    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        NATIVE AMERICAN VOTING RIGHTS: EXPLORING BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

                                     OF THE

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 11, 2020

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Available on the Internet:
             http://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration

                                 _________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    41-319                   WASHINGTON : 2020

                       Committee on House Administration

                      ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairperson
    JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois,
    SUSAN A. DAVIS, California             Ranking Member
    G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    MARK WALKER, North Carolina
    MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio                BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
    PETE AGUILAR, California

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               FEBRUARY 11, 2020

                                                                       Page
    Native American Voting Rights: Exploring Barriers and Solutions..     1

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Chairwoman Marcia L. Fudge.......................................     1
        Prepared statement of Chairwoman Fudge.......................     4
    Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member................................     7
        Prepared statement of Ranking Member Davis...................     8

                                   WITNESSES

    Hon. Ben Ray Lujan, Representative, Third District of New Mexico.    10
        Prepared statement of Hon. Lujan.............................    13
    Mr. Leonard Forsman, Chairman, Suquamish Tribe...................    16
        Prepared statement of Chairman Forsman.......................    19
    Ms. Amber Torres, Chairperson, Walker River Paiute Tribe.........    22
        Prepared statement of Ms. Torres.............................    24
    Ms. Doreen McPaul, Attorney General, Navajo Nation...............    26
        Prepared statement of Ms. McPaul.............................    28
    Ms. Patricia Ferguson-Bohnee, Director, Indian Legal Clinic,
      Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.............................    54
        Prepared statement of Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee....................    57
    Mr. Elvis Norquay, Member, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa
      Indians........................................................    70
        Prepared statement of Mr. Norquay............................    71
    Jacqueline De Leon, Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund..    72
        Prepared statement of Ms. De Leon............................    74

                            QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Ms. Patricia Ferguson-Bohnee, Director, Indian Legal Clinic,
      Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, answers to submitted
      questions......................................................    97
    Jacqueline De Leon, Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund,
      answers to submitted questions.................................   112
    Ms. Doreen McPaul, Attorney General, Navajo Nation, answers to
      submitted questions............................................   120
    Mr. Leonard Forsman, Chairman, Suquamish Tribe, answers to
      submitted questions............................................   124
    Ms. Amber Torres, Chairperson, Walker River Paiute Tribe, answers
      to submitted questions.........................................   127

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Statement of the National Congress of American Indians, The
      Native American Rights Fund....................................   130
    Letter, American Bar Association.................................   137
    Report, The Comprehensive Field Hearing Report on Historical and
      Contemporary Barriers to Political Participation by Native
      American Voters................................................   139

        NATIVE AMERICAN VOTING RIGHTS: EXPLORING BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2020

                      House of Representatives,
                             Subcommittee on Elections,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:59 a.m., in
    Room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Marcia L.
    Fudge [chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Fudge, Butterfield, Aguilar, and
    Davis of Illinois.
        Staff Present: Sean Jones, Legislative Clerk; Jamie Fleet,
    Staff Director; David Tucker, Senior Counsel and
    Parliamentarian; Mariam Malik, Staff Assistant; Sarah Nasta,
    Elections Counsel; Giancarlo Pellegrini, Professional Staff
    Member; Hannah Carr, Staff Assistant; Veleter Mazyck, Chief of
    Staff for Chairperson Fudge; Kyle Parker, Legislative Director
    for Representative Butterfield; Evan Dorner, Legislative
    Assistant for Representative Aguilar; Nick Crocker, Minority
    Director, Member Services; and Jesse Roberts, Minority Counsel.
        Chairperson Fudge. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
    Elections of the Committee on House Administration will come to
    order.
        I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five
    legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
    and that any written statements be made part of record.
        Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        I would like to thank the Members of the Committee as well
    as our witnesses and those in the audience for being here
    today.
        We are here today to examine barriers to Native American
    voting rights. This morning's hearing will shed light on the
    longstanding disenfranchisement faced by this Nation's first
    people and potential solutions to right this wrong.
        The ongoing injustice of voter disenfranchisement in
    America is far too familiar. Throughout 2019, the Subcommittee
    on Elections held a series of field hearings across the country
    to examine the state of voting rights and election
    administration in America. What we found was an alarming array
    of hurdles and obstacles to voting that exists for citizens
    across the country, especially minority groups.
        Suppressive tactics have existed in various forms since
    this Nation's founding, and they continue today. In 2013, the
    Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County gave jurisdictions
    with a provable legacy of discrimination, a green light to
    discriminate at will.
        What was old is new again: polling place closures and
    movements, cutbacks and restrictions on early voting,
    discriminatory voter ID laws, removing otherwise eligible
    voters from the rolls, modern day poll taxes, and a failure to
    provide required language assistance and materials among other
    barriers all combine to continually disfranchise millions of
    otherwise eligible voters.
        Last year, the House passed bills to strengthen voter
    protections and ballot access, including H.R. 1 and H.R. 4.
    Both these bills now sit on the Senate Majority Leader's desk
    waiting for action, but we cannot be still.
        At our founding, America claimed the commitment to
    equality. This Nation has failed to live up to that claim at
    many turns, and it is time to fix it.
        Protecting the rights of Native American voters is no
    exception. This is now the second Subcommittee hearing focused
    exclusively on Native American voting rights and our third
    examining the issue in detail. One might ask why we are
    spending so much time on this topic. Almost 7 million people
    identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native, millions of whom
    are eligible voters, including tens of thousands serving on
    active military duty and thousands more veterans who bravely
    serve this country.
        Apart from the Subcommittee's North Dakota field hearing,
    neither this Committee nor, in fact, any other committee in
    either Chamber of Congress has held a single hearing dedicated
    to Native American voting rights in recent memory. It is not
    only appropriate but necessary to hold a few hearings and make
    up for lost time.
        The Federal Government has consistently failed Native
    American communities by engaging in policies of forced removal
    and assimilation, failing to live up to its treaty promises and
    trust obligations and denying Native American citizenship until
    1924. The States are far from blameless. Once Native Americans
    acquired citizenship and the legal right to vote, States
    immediately erected a series of Jim Crow style barriers to
    prevent Native Americans from casting a ballot.
        By the time this discrimination began to fade in the 1960s,
    the damage was done. Native Americans experienced
    disproportionately low rates of voter participation and steep
    socioeconomic challenges. Both of these problems persist today.
        The socioeconomic challenges experienced by many Native
    Americans are severe and unacceptable. More than a quarter of
    Native Americans live in poverty, and Native Americans are
    unemployed at almost twice the rate of other Americans. Tribal
    lands are often rural and isolated, and many members lack
    access to transportation, residential street addresses, and
    reliable mail service. All of this was underscored by witnesses
    at our field hearings in North Dakota and Arizona, but it is
    not limited to those two States.
        These structural challenges mean that today's election laws
    are not necessarily working for Native American voters. Voter
    registration services are often scarce or unavailable on Tribal
    land, and the act of voting itself is difficult for many Tribal
    members. Polling sites are plagued by inadequate facilities,
    outdated equipment, and long wait lines. Tribal lands sometimes
    lack a polling site altogether, and access to proper language
    assistance remains a persistent issue.
        As we constantly talk about greatness, America is great
    because of her ability to repair her faults. It is time for us
    to do right by the residents of Tribal nations and guarantee
    the right to vote that each member is owed. We look forward to
    our panels today offering their views and possible solutions,
    hopefully. There is much work to be done.
        I yield now to the Ranking Member, Mr. Davis.
        [The statement of Chairperson Fudge follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Welcome to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Lujan. Can't
    wait to grill you with questions, my friend.
        Since the creation of the Committee on House
    Administration, oversight of Federal elections quickly became
    one of its chief tasks. Throughout CHA's existence, the
    Committee has worked across the aisle to create significant and
    necessary election policy that is 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 landmark Help America
    Vote Act, a piece of legislation that took significant steps to
    remedy the problems seen in the 2000 presidential election.
        The Subcommittee on Elections is designed to serve as an
    extension of CHA to enhance oversight capabilities of Federal
    elections. While the Subcommittee has not always been a formal
    part of this Committee, the work on the election administration
    has always remained a top priority. Since the Subcommittee's
    recent reinstatement, its focus has been on examining the
    Voting Rights Act, which historically has been a bipartisan
    effort, first enacted in 1965 for the purpose of removing
    racial-based restrictions on voting. While this legislation has
    primarily remained under the jurisdiction of the House
    Judiciary Committee, our Committee has an obligation to review
    how elections are being administered and recognize problems
    that Congress can solve, which I hope we are able to do here.
        The bill we are reviewing today, the Native American Voting
    Rights Bill, is specifically to address how Native Americans
    vote in our Nation's elections, and I hope to hear more about
    that today, especially starting with my friend and colleague,
    Mr. Lujan. We previously held a field hearing in North Dakota
    on Standing Rock where we heard from many Tribal leaders about
    their work to help their populations vote, and we discussed
    ways that they can work with State administrators to better
    increase those efforts.
        We also held a field hearing in Phoenix, Arizona, where the
    Subcommittee had the opportunity to again hear from Native
    American representatives on voting rights. In Arizona, we heard
    from State Senator Ugenta Rita on the State's ballot harvesting
    prohibition, which has recently been, in my view, wrongly
    invalidated by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I hope we can
    hear testimony on the very important issue of ballot harvesting
    as well.
        If there is evidence of intentional widespread voter
    discrimination, we should take steps to remedy that in a
    bipartisan manner. Additionally, we should do our due diligence
    to review all of the facts and the numbers carefully and hear
    from all of the relevant stakeholders. What are the voter
    registration trends? What are the voter turnout trends? It is
    essential that Congress make the most well-informed decisions
    possible.
        Voting is a fundamental right to American citizens, and
    protecting that right is a responsibility that I as Ranking
    Member of this Subcommittee and of the full Committee take very
    seriously.
        Today I am here to listen to all the witnesses who have
    graciously agreed to participate. I look forward to hearing
    what each of you have to share in front of the Subcommittee.
        Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Lujan, I will spare you all of the instructions about
    the lighting system. I am sure you are quite aware.
        So, on our first panel, we will hear from a sponsor of H.R.
    1694, the Native American Voting Rights Act, my colleague and
    friend, Congressman Ben Ray Lujan. Congressman Lujan represents
    New Mexico's Third Congressional District and is serving his
    sixth term in Congress. He serves as the Assistant Speaker of
    the House and is the highest-ranking Hispanic in Congress. He
    is also a member of the Congressional Native American Caucus
    and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
        Congressman Lujan's district includes 15 Pueblos and Navajo
    Nation and the Jicarilla----
        Mr. Lujan. Jicarilla.
        Chairperson Fudge [continuing]. Apache Nation, and
    Congressman Lujan was born and raised in Nambe a small
    community in northern New Mexico, nestled between two Pueblos
    and the historic high road to Taos scenic byway.
        You are recognized, my friend, for five minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

        Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thank you to Chairperson Lofgren, and Ranking Member
    Davis, Chairperson Fudge, members of the Subcommittee and their
    efforts to uplift Native American voting rights. I am glad to
    see the Honorable Doreen McPaul representing the Navajo Nation
    and Isleta Pueblo Tribal member Jacqueline De Leon here to lend
    their voices to this critical discussion. I welcome them as
    well.
        I am proud of what we have accomplished in the 116th
    Congress to build on the Voting Rights Act with House passage
    of H.R. 4, but our work is not finished. As a Nation, we have
    still not fulfilled commitments to Tribes to work with them on
    a government-to-government basis to protect Native voting
    rights. This is a great injustice and one that allows the
    longstanding disenfranchisement of Native voters to continue.
        Throughout our country's history, Native voters have been
    subject to guardianship, literacy tests, polling taxes, and
    outright rejection from the ballot box in regions across the
    U.S. These barriers still exist. My home State of New Mexico is
    figured prominently in this history.
        More than 50 years after the ratification of the 14th
    Amendment and 24 years after Native Americans were finally
    granted their innate right to citizenship and the vote, veteran
    Miguel Trujillo of Isleta Pueblo was denied his right to
    participate in our democracy by his county registrar. Their
    reason? Mr. Trujillo lived on Tribal land and was classified by
    the government as ``Indians not taxed.'' Mr. Trujillo filed
    suit and won in 1948. The landmark case, Trujillo v. Garley,
    granted Native Americans the right to vote regardless of
    whether they lived on Tribal lands or not.
        That same year, Frank Harrison of the Yavapai Nation
    challenged Arizona in Harrison v. Laveen for the State's claim
    that Indians were ``mentally incompetent,'' in the words of the
    government, and therefore prohibited from voting. Mr. Harrison
    won, again, confirming States cannot infringe on Native
    people's right to vote.
        And yet today States continue to restrict Native voting
    rights. They print ballots near Native communities in English
    only, close or move polling places off Tribal lands, and
    require physical addresses on IDs from voters whose homes do
    not have physical addresses but rather rural box addresses,
    which are commonplace in many rural communities across America.
        I thank the House Judiciary Committee for ensuring Native
    voices are a part of the efforts to strengthen the Voting
    Rights Act. Committee action proved that Native peoples,
    particularly those living on Tribal lands, continue to face
    linguistic, geographic, and legal barriers to voting. We know
    North Dakota Tribes are fighting State voter ID laws that
    Tribal members are unable to comply with because, as I stated
    earlier, they lack physical addresses where they live and rely
    on rural box addresses. Growing up, through my own childhood,
    it was Route 1, Box 102. The same mailbox that was Route 1, Box
    102 that went to our house is the same mailbox at the top of
    that dirt road. Now it is just named after my grandparents with
    a physical address. But the local government went in to change
    those addresses. There are still many parts of America where
    rural communities are still operating under that addressing
    system that I grew up with.
        Just last week, South Dakota legislators rejected a bill
    that would have allowed Tribal IDs to be used for voter
    registration. In 2020, this type of disenfranchisement is
    unacceptable. It is a stain on our Federal trust responsibility
    and our democracy.
        The good news is that Tribes and lawmakers are taking
    action. Less than a year ago, Washington State and Colorado
    passed laws that allow Tribes to designate addresses for
    individuals who do not have physical addresses for voting
    purposes.
        Congress has a unique responsibility to legislate here
    because of the government-to-government relationship the United
    States has with Tribal Nations. That is why I introduced the
    Native American Voting Rights Act with Senator Tom Udall, our
    colleagues Deb Haaland and Sharice Davis and Ranking Member Tom
    Cole.
        The Native American Voting Rights Act allows Tribal
    governments to collaborate with their State counterparts to
    ensure Native peoples have access to the ballot box. It directs
    States to accept Tribal IDs for voter registration or
    identification purposes, requires precincts to honor requests
    to place polling locations on Tribal lands, and ensure
    precincts seek Tribal consent before changing polling
    locations.
        In places that require Native language assistance under the
    Voting Rights Act, it allows Tribes to determine the forms of
    assistance. Tribal governments are empowered to request Federal
    observers when they believe Native voters might be
    disenfranchised at the polls. It would also create a grant
    program to build a stronger election infrastructure for
    communities.
        Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into
    the record the many organizations that are supportive of this
    legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the Native
    American Voting Rights Act. And I thank the Committee and
    witnesses for being part of today's vital hearing. Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Lujan follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you very much.
        I appreciate it. We are not going to ask our colleague any
    questions, so we thank you so much for being here, and we would
    call our second panel.
        Thank you so much. Our witnesses today will be recognized
    for five minutes. I will remind our witnesses that their entire
    written statements will be made part of the record and that the
    record will remain open for at least five days for additional
    materials to be submitted if you wish.
        The lighting system will tell you how much time you have
    remaining. You will each have five minutes. Green light means
    begin. Yellow means you have one minute left. And red means
    please wrap up your statement.
        On our second panel, I would like to welcome Leonard
    Forsman, Chairman of the Suquamish Tribe. He has held the
    position since 2005. Previously, he was a research
    archaeologist for Larson Anthropological and Archaeological--
    those are two words hard to say together--Services in Seattle,
    Washington, from 1992 through 2003. He is also the vice chair
    of the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation, a position he
    was appointed to by President Obama.
        Amber Torres has served as Chairman of the Walker River
    Paiute Tribe in Schurz, Nevada, since 2016. She currently
    serves on the Intertribal Council of Nevada Executive Board
    Native Farm Bill Coalition and Tribal Leaders Consultation Work
    Group, the National Indian Health Board, the National Congress
    of American Indians, Vice President, Alternate Western Region,
    Tribal Interior Budget Council, and other boards that represent
    Nevada, Arizona, and Utah.
        Welcome.
        Doreen McPaul assumed her position as Attorney General of
    the Navajo Nation in April 2019. She has 18 years of legal
    experience, including 11 years working for the Pascua Yaqui
    Tribe and Tohono O'odham Tribe--I am close; I am trying really
    hard--Nation and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community.
    She received her law degree from Arizona State University and
    is licensed to practice law in Arizona and New Mexico and on
    the Navajo Nation.
        Thank you all so much for being here. We will begin. You
    have five minutes.

