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

                          VOTING SAFELY IN A PANDEMIC

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                AUGUST 28, 2020

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                               ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    42-740                WASHINGTON : 2021

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

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

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                AUGUST 28, 2020

                                                                       Page
    Voting Safely in a Pandemic......................................     1

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Chairperson Zoe Lofgren..........................................     1
        Prepared statement of Chairperson Lofgren....................     4
    Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member................................     7
        Prepared statement of Ranking Member Davis...................     9

                                   WITNESSES

    Hon. Alex Padilla, Secretary of State, State of California.......    13
        Prepared statement of Hon. Padilla...........................    15
    Ms. Julie Wise, King County Director of Elections, State of
      Washington.....................................................    22
        Prepared statement of Ms. Wise...............................    24
    Ms. Amber McReynolds, Chief Executive Officer, National Vote at
      Home Institute.................................................    29
        Prepared statement of Ms. McReynolds.........................    31
    Ms. Vanita Gupta, President and Chief Executive Officer, The
      Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights................    35
        Prepared statement of Ms. Gupta..............................    37
    Hon. Donald L. Palmer, Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance
      Commission.....................................................    43
        Prepared statement of Hon. Palmer............................    45

                            QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Hon. Alex Padilla, Secretary of State, State of California,
      answers to submitted questions.................................    97
    Ms. Julie Wise, King County Director of Elections, State of
      Washington, answers to submitted questions.....................   104
    Ms. Amber McReynolds, Chief Executive Officer, National Vote at
      Home Institute, answers to submitted questions.................   107
    Ms. Vanita Gupta, President and Chief Executive Officer, The
      Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, answers to
      submitted questions............................................   120
    Hon. Donald L. Palmer, Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance
      Commission, answers to submitted questions.....................   124

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Article, The Participatory and Partisan Impacts of Mandatory
      Vote-by-Mail, Barber and Holbein, Science Advances 2020, August
      26, 2020.......................................................    70
    Article, Intel Officials Contradict Trump on Voting by Mail,
      Politico, August 26, 2020......................................    79
    Considerations for Modifying the Scale of In-Person Voting,
      Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council and
      Subsector Coordinating Council's Joint COVID Working Group.....   129
    Considerations for election Polling Locations and Voters, Centers
      for Disease Control and Prevention.............................   137
    Guidelines for Healthy In-Person Voting, Brennan Center for
      Justice and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.........   144
    Ballot Drop Box, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
      (CISA) Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council
      and Sector Coordinating Council's Joint COVID Working Group....   148
    Letter, R. Kyle Ardoin, Secretary of State, State of Louisiana,
      to Tammy Whitcomb, Inspector General, United States Postal
      Service, August 10, 2020.......................................   156

