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


          PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO VOTE DURING THE 
                         COVID-19 PANDEMIC

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
            CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              JUNE 3, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-79

                                _________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


        Available http://judiciary.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
        
                                __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
41-343                      WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------          
        

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                   JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              DOUG COLLINS, Georgia,
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas              Ranking Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,          Wisconsin
    Georgia                          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
KAREN BASS, California               JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana        KEN BUCK, Colorado
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
ERIC SWALWELL, California            MATT GAETZ, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          TOM McCLINTOCK, California
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California           GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,      BEN CLINE, Virginia
  Vice-Chair                         KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LUCY McBATH, Georgia
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

        Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
                Brendan Belair, Minority Staff Director

                              ----------                              

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, 
                          AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                     STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chair
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana,
ERIC SWALWELL, California              Ranking Member
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania         JIM JORDAN, Ohio
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              BEN CLINE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota

                       James Park, Chief Counsel
                     Paul Taylor, Minority Counsel
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                              JUNE 3, 2020

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
The Honorable Steve Cohen, Chairman, Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................     1
The Honorable Mike Johnson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................     4
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the 
  Judiciary......................................................     6

                               WITNESSES

The Honorable Jocelyn Benson, Secretary of State, State of 
  Michigan
    Oral Testimony...............................................     9
    Prepared Testimony...........................................    11
Stacey Y. Abrams, Founder and Chair, Fair Fight Action
    Oral Testimony...............................................    16
    Prepared Testimony...........................................    18
J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel, Public 
  Interest Legal Foundation
    Oral Testimony...............................................    20
    Prepared Testimony...........................................    22
Myrna Perez, Director, Voting Rights and Elections Program, 
  Brennan Center for Justice
    Oral Testimony...............................................    31
    Prepared Testimony...........................................    33
Tom Fitton, President, Judicial Watch
    Oral Testimony...............................................    41
    Prepared Testimony...........................................    43
Dale Ho, Director, Voting Rights Project, American Civil 
  Liberties Union
    Oral Testimony...............................................    48
    Prepared Testimony...........................................    50
Barbara Arnwine, President Transformative Justice Coalition
    Oral Testimony...............................................    76
    Prepared Testimony...........................................    78
Michelle Bishop, Disability Advocacy Specialist for Voting 
  Rights, National Disability Rights Network
    Oral Testimony...............................................    83
    Prepared Testimony...........................................    85

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Item for the record submitted by the Honorable Louie Gohmert.....    98
Item for the record submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon..   116

                                APPENDIX

Items for the record submitted by The Honorable Sylvia Garcia, 
  Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
  Liberties......................................................   126
Items for the record submitted by J. Christian Adams, President 
  and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation..........   142

 
       PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO VOTE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2020

                        House of Representatives

                   Subcommittee on the Constitution,

                   Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                            Washington, DC.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., via 
Webex, Hon. Steve Cohen [chairman of the subcommittee] 
presiding.
    Present: Representatives Cohen, Nadler, Raskin, Swalwell, 
Scanlon, Dean, Garcia, Escobar, Jackson Lee, Johnson, Gohmert, 
Collins, Cline, and Armstrong.
    Staff Present: David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Doty, 
Senior Advisor; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Moh Sharma, 
Member Services and Outreach Advisor; Jordan Dashow, 
Professional Staff Member; Anthony Valdez, Staff Assistant; 
John Williams, Parliamentarian; James Park, Chief Counsel, 
Constitution; Keenan Keller, Senior Counsel, Constitution; 
Sophie Brill, Counsel, Constitution; Will Emmons, Professional 
Staff Member, Constitution; Katy Rother, Deputy General Counsel 
and Parliamentarian; Betsy Ferguson, Minority Senior Counsel; 
Caroline Nabity, Minority Counsel; James Lesinski, Minority 
Counsel; Ella Yates, Minority Director of Member Services and 
Coalitions; and Kiley Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
    Mr. Cohen. I want to start this session with a prayer.
    Dear God, we find ourselves in very trying times in this 
country, and we would ask that for those who are sick, to heal 
them, for those who have lost loved ones, you give them hope 
and faith and solace, for those who have lost their jobs or 
their well-being, that don't have nutrition or opportunities to 
take care of their families, give them faith that we will get 
through this, times will be better.
    And to the police, give them the fortitude to carry on. Put 
peace in all of their hearts and put understanding and 
acceptance and peace in the hearts of the protestors as well. 
And to the people who have rioted, give them understanding that 
there are better ways to go about their lives.
    Amen.
    All right. I would like to start this hearing.
    The Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on 
Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will come to 
order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of this subcommittee at any time.
    I welcome everyone to today's hearing on protecting the 
rights of voters during the COVID-19 pandemic. I thank all of 
our witnesses for joining us today, and I thank my colleagues 
for adapting to this new format and continuing to serve the 
American people during these challenging times.
    This is the first hearing of the Judiciary Committee 
conducted under the new House remote proceeding rules. So we 
might have a few spots, but we will get through them.
    I would like to remind members that we have established an 
email address and distribution list dedicated to circulating 
exhibits, motions, or other written materials that members 
might want to offer as part of our hearing today. If you would 
like to submit materials, please send them to JudiciaryDocs--
Judiciary, capitalize J, Docs, capitalize D-o-c-s--
[email protected], and we will distribute them to 
members and staff as quickly as we can.
    It is also my understanding that the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Collins, our former full committee ranking member, 
will be joining our subcommittee for the remainder of this 
Congress. Since the full committee has not yet been able to 
meet to formally ratify the subcommittee assignments that he 
will be assuming, without objection, Mr. Collins will be 
designated as a voting member of this subcommittee for the 
purpose of today's hearing.
    Welcome back, Mr. Collins.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    We are in the midst of one of those moments in our Nation's 
history where confronting a confluence of crises, the way we 
respond to them will shape fundamentally who we are as a 
people.
    To begin with, we meet virtually today because we are in 
the middle of a global pandemic that has taken the lives of 
over a hundred thousand of our fellow citizens, a pandemic that 
has exacerbated preexisting inequalities, disproportionately 
impacting African Americans among other historically 
disadvantaged people.
    This disproportionate impact in turn reflects America's 
original sin, a sin that is recognized, yes, it is recognized, 
in our revered founding document, the United States 
Constitution, that sin of slavery, The systemic and pervasive 
anti-Black, White supremacist ideology that undergirded it and 
continued on through Jim Crow laws and a resistance to change, 
even to today, resulting in unequal opportunities and other 
consequences which we are still grappling with.
    Another tragic manifestation of this racist poison is the 
pattern and practice of daily police violence against African 
Americans and the justifiable rage that many Americans of all 
races feel in reaction. And we have seen that on the streets 
all over America, the peaceful protestors.
    In the past week thousands have taken to the streets across 
the country to call for an end to police violence and to affirm 
that Black lives matter. I stand in solidarity with all 
peaceful protestors and will do everything in my power as 
chairman to build a better, more just America, a goal which I 
have dedicated my entire public life to, starting back in 1977.
    It is in that vein that I am holding this hearing today. 
The issue that we are here to discuss, protecting the right to 
vote during the COVID-19 pandemic, is intrinsically tied to the 
protests occurring across this Nation. Police violence against 
Black Americans and suppressing the right to vote are two sides 
of the same coin. The coin of systemic racism has plagued our 
country since before its founding in 1619 where African 
Americans were first brought to this country as slaves. Think 
about it, 1619. That was 250 years before we became a Nation, 
we had slavery.
    From Jim Crow to the present, politicians, particularly in 
my home region, the South, but elsewhere as well, have sought 
to deny the ability of Black Americans and other people of 
color to vote. People with disabilities, language minority 
voters, and Native Americans, among others, have also had the 
right to vote undermined throughout our country's history, 
denying them a say in how our Nation is governed.
    Now we are dealing with a viral pandemic that is 
threatening the ability of most people to vote safely in our 
elections, but will have a disproportionate impact on voters of 
color, among others. States are being faced with a choice: Will 
they adapt to this new reality and ensure that everyone can 
vote safely in November or will they fail to act in the face of 
this historic challenge.
    We know what needs to be done. We must ensure that all 
Americans eligible to vote can cast their ballots by mail if 
they choose, and they shouldn't have to go through endless 
bureaucratic hurdles to do it.
    President Trump has said there is inherent fraud. That has 
been dismissed by about every academician who has studied this 
in past elections in Utah, Oregon, Washington, and even 
yesterday in Pennsylvania.
    But he also said when he made that tweet recently that he 
thought it would be the end of the Republican Party, which 
shows he is not thinking about fraud, but he is thinking about 
politics. The fact is many Republicans support mail-in voting 
and have benefited from it and been elected. Florida is one 
case in particular.
    States must proactively send out ballots to voters or at 
least send out applications for mail-in ballots to make it easy 
for people who fear getting ill and especially if there is a 
spike come November and even worse conditions and even more 
reasons to be concerned.
    We must also ensure that voters can safely cast their votes 
in person. For many Americans, such as people who have changed 
addresses recently or have certain disabilities, voting by mail 
is not a realistic option, and the most obvious way to ensure 
that polling places will not have large crowds and long lines 
is to spread out the voting period and allow people to cast 
their ballots early.
    The HEROES Act, which passed the House and is now sitting 
before the Senate, would mandate each of those things, and, 
critically, it would give the States funding they desperately 
need to carry all those out.
    If we can afford to give the Treasury Department $500 
billion to bail out corporations, we can certainly afford the 
$3.6 billion it will cost to safeguard our democracy, the very 
basis of our cherished Nation's unique system of government 
with its source of power, the people.
    No American should have to choose between their health, 
possibly their life, and their sacred right to vote. Democracy, 
including the right to vote that underpins it, is the way our 
Founders intended for us to respond to whatever challenges we 
should face. It has been and must continue to be a defining 
characteristic of who we are as a Nation.
    I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses 
gathered here and thank them for agreeing to appear and testify 
on this critical and timely subject.
    And at this point it is my pleasure to recognize the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Louisiana, Mr. Johnson, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks 
to everybody--thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to everyone 
for joining us this morning.
    This is an important subject, and I really appreciate the 
tone, Mr. Chairman, that you started with and the prayer. 
Everybody needs that right now.
    Before we discuss the specific topic of today's hearing, I, 
too, want to just mention two things that I think are 
appropriate for us as the Constitution Subcommittee in the 
House.
    First, as you noted, this is the first public hearing we 
have had since the terrible event that occurred in Minneapolis 
last week, and there are some things that I think anybody 
objectively observing these events can see and should agree on. 
I mean, the facts show that Mr. George Floyd appears to have 
been the victim of murder, and I personally don't believe that 
a close review of the video can lead anyone to any other 
conclusion. And the tragedy has focused the spotlight, once 
again, as you said, on the deep-seated problems we still have 
in this country.
    I think all of us agree the crisis necessitates 
authenticate reconciliation and transformative solutions for 
systematic change. And I think we all agree that those are 
long, long overdue.
    The central idea of America is that we boldly declare the 
self-evident truths that all men are created equal. And for 
that reason, we are all endowed, the Founders said, by God 
Himself with the same inalienable rights. Because each of us is 
made in God's image, the Founders insisted and we still 
believe, that every single person has an estimable dignity and 
value, and our value is not related in any way to the color of 
our skin or what ZIP Code we live in or what we can contribute 
to society. Our value is inherent because it comes from above.
    Any fool who contends that he has some sort of natural 
right of supremacy over his neighbors violates not only the 
foundational creed of America that is articulated in the 
Declaration, but he also violates the greatest commandments of 
his Creator, and I think that is important for us to 
acknowledge.
    My prayer is the same as yours, Mr. Chairman, that God will 
heal our Nation and help us to see one another as He does. And 
we also pray that He protects the brave, honorable men and 
women who risk their lives every day on the front lines to 
serve in law enforcement, because they, too, are in jeopardy 
now.
    Looting and more violence in our Nation's streets does 
nothing to solve any of these problems. It makes it worse and 
it needs to stop, and I am sure we all--I know we all agree on 
that as well.
    The second point I want to make is that all of us recognize 
that the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected our 
country, obviously in so many countless ways. We want to 
express our condolences to the families and friends of all 
those Americans who have lost their battle to this invisible 
enemy, and we want to applaud the doctors, nurses, first 
responders, State and local health officials, and the Trump 
administration, too, for taking crucial steps that have helped 
to stem the spread of the disease any further.
    I am grateful that President Trump instituted an early 
travel ban from China despite China's efforts to deceive the 
rest of the world about the effect of the virus. And I am 
grateful the President instituted social distancing guidelines 
and sanitation protocols and created a task force led by our 
Vice President, Mr. Pence, and several leading medical experts 
with decades of experience in public health. That has been very 
important for the country in our response.
    While we are all adjusting to the new normal of our Nation, 
I and the other Republican members of this committee are also, 
we have to say this morning, disappointed that our committee is 
not physically meeting in D.C. right now to conduct this 
important hearing.
    You know, if, we believe this, if grocery store workers and 
healthcare personnel and other essential employees can show up 
in person to do their job, we believe we ought to be doing the 
same thing.
    But on the issue of the hearing today, I just want to say 
this, and I will be brief. We all believe in the importance of 
our elections, that that is central to our Republic and our 
democratic form of government, and we want every eligible 
American to participate in every vote. We just don't believe 
the suggestions proposed by our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle in regards to our upcoming elections are in the best 
interests of maintaining the integrity of our election system.
    Unfortunately, much of what has been proposed amounts to 
vast and broad Federal mandates for how States should run their 
elections. We believe the mandate for the Federal Government is 
quite clear. It is in the Constitution itself. The Elections 
Clause gives States the authority to administer elections 
within their jurisdiction.
    Congress does have the authority to override State laws to 
regulate Federal elections, but much like everything else in 
the government, States know best how to serve their citizens. 
They are in the best position to determine how to run their 
elections based on each State's individual needs.
    If enacted, we are concerned that the changes proposed by 
the majority will result in our Nation conducting elections 
only by mail and ballot harvesting being legalized nationwide. 
Those provisions will decrease public confidence in the 
election process at the worst possible time and increase the 
election susceptibility to fraud.
    Even The New York Times, it has acknowledged, quote, that, 
``There is a bipartisan consensus that voting by mail, whatever 
its impact, is more easily abused than other forms,'' unquote.
    Similarly, the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election 
Reform that was co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and 
former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, stated in its 
final report in 2005 that, quote, ``absentee ballots remain the 
largest source of potential voter fraud in American 
elections,'' unquote.
    In addition to the possibility of voter fraud, absentee 
voting also presents several practical problems when compared 
to in-person voting on election day or early voting at an 
official early voting location. We need to seriously discuss 
the implications that these practices will have on our 
elections.
    And putting aside the technological and logistical concerns 
about federalizing the election this close to November, we need 
to also seriously examine the accuracy of State voter 
registration rolls. There are several examples of States whose 
voter registration rolls outnumber the actual number of 
citizens in that State. Registered individuals should only be 
receiving one ballot, I know we all agree with that, and we 
need to ensure the United States Postal Service can deliver 
ballots on time and to the right people.
    While I acknowledge concerns about the pandemic and the 
election, now is not the time to upend this Nation's election 
system. There is too much at risk. We should be discussing how 
to vote in person and to do it safely in light of the new 
circumstances. We need to thoughtfully consider how the Federal 
Government can best empower States to make their own decisions 
regarding the election and to respond to their unique 
circumstances.
    I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today. 
I hope we can have a productive discussion.
    I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the tone and the 
opening, and I yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. You are very welcome, Mr. Johnson, and thank you 
for your statement.
    I would now like to recognize the chairman of the full 
Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from the Empire State, New 
York, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement.
    Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Chairman Cohen, and thanks to 
all of our witnesses for joining us today.
    I want to note that although this is our first remote 
hearing, the committee has been hard at work since the outbreak 
of the pandemic. For example, we have held briefings and 
virtual roundtables to discuss issues such as price gouging 
during the COVID-19 crisis and the ways in which immigration 
authorities and prisons and jails are responding to the 
pandemic.
    These events all informed our efforts to include measures 
in the CARES Act and the HEROES Act in response to what we 
learned, such as more than $600 million to address the COVID-19 
crisis in State and local prisons and jails and minimum 
standards for individuals in ICE detention, as well as 
provisions to encourage release of individuals who do not pose 
a risk to public safety.
    Other vital measures that we worked hard to include in the 
HEROES Act are bankruptcy protection for homeowners and 
significant funding for such critical programs as the Violence 
Against Women Act and the Legal Services Corporation.
    We have also passed legislation to ensure that public 
safety officers who die or become disabled as a result of 
COVID-19 will receive the benefits that they and their families 
deserve.
    And next week, as I announced over the weekend, we will 
hold a hearing to address issues related to police 
accountability.
    Even when we are spread throughout the country, this 
committee is hard at work, and I appreciate all the members for 
their efforts during these challenging times.
    I would also like to acknowledge this profoundly painful 
moment for our Nation. The wounds inflicted by centuries of 
racism and violence against Black Americans have once again 
been torn open, and in response thousands of Americans of all 
races have peacefully taken to the streets to exercise their 
constitutional rights and to demand change that is long 
overdue.
    We have a proud history of protests and demonstrations in 
this country that have led to much needed changes in public 
policy. But at the most basic level, we govern ourselves at the 
ballot box. Our leaders, from local sheriffs and prosecutors to 
Members of Congress and the President, are supposed to be 
chosen by popular will. That is what makes this country a 
democracy. It is at the very core of self-governance by the 
people.
    But our democracy will face a profound test this November. 
In the face of this global pandemic, we can no longer tolerate 
business as usual in our polling places. In fact, business as 
usual was already intolerable. The hours-long lines, purges of 
voter rolls, and red tape designed to suppress Americans right 
to vote all strike at the heart of our system of self-
government.
    Now these hurdles today might even be deadly, and they 
raise the frightening and unavoidable question of whether we 
will be able to call ourselves a democracy at all.
    If this sounds alarmist, consider this. What is a system of 
government that deliberately winnows out voters because of 
their race or their income or their disability or because of 
where they live? What is a system of government in which 
politicians play games to keep away eligible voters who might 
threaten their hold on power? It is not a democracy; it is 
something else. And what is a government that makes its 
citizens choose between exercising the most fundamental 
constitutional right, the right to vote, and their most basic 
human right, to health and safety?
    So I would like to say directly to the American people, 
there is no sitting this out. Your elected representatives are 
either for our democracy or against it. We do not deserve that 
title if we deny you the right to cast your ballots this 
November or if we force you to choose between exercising that 
right and protecting your own health.
    That is why I support mandating that all States provide 
voters with the option to vote by mail this November and I 
support providing the necessary Federal resources to ensure 
that this happens smoothly. We must also preserve in-person 
voting options for those who choose not to vote by mail or are 
unable to do so, so that no one is disenfranchised.
    We can rise to meet today's unprecedented challenges and 
carry out free and fair elections in November despite the 
pandemic. As Chairman Cohen said, we know what needs to be 
done. But it will not happen without our focus and vigilance. 
Today's hearing is a first step in that process.
    I thank Chairman Cohen for holding this hearing. I look 
forward to hearing from our witnesses. And I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Nadler.
    At this point we would normally go to the ranking member, 
but I understand Mr. Jordan is not present and/or does not have 
a statement, so we will go straight to our witnesses.
    We welcome our witnesses and thank them for participating 
in this important hearing. I will now introduce each of the 
witnesses and after each introduction will recognize that 
witness for his or her first statement.
    Your written statements will be entered into the record in 
their entirety. Accordingly, I ask you to summarize your oral 
testimony in no more than 5 minutes. If you can take less time, 
that would be great. Because of time constraints, I would 
strongly encourage you to limit those remarks perhaps to 3 if 
possible so that members have the maximum amount of time to ask 
questions.
    In the absence of a timing light, I will note orally when 5 
minutes have elapsed and bang my gavel. There will also be a 
timer on your screen, so please be mindful of it. I will be 
strict in the 5-minute rule.
    Before proceeding with testimony, I would like to remind 
all of our witnesses that you have a legal obligation to 
provide a truthful statement and answers to this subcommittee 
and that any false statement you may make today will subject 
you to prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18, United 
States Code Annotate.
    Our first witness is Jocelyn Benson, the 43rd secretary of 
state of the State of Michigan. Her responsibilities include 
ensuring elections are secure and accessible for the eligible 
Michigan voters. In addition to being an elected official, 
Secretary Benson is the author of ``State Secretaries of State: 
Guardians of the Democratic Process,'' the first major book on 
the role as of the secretary of state in enforcing elections 
and campaign finance law.
    Secretary of State Benson received her J.D. from Harvard 
Law School and previously served as dean of Wayne State 
University School of Law in Detroit, Michigan, which I visited 
with Chairman Conyers in past years. She is an expert on civil 
rights and election law.
    Madam Secretary, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENTS OF JOCELYN BENSON, SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF 
MICHIGAN; STACEY ABRAMS, CHAIR, FAIR FIGHT ACTION; J. CHRISTIAN 
  ADAMS, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL 
FOUNDATION; MYRNA PEREZ, DIRECTOR, VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTIONS 
  PROGRAM, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE; TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, 
   JUDICIAL WATCH; DALE HO, DIRECTOR, VOTING RIGHTS PROJECT, 
  AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; BARBARA ARNWINE, PRESIDENT, 
    TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE COALITION; AND MICHELLE BISHOP, 
  DISABILITY ADVOCACY SPECIALIST FOR VOTING RIGHTS, NATIONAL 
                   DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK

                  STATEMENT OF JOCELYN BENSON

    Ms. Benson. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today.
    I started my career in Montgomery, Alabama, investigating 
hate groups and hate crimes throughout the country, and it was 
there where I developed and solidified my own commitment to 
continue the work of those who sacrificed so much to ensure 
that every citizen's right to vote is protected and secure. And 
today, as Michigan's secretary of State and our State's chief 
election officer, my work is informed and inspired by the work 
of many colleagues and advocates around the country, many of 
whom I am honored to speak alongside today.
    As a whole, secretaries of state are working across party 
lines to ensure our [inaudible] are accessible and secure in 
the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and other challenges 
relating to the 2020 election. But we need your help. Democracy 
is a team sport, and we need a sustained and committed partner 
in our Federal Government to ensure voters have the needed 
certainty and clarity that our elections will be held on 
schedule and that their right to vote will be secure.
    The $11.2 million that Michigan received through the CARES 
funding was welcome, but it was not enough to fill the $40 
million gap that these new challenges create for our State. 
Importantly, the HEROES Act will address these concerns 
effectively, and I urge everyone's support.
    But, for example, in 46 States and the District of Columbia 
voters this year will have a right to vote by mail, but as we 
saw just yesterday, that right is implemented with varying 
degrees of effectiveness. Federal funding and standards, the 
specifics of which are detailed in my written testimony, will 
go a long way towards helping avoid these variations this fall.
    Voters need clear choices on how to vote this year, and 
States need clear guidance and support in providing those 
choices. This need is particularly acute in cities in Michigan 
like Flint and Detroit, and in historically disenfranchised 
communities throughout our country, where voters' confidence 
and trust in their government is an additional challenge to 
overcome.
    I want to close by sharing a success story from Michigan. 
We have held two elections this year, one just prior to the 
pandemic hitting our State and one in the midst of it. In early 
May we held local elections, again in the height of the 
pandemic, and demonstrated that even in the midst of this 
moment, safe and secure elections are possible.
    To succeed in this election, we mailed every registered 
voter in a jurisdiction with an election an application and 
instructions on how to request their ballot through the mail 
and vote from home. We also provided a safe option for voters 
seeking to cast their ballots in person on election day. We 
aggressively recruited new election workers to ensure that no 
one had to work an election if they felt uncomfortable doing 
so, and we provided every jurisdiction with PPE, masks, gloves, 
et cetera, along with clear and explicit protocols on how to 
ensure 6 feet of distance between all election workers and 
voters. This gave voters options and enabled them to choose how 
to safely exercise their vote.
    The result was that turnout was double what it normally is 
for a May local election, and 99 percent of voters who 
participated in the May election chose to vote from home. There 
were no crowds in polling places, there were no long lines, and 
there were zero reports of fraud.
    This success demonstrated that it is indeed possible, with 
proper planning, policies, education, and resources, to ensure 
our elections this fall are safe, accurate, and secure.
    They also informed my more recent decision to again mail 
every registered Michigan voter an application and instructions 
on how they can vote by mail ahead of our August primary and 
our November general elections.
    Democracy can and will survive this pandemic, but we need 
your ongoing help, we need all of us working together across 
party lines, and investment and support to ensure that it does.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Benson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Secretary Benson, and thank you for 
condensing your remarks in the interests of time. We will have 
questions for you.
    Our next witness is Ms. Stacey Abrams. Ms. Abrams is 
founder and chair of Fair Fight Action, an organization 
dedicated to advancing voting rights and electoral reform. In 
2018 she was the Democratic nominee for governor of the State 
of Georgia, the first African American woman in U.S. history 
nominated by a major party as its nominee for governor.
    Prior to running for governor, she served in the Georgia 
General Assembly from 2007 until 2017, serving as the House 
minority leader from 2010 to 2017. She became the first woman 
to lead a party in the Georgia General Assembly and the first 
African American leader of a party in the State House of 
Representatives.
    Ms. Abrams received her J.D. from Yale Law School, her 
master of public affairs from the LBJ School of Public Affairs 
at the University of Texas in Austin, and her B.A. Magna cum 
laude from Spelman College.
    I note that Ms. Abrams has another commitment at noon 
Eastern, so we must endeavor to stick to our time limits so 
that every member who wants will have a chance to ask her 
questions.
    Ms. Abrams, thank you, and you are recognized for 5 
minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF STACEY ABRAMS

    Ms. Abrams. [Inaudible.] Sorry. Thank you, Chairman Cohen, 
Vice Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of 
the committee.
    I come before you today as a voting rights advocate, as the 
founder of Fair Fight Action, and as an American deeply 
concerned about the challenges facing our democracy, 
particularly in the era of COVID-19.
    Furthermore, I would do a disservice to millions of 
Americans if I, too, did not acknowledge the anger and anguish 
that link together our demands for justice and the right to 
choose our leaders, and through them, the policies that govern 
us through the profound power of the right to vote.
    Across our Nation we face a public health crisis, an 
economics disaster, continued distrust in our justice system, 
and a coordinated assault on our access to our democracy. 
Congressional action has been vital to respond to the pandemic, 
but access to the right to vote will determine how recovery and 
systemic justice are achieved.
    Financially exhausted States are reliant upon the compact 
made with the Federal Government for mutual aid in times of 
catastrophic events. To support and expand vote by mail, to 
place critical guardrails on access, to educate voters on their 
options, and to increase the safety of in-person voting, our 
obligation is to fund these changes.
    I appreciate what the House has done to acknowledge its 
fundamental obligation, and I urge your Senate colleagues to 
take immediate action to pass the HEROES Act.
    I was born in Madison, Wisconsin, and on April 7th I 
watched in horror as the cautionary tale of their election took 
place. None of us should forget the images of voters shivering 
in long lines and crowded into the vastly reduced number of in-
person polling locations. The Wisconsin State Journal reports 
71 known cases of coronavirus as a result of that election.
    The challenge is clear and uncontroverted. Crowded polling 
places pose a risk for voters and for the brave poll workers 
who risk their lives to help our democracy function during this 
pandemic. Our first obligation is to reduce the number of 
voters who will cast their ballots in person on election day 
through national access to vote by mail.
    All States have the current capacity. However, we must 
remove unnecessary barriers to participation and scale 
infrastructure to allow widespread use of this safe, tested, 
and auditable method of balloting.
    Furthermore, the American people want expanded access to 
vote by mail by a 2:1 margin, despite the false reports of 
potential fraud.
    Voter fraud of any kind is extremely rare. As The New York 
Times noted, after 20 years Oregon, has documented an 
infinitesimal 0.00001 percent incident rate of fraud. And when 
we look at the Nation as a whole, in 2016 more than half of the 
States reported zero substantiated allegations of voter fraud, 
another eight States reported one such allegation, and the 
remaining States found a de minimus number of cases, none 
sufficient to alter the outcome of elections.
    Recent election results also show that voting by mail 
offers neither party a partisan advantage. This finding 
confirms the fundamental truth: Our elections should not be 
partisan. The selections we make will be cast along party 
lines, but the process of determining our leadership should not 
be. Leaders of both parties should want higher participation in 
our democracy, regardless of who wins.
    America does best when we acknowledge our challenges and 
prepare for success. The solution to promote both public health 
and participation in our democracy is to expand access to vote 
by mail, to establish uniform guidelines for 2020 so that where 
we live in our country will not diminish our right to 
participate in November's elections.
    I thank you for the opportunity to take part in this 
important hearing, and I urge you to continue to protect access 
to our democracy.
    [The statement of Ms. Abrams follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you so much, Ms. Abrams.
    Our next witness is Mr. J. Christian Adams. Mr. Adams is 
the president and general counsel of the Public Interest Legal 
Foundation. From 2005 to 2010, he worked in the Voting Section 
of the United States Department of Justice. Prior to his time 
at the Justice Department, he served as general counsel of the 
South Carolina secretary of state. He received his law degree 
from the University of South Carolina School of Law.
    Mr. Adams, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS

    Mr. Adams. Thank you very much, Chairman Cohen, Chairman 
Nadler, Ranking Member Johnson, members of the committee. Thank 
you for the invitation today.
    I am the president and general counsel of the Public 
Interest Legal Foundation, a nonpartisan charity devoted to 
promoting election integrity and best practices for election 
officials.
    We have found numerous failures in election administration, 
and we know from Federal data that voting by mail is the most 
vulnerable form of voting, where hundreds of thousands of 
ballots have been rejected for defects and millions more end up 
missing or in landfills.
    The United States is not ready for an emergency national 
vote by mail scenario in 2020 and will not be. Putting the 
election into the hands of the United States Postal Service 
would have numerous problems.
    First, vote by mail would disenfranchise voters. It would 
move the election from transparent places where observers from 
both parties can monitor the process to moving it behind closed 
doors where the vulnerable and powerless are influenced by 
third parties.
    I have attached to my testimony a court opinion from the 
Southern District of Mississippi in the case of United States 
v. Brown. The committee can see plainly how vote by mail can 
abuse the most vulnerable. If you peruse the opinion from pages 
17 to 21, you will see what ballot harvesting fraud looks like 
from the inside.
    Notably, the victims were poor and powerless. The victims 
were visited in their homes by politically connected vote 
harvesters, and the vote harvesters cast the ballots, not the 
voters.
    Elections should be in the open, in transparent places, 
where the vulnerable can be protected from the powerful trying 
to cast a ballot for them.
    Vote by mail also has logistical problems. The entire 
system was designed for in-person voting. We saw those failures 
yesterday in elections across the country and here in D.C. 
where tens of thousands of people in D.C. didn't return their 
ballot because they didn't get them in the mail.
    State election officials and even the U.S. Justice 
Department have been besieged by phone calls and complaints in 
the last few weeks about mail ballots never arriving. We do not 
have the administrative infrastructure to ensure a clean 
automatic mail election based on current lists.
    Finally, we found, for example, in Pittsburgh that people 
are not only registered twice or three times, that one voter 
was actually registered at seven active simultaneous times. My 
written testimony shows the seven separate public voter 
registration records for the same person. He was registered to 
vote seven times by an out-of-state third-party group in the 
weeks before the 2016 election. Under an automatic vote-by-mail 
plan, that person would get seven ballots.
    Thank you very much for your time and attention on this 
important matter.
    [The statement of Mr. Adams follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Adams, and thank you for taking 
just 3 minutes and saving us some time. I appreciate it very 
much.
    Our next witness is Ms. Myrna Perez. She is the director of 
the Voting Rights and Election Program at the Brennan Center 
for Justice at New York University School of Law. That is 
Chairman Nadler's district. She is the author of several 
nationally recognized reports and articles. She is a lecturer 
in law at Columbia Law School, also in Chairman Nadler's 
district, and has served as adjunct professor of clinical law 
at the NYU School of Law, still in Chairman Nadler's district.
    She received her law degree from Columbia University Law 
School, master's in public policy from Harvard Kennedy School 
of Government, and undergraduate degree from Yale.
    Ms. Perez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF MYRNA PEREZ

    Ms. Perez. Thank you, members, for having me.
    In this time of reckoning for the country, I briefly map 
out five critical needs that each State must address to ensure 
that no voter is left behind during this pandemic. My written 
testimony provides more details and a voluminous resource 
appendix.
    But the single most important thing that members of this 
committee can do to protect our elections against COVID is to 
play your part in getting State and local election 
administrators additional financial resources.
    Funding aside, here are the needs.
    First, we must expand registration opportunities. The 
moment we are in now makes plain that our democracy works best 
when we are all heard.
    At this time in past Presidential election years, we would 
be seeing an increase in voter registration rates. We are not 
seeing that now, and this is no surprise. Government agencies 
that provide voter registration are closed. Community groups 
that ordinarily register voters are unable to do in-person 
outreach.
    Accordingly, the States that don't have online registration 
should provide it and the States that do should boost their 
capacity. All online registration systems should account for 
the fact that some Americans do not have DMV IDs, some 
Americans have disabilities, and some prefer to conduct 
important business in another language. Also, the digital 
divide is real, so all Americans must have lower tech 
registration options, too.
    Second, all eligible Americans must have the option to vote 
by mail. Now, every State in this country has absentee or mail 
voting for at least some of its citizens. That option should be 
available to every eligible American so that no voter has to 
expose themselves or others to the coronavirus.
    Americans from all walks of life want to vote by mail. We 
know this because of polls and we know this because of the 
increase in the amount of requests for mail ballots.
    Despite some incendiary and untrue rhetoric, vote by mail 
is a necessary, secure, and sensible option, especially now, 
for the November elections.
    Of course, there are maybe some witnesses making a lot of 
hay out of the rare instances of abuse. There is zero dispute 
that appropriate safeguards should be in place, and they are. 
In fact, there are multiple layers of security for each ballot. 
That is why the instances of fraud are so rare.
    Third, we must provide safe in-person voting options. I 
want to point out that no one thus far has been talking about 
only mail elections. Even if more voters will vote by mail this 
November, the country is still going to need an adequate number 
of polling places. Why? Lots of reasons.
    Polling places are needed fail-safes because there are 
going to be inevitable glitches as we scale up to the massive 
increase in vote by mail. There are some Americans who are very 
deeply attached to in-person voting. Some voters need language 
assistance or have physical or visual impairments that make in-
person voting a necessity. And, finally, some voters have mail 
address issues or problems with unreliable mail service.
    States and localities should offer sufficient hours and 
days of early voting to reduce crowds and minimize lines. 
Polling places should be frequently cleansed and in venues 
suited to comply with physical distancing. Poll workers and 
voters need PPE and disposable implements like pens to mark 
paper ballots or Q-tips to press buttons.
    Four, we must educate voters about the election process. 
Voter education is more important now than ever because of 
changes to primary dates and mail voting rules and because 
misinformation and disinformation are real threats that are 
occurring today.
    Finally, we must be prepared for new cybersecurity threats. 
Resources that should have been available to secure election 
technology now have to be diverted to making sure that 
elections actually happen this November. We must continue to 
audit and test all of our electronic systems, particularly 
online registration and mail ballot application systems that 
will see greater use. Additionally, we need risk limiting and 
other post-election audits to ensure that we can trust our 
result tallies. Fortunately, in many places officials of both 
parties are working on it. We need more of that.
    I am going to end with where I started. The changes needed 
to leave no voter behind require resources. We estimate that it 
will cost close to $4 billion. Ultimately, the smooth 
administration of the November election will depend in large 
part on the levels of support that elected officials like 
yourselves are providing to election administrators and voters 
during this crisis. I am hopeful that members of this committee 
will model the leadership and commitment our country 
desperately needs right now on these topics.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Perez follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Perez.
    Our next witness is Tom Fitton, and if I am wrong, please 
correct me when you start. He is president of Judicial Watch, a 
position he has held since 1998.
    Judicial Watch describes itself as a public interest group 
that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, seeking 
to ensure that the government and judicial officials act 
ethically and do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the 
American public.
    Judicial Watch primarily seeks access to government 
records, files Freedom of Information Act and other public 
records lawsuits, and engages in other forms of civil 
litigation.
    Mr. Fitton--or ``Fyton''--has had over 20 years of public 
policy experience. He received his B.A. in English from George 
Washington University.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.

                    STATEMENT OF TOM FITTON

    Mr. Fitton. Thank you, Chairman Cohen. And like the other 
participants, we really appreciate your prayer at the 
beginning.
    Unfortunately, for years Americans have been losing faith 
in the integrity of our elections. Gallup has been tracking 
this for years. Last year they asked if Americans have 
confidence in the integrity of elections and the honesty of 
elections specifically. Only 40 percent of Americans said yes, 
59 percent said no.
    And, frankly, this isn't helped by plans like Governor 
Newsom's who issued by an executive order recently requiring 
that county election officials transmit mail ballots to every 
registered voter in the State. I view this as the real threat 
to the integrity of our elections.
    In 2005, back when there was a bipartisan understanding 
about the threat of voter fraud and its connection to vote by 
mail and absentee ballots, the Carter-Baker Commission noted 
that absentee balloting is vulnerable to abuse in several ways. 
Blank ballots mailed to the wrong address, to large residential 
buildings might get intercepted. Citizens who vote at home, at 
nursing homes, at the workplace, or in church are more 
susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation. 
Vote-buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when 
citizens vote by mail.
    We are particularly concerned about ballots being mailed to 
the wrong address. Voter registration lists throughout the 
country are out of date, containing registrations for voters 
who no longer live at the stated address, who have died or are 
otherwise ineligible to vote. The Pew Research Center from many 
years back found that there were 24 million, or one out of 
every eight, active voter registrations in the United States 
that were no longer valid or significantly inaccurate. At least 
1.8 million deceased individuals were listed as active voters 
at that time.
    I don't think things have gotten much better. Data states 
provided to the Election Assistance Commission in 2019 showed 
hundreds of U.S. counties with voter lists containing more 
registered voters than there were citizens over the age of 18, 
meaning that the registration rate was over 100 percent, and 
looking at that data, we concluded there were at least 2.5 
million extra registrants on our voter rolls. The extra 
registrations include both outdated and currently active 
registrations, as well as inactive registrations that are 
pending removal.
    Note that even inactive registrations can still be voted 
upon on election day. This doesn't require a voter to use a 
provisional ballot. The voter just needs to show up and say or 
affirm his or her address typically, and in many States that 
can be done just through an oral representation. To be clear, 
the poll worker asks the voter if he or she lives at the listed 
address and the voter just says yes. At that point the voter 
can vote.
    Many counties have lists containing outdated registrations, 
as I said. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, after we warned them 
about this, removed nearly 70,000 names from their lists 
because people hadn't voted within the legally required two 
election cycles. It only removed them after receiving a warning 
letter.
    North Carolina's own public data shows nearly a million 
inactive registrations. Pennsylvania admits to 800,000 inactive 
registrations. We have sued those States to try and clean those 
rolls up.
    Governor Newsom's executive order in California seems 
particularly cynical. While he is relying on emergency powers 
in the face of the pandemic to order all-mail-ballot elections, 
he notably has failed to restrict ballot harvesting under State 
law, which means that people will be showing up and interacting 
with people as they gather ballots, increasing, obviously, the 
likelihood of health issues.
    Public health is cited as justification for mail ballots 
but is absent when talking about the massive ballot harvesting 
schemes being foisted upon or the attempt to foist ballot 
harvesting schemes on Americans.
    Look, in the end, this crisis, this pandemic has blown up 
our economy, it has suppressed our liberties. Let's not let it 
blow up our elections.
    [The statement of Mr. Fitton follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your getting done 
in time, too.
    Next our witness is Mr. Dale Ho. Mr. Ho is the director of 
the Voting Rights Project for the ACLU, the American Civil 
Liberties Union. In that role, he supervises the ACLU's voting 
rights litigation and advocacy work nationwide. He currently 
has active cases in dozens of States around the country. He has 
testified on election law issues before the Congress and in 
various State legislatures.
    He is also an adjunct clinical professor at NYU School of 
Law. He received his J.D. from Yale, his undergraduate degree 
from Princeton.
    Mr. Ho, thank you. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF DALE HO

    Mr. Ho. Chairman Nadler, Chairman Cohen, Ranking Member 
Johnson, and members of the subcommittee, the COVID-19 pandemic 
presents the greatest challenge to elections administration 
since the 1864 Presidential election was conducted during the 
Civil War. We will likely have fewer poll workers and polling 
places than in 2016 and more voters assigned per voting 
location than ever, all in the midst of a deadly pandemic that 
has already killed more than 100,000 Americans.
    If we truly believe that no American should have to choose 
between protecting their health and exercising their right to 
vote, we must follow the CDC's recommendation to allow all 
Americans to use voting methods that minimize direct contact 
with other people and reduce crowd size at polling locations.
    But this is a big challenge. More than 80 million Americans 
voted in person on election day in 2016. We must help our 
fellow citizens and States shift to more early and absentee 
voting than ever.
    That is why the ACLU has actively advocated in more than 30 
States and filed 10 lawsuits since the pandemic began, winning 
rulings in Virginia, Montana, and South Carolina.
    This morning my colleagues are arguing by video conference 
at a hearing in Chairman Cohen's home State of Tennessee for 
the right to vote safely by mail during the pandemic.
    Protecting the health of our fellow Americans and of our 
democracy itself is not a partisan issue. Take it from the 
Republican National Committee, which recently sent a mailer in 
Pennsylvania proclaiming that, quote, ``Voting by mail is an 
easy and secure way to cast your ballot.''
    It is the height of bad faith that a President who himself 
votes by mail and the Attorney General would in recent remarks 
seek to undermine the American public's confidence in no-excuse 
absentee voting, which the majority of States currently offer, 
33 in all, including several represented on this subcommittee, 
such as North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And of the 17 
States that normally don't, 12 have relaxed their requirements 
to allow voters to vote absentee during their primaries, 
including Indiana, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. Following 
ACLU lawsuits, South Carolina did the same. And Missouri passed 
a bill that, if signed, will also do so.
    These 12 States are a broad coalition of so-called red, 
blue, and purple States, and they show that it is not too late. 
States can adjust now to protect every American's right to vote 
safely during the pandemic. They must maintain that commitment 
in November.
    There remain only five States currently refusing to let all 
voters vote absentee, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, 
and Missouri. Voters in these States, including the 
constituents of many members of this committee, must have the 
same right to vote safely during the pandemic that everyone 
else in this country has.
    The ACLU, therefore, supports the VoteSafe Act, H.R. 6807, 
introduced by Congressman Clyburn and Senator Harris. Among 
other things, it authorizes $5 billion for elections 
administration, including health and safety at polling places, 
and requires States to permit no-excuse absentee and early 
voting this year.
    States are already seeing unprecedented levels of absentee 
requests. For example, Pennsylvania had an 18-fold increase in 
such requests compared to 2016. States need Federal support for 
printing and processing more mail-in ballots than in any 
previous election.
    Congress has rightfully authorized trillions of dollars in 
spending to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. In this context, $5 
billion is a rounding error. We urge the inclusion of the 
VoteSafe Act in any additional COVID legislation this year.
    And as Ranking Member Johnson noted, we must ensure that 
the Postal Service can do its job. That means ensuring it has 
full funding to remain solvent. It is a small but critical 
price to safeguard our democracy.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Ho follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Ho.
    Barbara Arnwine is our next witness. She is president and 
founder of the Transformative Justice Coalition. She has 
previously worked on matters including the passage of the 
landmark Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the 2006 reauthorization 
of provisions to the Voting Rights Act.
    Currently, she also serves as co-chair and facilitator of 
the National Commission for Voter Justice, the Millennial Votes 
Matter Convening, and the Voting Rights Alliance. She was the 
head of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law from 
February 1989 to June of 2015, and she holds the honorific 
title of president emeritus.
    She has taught at Columbia University School of Law. Ms. 
Arnwine holds degrees from Duke School of Law and Scripps 
College.
    Ms. Arnwine, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you.