       STATEMENTS OF LEONARD FORSMAN, CHAIRMAN, SUQUAMISH TRIBE,
    SUQUAMISH, WASHINGTON; AMBER TORRES, CHAIRPERSON, WALKER RIVER
       PAIUTE TRIBE; AND DOREEN MCPAUL, ATTORNEY GENERAL, NAVAJO
                                 NATION

                      STATEMENT OF LEONARD FORSMAN

        Mr. Forsman. Good morning, Chairperson Fudge, Ranking
    Member Davis, and all the Members of the Subcommittee. My name
    is Leonard Forsman. I am the chairman of the Suquamish Tribe,
    and I also serve as President of Affiliated Tribes of Northwest
    Indians. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today about
    removing legal barriers that prevent Native Americans from
    exercising our right to vote, and specifically how we
    accomplished this in the State of Washington.
        The Suquamish Tribe is signatory to the 1855 Treaty of
    Point Elliott. In exchange for ceding most of our aboriginal
    homeland, the Tribe reserved the Port Madison Indian
    Reservation, home of Chief Seattle, on the Kitsap Peninsula as
    well fishing, hunting, and gathering rights. We have roughly
    1,200 enrolled citizens, more than half of whom reside on a
    reservation or within Kitsap County, which is located west of
    Seattle across the Puget Sound.
        As residents of the State of Washington, we have many
    options on how to register to vote. We can register by mail or
    online eight days prior to election day. We also have the
    ability to register in person and on election day itself.
        Washington is a vote-by-mail state. Prior to election day,
    ballots are mailed to all registered voters. Voters may return
    their ballots via mail or by dropping the ballot off at a
    designated ballot box location. Postage is not required to mail
    the ballot. Voters also have the option to vote in person on
    election day.
        Even with the seemingly voter-friendly Washington system,
    American Indians still face many obstacles to exercising our
    right to vote. The obstacles I will discuss are not particular
    to Suquamish or Washington State. They are common across Indian
    Country.
        The first barrier was using Tribal IDs to register to vote.
    Tribal citizens that did not have State-issued licenses or IDs
    have a harder time registering to vote online. Many Tribal
    citizens' primary identification is their Tribal ID cards.
    These individuals often do not have State-issued driver's
    license or ID cards. In addition, some Tribal-issued IDs do not
    include residential addresses or signatures.
        The second barrier was that many Tribal citizens do not
    have a typical residential address to use to register to vote.
    Many Suquamish homes have addresses that do not correlate with
    the State's address system. This creates issues for these
    Tribal citizens in ensuring that they are registered to vote in
    the right precinct. In addition, Tribal citizens rely heavily
    on PO boxes, which are strictly prohibited in establishing
    residence for voter registration.
        A third barrier specific to Washington was the option for
    returning ballots. Too often designated ballot box locations
    were off reservation and operated with limited hours. This
    created a hardship for many Tribal citizens that do not have
    the means of transportation. Tribal citizens were also deterred
    by having to pay the postage of the ballot. That is no longer
    the case.
        Washington State responded to these challenges by enacting
    the Native American Voting Rights Act, or NAVRA. NAVRA
    addresses many of the issues we face when trying to vote.
    First, a Tribe may now request that their county auditor
    establish at least one ballot box on their reservation. More
    importantly, the Tribe can choose a location. There is no cost
    to the Tribe. We have one right outside our Tribal office,
    fortunately.
        NAVRA allows Tribal citizens residing on a reservation to
    use nontraditional residential addresses for voter
    registration. They may also use a location of the tribally
    designated ballot box as a residential and mailing address if
    they live in the same precinct.
        Third, NAVRA allows Tribal citizens to use Tribal IDs to
    register to vote. The Tribal ID does not need to list the
    residential address. However, if the ID does not have the
    Tribal citizen's signature, the secretary of state must be able
    to obtain a copy of the signature from the Tribe.
        Finally, a Tribe may request that any State facility
    located on the Tribe's reservation provide voter registration
    services. NAVRA also provides enforcement mechanisms that allow
    a Tribal government, an individual, or a State attorney general
    to sue to enforce its provisions.
        Since the passage of NAVRA, Tribes in Washington are now
    partnered with the State. The Suquamish Tribe is now able to
    have direct involvement with the State in planning and ensuring
    that our people do not face obstacles while exercising their
    right to vote.
        The Tribe is now preparing for this year's 2020 elections.
    We have a ballot box located in front of our Tribal offices,
    and we have a central location to deliver the ballots, our
    ballots. This is important for homeless citizens and for those
    that may not have a stable residence. These individuals now
    have the ability to designate the Tribal ballot box location as
    their address. The Suquamish have been working with the State
    to provide voter registration services on our reservation.
        In addition to my role as chairman of the Tribe, I am also
    on the NCAI Executive Board, and NCAI has established a
    nonpartisan Native voting initiative that provides staff
    coordinators to offer vital information throughout Indian
    Country. NCAI has provided testimony to the work that they do
    on the Get Out the Vote.
        And, in conclusion, I urge this Committee to consider the
    measures taken by the State of Washington as Congress moves
    forward in addressing voter rights issues. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer any questions.
    Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Forsman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I now recognize Chairwoman Torres for five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF AMBER TORRES

        Ms. Torres. Pesha Awamooa'a me Amber Torres me nane'a nu
    Agai Dicutta Poinabe nu Agai Gway. Good morning, everyone. My
    name is Amber Torres.
        I am the Chairman for the Walker River Paiute Tribe in
    Schurz, Nevada. I want to thank Chairperson Marcia L. Fudge and
    Ranking Member Rodney Davis and members of the Committee on
    House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, for the
    opportunity to testify about Native American voting rights,
    exploring barriers and solutions.
        In 2016, the Walker River and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribes
    worked in conjunction with Four Directions Incorporated to
    determine if Tribal members living on reservations had equal
    access to the ballot box. It was determined that the poverty
    rate, lack of transportation, and/or the age and condition of
    the vehicles placed Tribal members at a disadvantage in
    participating in early in-person voting.
        On or about September 7, 2016, a complaint and an emergency
    motion for a preliminary injunction was filed in Federal court
    that the alleged abridgement of the fundamental right, the
    right to vote and, in particular, to have equal access to early
    in-person voting and election day in-person polling, protected
    under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Sanchez v. Barbara
    Cegavske.
        A hearing on this matter was held, and the Honorable Judge
    Du and the stance taken by the Tribal members was supported by
    a preliminary expert report from Professor Daniel Craig McCool
    of the University of Utah and a Statement of Interest filed by
    the Department of Justice.
        On or about October 7, 2020, the Honorable Judge Du issued
    an order that plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
    ECF No. 26, is granted in part and denied in part. The motion
    is granted with respect to plaintiffs' request for early in-
    person voting in Nixon, Nevada, and Schurz, Nevada. The motion
    is also granted with respect to plaintiffs' request for
    election day in-person voting in Nixon, Nevada. The motion is
    denied with respect to plaintiffs' request for in-person voter
    registration in Nixon, Nevada, and Schurz, Nevada.
        Since that time, the Nevada State legislators created
    legislation that allows counties to work with other Nevada
    Tribes to establish satellite offices. We have also seen an
    increase of Tribal members voter turnout. Because of the
    absolute offices, there are new registered voters.
        One issue that still creates problems to this day is the
    felony provision in the State of Nevada voter registration
    application. Line 15 on the form states: Important, if you are
    assisting a person to register to vote and you are not a field
    register appointment by a county clerk, register of voters, or
    an employee of a voter registration agency, you must complete
    the following. Your signature is required. Failure to do so is
    a felony.
        This creates problems within our reservation in that our
    youth tend to help their grandparents in everyday activities,
    and this provision makes them hesitant and/or not wanting to
    assist the elders in voter registration in that if they forget
    to sign, they could be charged with a felony. It would only
    take Nevada legislation to remove this barrier, but until that
    time, the field register appointed by a county clerk register
    of voters or an employee of a voter registration agency should
    be assigned to our reservations to assist with voter
    registration.
        We would also like the House and Senate to support H.R.
    1694, Native American Voting Rights Act of 2019. Our people
    understand the importance of voting and how hard our ancestors
    fought to have that right. Please make sure our voices are
    heard now and for future generations.
        Thank you for your time for allowing me to testify before
    this Committee on the issues of voter equality at the ballot
    box. Pesha U. Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Torres follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you.
        Attorney General McPaul, you are recognized for five
    minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF DOREEN MCPAUL