                          VOTING SAFELY IN A PANDEMIC

                                  ----------

                            FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2020

                      House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:01 p.m., via
    Webex, Hon. Zoe Lofgren [chairperson of the Committee]
    presiding.
        Present: Representatives Lofgren, Raskin, Davis of
    California, Butterfield, Fudge, Aguilar, and Davis of Illinois.
        Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Staff Director; Dan Taylor,
    General Counsel; Brandon Jacobs, Legislative Clerk; Stephen
    Spaulding, Senior Elections Counsel; Sarah Nasta, Elections
    Counsel; Kulani Jalata, Elections Counsel; Peter Whippy,
    Communications Director; David Tucker, Senior Counsel and
    Parliamentarian; Jen Daulby, Minority Staff Director; Tim
    Monahan, Minority Deputy Staff Director; and Cole Felder,
    Minority Chief Legal Counsel for Elections.
        The Chairperson. We have a quorum, I have a gavel, and the
    Committee on House Administration will come to order.
        I want to acknowledge the members who are with us today and
    welcome my colleagues here in California, and good afternoon
    for those of you out east.
        I want to remind our members and participants of a few
    things that will help us navigate this virtual hearing.
        We are holding this hearing in compliance with the
    regulations for remote committee proceedings pursuant to House
    Resolution 965.
        Generally, the Committee will keep microphones muted to
    limit background noise. Members will need to unmute themselves
    when seeking recognition for their five minutes. Witnesses will
    need to unmute themselves when recognized for their five
    minutes or when answering a question.
        Members and witnesses, please keep your camera on at all
    times, even if you need to step away for a moment during the
    proceedings. Do not leave the meeting.
        As we begin, we should take a moment to honor an important
    anniversary in our Nation's history. Fifty-seven years ago
    today, hundreds of thousands of Americans came to our Nation's
    capital for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
        Our beloved colleague and hero, the late Representative
    John Lewis, spoke from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that
    day. He fearlessly challenged our country's denial of freedom
    and civil rights to Black Americans, including the right to
    vote--a right that the Supreme Court more than 70 years earlier
    called ``preservative of all rights.''
        Today, many people are gathering at the Lincoln Memorial to
    commemorate the march and continue demands for voting rights,
    racial equality, police accountability, and criminal justice
    reform.
        Free and fair elections and unencumbered access to voting
    are the bedrock of our democracy. And yet, today, during a
    global pandemic the likes of which our country has not
    experienced in more than a century, voters are worried about
    how to safely vote and how to navigate potential disruptions
    this November. Nearly half of Americans expect difficulties
    voting this fall, according to recent polling by the Pew
    Research Center. It doesn't have to be that way. No one should
    be forced to choose between their right to vote or their
    health.
        In June, Chairperson Fudge convened an important
    Subcommittee hearing to examine the impact of COVID-19 on
    voting rights and election administration. Tragically, since
    that hearing, an additional 3.6 million people have become
    infected in the United States and another 59,000 Americans have
    lost their lives to the disease.
        This crisis has devastated many families and disrupted our
    way of life. The virus will continue to affect how we live for
    the foreseeable future, including how we vote. I look forward
    to hearing more today from our experts about how people can
    vote safely during this pandemic.
        Americans have cast ballots during great strife and
    national emergencies before. Civil War soldiers voted by mail
    from the battlefields. Millions of men and women in uniform
    have voted by mail since then, including after Congress passed
    the 1942 Soldier Voting Act and the Federal Voting Assistance
    Act in 1955. References to civilian mail voting date back to
    the late 1800s.
        This year, many States have changed their election
    procedures to make voting safer from a public health
    perspective. Although some voters in all 50 States can vote
    from home, the widest availability is for voters in 44 States
    and the District of Columbia who live in a no-excuse vote-by-
    mail State or where fear of COVID counts as a valid excuse this
    fall. Other Americans can choose to vote early, in person, in
    one of 42 States that provide it. Early, in-person voting helps
    keep polling places less crowded. Or voters can go to polling
    places on election day itself.
        Offering various methods of voting is consistent with
    guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
    which recommends, ``alternative voting methods that minimize
    direct contact and reduce crowd size at polling locations.''
    Voters should have the option to vote by mail or to vote in
    person, and it should be safe and accessible.
        The House passed reforms to make this possible 105 days ago
    in the HEROES Act, including $3.6 billion in funding for
    nationwide implementation. Unfortunately, Senate Majority
    Leader McConnell has refused to take up the legislation,
    refusing instead to delay and do nothing for months. The virus,
    however, has not delayed, nor has it simply disappeared. And,
    sadly, neither has the President's disinformation campaign
    against voting, especially absentee voting.
        The President's assault has now expanded to include even
    the United States Postal Service, a venerated and popular
    institution enshrined in our Constitution. Earlier this month,
    President Trump, as he is prone to do, said the quiet part out
    loud: He explicitly stated he opposes funding the Postal
    Service because the Postal Service facilitates voting by mail.
        Meanwhile, the Trump-appointed Postmaster General, Louis
    DeJoy, enacted disruptive operational policies that have caused
    days-long backlogs in mail delivery across the country--
    policies that impeded mail service to senior citizens,
    veterans, and the sick, who depend on Postal Service to deliver
    medications and other essentials, including ballots.
        I heard from thousands of my own constituents whose mail