                  STATEMENT OF BARBARA ARNWINE

    Ms. Arnwine. Yes. Thank you so much, Chairman Cohen and 
Ranking Member Johnson and all the members of the subcommittee. 
I just want to talk and add and supplement what you have heard 
already.
    Virus voter suppression is our new reality. I have been 
writing about voter suppression, the 61 forms of voter 
suppression--you can find it at votingrightsalliance.org--
laying out what has been confronting our country since 2011 in 
this modern era.
    But now, because of COVID-19, we are seeing an era of virus 
voter suppression. In Texas, we have 16.2 million voters 
totally confused about can they, in fact, vote if they are 
afraid of COVID or, like in the State of Missouri, they are in 
a hospice or if they are in a nursing home or if they have 
comorbidities. And the courts have been [inaudible]. And Ken 
Paxton, the Texas AG, has been threatening to, in fact, raise 
criminal penalties against voting rights groups.
    We also know that another thing we have not talked about 
yet is that in the national press there have been articles 
reporting on threats by bad actors to actually place 50,000 
vigilantes, so-called voter challengers, at polls, talking 
about they are going to recruit and facilitate the 
participation of voter challengers who are former military and 
former and off-duty police officers, and we know that the 
targets of these actions, as we have seen in the past, are 
polls where there are voters of color. I have had to stop such 
programs in Louisville, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and other 
places.
    I also wanted to be point out that, as Myrna Perez pointed 
out, that we need to really address right now in massive voter 
registration campaigns, including drive-up voter registration, 
which has been used now by some people and is having some great 
success. We need to institute massive voter outreach and voter 
education.
    And we did not talk about one of the big problems that we 
had in 2016 that led to some of the decrease in African 
American voter participation, and that is the problem of 
disinformation and foreign interference. And we know that that 
is still a problem and the big techs have not done enough to 
address that problem, especially Facebook. So we need to create 
massive rapid response systems to combat voter disinformation.
    Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that of the 214 
million-plus registered voters, some 8.7 percent are on what is 
called inactive lists. If you are on an inactive list in many 
of these States, you do not receive a mail-in ballot. You will 
not receive an application. You have got to go through a 
process to clean up whatever the issue is. And we believe there 
should be aggressive outreach to the 18 million people in our 
country who sit on inactive lists.
    We also believe that there are--as we know, there are over 
18 million people who have been purged over the last several 
years who have no clue that they have been purged from the 
voter rolls. They also deserve active outreach.
    These are the important things. In the voter options, of 
course, vote by mail is only one option, and it really should 
be viewed as only one option, because vote by mail has several 
impediments for people of color communities. And I am not going 
to get into those. Those are laid out in my testimony about 
what we could do to make sure that those are not barriers.
    But we have also have got to have, in addition to expanded 
early voting, we need drive-up voting. We have found out--one 
thing nobody talks about is that in the States that have 
modeled vote by mail, they have----
    Mr. Cohen. You are coming up on the 5 minutes. Wrap up.
    Ms. Arnwine. And that actually concludes my testimony. 
Thank you so much, Mr. Cohen.
    [The statement of Ms. Arnwine follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cohen. You are welcome, Ms. Arnwine. Thank you for 
appearing before the committee and for your work.
    Our final witness is Michelle Bishop. Ms. Bishop is the 
disability advocacy specialist for voting rights at the 
National Disability Rights Network, where she is responsible 
for coordinating voting rights initiatives in every U.S. State, 
district and territory, as well as providing training and 
technical assistance to the nationwide network regarding voting 
rights and access for voters with disabilities under the Help 
America Vote Act.
    Ms. Bishop received her master of social work and social 
economic development from Brown School of Washington U in St. 
Louis and a bachelor of arts in sociology and English 
literature from the State University of New York at Geneseo.
    Ms. Bishop, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF MICHELLE BISHOP