        Ms. McPaul. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair, and
    honorable Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to address the Subcommittee today.
        My name is Doreen McPaul. I am an enrolled member of the
    Navajo Nation, and I serve as the Attorney General, and I
    oversee the Nation's Department of Justice.
        I am here today to discuss three recent voting rights cases
    that greatly impact Navajo voters. Each of these decisions
    highlights adversities faced by Navajos when they are casting
    their ballots.
        The first case is Navajo Nation v. San Juan County. San
    Juan County is in Utah. It is the largest county in the United
    States that has a majority Native American population. This
    case challenged the county's failure to redistrict its
    commission and school board for more than 20 years. The county
    is made up of three commission districts, two of which have a
    majority non-Native population, and the third had a 92 percent
    Navajo population in 2012 when this litigation was brought. As
    a result of this case, the Federal court found the county's
    district lines to be unconstitutional in violation of the Equal
    Protection Clause. The court appointed a special master to
    draft a redistricting plan. Under the new plan, two of the
    three county districts had, for the first time, a Native
    American majority population. The court ordered the county to
    adopt the plan and to hold a special election using the new
    redistricting plan. This election occurred in November of 2018,
    and as a result of the election, two Navajos for the first time
    in the county's history were elected to hold two of the three
    commissioner seats.
        And despite the success, there is ongoing efforts to
    challenge the structure of this county and to undo these
    positive results.
        The second case is Navajo Nation v. Hobbs. This is a
    Federal court case that challenged the early voting practices
    of three Arizona counties: Apache County, Navajo County, and
    Coconino County.
        In 2018, these counties did not count the early ballots
    submitted by Navajo voters that failed to have a signature nor
    did the counties inform the voter that the ballot was
    defective.
        The Nation filed a suit against the Arizona Secretary of
    State as well as the three counties. This particular case
    recently settled in a way which allows the voter who failed to
    sign their ballot two things. First, they have notice of the
    deficiency, and they also have the opportunity to cure that
    defect. These two remedies are also already afforded to voters
    who have mismatched signatures on their early voting ballots as
    well as to voters on election day who failed to present their
    identification.
        We are having some post-settlement challenges with the
    State's election manual as well as some current legislation
    proposed by one Senator that would specifically prohibit curing
    and undo our settlement in this case.
        The last case I want to mention is the very recent
    Democratic National Committee v. Hobbs. In this particular
    decision, the Ninth Circuit overturned two laws that had
    significant hardship--created significant hardship for voters.
    The first law prohibited ballot collecting by third parties,
    and the second law prohibited out-of-precinct ballots.
        It is very common for Navajos who share the burden of
    having a distant post office box to have relatives pick up or
    drop off the mail. This is true whether they share a box or
    they share a residence. And out-of-precinct voting is also very
    common on the Navajo Nation, especially where Tribal and State
    elections are happening on the same day. If a voter's precinct
    doesn't align with the Navajo Nation's 110 political
    subdivisions, it results in out-of-precinct voting, and so we
    are very pleased with this Ninth Circuit decision.
        And just to conclude my comments, I want to emphasize that
    the Navajo Nation supports the efforts of Congress to address
    Native voting issues in the Native American Voting Rights Act.
    Litigation is expensive. It is time consuming, and there is
    really no end in sight. Both the Navajo Nation President as
    well as the Navajo Council have expressed support for the act.
    And for the Nation, this law recognizes the unique challenges
    faced by Native voters and attempts to remedy those issues, and
    the Nation would very much like Congress to pass that act.
    Thank you.
        [The statement of McPaul follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you very much, and thank you all
    for your testimony. I congratulate you for the legal successes
    that you all have experienced and just note that it took more
    than 230 years to get two Native Americans elected to the House
    of Representatives.
        Let me begin with this question for all of you, each of
    you, and we will just go down the line. Do you think that your
    surrounding non-Tribal communities face the same challenges
    with geography in voting?
        Mr. Forsman. We have got 29 Tribes in Washington. It varies
    from the rural to the urban to the suburban. So I would guess
    it depend on the Tribe you are asking about. I would say
    generally that they don't face the same challenges that our
    people do within our reservations because of the past
    oppression that our people faced through the assimilation
    process the Federal Government imposed upon us.
        And so most things that you mentioned earlier in your
    testimony about Indians not taxed and the tradition of our
    people not being allowed to go to public schools and then being
    sent to boarding schools, so this tradition of being excluded
    is something that--there is some distrust, but there are some
    challenges also around access.
        Washington, of course, is a model for some of those things
    being eliminated, but I would just like to emphasize that not
    all States are like Washington in their relationship with
    Tribes in that we have a very positive relationship that took a
    lot of work. It didn't just come out of thin air, but it took a
    lot of work by my previous leadership that did a lot of those
    things. And so a lot of the political forces within Washington
    really respect the unique relationship that Tribes have with
    the Federal Government and the States.
        Chairperson Fudge. Is Washington the only State that has a
    Native American Voting Rights Act?
        Mr. Forsman. As far as I know, but I may be--I had heard
    earlier that Colorado has something similar, but I am only
    familiar with Washington's.
        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you.
        Ms. Torres.
        Ms. Torres. Thank you for the question. I want to say,
    frankly, that I don't believe that non-Indians have the same
    barriers to access as Native Americans do. As you know,
    reservations are located in rural and desolate areas where I
    would say that non-Indians have access because they are in
    urban settings.
        Again, we deal with the barriers to access, transportation
    issues, high poverty rates, unemployment rates. And the biggest
    thing is, you know, if my people have to decide whether they
    are going to use that transportation to go to work versus, you
    know, going to vote 40 miles away, you know, it is a no-
    brainer.
        We have historical trauma embedded within our people, and
    the biggest thing is we face challenges that no one else does.
    And, again, I feel it is a trust and treaty responsibility
    because our ancestors paid it due a long time ago, and it is
    time for the Federal Government to hold up their end of the
    bargain. Thank you for that question.
        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you.
        Attorney General, can you just tell me what you think is
    the greatest hardship faced by Native Americans as it relates
    to voting? I mean, we have gone through the IDs and how costly
    they have been, how time consuming. What do you think is the
    biggest issue, and what should we be doing as a Nation to live
    up to our end of this bargain?
        Ms. McPaul. I don't know if there is one single greatest
    challenge. I can tell you that I think for the Navajo Nation in
    particular because we cover such a large area of land, cover
    multiple States, cover multiple counties within those States,
    there is just a lot of challenges, you know. I moved back to
    Wind Rock from Tucson, Arizona, and for the first time in 20
    years, I have a post office box. I have access to a vehicle. I
    have access to paved roads, and I only check my mail probably
    once every week or maybe two weeks. It is just an inconvenience
    to travel to the post office. And adding things like lack of
    transportation, having to traverse dirt roads, having to
    traverse those roads in bad weather, and then not having
    financial means to do just basic--you know, getting to the post
    office or getting to the polling location just are challenges
    upon challenges. So I don't know if there is a single fix, you
    know.
        In my role having to bring constant litigation and the
    expense of litigation is a challenge to our budget, and you
    know, prioritizing this for our communities is--you know, I
    have to choose between, you know, a case like this or an Indian
    Child Welfare Act case or some other important case, you know,
    that goes to the root of Tribal sovereignty. And so, you know,
    I think that improving access, improving language, all of those
    things that help, you know, take down the barriers are of great
    need.
        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you.
        Mr. Davis, you are recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Real quickly, I want to get from each of you, if we could--
    and we will start with Chairman Forsman--can you all speak a
    little bit about voter registration trends for each of your
    Tribes and overall voter participation in the last few election
    cycles?
        Mr. Forsman. I don't have specific statistics to reference,
    but I know that, in Washington, the NAVRA, Voting Rights Act
    for Native Americans, and just the general trend within
    Washington to make voting easier through mail, through more
    less-stringent requirements for ID, for registration because
    you can actually use a Social Security number if you don't have
    a State-issued ID and the other alternatives for that. Just for
    example, my brother just moved back from being in San Francisco
    for 40 years, back to the reservation. And he only had a
    California ID and doesn't drive. So he had no need to get a
    State license. He was able to register fairly easily just
    through the mail.
        The barriers have been dropping in Washington because there
    is a real conscious effort there to reduce the barriers to
    voting so that Washingtonians and their Tribal citizens can
    have that opportunity to vote. I feel that those efforts have
    increased our registration and our voter turnout.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Great.
        Ms. Torres. Chairwoman Torres.
        Ms. Torres. Thank you. Thank you for the question. So, with
    our litigation, we have had an early polling site on our
    reservation, which has offered us a number of new registered
    voters and also access for our people to be local there at home
    and make their vote count.
        The other thing is we are getting our veterans out. We are
    getting our community members out. We are having voter drives
    where we are bringing in our people. We are hiring our own
    people, which I think is a huge success for us because of
    cultural competencies. People feel as if those people are
    trusted, and so I think it has been good for us.
        I think one of the huge successes that we have had is with
    the early voting sites. We are getting our own people trained,
    and it allows more of our people to again feel comfortable
    coming in and giving their vote there.
        The other thing is, this year, we are really concentrating
    on Census as well as voting, and we have new 18-year-olds. We
    are pushing that think get signed up, and, again, our older
    voters that haven't voting in quite some time, we are going out
    and educating them on that importance. We are really making the
    push to sign all of our people up. So it has been successful,
    and we have seen a huge voter turnout.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. All right.
        Ms. McPaul, what are your thoughts?
        Ms. McPaul. Thank you. With respect to voter registration
    trends, I can only speak to this in terms of our litigation
    with, for example, redistricting and a constitutional matter
    that affects voting turnout. And the results allowing for
    ballot collecting and out-of-precinct voting, you know, should
    be a trend if that is the way I can say that.
        With respect to our Arizona settlement, adding additional
    in-person voting places as part of the settlement, developing a
    voter registration plan for the State to maximize voter
    registration as part of the settlement, adding timely radio
    advertisements. Election information in the Navajo language is
    important, providing Navajo translators at each polling place
    and also allowing voters an opportunity to cure their unsigned
    ballots.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Okay. Thank you all for your
    thoughts on this.
        Real quick, while I have a little bit of time left,
    Attorney General McPaul, I noticed in your testimony you
    mentioned the case that was discussed at the Arizona field
    hearing in regard to ballot harvesting in the Ninth Circuit
    Court of Appeals. On ballot harvesting, more generally,
    California, States like California, I have a concern with the
    chain of custody issues that I believe are ripe for fraud. As a
    matter of fact, we saw fraud in ballot harvesting in North
    Carolina where we had a special election. And one Member who
    won an election in November of 2018 was not seated in this
    institution because of ballot harvesting.
        So, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, do you
    think the gentleman who is probably going to be on--who is
    going to be on trial and likely to go to jail in North Carolina
    because ballot harvesting is illegal, do you think that gives
    him the ability to argue that his case should be thrown out of
    court?
        Ms. McPaul. Thank you for the question. I am not familiar
    with the particular issue that you are talking about, so I
    don't feel competent to speak to it. I can tell you that, in my
    personal experience just growing up on the reservation and
    sharing a post office box, you know, my relatives all live in
    the same area, and it is not uncommon for everybody to have
    keys to the other people's post office boxes to collect the