    had been delayed. They were outraged. After much public outcry,
    Postmaster General DeJoy announced some of the policy changes
    would be paused until after the election.
        This reckless management of the Postal Service warrants
    close scrutiny and continued accountability. The House did its
    part on Saturday, passing the Delivering for America Act on a
    bipartisan basis, to prohibit the Postal Service from
    implementing any further changes that will delay mail and
    reduce delivery standards.
        The bill would also require the Postal Service to treat all
    election mail as first-class mail, as has been its practice for
    years. And it will provide the $25 billion in much-needed
    funding that its board of governors--each governor appointed by
    President Trump himself--has requested.
        Still, the President continues to spread disinformation and
    falsehoods about the safety and security of voting. They do not
    bear repeating at a congressional hearing.
        What does bear repeating is the best way voters can stand
    up to bullies at the ballot box: Make a plan to vote. Register
    to vote or confirm your registration and update it if
    necessary. Do that as soon as possible. Visit vote.gov for more
    information.
        Decide if you plan to vote in person or by mail. Research
    your options. Follow those instructions carefully, including if
    you need to request a ballot. Request and cast your ballot
    early if you can.
        And if you are healthy and able, consider signing up to
    work as a poll volunteer by going to HelpAmericaVote.gov. Many
    jurisdictions scrambled at the last minute to find poll workers
    this spring and summer. You can do your part by considering
    this public service.
        Now, I look forward to the testimony today, and I want to
    recognize first the Ranking Member, Mr. Davis, for any opening
    statement he may wish to make. I understand he wishes also to
    show a video of less than two minutes as part of his opening
    statement.
        So, Mr. Davis, you are now recognized.
        [The statement of the chairperson follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank
    you for recognizing our colleague John Lewis and the difference
    he made to our Nation not so long ago.
        I want to do something a little different today and start
    off my testimony, as you mentioned, by playing a video that was
    brought to my attention a couple of days ago and that I was so
    haunted by the rhetoric that I can't unsee and I can't unhear
    it. Because it is this kind of unnecessary, over-the-top
    rhetoric that led to me and my Republican colleagues getting
    shot at on a baseball field just over 3 years ago. It is
    actually a video by the Democratic Association of Secretaries
    of State, whose chair is a witness today at this hearing.
        Here is the video.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        White supremacy doesn't have any place in our Nation, but
    it is over-the-top rhetoric like that that has led to many,
    many situations that I don't want to see happen to anyone in
    this country.
        Recent analysis by NPR found that nearly half a million
    mail-in ballots were rejected in the 2020 primaries. The same
    analysis noted, ``Studies also show that voters of color and
    young voters are more likely than others to have their ballots
    not count.''
        In California alone, 102,000 ballots were rejected; 84,000
    in New York; 23,000 in Wisconsin. These are Democrat States.
        In the last four elections, more than 28 million mail-in
    ballots went missing, according to the EAC. Yet Democrats on
    this Committee, in this House, and across the country continue
    to push implementing universal vote-by-mail before the November
    election, just over 60 days away.
        Additionally, during the 2020 primaries, we saw the closure
    of polling places across the country force people to wait hours
    in line to vote. Washington, D.C., closed more than 120 polling
    places. In Atlanta, voters waited upwards of five hours to vote
    because of consolidated polling locations. Milwaukee went from
    180 to 5 polling places. In Philadelphia, 77 percent of the
    polling locations were closed. In Houston, voters reported
    waiting close to 6 hours to vote. All of these cities are run
    by Democrats.
        The Voting Rights Act of 1965 fought against discrimination
    to ensure every American could cast their vote. I am afraid the
    vote-by-mail policies being pushed by Democrats are
    unintentionally taking us backwards.
        I have sent oversight letters to localities where we see
    these issues during their recent primaries because I am
    concerned that, unless changes are made, voters will be
    disenfranchised again this fall. Again, most of these are
    Democrat-controlled areas.
        I am very concerned about fraud when a live ballot is
    mailed to every registered voter in States where their voter
    rolls are not up to date.
        I want integrity in our election process, not because I
    want to suppress votes but because I want every vote to count.
    I want the American people to have the confidence that we all
    have in our election process. This doesn't make Republicans or
    anyone else who shares these concerns racist or White
    supremacist. And I am incredibly disappointed that the ad I
    played earlier insinuates that.
        As I said at the beginning of my testimony, this is the
    kind of rhetoric that has led to violence that I personally
    witnessed and even violence last night in Washington, D.C. No
    one--no one--should stand for that. Instead, let's discuss our
    differences and find common ground to empower States and
    localities to help everyone safely and securely vote this fall.
        With that, Madam Chair, I will yield back the balance of my
    time.
        [The statement of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. We have a distinguished group of
    witnesses, and I will introduce them in turn.
        First, we have Secretary Alex Padilla, who is the
    California secretary of State. He is focused on modernizing the
    office, increasing voter registration and participation, and
    strengthening voting rights.
        In 2018, he launched the California Motor Voter program,
    which automatically registers eligible Californians to vote
    when they obtain or renew their State ID or driver's license.
    The program registered one million new voters in its first year
    alone. In March 2019, California reached a record-high 20
    million registered voters.
        He also oversaw the 2018 election, in which 64.5 percent of