    Ms. Bishop. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today 
representing the National Disability Rights Network, or NDRN, 
which is a nonprofit membership organization for the federally 
mandated Protection and Advocacy, or P&A, network.
    Social distancing is our best line of defense from the 
threat of COVID-19. And, naturally, vote by mail is a critical 
piece of the puzzle for keeping elections safe during the 
pandemic. It behooves elections administrators to allow for as 
many voters as possible to choose voting from home for their 
own safety as well as the health of their fellow voters and 
elections personnel.
    Reducing in-person turnout in 2020 is, unfortunately, 
necessary to enable in-person voters to properly social 
distance while voting and allow poll workers to sanitize 
between voters.
    Therefore, now is the time to relax deadlines for requests 
in return of mail ballots. Now is the time to eliminate 
barriers like requirements for doctor notes, notaries, and 
witness signatures.
    These extra hoops to jump through pose a health risk for 
voters with disabilities and particularly those that are 
immunosuppressed, who are under stay-at-home orders or are in 
quarantine, that must then break their self-isolation to access 
doctors, notaries, or witnesses simply to be able to vote.
    Even with these measures in place, it should be noted that 
traditional vote-by-mail systems are not and have never been 
accessible to voters with disabilities. People who are blind or 
low vision, have print disabilities, limited literacy, limited 
manual dexterity, and other disabilities cannot privately and 
independently mark, verify, and cast a hand-marked paper 
ballot.
    States that not have already done so must immediately 
implement some form of electronic ballot delivery or remote 
accessible ballot marking system that provides an electronic 
ballot to voters who choose to vote from home. These 
technologies are widely available and have been in use reliably 
for years in primarily vote-by-mail States and for military and 
overseas voters.
    When vote-by-mail systems are not made accessible for 
voters with disabilities, we, in essence, ask people with 
disabilities, who are considered the most vulnerable under 
COVID-19, to be the only voters who take to the polls and 
assume the personal health risk of in-person voting while their 
non-disabled peers have the privilege of voting from the safety 
of their homes.
    That said, voting by mail is not and may never be a 
panacea. Many of the remote accessible vote-by-mail systems 
currently market ready or in use by voting jurisdictions across 
the Nation make vote by mail significantly more accessible, but 
not fully accessible. As a result, in-person voting locations 
must be available to the greatest extent possible and follow 
Centers for Disease Control and other federally recommended 
health guidelines for COVID-19 safety.
    Early voting periods and hours for in-person voting must be 
extended for several weeks before election day to reduce 
congestion at the polls and allow for social distancing. The 
number of ballot marking devices or other accessible voting 
stations must also be significantly increased at every polling 
location, and voters should be allowed to vote curbside.
    Even in States where curbside voting is not currently 
allowed, its use would ease accessibility and Federal 
compliance issues that will inevitably arise from the limited 
number of available polling places and unexpected relocation of 
polling places, as well as to allow voters at greater risk in 
regard to COVID-19 to limit their exposure.
    Many Members of Congress have stepped up to propose 
legislation to help address these issues, including the HEROES 
Act and the VoteSafe Act. NDRN calls on Congress to work 
together to pass a bill that will address the safety issues 
raised around voting during this time as well as ensuring 
accessibility for people with disabilities.
    Congress must also act now to pass the PAVA Program 
Inclusion Act and provide the territorial government and P&A of 
the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as the Native American 
Disability Law Center, with desperately needed HAVA funding to 
ensure access to the vote for Pacific Islanders and Native 
Americans with disabilities. Extending funding to the only two 
P&As excluded from the Protection and Advocacy for Voter Access 
program is a simple and no-cost legislative fix.
    Finally, Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice play a 
critical role in ensuring that elections are fair, accurate, 
safe, and accessible. The delicate patchwork of Federal laws 
that protect the rights of voters with disabilities must be 
protected, restored, and enforced to their full capacity.
    We call them Americans with disabilities because they are, 
first and foremost, Americans, and their civil rights, as well 
as the health of all voters and the health of our democracy, 
depend on it. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Bishop follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Bishop.
    That concluded our witnesses. We will go to the period of 
questions. Each member will have 5 minutes to ask questions, 
and I will start with myself.
    For Ms. Abrams, thank you for joining us today. Out of all 
the challenges that you and other witnesses have described in 
carrying out the election this November, what worries you the 
most? Is it intentional voter suppression, or is it sheer 
incompetence, or some combination of the two?
    Ms. Abrams.
    Ms. Abrams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let's understand that voter suppression takes three forms: 
Can you register and stay on the rolls, can you access a 
ballot, and can you get your ballot counted.
    As a number of the witnesses have testified, voter 
registration remains a challenge as does voter purging based on 
false information and poor, to use your language, incompetence 
often that removes people from the rolls unnecessarily.
    But what we also have to focus on is the ability to cast a 
ballot. As Ms. Bishop pointed out, the challenge that we face 
is that there are populations that only have one method of 
casting their ballot. Because of disability, because of 
language barriers, because of homelessness or displacement due 
to eviction through foreclosure through COVID-19, or because 
they are unable to participate otherwise in the process of 
voting by mail, they need to go in person.
    And so my deep worry is that because we focus on one or the 
other to the exclusion of one of those processes, we do not use 
the full toolbox at our disposal and we invalidate the 
opportunity to vote.
    And I would like to point out to this committee that South 
Korea, which began experiencing COVID-19 infection rates at the 
exact same time as the United States, managed to scale up a 
national election on April 15th that had the single highest 
voter turnout they have seen in 30 years. They did it through a 
combination of investing in vote by mail, but also meeting the 
guidelines for health protection when people went to vote in 
person.
    That is why the critical nature of the HEROES Act says that 
we don't pick one or the other, but we absolutely fund the 
States, as Secretary of State Benson pointed out, we fund 
States to scale up their existing capacity.
    Thirty-four States vote by mail already. Sixteen States 
have--34 States have vote by mail with no excuses, 16 require 
excuses, and as Mr. Ho pointed out, there is only a handful of 
States right now that are refusing to expand that access 
because of restrictions on who can provide the excuse.
    But if we do all three, if we provide in-person voting 
early, in-person voting on election day, and vote by mail, then 
we will not have to face the questions of incompetence because 
any challenges to the voting process can be met by allowing 
people to utilize another methodology.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Abrams.
    Secretary Benson, President Trump falsely accused you of 
illegally sending millions of mail-in ballots to Michigan 
voters. Can you explain what Michigan actually did, and in your 
mind, is this a partisan issue?
    Ms. Benson. Thank you for the question and the opportunity 
to again restate and clarify exactly what we did in Michigan.
    One, we feel that educating voters about their choices and 
rights in the midst of this pandemic is exactly the job of 
secretaries of state and chief election officers right now. 
What I did in Michigan, as several of my colleagues in West 
Virginia and Iowa and Nebraska and Georgia have also done, is 
simply mail an application to every registered voter for them 
to request to vote by mail and receive a ballot through the 
mail in August, in our August primary and in our November 
election.
    Now, that is something that in particular has been called 
by the voters I serve and work for in their effort to amend our 
Constitution in 2018 to create a right to vote by mail for 
every citizen in our State.
    So in my view, this is not nearly a partisan issue and 
certainly shouldn't be one. The responsibility and authority 
that secretaries of state have to educate and inform citizens 
about their rights, particularly in this time of great 
uncertainty, and give them the clarity as to how they can 
exercise the vote, regardless of who they vote for, it is 
critical.
    And I also want to mention two things, if I can, because 
there has been a lot of misinformation also about what happens 
when you get an application and why this is so different than 
getting a ballot.
    An application simply enables the voter to both 
affirmatively request that they would like to vote by mail and 
confirm their identity when they do so. It actually enables us 
to clarify and clean our list in a way that ensures that we are 
accurately delivering a vote by mail to our citizens who are 
rightfully registered to vote and addressing issues as they may 
arise if there are voters who may have been recently deceased 
who on our list that we then can learn about and take steps to 
remove.
    So the other piece of this is our effort in Michigan has 
actually enabled us to increase the integrity of the elections, 
to increase the----
    Mr. Cohen. Secretary Benson, let me ask you this. Did any 
Republicans complain about the results of the election and 
claim there was fraud in the absentee votes?
    Ms. Benson. No, not in the May election.
    Mr. Cohen. Yes. Yes. It was mentioned that the post office 
didn't get some ballots delivered on time in D.C. If a person 
asked for an absentee ballot and doesn't get it on time, can 
they not still go to the election booth if they can make it and 
ask to vote in person?
    Ms. Benson. Yes. At least in Michigan, which I can state 
with authority. In Michigan, if you don't--one, we can track 
when ballots have been received. We are implementing a voter 
tracking system so that voters can track that receipt and 
return of ballots as well so that they can plan ahead.
    But yes, if for whatever reason you haven't received or 
just have chosen not to return your ballot prior to the 
election, you will always have in Michigan the option to show 
up in person, surrender your ballot if you have it, or simply 
vouch that you voted and then vote in person.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
    Mr. Ho, my time is running out. You mentioned that 
Tennessee is having an election of the jurisdiction, a court 
action. Even if the suit is successful, what are some of the 
dangers having these issues decided by the courts?
    Mr. Ho. Thank you for that, Chairman Cohen. So you broke up 
for a minute there, so I wasn't quite sure what your question--
--
    Mr. Cohen. We are in court right now in Tennessee. What are 
some of the--if the suit is successful, even if it is 
successful, of having these issues determined in court rather 
than by the legislature?
    Mr. Ho. Well, I think it is best for these kinds of issues 
to be resolved in advance of the election and as far in advance 
of the election as possible to give elections authorities the 
time that they need to prepare. I think that is obviously the 
ideal way to do it.
    But where a legislature won't do that, such as in the case 
of your home State of Tennessee, there is no choice. If we want 
all voters to have the option, the choice not to risk their 
health when they are exercising their right to vote, we have no 
choice but to go to court. And that hearing is underway right 
now as I speak in Chancery Court in Davidson County.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Ho.
    My time is up, and I would now like to recognize Mr. 
Johnson for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will get right to 
it.
    The first question is for Mr. Fitton. In May, House 
Democrats passed the HEROES Act, as has been discussed, and it 
included various proposals aimed at federalizing the election 
process. One of those proposals, as we know, is ballot 
harvesting.
    That is still a term that is unfamiliar to a lot of 
Americans who haven't experienced that. Could you briefly 
explain what ballot harvesting is and why it is so susceptible 
to fraud?
    Mr. Fitton. Well, ballot harvesting in the way critics have 
described it, such as Judicial Watch, would allow third-party 
strangers to go around and collect ballots and then allegedly 
deliver them to polling places or locations where ballots are 
collected.
    And in California, they have an extreme version of ballot 
harvesting that has virtually no regulation about who can do 
it, whether they can select someone based on whether they are 
Democrats or Republicans. They don't have real checks in place 
to make sure ballots are delivered.
    And obviously when you have third-party strangers going 
around collecting ballots, that is a recipe for voter 
intimidation. It is one thing to allow in emergency 
circumstances a terribly, for instance, infirm person to have 
their spouse deliver a ballot for them. It is far different to 
have party operatives and interested third parties roaming the 
streets, knocking on doors, and demanding or, quote, asking for 
ballots. It is a recipe for voter intimidation, and that is why 
it is largely banned across the country.
    We rightly opposed what happened in North Carolina with 
that ballot harvesting fraud, but of course, ballot harvesting 
was illegal in North Carolina, and you can see why because of 
the temptation for fraud.
    So the bill that is out there, as best I can tell, would 
nationalize this intimidatory ballot harvesting scheme, upend 
the voting laws in terms of voter ID in 35 States, and 
undermine the security, to the extent it is available or has 
been implemented in the few States that are pursuing it, in 
absentee ballots.
    Talk about causing chaos on election day. To do this so 
quick, so close to election day is just irresponsible, in my 
view.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Adams, Democrats have also proposed that States, when 
an election is held, quote, ``in an area in which an emergency 
or disaster,'' unquote, is declared will automatically mail 
absentee ballots to registered voters in that area. And your 
organization, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, found that 
244 counties, spanning 29 States in addition to the District of 
Columbia, had voter registration rates over 100 percent of the 
population.
    How might these bloated registration rolls lead to 
increased fraud if the States adopt all-mail voting?
    Mr. Adams. Right. And we have upped the game of just 
looking at that ratio where we have actually looked at the 
rolls. As you see in my written testimony, individuals like 
Rashawn Slade in Pittsburgh are registered seven different 
times. We have duplicate registrations around the country. 
People get on the rolls in multiple States.
    If you have automatic vote mail mailouts, Mr. Ranking 
Member, you would have people like Rashawn Slade getting seven 
ballots to vote in the Pennsylvania election. That is not good 
policy, no matter what the need.
    Mr. Johnson. Very good.
    Mr. Fitton, back to you. The Election Clause in the U.S. 
Constitution gives each State the authority to administer 
elections within its jurisdiction, and it only gives Congress 
the authority to step in to regulate Federal elections, as we 
know. But arguably, States are best positioned to administer 
elections to address their own unique needs.
    Do you agree with that sentiment? And if so, what 
challenges do you foresee if every State is forced to 
administer an election in the same manner?
    Mr. Fitton. Well, one size fits all isn't going to work. 
You have the Baker-Carter Commission note the example as being 
the exception that proves the rule. Just because it may work in 
Oregon doesn't mean it will work in other States. In States 
where you have populations that are moved in and out more 
quickly, you have tremendous risk to having all-mail voter 
fraud or increased risk for voter fraud as a result of having 
these mail ballots flood the system--both, frankly, 
applications and ballots directly.
    You know, the concern is, are the States doing sensible 
steps to make sure that people are able to vote on election 
day? And, look, what we are hearing about today is a plan that 
has been in place long before COVID. So they are using, in my 
view, the pretext of the pandemic as an excuse to get a policy 
proposal that will undermine election integrity.
    Why oppose voter ID? Why oppose Federal law that requires 
States to take reasonable steps to clean up the rolls? Why 
oppose even the notion of citizenship verification? To me, that 
is setting up the steal. And the American people have the right 
to have confidence in their elections. And when I hear about 
the rare instances of voter fraud, I get frustrated. If it is 
your vote that is stolen, it is your right that is destroyed.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it, Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    Our next questioner is Mr. Nadler from New York for 5 
minutes.
    Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Benson, we are hearing a lot today about voter 
fraud. Could you briefly describe what Michigan does to ensure 
that mail-in ballots are legitimate, the ways that States can 
do this without suppressing the right to vote, and particularly 
comment on what Mr. Fitton said about ballot harvesting?
    Ms. Benson. Sure. I will start with the ballot harvesting. 
Of course, it is illegal. And the term ballot harvesting does 
not appear in Michigan law. But, you know, if the question is 
about whether a person can drop off another person's ballot, 
there are really only limited circumstances in which that is 
allowed and generally only by an immediate family member or 
someone the voter shares a home with.
    But importantly, the signature check has on multiple levels 
our confirmation that the only person voting a ballot, 
returning a ballot is the voter themselves.
    That signature takes place--the signature check takes place 
both when the application is returned and the voter requests a 
ballot to be sent to them. That signature on that application 
is matched with the voter registration signature.
    And then, secondly, when the ballot is ultimately returned, 
the voter must sign the outside of the envelope, and that 
signature is then matched to all the other signatures we have 
on file. And as any expert will tell you, it is significantly 
harder to forge a signature than it is to create a fake ID.
    And so, in our view, in my view, that signature check 
enables us--and this is a time-tested method that has been in 
place in States for decades--to ensure that the people 
returning ballots, voting the ballots, are the voters 
themselves. And, two, if there is any effort to create any 
fraud in the process, that we catch it and that we prosecute it 
swiftly and effectively.
    Chairman Nadler. And more generally, how frequently have 
you seen incidents of election fraud in your State, whether 
from mail-in ballots or in-person voting?
    Ms. Benson. Evidence of fraud is infinitesimal in Michigan 
and in many other States, some that have been doing vote by 
mail for decades and others around the country. And again, it 
is infinitesimal, as several studies have consistently shown. 
And, secondly, in the rare times when it does occur, we catch 
it and we prosecute it.
    Chairman Nadler. Thank you. And Secretary Benson, Attorney 
General Barr recently said that he was worried about foreign 
governments sending fake mail-in ballots to manipulate our 
elections. Several State election officials have said this 
concern is baseless, including because States closely track 
ballots when they mail them out in the first place. Does it 
seem plausible to you that a foreign government could mail in 
counterfeit ballots in Michigan?
    Ms. Benson. No, it does not. And to me, that more strikes 
to what is the bigger issue facing our elections and our 
electorate this year, which is the effort to sow seeds of doubt 
in the integrity of the process, and in that way, harm voters' 
confidence in the elections and in their results.
    That effort to push back against misinformation, false 
information about our elections process is one of the most 
important efforts that we all need to be engaged in across 
party lines this year.
    Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
    Ms. Abrams, in this moment of profound pain across our 
Nation I am especially troubled that the American people may be 
losing faith in our institutions of government and in our 
democracy itself. What would you say to potential voters who 
are worried that their ballots won't be counted or who have 
lost faith that their participation matters?
    Ms. Abrams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think the most effective statement we can make is that we 
want every eligible voter to be able to cast their ballot and 
to protect their health.
    One of the challenges facing our Nation is a deep suspicion 
about the value of every voice and the value of every person in 
our Nation. And to the extent that we know a disproportionate 
number of those dispossessed in our process are people of 
color, namely African Americans, it is a critical moment for us 
to demonstrate that their access to the ballot will not be 
impeded because of situations beyond their control.
    We watched people get sick in Wisconsin standing in long 
lines, forced to crowd together because of diminished polling 
places in order to cast a ballot for their future. And we know 
that the 2020 election is going to necessarily draw a great 
deal of attention because we are not only running a 
Presidential election, we are running elections that are going 
to determine everything from district attorneys, county 
sheriffs to state legislators and governors.
    And so we want every American who has the right to vote to 
know that they have the freedom to do so and the access, and 
that access will not exist if we have limited means and people 
have to put their lives at mortal risk in order to cast a 
ballot. That simply reaffirms the belief that we do not value 
their humanity, and that is an inappropriate statement for any 
American to make, especially political leaders, who are charged 
with ensuring access to our democracy.
    Chairman Nadler. And that is why mail-in voting is so 
crucial.
    Ms. Abrams. Absolutely. Mail-in voting is part of the 
process. But again, there are going to be populations that 
cannot use mail-in voting.
    So let's be clear. We don't want--I do not advocate for 
universal mail-in balloting. I advocate for mail-in balloting 
in the 2020 election in response to the COVID pandemic that 
allows every eligible American the option to mail in their 
ballot rather than put their life at risk by standing in a 
crowded line in likely reduced polling places unless we have to 
because they have no other option.
    Chairman Nadler. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it.
    Our next questioner will be Mr. Gohmert of Texas for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I, too, 
appreciate the way you started this hearing. I have been used 
to Christian beliefs being belittled by the majority too many 
times since your arrival in 2007, so I am really honest in 
saying how much I appreciate the tenor with which you started 
this hearing.
    I also want to express thoughts and prayers going out for 
George Foley--I am sorry--George Floyd's family and all of 
those. It is just tragic, the looting and rioting we have seen, 
especially costing minority businesses their life's work, a 
real tragedy, and we need to bring about this same type of 
feeling that we have had in this hearing. We can disagree but 
not get violent, not destroy people, or for goodness sakes, 
Italia Marie Kelly, who was killed by a protestor and her 
sister. You know, it wasn't a cop. It was one of you people, 
the protesters, that kind of stuff. We all need to encourage 
that kind of thing to stop.
    And I keep hearing in this hearing, though, about the 
concern over the COVID-19 or coronavirus, but I haven't heard 
any of our witnesses for the majority express that concern 
about the protests, the rioting, and the looting, whereas in 
many places we are not even allowed to go unless we wear a 
mask, but that is those of us who are trying to be law-abiding.
    Mr. Fitton, do you recall the aftermath of the election in 
2000 and--well, 2000, 2001, who it was that was screaming for 
election reform and that every single county, every parish, 
everybody needed to go to electronic voting? And they pushed 
the majority, Republican majority into passing a Federal law 
mandating--unfunded mandating--requiring electronic voting. Do 
you recall that?
    Mr. Fitton. Yes. Many on the left objected to the outcome 
in Florida, how it was determined, and obviously that was 
impacted by the controversy over paper ballots, so there was 
this push for electronic voting.
    Generally speaking, all the voting machines that were 
engineered as a result of that money, they are all getting old, 
and they all need to be replaced.
    And there is no secure way to vote over the internet. We 
don't have the technology to do it. We don't have the 
competency to do it. And the least second most secure way to 
vote is over the mail.
    If you want the vote--if you want to be sure your vote is 
counted, the best way to do it is to show up and vote. And to 
hear inflammatory rhetoric that you are choosing your life over 
your vote is just not appropriate, and it causes people to be 
nervous about voting. That is as suppressive as anything I have 
heard, telling people they are going to die or likely to die if 
they vote.
    We can see that people will exercise their First Amendment 
rights if they think it is important. Voting is important, and 
they will vote in person. They should be able to vote in person 
without being scared to death about doing it.
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, we have already heard in this hearing 
that we watched Wisconsin voters getting sick, and that 
occurred on April 7, 2020. But they--my understanding was 
Wisconsin held that vote without the mail-in mandate and 
actually they did not see a spike in COVID-19 cases. Are you 
familiar with what happened in Wisconsin?
    Mr. Fitton. I am not aware of any public health impact to 
voting in person. And the COVID pandemic is receding. We now 
know that the concerns about it were largely overblown. If you 
have true concerns, in many States you can vote by absentee 
ballot. Frankly, I think absentee ballots are too readily 
available, but the law is what it is.
    And this is a solution in search of a problem. If you want 
to vote by mail, you likely can. So let's stop fooling people, 
and let's start preparing for the election rather than trying 
to upend the election. The time has passed. We have got to be 
printing ballots this month.
    Mr. Gohmert. Before my time expires, I needed to ask 
unanimous consent. This is an exhibit authored by Christian 
Adams and Hans Von Spakovsky, ``COVID-19 and Ebola: What We Can 
Learn From Prior Elections.'' I would ask that be made part of 
the record, without objection.
    Mr. Cohen. Without objection, it will be done.
    [The information follows:]
      