    mail and to drop it off. And so, you know, I don't--I don't
    know. In that context, delivering the mail for my grandmother
    or my disabled relative, how that would constitute fraud for
    picking up the mail?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, it is pretty well established
    now in most States that you can take the relatives' ballot, but
    we saw an instance of fraud in North Carolina where a
    Republican operative is likely to go to jail for doing what is
    completely legal in other States that the Ninth Circuit Court
    of Appeals addressed in their decision. I just find it
    interesting. I mean, I think if I was the one who was being
    charged, I would seriously look at that decision. So thank you
    all for your comments.
        Chairperson Fudge. Mr. Butterfield, you are recognized for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Let me join the Chair and Ranking Member in welcoming the
    three of you to this hearing today. Your testimony has been
    very valuable.
        Many of my colleagues know that in my prior life, I was a
    trial judge in North Carolina, but many of my colleagues may
    not know that prior to that, I was a voting rights attorney for
    some six or seven years in my State. When I came out of law
    school, I did not recognize the full potential and power of the
    1965 Voting Rights Act. But after I began to learn and to apply
    the Voting Rights Act, I began to appreciate the importance of
    the VRA. And so that is why I am an original cosponsor of H.R.
    1694 that was offered by my good friend, Ben Ray Lujan. I
    support it and will work very hard for its passage.
        One thing that I learned during my voting rights years is
    that the Voting Rights Act is a statutory enactment whose basis
    is deeply rooted in the 15th Amendment, and I just happen to
    have a copy of the Constitution in my pocket today. I don't
    usually walk around with it, but for some reason, I picked it
    up this morning. And, last week, we observed the 150th
    anniversary of the ratification of the 15th Amendment. That is
    a very significant date in African American history and,
    indeed, in American history.
        So I just want to read into the record--all of us have
    heard this over and over again, but I just want to do it for
    emphasis. Section 1 of the 15th Amendment. The right of
    citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
    abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
    race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
        Here is the key part that a lot of people don't really pay
    attention to: The Congress--the Congress--shall have power to
    enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
        And that is what you are talking about, and that is what we
    are talking about, and that is why it is essential that we get
    H.R. 1694 enacted into law.
        Chairperson Torres, your opening statement mentioned a 2016
    case in which your Tribe successfully forced election
    authorities to include polling places on your land. How far
    would you say your members had to travel to vote before you
    brought that case? I think it may have come out earlier, but I
    need to get it into the record clearly. How far would your
    members have to drive?
        Ms. Torres. For the record, as far as Walker River Paiute
    Tribe, we have always had a polling site on our reservation.
    What we were battling for was access for early voting site, as
    well as traveling the distance for Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
    would be at least 40 minutes one way. Again, that would be from
    Pyramid Lake on their reservation up to the Reno, Sparks, or
    Washoe area. So, again, 40 miles one way.
        Mr. Butterfield. Do you think the 2016 legislation changed
    the way the election officials engaged with your community? I
    know in the South after the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights
    Act, African American communities all of a sudden became
    important. But pre-Voting Rights Act, the African American
    communities were marginalized. Have you seen a difference?
        Ms. Torres. I can guarantee that we have seen a difference,
    again, just standing our ground and knowing what our rights
    were and fighting for them. Again, with our ancestors fighting
    so hard for our right to vote, we had to make sure to set that
    precedence. And, again, we have opened up the doors for all of
    Nevada Tribes now to have those satellite clinics or--I am
    sorry--those satellite options, offices, and then also so that
    they would have the ability to have polling sites on their
    reservation and early polling sites and then also have the
    ability to get their own people trained to work in those
    facilities. I think that is a huge success in Indian Country
    and Nevada specifically.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
        Let me now direct my final question to the Attorney
    General. Thank you for your service. How far do your members
    typically have to travel to apply for a driver's license or
    other government service? Does that affect your members'
    ability to obtain the IDs or other documents that they need to
    register and vote?
        Ms. McPaul. Thank you for the question. It is not uncommon
    in our rural communities for folks to travel half an hour to an
    hour or more to get to the nearest city. That city might not
    have a place, a motor vehicle division to get a driver's
    license. So it kind of varies. I can tell you in San Juan
    County, folks in Navajo Mountain who travel to Blanding, which
    is where the county seat is, is four hours.
        Chairperson Fudge. How many?
        Ms. McPaul. Four.
        Mr. Butterfield. All right. I think I will stop right
    there, Madam Chair. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you.
        Mr. Aguilar, you are recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the
    opportunity to have the panel, and thank you for our witnesses
    today.
        Attorney General McPaul, as you know, Arizona recently
    moved to a vote center voting model. This means that voters no
    longer have a specific polling place in many locations but can
    vote anywhere they would like. While this model seems to offer
    more options for voters, it only works if there are an adequate
    number of polling places to choose from. Has the vote center
    model affected voters' access to the polls and their ability to
    vote in Indian Country?
        Ms. McPaul. I am sorry. I don't know that I can speak
    intelligently to that question. I do know that Professor Patty
    Ferguson is on the next panel, and she would have the
    information to adequately address your question. I apologize.
        Mr. Aguilar. Can you talk to me a little bit about some of
    the barriers, then, to voting within the Navajo Nation that
    your community still faces? What are some of the largest
    barriers that exist?
        Ms. McPaul. Thank you. Yeah, I can do that. You know, one
    of the things I mentioned is that, you know, my office
    represents all three branches of government, all of these
    executive branch divisions and programs, and we also represent
    the 110 local governing chapters. So the Nation is divided up
    into those 110 local community chapters where people vote,
    where people have community gatherings, and it is where local
    governance occurs.
        Those boundaries are, you know, traditional boundaries.
    They predate statehood. They predate county lines. And so there
    are often issues with the way the polling precincts don't match
    with where people actually vote. And so it is entirely possible
    for people to have to go to two different places to vote on
    election day, and that creates confusion.
        I think that the language barrier issue is also a prominent
    issue that was highlighted in one of the litigations where the
    instructions for signatures on the envelopes were not made
    available.
        The other issue, as I think I mentioned before, is just
    having a rural community, no access to passable roads,
    particularly when there is bad weather and just the means to be
    able to do that and the convenience of having--you know,
    getting your mail at home and to return your early ballot by
    mail.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
        Attorney General McPaul, just following up on the Ranking
    Member's question, you understand filling out someone else's
    ballot is fraud. It is fraud in Navajo Nation. I believe it is
    fraud in every State, correct?
        Ms. McPaul. I believe so, yes.
        Mr. Aguilar. Is there a difference between filling out a
    ballot wrongfully for someone else and holding a ballot and
    physically just taking it for someone, a friend, a neighbor, a
    loved one? There would be a difference in those, right?
        Ms. McPaul. Yes.
        Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
        Chairman Forsman, in your testimony you talked--and
    specifically the relationship you have in Washington is a
    little different than our Washington, I suppose, among your
    policymakers. Can you talk to me a little bit about kind of, I
    guess, the atmospherics that exist between Indian Country and
    local elected officials and State elected officials and the
    lines of communication that are open so you can freely talk
    about the barriers that exist and how you seek to remedy those?
        Mr. Forsman. Yeah. Well, one of the things that--I think
    that Tribal-State relations came to pretty much a bottom in the
    early 1970s over the fishing wars and the Boldt decision, which
    acknowledged the Tribes' treaty rights to half the harvestable
    salmon in Washington and also as co-managers, as governments,
    to help co-manage the fishing harvests and seasons. It was very
    empowering, and it took a little while for us all to get used
    to--I think for the State to get used to having the treaty
    rights and also the government-to-government relationship
    visible and implemented with the help of the United States
    Department of Justice and Congress itself and over time and the
    Supreme Court, of course.
        So, over that time and during--in 1989, it was the 100th
    birthday of the State of Washington in 1989, the centennial.
    And the Centennial Accords were established--kind of the
    Governor's office with the help of Congressman Denny Heck, who
    was working for the State at the time, established this
    protocol for us to meet annually and work on our respective
    issues.
        And through that, we worked with the legislature, and also
    getting Native Americans elected to our legislature has been
    helpful as well. We have taken a more--the State has embraced
    our Tribal-State relationship and tried to be respectful of
    each other. And part of that is, you know, working on natural
    resource issues, health, education, all these things because I
    think many of the legislators and leaders of the State see the
    Tribe as an asset to their community.
        So, over time, that has, of course, made us responsive to
    current events, and one of those being some of the voter
    suppression we saw happening in other States. This legislation
    was in response to that to make sure that, although we do
    have--and things aren't perfect in Washington, but they are
    much better than many other States, but there are other States
    that also have good relationships and set good examples as
    well. There are others where there are challenges. Anyway, just
    to wrap up. I just think it is important to remember that we
    have worked really hard on that and look forward to more
    opportunities.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The State
    of Washington benefited from Mr. Heck's service for a number of
    years, and we all have here as well. Thank you so much.
        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you. Thank you all for your
    testimony today. We appreciate it. We will be sure to be in
    contact as we go further with this legislation. Thank you
    again. I would now ask for the third panel to please join us.
        Thank you and welcome. As I explained to the previous
    panel, you will have five minutes to give your testimony. When
    the green light comes on, that means begin. When you see a
    yellow light, that means that you have one minute. And when you
    see a red light, that means please try to wrap up your
    testimony. Let me now introduce our panel.
        Patty Ferguson-Bohnee is the director of the Indian Legal
    Clinic, faculty director of the Indian Legal Program and
    clinical professor of law at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of
    Law at Arizona State University. She has assisted in complex
    voting rights litigation on behalf of Tribes and has drafted
    amicus briefs to the United States Supreme Court for Tribal
    clients with respect to voting rights issues. She serves as a
    Native Vote Election Protection Coordinator for the State of
    Arizona and has testified before Congress regarding Indian
    voting issues. Professor Ferguson-Bohnee received her
    bachelor's degree with honors in Native American studies with
    an emphasis in policy and law from the Stanford University and
    her Juris Doctorate from Columbia University School of Law with
    a certificate in foreign and comparative law.
        Thank you and welcome.
        Mr. Norquay is a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of
    Chippewa Indians in North Dakota, and he was denied the right
    to vote in 2014 due to his lack of an ID showing a residential
    address. Mr. Norquay was an individual plaintiff in the North
    Dakota voter ID litigation, and he is a veteran of the United
    States Marine Corps.
        Thank you, sir, and thank you for your service.
        Jacqueline De Leon is an attorney with the Native American
    Rights Fund, also known as NARF, and she is an enrolled member
    of the Isleta Pueblo. As an attorney at NARF, she helps lead
    field hearings across Indian Country on Native American voting
    rights, and she practices ongoing voter rights litigation.
    Prior to her work at NARF, Ms. De Leon was a senior associate
    at WilmerHale for 4 years focusing on international antitrust
    and litigation. She holds a J.D. from Stanford and a B.A. from
    Princeton University in philosophy. Ms. De Leon clerked for
    Judge William H. Walls of the United States District Court for
    the District of New Jersey and Chief Justice Dana Fabe of the
    Alaska Supreme Court.
        Welcome all.
        We will begin with you, and we will give you each five
    minutes. Remember, when the light comes on, begin. When you see
    yellow, you know you have one minute, and when you see red,
    please wrap up.
        Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee, you are now recognized for five
    minutes.

