a gerrymandered district.
The gerrymandering issues that are talked about here at
this dais happen, as Ms. Kaptur said, in a bipartisan manner.
And I certainly hope that I can count on the support of my
colleagues as we move into this next set of redistricting to do
what we can to stop a practice that shouldn't happen anywhere,
let alone in Illinois or Ohio.
But I want to say thank you to both panels, because the
message I got out of this hearing today too is that there are a
lot of folks that are happy with what Secretary of State LaRose
is doing in this State right now.
You know, there is a process of voter maintenance that he
and his predecessors have had to do to follow the law, to
follow decisions made by our Federal Government and our Federal
courts. And the process right now, from my data, lasts 4 years.
So thank you for recognizing the efforts of Secretary LaRose
because I think that clearly shows this hearing has a very
bipartisan result, and that is exactly what I mentioned in my
opening comments.
Now, I do want to say I am a little confused by Ms.
Chappell and Mr. Brickner. You had some issues about--you
talked about how the State of Ohio has early voting everywhere,
the county offices, same time, same days, that is strictly--it
is the same everywhere at the same time, right?
Ms. Chappell. Throughout the State.
Mr. Davis. Throughout the State.
Ms. Chappell. That is correct.
Mr. Davis. I was in North Dakota a week and a half ago,
many of the witnesses said that since there wasn't such strict
adherence to times and dates, that that was the reason why
voters were somehow being suppressed from voting. Which is it?
Mr. Brickner. I can answer that. So I think that with
uniformity and equal protection, which was why there were
uniform hours put in place years ago by former Secretary
Husted, I think that with what Ms. Chappell said, it was more
of a race to the bottom was how equal protection worked. It
wasn't about lifting up all of the counties. We instead took
away some of the evening and weekend hours.
And I think that uniformity actually has some benefits. If
we are talking about public education for voters, it can become
confusing if there are more hours in one county and fewer hours
in an adjoining county just to put that out on television or
newspaper----
Mr. Davis. I appreciate that. I wanted to make sure that we
got it clarified as we----
Mr. Brickner. But I think we need to raise the bar too when
we talk about expanding evening and weekend hours.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. And thanks for that
clarification.
And there is--one comment that my colleague made earlier,
numbers are important. We had a lot of discussion about
population. The population of Ohio is growing less than 1
percent right now. And we saw an increase in voter turnout of
15 percent. It seems like folks here in Ohio, you are doing
something right.
And I want to commend you and I want to commend everybody
here for working hard to ensure that that happens and encourage
you and encourage everyone to continue to work with our
election officials to make sure that trend continues to go up.
Work hard to make sure there is an accurate count with the
Senate. Work hard to make sure people get a chance to cast
their vote because that is the backbone of a free society.
And I am glad to be a part of this Subcommittee. I am glad
to be here in Ms. Fudge's, Ms. Kaptur's, and Mr. Joyce's, and
Mr. Gonzalez's almost hometowns, in some cases. But this is an
opportunity for us to learn. And let me tell you something, I
have learned. And I appreciate your testimony, appreciate the
time, and I appreciate Chairwoman Fudge's leadership.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
I want to thank the witnesses and just say a couple of
things. One is, I clearly understand that we follow the law,
but every law is not just. Martin Luther King told us that
years and years ago, that every law is not just, because it was
against the law for us to vote. It was not a just law, but it
was the law.
So I think that sometimes we have to look at what is right
and what is fair and what is just. And just because it is the
law does not make it right.
So we changed the country, not through the law, really
through the Supreme Court. It was the Supreme Court that
determined we should be able to vote. The same thing when black
people could not serve in certain parts of the military. It was
not the legislature. It was not the law. It was the courts.
And so sometimes we have to look at them and say, it may be
what is written, it doesn't mean that it is right. And so, you
know, there was a time we had to sit at the back of the bus. It
wasn't right, but it was the law. So sometimes we can't follow
the law because it is not just.
Certainly, uniformity is not equity. It is a lot harder for
1 million people to vote at one polling place between the hours
of 9 and 5 than it is for 5,000, and so it is not just. It may
be what is on paper, but it is not just.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today
for their testimony. We may have some additional questions, and
we would ask that you would respond to us in writing and we
will put it in the record.
I want to thank Tri-C for always being so kind and having
their doors open to us whenever we need them, especially Claire
Rosacco, and all of those who made this happen.
I want to thank my colleagues for being here. And I think
that it is important for you all to see us together as opposed
to seeing what the television says. We disagree on many, many
things. There are very few things I agree with Rodney on, but I
like Rodney. Rodney is my friend. And so we have relationships.
So don't ever believe that we are enemies. We are not.
And I am just so pleased that Rodney has taken the time to
come here, because a lot of people thought he wouldn't, and so
I thank you for that from the very bottom of my heart.
We disagree on how to get there, but we all love our
country. And I know that we are here to try to fix something
that was changed. We are here to fix the Voting Rights Act, and
I believe that we are going to do it. I have confidence in my
colleagues that they are willing to work with me. I know these
are. And so we are going to move this process forward.
I want to thank our staffs. Like I said, we--you see a lot
of things here, but all I really do is come and sit down. Our
staffs do this work, and I want to thank them for the work they
do.
And with that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned without
objection.
[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]