                  MR. GOHMERT FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Gohmert. And I meant to get to Mr. Adams, but my time 
has expired. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert. You are ahead of me on 
the time clock.
    Mr. Raskin is next, 5 minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And our GOP 
colleagues have started with praise of you, so I am going to 
start with a word about Mr. Johnson, because I am always 
carried away with his eloquence. But I was especially struck 
today that he began by denouncing the cold-blooded murder of 
George Floyd by Officer Chauvin. And he also called--and I 
wrote it down, but please correct me if I got it wrong, Mr. 
Johnson--he called for transformative solutions for systemic 
change, which is a beautiful phrase that I am going to hang on 
to whether or not he actually said it, but I think that he did.
    But with that, I think I have got to depart from my friend 
from Louisiana because when he started to talk about elections, 
he lost me. He said States know best on how to run their 
elections. Well, of course that is true, but States also know 
best how to steal elections, how to suppress the vote, how to 
depress the vote, and how to disenfranchise African Americans 
and racial minorities.
    So when he says this is no time to upend elections in 
America, my friend, the elections in America have been upended 
by the COVID crisis.
    And we don't have to get into a blame game about whether, 
you know, you think that Donald Trump has engaged in the most 
exquisite and perfect management of a pandemic in American 
history or you think it has been an absolute debacle. 
Regardless of where you want to pin responsibility, we have 
lost more than 105,000 of our people, 2 million people have 
been sickened, 40 million people have been thrown out of work, 
and the elections have been thrown into disarray not by any of 
the secretaries of state like the wonderful secretary of state 
we have just seen from Michigan or any of the voting rights 
activists. They have been thrown into disarray by COVID-19.
    Ohio had to close 125 polling places because they were in 
retirement homes or senior living centers. We have seen 
tremendous poll worker shortages across the country because 
most poll workers are retirees. They are older Americans, and 
many of them are following the Centers for Disease Control 
recommendation not to go outside to be in groups.
    Sixteen States, including my own, Maryland, have had to 
postpone their primaries. And when one was prevented from doing 
so, Wisconsin, we ended up with 71 cases of COVID-19 of people 
who stood in those long lines wrapped around the block as they 
struggled to get into, I think it was, four or five polling 
places in all of Milwaukee, as many, many polling places didn't 
open in the State of Wisconsin because there was nobody to run 
them. So come on. Get real.
    And to have Mr. Fitton come out here and say that concerns 
about COVID-19 are overblown is just extraordinary and baffling 
to me. I suppose no one in his family or no one he knows has 
been affected by COVID-19, but the idea that the concerns have 
been overblown is just outrageous.
    Now, let me start with a question for Mr. Ho. You said 
something that was really astounding. You said that the 
Republican National Committee had sent out a mailer saying that 
mail-in voting is an easy and secure way to vote. And yet, the 
Republican witnesses today are testifying against vote by mail 
and are undermining vote by mail.
    Can you explain that? Did you get that wrong? Are you 
misquoting them, Mr. Ho?
    Mr. Ho. No. There is a mailer that the Republican National 
Committee sent to all Republican voters in Pennsylvania, which 
I cited and included a screen shot of in my written testimony, 
encouraging voters to vote by mail, celebrating the fact that 
everyone in Pennsylvania can do so, and assuring them that it 
is a, quote, convenient and secure way to cast your ballot.
    This is not, aside from a few voices, this is not a 
partisan issue. States across the political spectrum have no-
excuse absentee voting. Many States, again, across the 
political spectrum are going farther than that and mailing 
ballot applications to all voters, States like Georgia, Iowa, 
Nebraska, Ohio, West Virginia, and most recently, Wisconsin.
    I think everyone understands it is common sense to help 
Americans vote securely and safely in this election.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    And if I could just shift to Stacey Abrams, just picking up 
on what Mr. Ho said. I understand 33 States have vote by mail, 
a voting from home option. That is 66 percent or two-thirds of 
the States. You say that all Americans should have a vote by 
mail option. And if the vast majority of people already have a 
vote by mail option, where is the opposition coming from? This 
is just bizarre to me.
    Ms. Abrams. Thirty-four States have no-excuses vote by 
mail, 16 States have some version of vote by mail. So all 50 
States plus the District of Columbia offer vote by mail.
    The challenge is the access. And it is those States that 
have constrained access or those States that need to scale up 
who are going to request it. We saw this play out yesterday in 
Pennsylvania where the number of people requesting vote by mail 
because they can outstripped the capacity of the States to meet 
the need.
    The issue is not that it can't be done, it is that the 
States require support to make it so, and we need guardrails.
    Just to address the question, it is not--we are not trying 
to force States to all conform in exact ways to the same 
elections, but we are trying to set a floor for what the basic 
understanding of being able to participate in our democracy 
looks like in the midst of a pandemic. We are setting a floor, 
not a ceiling.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. And finally----
    Mr. Cohen. Your time is up, Mr. Raskin. I am sorry.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cohen. You are welcome.
    Next is Mr. Collins from Georgia.
    Welcome back.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Chairman. It is good to see you 
again, and I look forward to the time when we can do this in 
person as we go forward.
    It has been really interesting to me, and it is interesting 
that my friend, Mr. Raskin, we have engaged in rhetorical 
flourishes together for many years now, and it is interesting, 
though, that what I just saw went from praising work that we 
can all do together, which needs to happen on the issue of 
police action, which I am encouraging our chairman, I am glad 
to hear we are going to have a hearing next week on that, 
because what happened in Minneapolis was nothing but murder. 
And we have seen it in Georgia, down here and in other places 
where we just have--our society has to come to grips with this.
    And you, I think, Mr. Cohen, and others, Ms. Jackson Lee 
and others, were on the police working group that we had a few 
years ago, and we need to continue that. So I am glad the 
chairman is looking for that. That is what needs to happen.
    But today's flourishes are interesting to me, and I am 
concerned about the discussion here going forward because the 
wording that is used here is something that is bothersome in 
the sense of let's take what actually is happening. Let's take 
mine and Ms. Abrams' home State of Georgia. And the interesting 
issue here is, is that we have been working--and, 
unfortunately, Georgia, frankly, because of some things that 
have been said by Ms. Abrams and others on the committee and 
throughout across the country, has been held up as a place in 
which suppression and voters were not encouraged to vote, and 
simply, the numbers don't show that. And in fact, from 2014 to 
2018, African American male and female went up 12 percent, 14 
percent, 13 percent of White males, 16 percent female. White 
and Hispanic voter participation has increased from 18 to 24 
percent in our State of Georgia.
    When we look at this and we are talking about the no-excuse 
voting, which, again, I go back to--and a quick question here, 
because I have a question, because I know that Ms. Abrams is 
very precise in her wording. And you used in your wording in 
your opening statement ``uncontroverted.'' And I would assume, 
Ms. Abrams, that you would agree with me that uncontroverted 
means it is with truth and validity, not disputed or denied, 
correct? That is a question.
    Ms. Abrams. I was attempting to turn my mike--my microphone 
on.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. I have that problem too.
    Ms. Abrams. As for the definition of the word 
``uncontroverted,'' yes, I would agree with your definition.
    Mr. Collins. Okay. Well, then, the question, and this came 
up several times here, we keep bringing up Wisconsin, yet a 
Stanford and World Health Organization study that says that 
there is no correlation between rise in COVID cases in 
Wisconsin because of the voting. There may have been more, 71 
cases, as you said, but there has been no rise overall. And the 
question is, of those 71, can it be definitively determined 
that they caught it at the voting place?
    So it is very interesting we should say that this is 
uncontroverted, and your wording was it broke your heart to see 
them standing in long lines. Did it also break your heart to 
see folks standing in long lines in Fulton County and DeKalb 
County because local officials there chose to limit their 
voting machines and limit their polling locations?
    We need to make sure that we continue this process and 
honest discussion and not rhetoric that tends to scare people.
    The question that comes into my mind here--and I want to go 
back. There was a discussion, and it has been stated by some of 
the Democratic members, it has been stated by the chairman 
earlier, it has been stated by you, Ms. Abrams, and others that 
you are being forced to choose, forced to choose. And we just 
got off the discussion with Mr. Ho, and he was talking about 
how many--and you actually thought it as well--how many have 
no-excuse absentee voting.
    Now, I will agree with you that there are other people that 
may have--that those voting preferences need to be encouraged. 
I would encourage that. Everybody needs to vote.
    But my question is, where is the choice to put your life in 
danger if in such as our home State of Georgia anyone can 
request an absentee ballot and get it? Where are we--is that 
not just use of overblown language to say that in States like 
Georgia and others, to make a political point that we are just 
saying nobody can vote? That seems a contradiction.
    Ms. Abrams, are you going to answer that?
    Ms. Abrams. I will try to address all of the questions.
    First and foremost, the number of 71 cases have been 
directly related to April 7th, according to the Wisconsin State 
Journal, which is in my testimony.
    Number two, no one has claimed that voting has created an 
overwhelming majority of cases, but there is a direct 
correlation and that is uncontroverted based on the evidence 
before us.
    As to the----
    Mr. Collins. I will stop you there, Ms. Abrams. Ms. Abrams, 
can I ask you this? Because I want to go back to something, 
because uncontroverted means not disputed.
    And you are a fabulous attorney. I have known you for a 
long time, but I will say that, and somebody will politically 
use it against me.
    But I am going to say this. You understand that--and I am 
saying that April 7 is the start date for those, all 71, to 
have received the virus at that time, that is probably not a 
provable statement. And to keep stating it is a provable fact 
is not being a forthright and honest discussion of what 
happened in Wisconsin.
    Ms. Abrams. To continue my response, the issue of who has a 
choice to vote, it is not a choice if you apply for an absentee 
ballot but the infrastructure of the State is insufficient to 
meet your request. That is the reason for the request for 
funding, because in the State of Georgia, for example, yes, 
millions of people have requested a ballot, but not everyone 
has received it because the State does not have the funding at 
the local or State level to meet the needs, and that is going 
to be expanded when we get to November.
    But I not only represent the State of Georgia. The work I 
do is across the entire United States. And so I speak for 
voters in every single State in our Nation, particularly voters 
of color, who wish to use this choice to vote by mail but may 
not be able to if their State is insufficiently funded with 
[inaudible] right to vote.
    Mr. Collins. Well, I would agree with that, but----
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Collins, your 5 minutes are up, and I thank 
you.
    Mr. Collins. I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen. You are welcome, sir.
    Thank you, Ms. Abrams.
    Next is on the Democrat side, Mr. Swalwell.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chairman.
    And I think we would be tone deaf if we didn't recognize 
the moment our country is in right now. And I did welcome the 
opportunity in a bipartisan way for this committee to live up 
to the role that it has played in the past, to work on civil 
rights legislation, to protect Black Americans from police 
abuses, continued police abuses.
    But going to voting, which, of course, relates to the 
plight of African Americans in our country, I want to ask, Ms. 
Abrams, you are familiar with H.R. 1, the For the People Act. I 
just want to know, in Georgia, what would that legislation, if 
it was signed into law, what would it mean for an upcoming 
Georgia election considering some of the voting abuses we have 
seen in your State in the past?
    Ms. Abrams. Thank you, Representative Swalwell.
    I want to address a statement made earlier, which is that 
there is some correlation between increased participation and 
the absence of suppression.
    In fact, we know that in the United States, often we see as 
a response to suppression an attempt to respond by increasing 
presence. That does not mean that every person who attempts to 
participate is allowed to do so. That is the moral equivalent, 
as I have said before this committee, to the committee, that 
because more people get into the water, suddenly there are 
fewer sharks. That is not the correlation that we should use, 
and it is not the appropriate test of access to our democracy.
    What H.R. 1 would provide is a solution to a number of the 
challenges that folks in Georgia face. Number one, automatic 
voter registration and same-day registration would solve the 
challenge of exact match and the voter purges that have plagued 
the State of Georgia, particularly for African Americans in our 
State.
    The additional language that permits expanded access to the 
right to vote across the country would absolutely guarantee 
voters of color more direct access. Black and brown voters are 
the most likely to have their absentee ballots rejected. They 
are the most likely to be subjected to more restrictive voter 
ID laws.
    And let's be clear, there is no--there is absolutely no 
contest with the notion of being able to prove who you are. The 
challenge with voter ID laws is that they become more and more 
restrictive, thereby eliminating people who should otherwise be 
able to cast a ballot, including a 100-year-old woman in the 
State of Wisconsin who when they passed their law, because she 
could not provide a birth certificate because she was born 
during segregation in Missouri, was disallowed from voting for 
the first time in more than a decade.
    That is the challenge that gets addressed by H.R. 1. We 
remove the barriers to voting, we remain protective of our 
democracy, but we also expand access to everyone who is 
eligible to participate.
    Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Abrams, does voting by mail go as far 
back as the Civil War?
    Ms. Abrams. It does, indeed. Voting by mail--sorry.
    Mr. Swalwell. Go ahead.
    Ms. Abrams. Yes.
    Mr. Swalwell. And today, a soldier in Afghanistan who does 
not have a ballot box that they can go and vote at, are they 
voting by mail?
    Ms. Abrams. They are, indeed.
    Mr. Swalwell. And are their ballots any less secure than a 
vote by mail here at home?
    Ms. Abrams. They are not. In fact, under UOCAVA, we have 
made appropriate mechanisms available in every single State to 
guarantee access to vote by mail, which is why the controversy 
around expanded access is so perplexing, because we have States 
that permit it.
    And what we are saying is that in the midst of a pandemic 
that has robbed most States of the economic resources they 
need, that the Federal Government as part of our mutual aid 
compact should step up and provide the resources necessary to 
allow every State to participate in our democracy.
    And that is why we have the United States. It is why we 
have this joint relationship between States and the Federal 
Government. And it has worked during the 1918 pandemic, during 
the Civil War, and it works every single election cycle for our 
military.
    Mr. Swalwell. And did you know, Ms. Abrams, that last month 
in California's 25th Congressional District, there was a 100 
percent vote by mail election where the President said that it 
was going to be a fraudulent outcome, and a Republican, Mike 
Garcia, was the winner? Did you know that?
    Ms. Abrams. Not only is that true, but we know in the State 
of Utah, they use 100 percent vote by mail. Vote by mail does 
not privilege one community over the other, but equal access 
guarantees that there is equal participation, and that should 
be the goal of a democracy.
    Mr. Swalwell. And Ms. Abrams, are you aware of any recent 
polling about support for voting from home by the American 
people?
    Ms. Abrams. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, 
it is a 2 to 1 margin of support for vote by mail because 
people do not want to have to make the choice of risking their 
lives even on the most infinitesimal chance when there is a 
logical and logistical way to solve the problem, particularly 
because it protects then those who have no choice but to vote 
in person.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Ms. Abrams, and thank you to our 
witnesses. I yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell.
    I want to thank the Republicans for allowing us to move the 
hearing up an hour so that Ms. Abrams could participate. She 
has to leave at--I believe it is noon, 1 o'clock maybe Eastern 
time. If Mr. Armstrong--Mr. Cline is next--if Mr. Armstrong or 
a Democrat has a question for Ms. Abrams, you can ask it now, 
and then that time will be taken from the time you have your 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong, do you have a question?
    Mr. Armstrong. I don't.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    Does a Democrat have a question for Ms. Abrams? If not, we 
will proceed to Mr. Cline. And if you would ask--if you have a 
question of Ms. Abrams, if you would ask it first, and then we 
will proceed on.
    Mr. Cline, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 
your opening remarks and for the opening prayer. And our 
thoughts and prayers are with the American people during this 
difficult time.
    It is an unprecedented time in the history of our Nation. 
In the midst of a global pandemic, citizens will be asked to do 
their civic duty by participating in elections, not just in 
November but in primaries and in local elections. And just last 
month, cities and towns in my home State of Virginia held local 
elections. Not only did they appear to have been held without 
incident, but in some cases the turnout was higher than in 
previous elections.
    COVID-19 has changed how we live our lives with every 
decision we make, weighing the risks of our actions, whether it 
is grocery shopping, planning doctors' visits, and even now 
voting. As election day approaches, it is important for us to 
consider what we can do to ensure that it is conducted safely, 
securely, with strong protections against fraud, and fairly 
with accuracy.
    While I believe that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle would agree with those goals, I am concerned that H.R. 1 
and their proposal to federalize essentially our election 
process would largely impede those goals.
    The Constitution vests States with the responsibility to 
administer elections. That is because each State is best 
positioned to run their own elections. And even more concerning 
than the prospect of losing a State's ability to best address 
the needs of their own citizens and localities is the potential 
of fraud that federalizing elections could cause or encourage.
    Although I support absentee balloting and support recent 
efforts in Virginia to move to an all absentee or no-excuse 
absentee balloting, I am concerned with some of the proposals 
for mail-in voting, especially as it applies to those States 
that don't have updated voter rolls.
    When you vote in Virginia absentee, the voter must request 
the absentee ballot. They have to fill out the ballot in the 
presence of a witness, although during COVID-19 that has been 
waived. And they must sign the envelope before returning it to 
the registrar. We take appropriate measures to ensure that 
anyone who needs an absentee ballot receives one, and anyone 
who returns a completed absentee ballot has their vote counted.
    You know, as the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has 
noted, maintaining accurate voter registration lists is 
essential to protecting election integrity, and that is where 
we have differing standards all around the country. While 
COVID-19 has presented us with challenges, Congress has stepped 
up and acted by passing the CARES Act, which provides around 
$400 million to help States and to prevent, prepare for, and 
respond to coronavirus domestically and internationally for the 
2020 Federal election cycle.
    And I want to ask Mr. Fitton, it has been suggested that 
States, when an election is held in an area in which an 
emergency or disaster is declared, automatically mail absentee 
ballots to registered voters in that area. Do you have any 
concerns with that proposed order, with an all mail-in voting 
requirement absent updating the voter registration rolls?
    Mr. Fitton. Yes. Specifically in California, we have a 
settlement with the State of California, Los Angeles County, 
where they are removing right now up to 1.6 million names from 
their rolls. Our analysis from last year found 14 counties 
totaling over a million extra names on the rolls.
    So in theory, all those folks would get ballots because 
they are still registered to vote. And Newsom's plan, aside 
from its legality, whether he has the authority to do it, it is 
bad policy.
    Look, I understand that we need to be prepared for a 
potential surge in absentee ballot requests, but it is the 
wrong way to vote if you are concerned about secure voting. It 
should be resolved-- it should be reserved for emergency 
situations, our military deployed overseas. And if you want 
your vote to be secure and counted, the best way to ensure that 
is to go vote in person.
    And we have these concerns about COVID-19. How does that 
comport with this massive push for ballot harvesting, which is 
illegal virtually everywhere? Ballot harvesting means people 
going around and taking ballots in person from people. This is 
the old adage, never let a crisis go to waste, and the left is 
doing it here.
    It is going to--this debate is undermining our confidence 
in elections because it is confusing people. They can vote in 
person. They can pursue mail-in ballots as appropriate if they 
need to. But we should be encouraging people to vote in person. 
That is the best way to be sure that votes are secure and 
counted.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I am going to yield 
back.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Cline, very much.
    Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee has a question for Ms. Abrams, and 
she would ask that briefly.
    Ms. Abrams.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Ms. Abrams, thank you so very much.
    How important is it to ensure that in a mail ballot program 
that individuals who receive that then desire to vote in 
person, that there is protection for that individual, those 
individuals?
    Was I heard?
    Mr. Cohen. Is Ms. Abrams still with us?
    Voice. No.
    Mr. Cohen. She has left?
    I am sorry, Congresswoman Lee. I didn't see your request in 
time. We had gotten started. So no time will be taken from you.
    And we will now recognize Ms. Scanlon for 5minutes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much. I am honored to be able 
to participate in this first virtual hearing by the 
Constitutional Subcommittee of House Judiciary. It is so 
important that Congress be able to conduct its essential 
business for the American people at a time when one of the most 
essential things that we can do is to limit the spread of 
COVID-19 and protect those whose physical presence is essential 
by maintaining social distancing whenever we can.
    And of course there is an obvious parallel between this 
virtual hearing and one of the central topics in our discussion 
today, which is the important role of voting by mail to allow 
voters to exercise their essential constitutional right while 
maintaining social distancing during a public health emergency.
    I represent Pennsylvania, and has been noted by several 
speakers, we had our primary election yesterday. Last year, in 
its wisdom, the Pennsylvania Legislature overwhelmingly passed 
broad voting reforms, including no-excuse mail-in ballots, and 
they did so on a strong bipartisan basis, 70 percent of both 
houses.
    Yesterday was the first opportunity for voters to use the 
system, and there is no denying that there were some challenges 
in implementing it, largely because of the COVID-19 epidemic, 
which has killed more than 6,000 Pennsylvanians already.
    We had almost 2 million Pennsylvanians apply for mail-in 
ballots. And while this presented logistical challenges, by and 
large, it ran smoothly, and we are all going to be working 
together, State, local, and Federal, to improve the process for 
the fall.
    One thing that was absolutely clear was the need for 
additional resources, for scanning, printing, and processing 
these ballots.
    One of the biggest issues we had at the polls yesterday was 
staffing, given the disparate impact of COVID-19 on the seniors 
who we typically rely upon to staff our polling places. Many 
polling places had to be consolidated.
    And so I got a message from a friend who was working at the 
polls yesterday, and she was really shocked and horrified by 
how many people refused to vote by mail and instead clogged the 
polling places because they had heard the President's 
derogatory statements about voting by mail. She said that, you 
know, she is really concerned as a healthcare professional that 
the lack of adequate mail-in voting is going to trigger another 
wave of coronavirus in our region, and we have just come out of 
a peak. We would like to avoid another one.
    It was interesting. Last week on my way back from our 
voting session in D.C., I heard the Republican secretary of 
state in Washington share her State's success with mail-in 
voting in an NPR interview entitled ``Lessons to Learn From 
Washington State's Decades-Long Experience of Mail-in Voting.'' 
And I would ask unanimous consent to enter that transcript in 
the record.
    Mr. Cohen. Without objection, it will be done.
    [The information follows:]
      