    STATEMENTS OF PATRICIA FERGUSON-BOHNEE, DIRECTOR, INDIAN LEGAL
     CLINIC, SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR COLLEGE OF LAW, PHOENIX, ARIZONA;
      ELVIS NORQUAY, MEMBER, TURTLE MOUNTAIN RESERVATION, ROLLA,
     NORTH DAKOTA; AND JACQUELINE DE LEON, STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIVE
                AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND, BOULDER, COLORADO

                 STATEMENT OF PATRICIA FERGUSON-BOHNEE

        Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Thank you very much.
        Chairperson Fudge, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. In my
    work, I have viewed firsthand the threats to Native American
    voting rights and the need for vigilant protection of the right
    to vote.
        Congress has the duty to fulfill its unique trust
    obligation to Native Americans, including in matters of voting.
    The trust responsibility is a well-established legal obligation
    that originates from the historical relationship between the
    U.S. and Indian Tribes as set forth in Article I, section 8, of
    the U.S. Constitution. Under the trust responsibility, the U.S.
    must ensure the protection of Tribal and individual Indian
    lands, assets, resources, and treaty and similarly recognized
    rights.
        While States have a duty to provide equal protection and
    ensure that Tribal citizens have equal access to voting, in
    many cases, they fail to do so. The Supreme Court has
    recognized that the States are the deadliest enemies of Tribes
    and that Congress has the responsibility to legislate with
    respect to Tribes when State governments cannot be trusted to
    do so.
        So let's just look at a little bit of history. When
    Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924, States
    prevented Indians from registering to vote and from voting.
    Representative Lujan testified about ongoing barriers whenever
    Native people received that right to vote when they became
    citizens, but they were denied that right.
        And while the Voting Rights Act improved voting for
    Indians, Native Americans continue to face obstacles. In recent
    years, States and counties have taken actions to reduce Native
    American voter participation by failing to comply with section
    203 language requirements, packing Indians into districts to
    reduce voting strength, closing polling locations, and passing
    strict voter ID laws.
        Further, many of the voting barriers faced by Tribal people
    result from systemic issues that Congress has failed to
    address. These include disproportionately poor levels of
    health, education, and employment. On many reservations,
    Indians lack access to basic services and modern-day
    conveniences. On-reservation voters have different experiences,
    opportunities, and realities than off-reservation voters.
    Isolating conditions, such as language, socioeconomic
    disparities, lack of transportation, lack of residential
    addresses, lack of access to mail, the digital divide, and
    distance are a few of the factors that impede Native American
    political participation. Today, States and counties either fail
    to consider these realities or intentionally exploit them in
    ways that give rise to modern forms of voter suppression we see
    in Indian Country.
        Many of the methods to overcome these barriers are outside
    of the control of the individual Tribal voter. Let's take, for
    example, the issue of nontraditional addresses and lack of home
    mail delivery. Approximately 80 percent of the U.S. population
    lives in urban areas while many Native Americans and Alaskan
    Natives live in rural communities. These rural Indian
    communities lack residential street addresses, and locations
    for homes are usually described by landmarks, crossroads, and
    directions. It is important to recognize that, for reservation
    residents, at-home mail delivery is uncommon, residential
    addresses may not exist, and residents primarily rely on shared
    P.O. boxes for mail delivery. Unlike most post office
    locations, those located on reservations lack 24/7 access and
    have restricted hours. Distances can be great with some
    reservation residents traveling up to 70 miles in one direction
    to receive mail.
        Across Indian Country, Native Americans have difficulty
    voting because of these residential addresses. It impacts all
    aspects of voting including getting mail, registering to vote,
    and complying with voter ID requirements. We have seen this in
    South Dakota, North Dakota, Washington, California, and
    Arizona.
        Now, the lack of safe and reliable mail delivery was a
    factor in the Ninth's Circuit recent decision overturning
    Arizona's ballot collection law. Ballot collection is a method
    of increasing turnout utilized largely by Hispanic and Native
    American communities. In Arizona, only 18 percent of Natives
    receive mail at home. This, coupled with lack of
    transportation, makes it difficult for Indians to vote by mail.
        In overturning the law, the Ninth Circuit found that
    Arizona acted with racially discriminatory intent in violation
    of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 15th Amendment
    when passing the ballot collection law. It is also important to
    note that Arizona tried to implement a ban on ballot collection
    in 2011 but withdrew it during the preclearance process.
        This example illustrates the need for ongoing measures to
    protect Native American voters. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo
    Black said great Nations, like great men, should keep their
    word. It has been 96 years since the Indian Citizenship Act,
    and the promise of the Native American franchise has yet to be
    kept. However, Congress has the power and the duty to keep that
    promise. Thank you for allowing me to testify today.
        [The statement of Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Norquay, you are recognized for five minutes, and
    again, I thank you for your service.

                       STATEMENT OF ELVIS NORQUAY

        Mr. Norquay. Thank you, ma'am.
        My name is Elvis A. Norquay, and I am from the Turtle
    Mountain band of Chippewa Indians. I am a veteran of the United
    States Marine Corps. I am a citizen of the United States. I
    have lived on and around the Turtle Mountain Reservation over
    the past 30 years.
        In November 2014, I went to the KC hall to vote but was
    turned away. I have voted many times for years before being
    turned away. I was always happy to go vote. Being turned away
    knocked me down. It turned out North Dakota started requiring
    ID and addresses to vote. I didn't have an ID with an address
    on it. We are homegrown people. We don't need the residential
    ID. We know where everybody lives. Sometimes the homes on the
    reservation don't have addresses, and sometimes people don't
    have homes. I have been a homeless veteran. So sometimes I
    don't have an address. I don't have a car. I can't afford to
    get an ID. I still think I deserve to vote. Voting means to
    make our country better and see who can run it better. Thank
    you.
        [The statement of Mr. Norquay follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you. And yes, you do deserve to
    vote.
        Ms. De Leon, you are recognized for five minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE DE LEON