    registered voters cast a ballot, the highest turnout for a
    gubernatorial election since 1992. He sponsored legislation in
    2015 to establish vote centers, expand early voting, and
    implement same-day conditional voter registration through the
    Voters Choice Act.
        Previously, he served two terms in the California State
    Senate and represented the east San Fernando Valley on the Los
    Angeles City Council. He grew up in the San Fernando Valley,
    attended local schools, graduated from the Massachusetts
    Institute of Technology with a degree in mechanical
    engineering.
        And I remember, when he was elected head of LULAC, he said
    he only had time for two things besides being in the State
    Senate, being a husband and a father, and that was being chair
    of the MIT alumni association.
        So welcome to you.
        We also have Julie Wise, who is the director of elections
    for King County, Washington, since November of 2015. King
    County is the 13th-largest county in the Nation and has
    approximately 1.3 million registered voters. She has served
    King County for more than 15 years, including, prior to her
    election, as the deputy director of elections, managing day-to-
    day operations of elections.
        A Washington State-certified election administrator and
    nationally certified election registration administrator, Ms.
    Wise has been recognized at both the State and national level
    for her contributions to moving elections forward.
        Ms. Wise has pursued significant reforms and innovative
    solutions to remove barriers and increase access while ensuring
    accuracy, security, and transparency. She has added two
    languages, allowing voters to access election services in five
    overall: English, Chinese, Korean, Spanish, and Vietnamese. In
    2018, she worked with the King County Council and executive to
    prevail in providing prepaid postage for all registered voters
    in the county.
        And we welcome you.
        We also have Ms. Amber McReynolds. She is the CEO for the
    National Vote at Home Institute and Coalition, the coauthor of
    ``When Women Vote,'' and the former director of elections for
    the city and county of Denver, Colorado.
        She is an experienced election professional and is
    nationally recognized as an innovator and has proven that
    designing pro-voter policies, voter-centric processes, and
    implementing technical innovations will improve the voting
    experience.
        With her leadership, Denver Elections earned national and
    international recognition from the U.S. Election Assistance
    Commission, Election Center, and National Association of
    Counties, and the International Center for Parliamentary
    Studies for Ballot TRACE, a first-in-the-Nation ballot
    tracking, reporting, and communication engine, and eSign, a
    digital petition circulation application that makes the ballot
    access process more efficient.
        She was recognized in 2018 as the top public official of
    the year by Governing magazine for her transformational work to
    improve the voting experience in Denver and across Colorado.
    And, recently, she was recognized as one of the top 25 most
    powerful women in business in Colorado.
        She serves on the advisory board for the MIT Election Data
    and Science Lab and on other boards and organizations. She has
    a master of science from the London School of Economics in
    political science and a bachelor of arts from the University of
    Illinois at Champaign-Urbana.
        Amber, thank you so much for being here.
        We would also like to recognize Ms. Vanita Gupta, who is
    president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and
    Human Rights.
        She has been working to advance civil rights her entire
    career. Before joining the Leadership Conference in June of
    2017, Ms. Gupta served as Acting Assistant Attorney General and
    head of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.
    Appointed in October 2014 by President Barack Obama as the
    chief civil rights prosecutor for the United States, she
    oversaw a wide range of criminal and civil enforcement efforts
    to ensure equal justice and protect equal opportunity for all
    during one of the most consequential periods for the division.
        Under her leadership, the division did critical work in a
    number of areas, including advancing constitutional policing
    and criminal justice reform, prosecuting hate crimes and human
    trafficking, promoting disability rights, protecting the rights
    of LGBTQ individuals, ensuring voting rights for all, and
    combating discrimination in education, housing, employment,
    lending, and religious exercise.
        Prior to joining the Justice Department, Ms. Gupta served
    as deputy legal director and director of the Center for Justice
    at the American Civil Liberties Union. She joined the ACLU in
    2006 as a staff attorney. She began her legal career at the
    NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.
        She graduated magna cum laude from Yale University and
    received her law degree from the New York University School of
    Law, where she later taught civil rights litigation at their
    clinic for several years.
        And we welcome you.
        And, finally but not least, Commissioner Donald Palmer was
    confirmed to the EAC in 2019. He is a former Bipartisan Policy
    Center fellow, where he provided testimony to State
    legislatures on election administration and voting reforms
    concerning election modernization.
        Commissioner Palmer was appointed secretary of the Virginia
    Board of Elections by former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell in
    2011 and served as the Commonwealth's chief election officer
    until 2014. He formerly served as the Florida Department of
    State's director of elections.
        Prior to his work in election administration, he served as
    a trial attorney with the Voting Rights Section of the
    Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. He was a U.S.
    Navy intelligence officer and judge advocate general, and he
    was awarded the Navy Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy
    Commendation Medal, and the Joint Service Commendation Medal.
        And we welcome you, Commissioner, and all of the witnesses.
        And I would remind the witnesses that your full statements
    will be submitted to the record, and we would like you to
    address us for about five minutes, summarizing your testimony,
    and then we will go to members for questioning.
        So, first, we will turn to you, Secretary Padilla. Thank
    you so much for being here with us.

     STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE ALEX PADILLA, SECRETARY OF STATE,
       STATE OF CALIFORNIA; JULIE WISE, KING COUNTY DIRECTOR OF
        ELECTIONS, STATE OF WASHINGTON; AMBER MCREYNOLDS, CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL VOTE AT HOME INSTITUTE; VANITA
       GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LEADERSHIP
    CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS; AND THE HONORABLE DONALD
      L. PALMER, COMMISSIONER, U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

                STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALEX PADILLA

        Mr. Padilla. Well, thank you, Chairperson Lofgren, Ranking
    Member Davis, and members of the Committee, for the opportunity
    to address you today.
        I want to talk about the two greatest threats to a free,
    fair, and safe election this November: the COVID-19 pandemic
    and election disinformation.
        California held its primary on March 3 of this year, and
    our first COVID-19 emergency declaration was issued the very
    next day. We soon began to hear from local officials that many
    of the polling places and poll workers that we were depending
    on for the November election were backing out. And as we
    listened to Federal and State health officials, it quickly
    became clear that we would need to modify how we administer the
    general election if we were to keep the election accessible,
    secure, and safe.
        The California voters will not have to choose between
    exercising their right to vote and protecting their health, so
    we are expanding vote-by-mail while working to maintain safe,
    in-person voting options for voters who need it. California is
    well-positioned. Vote-by-mail has grown from 25 percent of
    ballots cast about 20 years ago to 72 percent in this year's
    primary.
        So my office convened stakeholders to identify potential
    challenges and to develop solutions. Our recommended plan,
    adopted by the Governor and our State legislature, includes the
    following:
        County elections officials will send every active
    registered voter a vote-by-mail ballot.
        We are expanding our ballot tracking tool statewide, where
    voters can sign up to receive notifications by email, by text
    message, or a phone call on the status of their ballot through
    the Postal Service, both on its way to the voter and on its way
    back to the county, including a final alert when their ballot
    has been received and when the ballot has been counted. More
    than 600,000 California voters have already signed up.
        We are extending our postmark-plus-3 policy to postmark-
    plus-17.
        And we have set alternative minimum in-person voting
    requirements for counties that are struggling to maintain the
    pre-pandemic number of in-person voting locations. So counties
    may consolidate polling places to one location for every 10,000
    registered voters, but they must be open for a minimum of four
    days leading up to and including election day.
        These counties must also provide a minimum of one ballot
    drop-off location for every 15,000 registered voters starting
    28 days before election day.
        And, of course, we are working with public health officials
    to craft the health and safety guidelines for in-person voting
    locations.
        Now, these measures require resources. Thanks to the recent
    HAVA and CARES Act appropriations and significant State
    appropriations, California is in an okay position, but other
    States can't say the same. Many States have not received State
    funding, and many States that have held their primary elections
    during this pandemic have expended most, if not all, of their
    CARES Act funds. So I respectfully urge you to appropriate more
    funding for elections as soon as possible.
        The other threat I mentioned is election disinformation.
    Baseless attacks on the integrity of our elections pose a
    serious danger to the health of our citizens and our democracy.
    Disinformation, amplified and often initiated by President
    Trump, about vote-by-mail, ballot drop boxes, and more
    undermines public confidence.
        Numerous reports and court decisions have found that voter
    fraud is rare and isolated. To quote U.S. District Court Judge
    Julie Robinson of Kansas, ``The rare known cases of voter fraud
    were not the tip of the iceberg. There is no iceberg, only an
    icicle, largely created by confusion and administrative
    error.''
        And, earlier this week, the FBI said they have no
    information or intelligence that any nation-state threat actor
    is engaging in activity to undermine any part of the mail-in
    vote or ballots.
        I also have to say I am deeply concerned about the Postal
    Service. The ability of the USPS to effectively handle the
    surge of vote-by-mail will rely on close collaboration with
    State and local election officials, the approval of overtime
    and expansion of their workforce, and expanding mail-sorting
    capacity and the number of mailboxes. California is prepared,
    but we do not control the Postal Service. We need your help to
    ensure a healthy USPS.
        Together, these threats pose unprecedented dangers to
    elections officials and to voters. To protect our democracy,
    State and local elections officials must act now. California
    provides a template, but we need Congress to provide the
    resources to ensure an accessible, secure, and safe election.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Padilla follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. Thank you very much, Secretary Padilla.
        And now I would like to ask Ms. Wise if you would give your
    testimony for about five minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF JULIE WISE