                  MS. SCANLON FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    I wanted to turn for a minute to the issue of disability 
voting. Ms. Bishop, even under normal circumstances, without a 
pandemic raging, our voting systems are often inaccessible for 
individuals with disabilities. And I introduced the 
Disabilities Voting Rights Act, which was included in H.R. 1, 
to try to get our State and Federal officials to invest in 
mail-in voting and making polling locations more accessible.
    Can you speak to concrete steps we should be taking to 
ensure that voting during this pandemic is accessible and that 
individuals with disabilities are not prevented from 
participating in the vote?
    Ms. Bishop. Absolutely. And thank you for that question.
    We talked a lot today about the importance of mail-in 
voting as a way to keep voting safe, especially to deter 
congestion at the polls. And I think that is critical during 
COVID-19. But what we can't overlook here is even the way we 
describe it, mail-in voting, voting by mail, what we are 
essentially describing is a paper ballot that is inherently 
inaccessible to people with disabilities.
    And I think the most obvious example of that, if I were a 
voter who was blind, and I went to my polling place, and you 
gave me a paper ballot and a pen, and you asked me to mark it 
privately and independently which is my right under Federal 
law, I can't do that.
    So if you mail the same ballot to my home, I don't 
magically regain my vision when I sit down at my kitchen table. 
That ballot is still inaccessible to me. We have to have 
options that make mail-in voting accessible to people with 
disabilities.
    And, fortunately, they exist, and they have been in use for 
years, particularly in States that have prominent vote by mail 
systems. And honestly, any State under the MOVE Act has to 
provide it for our military and our overseas voters. Electronic 
delivery of blank ballots and remote accessible vote by mail 
systems are making it significantly more accessible for people 
with disabilities to access vote by mail.
    It is not a quick fix, it doesn't make it fully accessible 
for all voters, but it does drastically improve the 
accessibility, which in the time of COVID-19 means that more 
voters will be able to opt to vote by mail and won't be forced 
to make that decision to go to the polls and risk their health 
to be able to cast their ballot.
    So it is critical that any States that don't currently 
offer electronic ballot delivery broadly to their voters expand 
it right now and make that an option for all voters.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. And I believe my time has expired, 
so I will yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
    Our next questioner will be Mr. Armstrong.
    And Mr. Armstrong, thank you. You are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for 
having this hearing. It gives me my sporadic opportunity to 
educate people on how we do things in North Dakota.
    And I think I would start with saying there truly are no 
Federal elections. There are only local elections that elect 
Federal officers and Federal elected officials.
    And I know that because North Dakota has probably the 
easiest voting in the entire country. We have no voter 
registration. We have a 30-day residency requirement. We allow 
felons to vote when they are out of prison. And we are proud of 
all of those things. And I think that is one of the problems I 
have, and have significantly, with how we are doing this.
    And just to be clear, during this primary during COVID, we 
are doing vote by mail throughout the whole State. It was 
actually fairly easy for us to set up because we have a number 
of vote by mail counties already that are almost exclusively 
vote by mail.
    But as is always the case when we try and do these things 
from a Federal level, when we are attempting to solve 
[inaudible] a perceived problem somewhere else, it will cause 
problems in places like mine. There are things we do very well, 
but we do them in the aspect of being a very, very rural State. 
Requiring 20 days early voting in a State--in a county with 700 
people doesn't make any sense.
    And in fact, we have spent many years in different counties 
and different jurisdictions to get this right. We have places 
that have extended early voting, and then we have places that 
shorten it up but have it open significantly outside business 
hours. We do a lot of those things.
    The other thing we do with all absentee and early voting is 
require that it is postmarked a day before the election. North 
Dakotans want to know the result of their election on election 
day.
    But just other things that exist in all of these different 
proposals that make it difficult. Mandating that when a 
declared emergency exists that it is automatically vote by mail 
is pretty interesting for us. What most people call weather 
emergencies, we usually call Tuesday. In varying degrees in 
some place or another within our State, there is a national--or 
there is a Federally declared emergency, whether it is for 
drought, flood, blizzard, all of those different things.
    These proposals forbid ID requirements for vote by mail. We 
need voter ID because we don't have voter registration. It 
would be contrary to North Dakota State law. And there is a 
conflict with all of those different things.
    But as we spend so much time talking about how we deal with 
voter registration and the different issues involved in that, 
again, North Dakota doesn't have it, and so we deal with 
different things.
    And I have to say, too, even as we are doing this right now 
in North Dakota, you want your population to have confidence in 
the ballot, in the voting process. And in our secretary of 
state's zeal and effort, which I applaud, to ensure that 
everybody had the opportunity to vote, I should also say that 
if more than three-fourths of the ballots that have been 
requested by absentee voting in North Dakota are returned, this 
will be our highest voter turnout in the history. I anticipate 
that probably won't be the case and we will be closer to at or 
slightly above average.
    But when we do this, I mean, we are seeing--and this is--I 
mean, people are getting ballots sent to their house, ballot 
applications sent to their house for people who haven't lived 
there in three generations, and those types of things cause 
voters to cause concern over that, and we need to continue to 
move forward.
    So I guess my question for either--well, I suppose Mr. 
Fitton. As we nationalize these things, for a State like North 
Dakota we would have to completely revamp how we do our voting. 
And in our case, it would actually be more restrictive, not 
less, to our citizens. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Fitton. Yes, that is the concern here. You have this 
national plan that is being proposed that would upend the 
voting laws in all States in some form or another, and from our 
perspective most importantly, the laws that secure the votes, 
such as voter ID laws.
    Now, most Americans support voter ID in significant 
numbers, both Republican and Democrat. This is a 
noncontroversial issue, other than some hardcore activists on 
one side who oppose voter ID using fraudulent numbers and 
reasons for doing so, in my view.
    Look, you should be able to vote in November. We all agree 
on that. We want people to be safe. We also want the votes to 
be secure. Blowing up the system now is the wrong thing to do, 
whether at the national level or even State by State, where you 
get confusion reigning as opposed to reassuring voters their 
votes will be counted in the ordinary course, in the ordinary 
way, just vote as you normally are used to doing so, we will 
get through it. What we are hearing now is an effort to disrupt 
the elections, not to secure them.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
    Mr. Armstrong, your 5 minutes are up. I now have another 
reason to think well of North Dakota other than what used to be 
called small college football, ice hockey, and those are the 
two I mostly know. But now calling, you all do great, and you.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cohen. You are welcome. Thank you very much.
    Next is Ms. Dean for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you and the 
ranking member for your thoughtful opening to this first 
hearing of our subcommittee. I am pleased to be a part of it. I 
am mindful of the moment of extraordinary difficulty in our 
country and in our world.
    I am going to start with my first question, if I may, for 
Secretary of State Benson. As my friend and colleague Mary Gay 
Scanlon pointed out, yesterday was primary election day here in 
Pennsylvania, delayed due to the pandemic. It was a test to see 
how prepared we are in managing for November's general 
election.
    It is a tough time for every State. We are figuring things 
out as we go, and naturally there are going to be some 
problems. For example, a good problem is 161,000 folks in my 
county of Montgomery County applied for mail-in ballots. This 
is the first time we have had that opportunity. The county had 
estimated perhaps maybe 20,000 or 30,000 based on 2016 absentee 
ballots of only 9,000. So instead a whopping 161,000 voters 
sought to seek a mail-in ballot.
    Unfortunately, some of the problems that we have 
experienced, and they are learning, is that for some voters 
their ballots went out by market mail instead of being marked 
priority mail. For those who aren't familiar, that is the same 
type of postage indicia that would be spam mail, delaying its 
delivery for as long as 10 to 14 days if not more.
    Some of my own constituents, including a member of my own 
staff, did not get their ballot in time for this election even 
though they applied in time. So there are lots of problems we 
can expect. That is just one important one.
    But, Secretary, from your experience, as you pointed out, 
printing more ballots costs money. Mailing more ballots costs 
money. Ensuring our polling places are safe and well equipped 
costs money. Our Postal Service is on the front lines and needs 
resources, and our local and State governments need our Federal 
support.
    Secretary, as the official responsible for administering 
your State's elections, in what areas or issues of election 
administration have you felt those lack of resources?
    Ms. Benson. Thank you very much for your question and for 
pointing out exactly what we have learned here in Michigan, 
which is that with resources, with sufficient funds [inaudible] 
it appears the solutions to address a lot of these concerns are 
out there and can be implemented. But lacking those resources, 
you will lead to--it is hard to adapt a system that previously 
was primarily in person to a system that is predominantly 
voting by mail quickly.
    Now, we were able to do that in Michigan. In 2018 voters 
amended our law, similar to Pennsylvania, which I know was a 
new law, to have a right to vote by mail. And so like many 
other States, we saw a significant influx in our March 10th 
Presidential primary and anticipating another influx in the 
fall of people voting by mail.
    But the benefit that we and Pennsylvania and other States 
have is that States like Colorado and Washington, as was 
mentioned earlier, Oregon, and even to a certain extent 
California, have been doing this work, have been allowing vote 
by mail in robust systems in their States for decades. So we 
have an opportunity to learn from both their mistakes and their 
best practices and with appropriate resources import a lot of 
the systems they have developed, the technology that they use, 
the people, the people power that is necessary as well, and the 
education tools that is needed to ensure voters know what their 
choices are, what their option are, and that they are empowered 
to fix challenges if they don't receive their ballot on time, 
which for many different variables can oftentimes occur despite 
the best intentions of everyone involved.
    So we cannot overestimate the importance of these resources 
in enabling us to anticipate and solve these problems before we 
prepare for November, and the HEROES Act does provide 
sufficient resources, I believe, to enable us all to do that.
    Ms. Dean. Not only for State and local governments, but 
also for the Postal Service, which I will continue to fight 
for, I know we all will.
    You began in your opening statement talking about some of 
the particular challenges of communities of color or 
economically disadvantaged communities, perhaps Flint. Can you 
point out some of the difficulties in making sure folks have 
full access to mail-in and in-person voting?
    Ms. Benson. The difficulties are both expounded by 
inequality and an access to resources, but also historical 
disenfranchisement and historical disconnect and lack of 
responsiveness from the government officials and systems that 
are meant to serve and protect these residents.
    And so we are fighting decades, generations of trauma. And 
as we are seeing across this country now, the need to 
effectively do more to better serve communities of color and 
historically marginalized and disenfranchised communities also 
is underscored at the ballot box.
    And it is why this has been at the heart of my work and so 
many others in the voting rights arena, recognizing that, as 
has been mentioned in many different ways today, there is no 
one size fits all approach to ensuring every vote is counted 
and every voice is heard.
    It takes every one of us working together at the local 
level, at the State level, community leaders, other voices, 
trusted voices, to educate voters about their rights and ensure 
they know the choices.
    It takes election officials, administrators preparing an 
infrastructure that can embrace and serve, meeting voters where 
they are at to enable all choices to be fully balloted in 
successful ways to cast a vote.
    And then it also takes all of us fighting back against 
efforts to deceive, particularly communities of color, but all 
voters, about their rights and their access to the vote issue 
now more than ever.
    All of this does take resources, but also everyone in this 
hearing today and everyone watching has a platform that they 
can also use to dispel myths and counter efforts to misinform 
the public with facts about the realities, the work we are all 
doing to ensure every voice is heard. And so I think that is 
why these conversations and this work is also important in 
addition to those resources.
    Mr. Cohen. I think our time is up. I think we are way 
beyond time. Thank you very much.
    Our next questioner will be Ms. Garcia.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
ranking member. I, too, thought that the comments that you made 
opening up our hearing were not only thoughtful but just 
another reminder of what has shaken our country to its core 
with the tragic death of George Floyd.
    You know, I am a person of faith. From an early age my 
faith has taught me that we are all God's children. Certainly 
George Floyd was not treated as the child of God that he is.
    The color of one's skin should not determine the justice 
they receive. Likewise, it should not determine the access to 
the ballot box that you get.
    Recently the Texas Supreme Court ruled that if a voter 
fears contracting COVID-19, that this does not qualify as a 
disability. It is intentionally confusing in an effort to 
mislead voters into not requesting a mail-in ballot. 
Nevertheless, the decision also made it clear that voters can 
apply for a mail-in ballot if they believe the risk to COVID-19 
is significant.
    Mr. Chairman, the Texas Supreme Court issued this decision 
virtually, presumably from home or their offices, because they 
considered their concern for their own well-being and for their 
own health. So why shouldn't they hold the same standards for 
safety and well-being for all Texas voters?
    This is not a time for political games in the middle of a 
pandemic. We should not be misleading voters into falsely 
choosing between their health and voting. That is why on April 
2nd I led a letter to the governor and the secretary of state 
of Texas urging them to implement a no-excuse vote by mail for 
all elections in the State of Texas until the end of this year, 
while still preserving in-person voting as long as in-person 
voting locations are structured to respond to public health 
concerns.
    I think this is what many of us are saying. We are not 
trying to do away with in-person voting. We just want to ensure 
that in-person voting is safe and healthy for everyone, but 
that everyone also receive the option by voting from home.
    We are banking from home. We are shopping from home. We are 
buying groceries from home. We are ordering food from home. We 
are doing everything from home. So, frankly, it makes sense 
that we also vote from home.
    Mr. Chairman, I do at this time want to ask unanimous 