        Ms. De Leon. Thank you, Chairman Lofgren and Ranking Member
    Davis, Chairperson Fudge, and Members of the Subcommittee for
    having me here today.
        Thank you, Congressman Lujan and Senator Udall, for
    introducing the Native American Voting Rights Act.
        I am here to testify in support of this important bill. My
    name is Jacqueline De Leon. I am a member of the Isleta Pueblo
    and a staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, the
    Nation's oldest and largest nonprofit law firm dedicated to
    advancing the rights of Native Americans.
        In 2015, NARF began the Native American Voting Rights
    Coalition focused on increasing Native American access to the
    political process. Over two years, the NAVRC completed a series
    of nine field hearings on the state of voting rights in Indian
    Country. I, along with NARF's pro bono counsel, Dr. James
    Tucker, had the honor of attending all of these hearings; 125
    witnesses shared their experiences of voting. I am carrying
    their stories with me here today.
        Unfortunately, I come with dire news. Native Americans are
    facing an onslaught of unjust barriers that keep them from
    voting. Today I am going to focus on conditions that would be
    improved by NAVRA: the unreasonable distance many Tribal
    members must travel to register and cast their votes,
    identification requirements, and the importance of flexible
    language provisions.
        Finally, I will provide the Committee with a few instances
    of overt racism which highlight the need for Federal reform.
        Native Americans have to travel, frankly, absurd distances
    to register. Voters from Nevada Tribes identified travel
    distance as the single biggest obstacle to registering. The
    closest elections office to the Duckwater Reservation is 140
    miles each way. Pyramid Lake faces a 100-mile round trip, and
    the Walker River Reservation faces 70 miles.
        NAVRA's extension of NVRA requirements to Federal programs
    servicing Native people increases registration opportunities if
    States are required to give registrations with SNAP
    applications. The Department of Agriculture should likewise be
    required to give out and collect registration forms for their
    commodity program.
        Additionally, polling places are usually located in Non-
    Native communities. In Bighorn County, Montana, Native voters
    must travel twice as far to reach their polling elections as
    non-Natives. This is but one example of many. Long distances
    are costly because they take time to travel, require missed
    work, childcare, a vehicle, and gas money. What is more, this
    travel is on dirt roads which may be impassable in the winter
    month of November.
        But even more damaging is the message that remote polling
    places convey to voting Tribal members. These distances
    communicate: Your vote doesn't matter. The system is not for
    you.
        Mandating polling places on Tribal lands, as NAVRA does,
    will dramatically decrease travel time for thousands of Native
    Americans across the country, and this is much-needed reform.
        Next, it is unreasonably difficult for many Native
    Americans to get State IDs. State-run DMVs are far. For
    example, in Keshena, Wisconsin, Tribal members must travel over
    an hour to get to the nearest DMV that is regularly open.
    Additionally, for impoverished Native Americans, even nominal
    fees can present a barrier, yet Tribal IDs are not
    automatically accepted. Just last week, South Dakota's House
    rejected allowing Tribal IDs to register to vote. NAVRA's
    provision mandating acceptance of Tribal IDs allows Tribes to
    provide IDs to their own members so they can vote.
        Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act removes language
    barriers by requiring covered jurisdictions to provide language
    assistance. NAVRA would provide necessary relief by extending
    section 203 to Native voters whose languages are traditionally
    unwritten.
        Finally, discrimination is not just a relic of the past or
    the effect of past wrongs. Native Americans continue to
    experience discrimination when they attempt to vote. In
    Arizona, racial tensions are so high between the Kaibab Band of
    Paiute Indians and the border town next to the reservation that
    border town residents regularly block the flow of water into
    the reservation. And for years, Tribal members were forced to
    vote in that same border town.
        In South Dakota, voters were forced to vote in a repurposed
    chicken coop.
        In Montana, the number of registration cards accepted by
    county officials from Native community organizations was
    arbitrarily limited to 70, creating an unnecessary barrier to
    registration.
        In South Dakota, the Buffalo County seat located in Gann
    Valley has full early voting access. Gann Valley only has a
    population of 12 people. And yet 25 miles away on the Crow
    Creek Reservation, Fort Thompson's 1,200 residents had no early
    voting. Despite calls from activists to provide a polling
    location in Fort Thompson and despite HAVA funding being
    available, the county auditor refused and instead decided to
    forego the usage of the funds altogether. It is these local
    discriminatory actions that call out for Federal relief and
    oversight.
        In sum, as one Tribal member explained, yes, I would like
    you, person at the poll, to respect me as a Native American,
    respect my culture. But if you can't do that, treat me as a
    human being and respect my elders and respect my children.
    Likewise, we ask for no more and no less than equal opportunity
    for all Native Americans to vote. Thank you for having me here
    today, and I am happy to answer any questions.
        [The statement of Ms. De Leon follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you very, very much.
        Mr. Aguilar, you are recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Norquay, thank you for sharing your story with us. In
    your testimony, you bring up that you believe you still have a
    right to vote. I share that belief. I hope everyone on this
    dais shares that belief. It must be difficult and confusing to
    comply with North Dakota's voter ID laws. From what I
    understand, voter ID laws in North Dakota have changed three
    times in the past five years. As Federal legislators, we want
    to make sure we develop and pass policies that make it easier
    for people to vote. It is disheartening to hear that you were
    turned away and not allowed to vote.
        So my question is, what do you think can be done to ensure
    that you and friends aren't unfairly turned away from the
    voting polls? What more can we do to be helpful?
        Mr. Norquay. Okay. The people of Turtle Mountain, they got
    free IDs, and a lot of those people, they don't know what that
    means because they--how do you say that? They don't know what
    it means.
        Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
        Mr. Norquay. And a lot of them are older. Older. They don't
    have--they can't go far and stuff like that. I think just make
    it better for the people and transportation and, you know,
    closer voting. Closer voting because we have to go miles to
    vote around. Like I said, we know everybody around there, and
    some of us don't have vehicles, you know. And it costs us $20
    to catch a ride to the voting booth, and, you know, that is $20
    out of your pocket so you can't buy an ID card. What the Tribe
    did, they gave free IDs for a little while. Now we have to pay
    $15 for it. I don't think that is right for the people.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you for sharing your story.
        Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee, good to see you again. You joined us
    in Arizona, I believe, as well. Can you talk a little bit
    about--I asked the previous panel about voting centers. Can you
    talk a little bit about how that is being implemented in
    Arizona, what barriers still exist with the voting center
    concept, and what more we could do to ensure that more
    individuals have access?
        Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Sure. So, right now, the counties
    decide whether or not to implement voting centers. And if you
    have a vote center, then anyone within that county has an
    opportunity to vote at that vote center by ballot on demand.
    However, in places with large numbers of Native Americans,
    there are not vote centers, and you have to vote at your
    precinct. And if you don't vote at your precinct, then your
    ballot is not counted. And that was part of decision that the
    Ninth Circuit ruled I think on January 23rd, that out-of-
    precinct voting disproportionately impacted Native American
    voters, and so since they would discard the whole ballot, that
    now counties will have to count those parts of the ballot that
    are statewide or Federal, so they do not discard the whole
    ballot. But there was a finding by the court that it
    disproportionately affects Native American voters.
        Mr. Aguilar. Great. I appreciate it. I am sure the Ranking
    Member is going to talk a little bit about that Ninth Circuit
    decision in his line of questioning.
        I did want to ask you, Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Have Arizona
    policymakers acted differently since preclearance is no longer
    required? What changes have you seen from a policymaking
    perspective since preclearance is no longer required?
        Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. There has definitely been a
    difference. The first election after preclearance was no longer
    the case of--that a lot of polling locations were closed. There
    was a lawsuit, and the county at the time, Maricopa County,
    said they did not consider the impact on minority communities.
    So, before, when a law was changed or a policy was made, there
    would have to be an assessment on, would this disparately
    impact Native American communities or Hispanics or African
    Americans? And they have not been doing that. They have
    actually been introducing laws such as the ballot collection
    law.
        They have also introduced a law which requires individuals
    to show ID when you vote early in person. Well, who is going to
    be more likely to do that? That is going to be Native American
    voters because they don't have access to the mail. While other
    voters who vote early, most of the voters in the State of
    Arizona, the non-Native voters vote by mail, and their
    identification is verified through their signature.
        And then we have a number of new laws that are introduced
    this session, and I think Attorney General McPaul stated that
    there is an effort to undermine the settlement that the Navajo
    Nation reached on ballot curing.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. I appreciate it.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you.
        Mr. Davis, you are recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Norquay, thank you for your service to the United
    States Marines. I am sorry to hear what happened in 2014. Were
    you able to vote in 2016?
        Mr. Norquay. Yes. I got a new ID, a residential ID.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. And 2018?
        Mr. Norquay. Yes.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Okay. Thank you again for your
    testimony today here and for being here today too.
        Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee, are you familiar with a gentleman who
    teaches at Arizona State University's law school, Chad Noreuil?
        Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Yes, I am.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. What can you tell this Committee
    about Mr. Noreuil? Is he active in any of these issues that you
    are testifying on today?
        Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Not to my knowledge.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Is he actually competent in anything
    that he does?
        Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Yes.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Oh, good. He told me to tell you to
    stop by his office a little more. Chad was the best man in my
    wedding. I have known him for 40 years. Sorry I didn't get a
    chance to talk to you beforehand. I wanted to make sure that I