consent to introduce into the record my letter to the governor 
and the secretary of state of Texas.
    Mr. Cohen. Without objection, it will be introduced.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
    And I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, with my first question 
for Ms. Perez.
    Ms. Perez, are you familiar with this Texas case, and is 
this just but one example of the reason that we need a Federal 
standard, if you will, on eligibility for stay-at-home voting 
to ensure that one State is not doing one thing and other 
States are relaxing rules and can vote during this pandemic 
without any real excuse because of the fear of the virus?
    Ms. Perez. Yes, Ms. Garcia. As you may remember, I am from 
Texas. I am from San Antonio.
    We surely need to make sure that there are minimum 
standards so that it doesn't matter where you live, you will be 
entitled to the basic ability to cast a ballot that will count. 
And one of the things that the Brennan Center has done has been 
to check which States have different policies that are needed 
in order to make sure that no voter is left behind. I have 
submitted that in the record, and I would encourage all to take 
a look at it.
    One of the things that I am finding so interesting about 
this conversation is that all of the dispute over whether or 
not we need to have basic minimum standards is one policy 
question, but the other policy question is, if you want States 
and localities to play the role that they want to play in 
making sure that no voter is left behind, please give them 
funding. They are asking for funding. They are telling Congress 
that they need more resources.
    So even if there is a debate over this, that, or the other, 
there should be no debate among any member on this committee 
that we are all better off if State and local election 
administrators have the resources that they need.
    At this point in the game, them having the resources will 
automatically make elections a bit better. And we can do more 
if there are minimum standards, but as a baseline, I am hoping 
and I am hearing that there is a commonality for wanting to 
support our State and local election administrators, and I am 
hoping that members of this committee go and do everything that 
they can to make sure that those State and local election 
administrators get the extra $4 billion that they need.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I see I am out of time. I do have a couple of 
other questions and I will submit them later to the record.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Garcia. And I did mention when 
you asked to have something admitted to the record, I said it 
is granted or admitted, but it is admitted.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen. You are welcome.
    Ms. Escobar, you are next.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to 
all of our panelists. This is such an important conversation.
    And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for opening up our 
conversation today acknowledging what is happening in the world 
around us right now. And I think that that is part of why it is 
so confusing to me as to what the controversy is surrounding 
making it easier for people to be safe and to participate in 
their elections.
    As a reminder, this global pandemic has taken over 100,000 
American lives and counting. In my own county, for example, the 
numbers of deaths keep increasing every day. We know that if 
people are not socially distancing, they are putting themselves 
at risk.
    And there are certain communities and certain people who 
are more vulnerable than others. We know that the elderly are 
more vulnerable. We also know that people with underlying 
health conditions are more vulnerable.
    But there is a third group that is more vulnerable, and I 
think it is very important that we talk about it, especially 
because of what is happening in the country right now. That 
third group is minority populations, primarily Latinos and 
African Americans, who are dying at disproportionately higher 
rates because they are more at risk.
    And I am not going to take time going into why they are 
more at risk, but I would refer everyone to Dr. Fauci's 
comments about Latino and African American communities, which 
he says, by the way, are as vulnerable to COVID-19 as people 
who live in assisted living facilities. That is how vulnerable 
we are.
    So we have got to do everything possible. We have a 
fundamental obligation to provide for the health, safety, and 
welfare of the people that we represent.
    Ms. Arnwine, I want to ask you a question, my first 
question. The State of Texas, my State of Texas, is, 
unfortunately, notorious for creating obstacles for voters. We 
rank right up there when it comes to voter suppression.
    We heard my colleague, Mr. Armstrong, earlier talk about 
the really great work that his State is doing, and he used that 
as an example as to why we shouldn't federalize rules or 
regulations. But can you tell us, explain to the American 
public, why we need the Federal Government to step in with 
resources and regulations, please?
    Ms. Arnwine. Thank you so much for that question because we 
absolutely need to make sure that every single American is 
protected.
    There is so much confusion out there because different 
States do different things. It makes no sense that in Texas 
there is no--that the disability category for excused voting is 
so limited and that the Supreme Court couldn't give people 
clarity on what that means and instead told people, well, we 
don't think you will be prosecuted,'' when the AG is 
threatening to prosecute everybody. It made no zero sense. That 
is unfair. That is un-American. We want to make sure that every 
American has the same rights.
    It is wrong that in North Carolina they say you have got to 
have two witnesses in a COVID era and a notarization if you are 
going to have an absentee ballot. That makes zero sense. It is 
unfair, it is unsafe, and it is un-American.
    You know----
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much. I am so sorry, Ms. Arnwine, 
I want to get to one more question before my time runs out. 
Thank you for that response.
    Ms. Bishop, you talked about the need to have sort of a 
hybrid approach so that as many people as possible vote safely 
from their own home, so that the disabled would have the 
ability to go in person. Can you describe for the American 
public why it is important to take that approach?
    Ms. Bishop. And it was said earlier today by another one of 
our witnesses, thank you for raising this issue again, that in 
order to really make our elections work for all voters, we have 
to be able to provide a broad range of options. There is no one 
size fits all way of voting that is going to work for everyone. 
Neither in-person voting nor vote by mail have honestly been 
made fully accessible for people with disabilities at this 
point, despite the fact that there are several Federal laws 
that protect that right for them.
    So we have to be able to provide as many options as 
possible for people with disabilities. If we don't make our 
vote by mail as accessible as possible, they are not able to 
choose the safety of voting from their homes, which is a 
privilege for those who are nondisabled. But if we don't also 
make our in-person options available and as safe and as 
accessible as possible, people for whom vote by mail just 
simply does not work will not be able to cast their ballot.
    So it is critical that we are implementing electronic 
ballot delivery for vote by mail, but also that we have in-
person voting to the greatest extent possible, we have as many 
ballot marking devices or accessible voting systems as 
possible, that we have a minimum of one machine per precinct is 
not sufficient, and that we are letting in curbside voting to 
reduce exposure to COVID-19.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you both so much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Escobar. When I first saw you on 
the screen, I thought I have been in that house.
    Ms. Escobar. You have.
    Mr. Cohen. Nice to see that house again. Thank you.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen. Next is Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. And 
let me as well add my appreciation for the words of faith that 
you offered at the beginning and to thank you for mentioning 
the murder of our hometown son in George Floyd. I know that we 
in Houston and the Nation appreciate your faith and your words.
    Let me also acknowledge the ranking member for expressing 
the importance of a systemic change that has to occur in this 
Nation as well as a cultural change.
    Let me ask unanimous consent to place this headline, the 
Houston Chronicle yesterday, ``Tens of Thousands March in 
Floyd's Name.'' In fact, it was 60,000 persons. I ask unanimous 
consent to place this in the record.
    Mr. Cohen. Without objection, so done.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It evidences the fact that in the messages 
that came out of that were people's desire for change. That 
change comes about through the power of voting. That is why 
this hearing is so crucial to be able to assess how we ensure 
in 2020 voting for all Americans.
    My friends are correct, we have had a disparate impact of 
COVID-19 across the Nation and right here. We have lost pastors 
and political activists, people you see every day, who happen 
to be African American.
    So my first question is to Dale Ho. In light of the fact 
that the President has indicated that he plans to file lawsuits 
against every State that has mail-in ballots that refuses or 
removes the restrictions, as they should, to adhere to the 
democracy of this Nation, what stricture, what should Congress 
put in place? And how important as well is the restoration of 
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
    Thank you, Mr. Ho.
    Mr. Ho. Thank you very much for that question.
    Obviously, restoring the Voting Rights Act is of critical 
importance to voters all across this country. And I do think it 
is quite ironic that, on the one hand, some critics of 
congressional efforts to set minimum health and safety 
standards for voting during the pandemic on the grounds of 
State authority are at the very same time threatening the 
authority of States with Federal litigation to try to stop 
those States from taking actions to facilitate safe and secure 
voting by mail.
    There is nothing to fear from helping Americans vote.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    So Congress needs to intervene, I would take it, to ensure 
that protection?
    Mr. Ho. Well, I think Congress should set minimum standards 
for protecting health and safety and should do its best to make 
sure that State efforts to facilitate voting are not interfered 
with.
    But I just want to make one point clear. Even if Congress 
does none of those things, we will see a record number of 
ballots cast by mail in this election because the majority of 
States already allow for no-excuse absentee voting and more 
voters than ever want to use it. In Wisconsin, it was five 
times the number of voters than in 2016; in Pennsylvania, 18 
times----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Let me ask to, I believe, Ms. Bishop, Michelle Bishop. I am 
in total support of expanding the opportunities for voters with 
disabilities. One of the things that I have seen violated is 
the right of a voter to come to the polls and have curbside 
voting. I want to ensure that that is never undermined and done 
safely in light of COVID-19. Help us understand how important 
that is.
    And let me ask Ms. Arnwine just a specific question after 
Ms. Bishop, specific question on the voting. We know that the 
people impacted negatively on mass mail balloting happens to be 
African Americans, for many cultural reasons. The ballot may 
come, they don't use it, they go to the polls, and they are 
punished by not being able to vote. Think about how we have to 
protect minorities as relates to voting.
    Ms. Bishop, if you would answer the importance of those 
with disability, but particularly the curbside voting which I 
want to focus on.
    Ms. Bishop. Yes. Thank you for that question.
    Curbside voting, I think, is a largely misunderstood issue. 
It is actually a critical stopgap measure, even outside of the 
context of the global pandemic. We have not yet made America's 
polling places fully accessible to people with disabilities.
    In fact, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has 
studied this. Most recently in 2016, they found that in terms 
of architectural access to a polling place, wide enough 
doorways, paths of travel, accessible parking, less than half 
of America's polling places were actually accessible, only 40 
percent.
    And, unfortunately, that 40 percent is actually an all-time 
high. So that almost half is the best we have ever done 
realistically at making all of our polling places accessible.
    We have to fix that. But until we can, allowing people with 
disabilities to vote curbside, if they are not able to get into 
the polling place, is an important way to make sure they are 
still able to cast their ballot.
    So regardless of COVID-19, curbside voting is a critical 
measure and could also be really useful in the context of the 
pandemic as well because it allows you to reduce your exposure 
or potential exposure to COVID-19 if you are able to stay 
inside your vehicle. It is the same thing we see at COVID-19 
testing centers, these are primarily drive-through.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
    Ms. Arnwine, would you address the same question?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The question of protecting Black voters 
who come out with the mail ballot at their home.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Arnwine. Absolutely. And I have been dealing with this, 
as you can imagine, of them blowing up my phone and blowing up 
my emails with problems that Blacks are having with the mail-in 
ballot problem around the country.
    One of the things that we know right now is that if you 
make people call in for an application for a ballot, that 
doesn't work, or if you tell them that they can print it out at 
home, remember 30 percent, 29 percent of all people in 
Philadelphia who are Black do not even have internet access. So 
that is just not realistic.
    So one of the things that we have been pushing very 
strongly, as we have talked about today, is that all States 
have to mail ballots, mail applications, have prepaid 
responses, because those stamps confuse, and that is another 
problem.
    The other thing that I want to join Michelle Bishop very 
strongly, curbside voting works beautifully for people of 
color. Drop box, ballot collection right at the polling sites, 
all of these things are good and we have got to have many, 
multiple, expanded options. That is what we need. And I am 
hearing of so many problems because with bad voter education 
and people have not retooled their thinking about how to best 
reach, outreach to Black people, how to educate them about 
mail-in balloting, but also how to make it easy to do it. And I 
am hearing from too many people who are really registered 
voters. I have helped them. I have called up the boards of 
elections, and I have talked to them, and these are registered 
voters who got no mail-in ballot.
    Mr. Cohen. We are going to have to wrap up.
    Ms. Arnwine. Yes.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Arnwine.
    Thank you, Congresswoman Jackson Lee. Thank you for your 
words of comfort to the country. And I know you will be in 
Houston for the funeral, and I am sorry about the loss of your 
constituent and his family members here.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen. This concludes today's hearing.
    I started by saying how the right to vote has been 
diminished for years, and it goes back to America's original 
sin, it is inscribed in our Constitution, which we fought a 
Civil War over and still never overcame.
    It has been interesting in this hearing to hear that the 
five States with least access to voting by mail, my home State 
of Tennessee, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, are 
all States that had slavery. It is interesting that there is 
some connection there, I suspect. Old times there are not 
forgotten.
    With that, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing 
today. Without objection, all members will have five 
legislative days to submit additional written questions for the 
witnesses or additional materials for the record.
    I want to thank the Republicans for allowing us to start 
early and facilitate Ms. Abrams' attendance.
    And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon at 12:39 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]
      

                                APPENDIX

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             [all]