    made you feel a little uncomfortable here as a witness by
    talking about him, but----
        Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Thank you. He is a nice guy.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. He said hello.
        I welcome your testimony today. Some of the issues,
    especially the responses to Mr. Aguilar's questions I thought
    were very interesting, and we look forward to working with you
    on many of these issues.
        But, again, make sure you stop by his office and say hello
    a little more, all right?
        Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Thank you.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Ms. De Leon, great to see you again.
    I enjoyed your testimony in North Dakota.
        Ms. De Leon. Thank you.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. In North Dakota, you said that
    Native American voter turnout for the 2018 midterm elections
    set an all-time high for a midterm election in North Dakota.
    That is great news, and as I said there, it should be
    celebrated. You know, be it your grassroots involvement of
    effort and especially getting the youth involved from Turtle
    Mountain Reservation who led the march to the polls, those are
    techniques that I think should be utilized everywhere. What can
    be done to continue this type of engagement?
        Ms. De Leon. Yes. So thank you so much for the question.
        North Dakota is a perfect example of the type of litigation
    that is now necessary to be brought. It is incredibly costly.
    NARF brought a case over the course of almost four years and
    nearly a million dollars spent to articulate the injustice that
    was going on there, that the State of North Dakota was
    requiring an address on an ID in order to vote when the North
    Dakota Tribal members did not have addresses.
        In response, the people were outraged and took that
    outrage, and they organized, and like you said, the highest
    turnout in record, which we are thrilled about.
        But outrage will fade, but the law is going to remain. And
    so, in time, the barrier is going to remain erected, and people
    are still going to continue to have a problem voting, which is
    why, in North Dakota, like elsewhere, there shouldn't have to
    be that expenditure in order to get a just result--you know, of
    litigation in order to get a just result. I think, instead,
    Federal action like you can perform here would prevent the need
    for that type of litigation in the first place. And places like
    Washington State and, Nevada, where they brought a successful
    lawsuit, can then see that increase in voter registration and
    turnout.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. What is the process for one to
    register to vote in North Dakota?
        Ms. De Leon. There is no registration in North Dakota.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. So you have zero voter registration?
        Ms. De Leon. That is right.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. If you prove you live in the State,
    you can go vote that day?
        Ms. De Leon. Well, I don't think you have to prove that you
    live in a State. What you have to do is be a United States
    citizen and be a resident of North Dakota, and those are the
    qualifications to vote.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Would you encourage a voter
    registration process like in my home State of Illinois or
    possibly Arizona or Ohio or California?
        Ms. De Leon. Registration is the province of the States,
    and I respect their authority on that.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Okay. You don't have a preference.
        Ms. De Leon. I really don't have a preference as long as
    there is equal access for every individual.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Okay. Do you foresee any issues
    where nongovernmental entities like NARF who apply and are
    granted funds to administer election functions on reservations
    instead of the Tribes--I mean, you mentioned funding was a big
    problem. Do you see--you know, my question is, you know--I
    would assume the Tribes would benefit from election security
    dollars and election administration dollars more so than the
    independent groups. What do you see?
        Ms. De Leon. I am not sure what you are referring to. I
    know that----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Federal dollars are going to flow to
    increase the amount of turnout among Native Americans. Do you
    think the money should be sent directly to the Tribes, or do
    you think it should go to outside entities like NARF, for
    example?
        Ms. De Leon. It depends on what function is being
    performed. I think that NARF serves a critical function like
    you have seen, in North Dakota to highlight injustices across
    the country and to bring attention to places, and solutions, to
    places where people are denied the access to vote. But, of
    course, funding should also be provided directly to Tribes and
    State and county governments so that they can fulfill their
    polling location obligations.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
        Ms. De Leon. Thank you.
        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
        Let me just ask both of the attorneys. Section 2 we know is
    a very time-consuming and expensive way to litigate the voting
    rights issue. Why do you think we are forced to do that? Help
    me understand why you feel that--as my colleagues would try to
    say, you know, ``Voting was up, so what is your problem, you
    know, all good.'' Tell me why that is not true.
        Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Well, I think one reason which has
    been highlighted through the work of the Native American Voting
    Rights Coalition is that there hasn't been a lot of attention
    paid to the issues faced by Native American voters, and the
    U.S. Department of Justice since 2000 has only brought one case
    on behalf of Native American voters, and that is a 2010 case.
    And Native Americans are dispersed across the country. So there
    hasn't been a lot of commitment to work with Native people. I
    think that is why Congress should use their function to
    investigate this issue and assist Tribes in the efforts to
    ensure that Native Americans are active participants in
    democracy.
        Ms. De Leon. Thank you so much for the question. I think
    that section 2 provides an opportunity for relief in areas that
    don't necessarily receive a lot of attention, and it can bring
    to light injustices that are taking place. But like you said,
    it is incredibly costly. You know, not just proving intentional
    discrimination, but just proving discrimination itself costs a
    lot of money. So, for example, in North Dakota, we had to show
    that it was especially difficult for Native Americans to
    receive IDs. We had to employ an expert that had to map the
    average distance for a Native American versus a non-Native
    American to reach a driver's license site, for example, and in
    that case, there was a huge disparity. But that type of
    evidence and building that kind of evidence, it requires a lot
    of upfront cost. And so, you know, we have been able to
    identify some specific barriers, and we think that, with some
    congressional action, we can forego having to litigate over and
    over again.
        Chairperson Fudge. And still with you, Ms. De Leon. How did
    it make you feel to know that the authorities had the resources
    to put a polling place, to create a Tribal voting polling
    place, and refused to do it? How did that make you feel?
        Ms. De Leon. So, over the course of these field hearings, I
    had the honor of listening to testimony, heartbreaking
    testimony across the country of people and the injustices that
    they were facing, the lack of respect given to them, and hear
    how heartbroken they were when they tried to vote and it was
    just too hard or too far or they were stopped. And, you know,
    in the case of Buffalo County, I mean, it made me, frankly,
    infuriated. I think that it is wrong that, if there is funding
    available, that you are choosing to forego increasing the right
    or the opportunity for individuals to vote.
        I will say that, through the activism of individuals in
    South Dakota, that county auditor was removed from office and
    was replaced by a Native American county auditor, which was a
    great success story. I will also say that I have talked to that
    county auditor, and she is facing severe discrimination right
    now by her coworkers and by the State government.
        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you.
        Mr. Norquay, let me apologize on behalf of this Nation for
    your treatment, especially as one who has served this country.
    I apologize to you.
        Now, let me just ask quickly. What is something that you
    think we can do right away to make the situation, especially on
    Tribal lands, better for this election this year? We will start
    with Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee, and we will just go right down the
    line.
        Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. I definitely think there needs to be
    more access to funding so that Tribes can have access to voter
    registration, polling locations, and language translations. We
    saw in the Navajo Nation litigation that one big obstacle faced
    by the Tribe where the county is saying that they don't have
    the resources to meet their obligations under Federal law. Do
    they have the resources? I don't know, but that is an excuse
    that has been used to not provide equal access to Navajo voters
    in Arizona and other voters in Arizona.
        And I just want to mention that some voters in Arizona have
    to travel five hours, 280 miles, to participate in in-person
    early voting, and that should not be the case. If in-person
    early voting is offered, everyone should have access to in-
    person early voting.
        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you.
        Mr. Norquay.
        Mr. Norquay. I think they should have, like, the State and
    the Tribal government both together--they are separated you
    know, like, one side, this side, that side, you know. And the
    people don't get to intertwine, you know, speak about their
    representatives. And, you know, they go their own way, and they
    don't go to the other side because, you know, they got
    different opinions about it. And like you said, the polling
    places, they have got to come together.
        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you.
        Ms. De Leon. So, first, I know it would be wonderful if you
    passed NAVRA and provide a polling place on every Tribal
    reservation. But absent that, I think that it would be helpful
    to issue Federal guidance to indicate that polling places are
    even allowed on reservations. I know that a lot of times, local
    county officials just may be unaware of that fact that polling
    places are allowed and it is encouraged. And, you know, the
    Federal Government can encourage or can bring litigation under
    section 2 as well. And given the well-documented discrimination
    facing Native Americans, we encourage them to do so.
        Chairperson Fudge. Thank you. And I thank you all so very
    much.
        And in conclusion, I would just like to make a short
    statement for the record. Being an African American, I clearly
    understand discrimination. I know it when I see it, and I have
    seen it throughout this process as we have traveled this
    country. But those who have not faced discrimination tend to
    find ways to explain it away. They always want to make it that,
    you know, ``Well, you overcame, so it is okay.'' It is not
    okay.
        So I would say to you that it is going to continue to be
    difficult, but it is our responsibility as people who represent
    the Federal Government to protect protected classes of people,
    and we are going to do our very best to make it better. I don't
    know where we go from here, but I do know this: We are going to
    continue to expose the problem. We are going to continue to try
    to address the problem, and we thank you for every day for
    trying to make it better on your own.
        And, with that, if there is nothing further, I would thank
    you again, and, without objection, this Subcommittee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]