        Ms. Wise. Good morning, Chairperson Lofgren, Ranking Member
    Davis, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    invitation to testify before you today.
        My name is Julie Wise, and I am the director of elections
    for King County, Washington. King County is made up of 39
    cities, ranging from Seattle to suburbs, small towns, and rural
    communities like where I live, on a farm at the base of Mount
    Rainier. We are home to the most diverse ZIP Code in the
    country as well as multibillion-dollar tech companies, farmers,
    artists, and small businesses. Most importantly, from my
    perspective, we are home to 1.4 million registered voters who
    care deeply about their community.
        I have been working elections for 20 years. I have overseen
    polling places, the transition to all-mail, and now manage
    elections for one of the largest vote-by-mail counties in the
    country.
        I would like to start this morning by addressing some
    misinformation about vote-by-mail that has been circulating of
    late.
        First, voting by mail is secure. Before we moved to vote-
    by-mail, we managed 8,000 poll workers across as many as 700
    polling locations. Now, we process every single ballot at one
    location, our secure headquarters. Not only does this limit
    risk, it means I can directly oversee the entire operation. It
    means we can track and reconcile every ballot. And it means the
    public and observers have complete transparency. All of our
    elections staff are highly trained paid employees who swear to
    uphold the sanctity of the election.
        Second, voter fraud is almost nonexistent. While we have
    seen many claims, often fueled by speculation and little
    evidence, the reality is that we have many safeguards to
    prevent fraud. We ensure accurate voter rolls by working with
    other States, the Department of Licensing, USPS, and the Social
    Security Administration.
        In King County and Washington State, cases of suspected
    fraud are incredibly low. In 2016, King County elections
    referred 17 cases of potential voter fraud to our prosecuting
    attorney, and that is out of a million ballots cast, compared
    across 30 States, for a rate of just 100,000th of a percent.
        Third, the United States Postal Service is essential to
    democracy, and I have found recent reports of removing
    mailboxes and lagging delivery times incredibly troubling.
        What I can tell you about our experience in Washington is
    that we benefit from a decades-old relationship with our Postal
    Service partners, whom we meet with regularly and daily during
    an election. The good news is that, in our August primary
    election, we saw normal delivery times for both our outgoing
    and inbound ballots.
        However, let me be clear: I view any threat to the Postal
    Service as an attack on our community's right to vote. I will
    be closely monitoring changes and continuing to meet with USPS
    to make sure we stay in front of any issues ahead of November.
        I also know there has been speculation that ballot drop
    boxes aren't secure. Constructed of half-inch-thick steel and
    weighing in over 1,000 pounds, I can assure you that our 70-
    plus boxes are safe. We even had one hit by a school bus, and I
    can attest that the box and its contents were just fine. The
    school bus? Not so much.
        Over half of our voters use a drop box to return their
    ballot. They are emptied daily during the voting period by
    trained staff in teams of two, complete with a comprehensive
    set of security procedures.
        Finally, vote-by-mail removes barriers. I believe that my
    job is not only to conduct accurate elections but also to
    remove barriers to voting. From creating a first-in-the- Nation
    partnership to provide community grants for voter education, to
    adding service in new languages, to partnering with the Seattle
    Seahawks, we have found new ways to engage voters.
        And we have seen the results: King County reached 76-
    percent turnout in the 2018 midterm election and nearly 60 this
    year for our primaries. In fact, this fall, we are projecting a
    90-percent turnout.
        Of course, we live in a different world now than we did
    just 6 months ago, and I am doing a number of things to make
    sure we are ready for the upcoming Presidential election in
    light of COVID-19.
        I want to underscore how critical the grant dollars were
    that we received through the CARES Act. While King County may
    be well-positioned to handle an election during a pandemic,
    there has been a lot to do to make sure that our voters and
    staff are safe. We have set up drive-through vote centers,
    installed partitions and plexiglass, and implemented
    temperature checks. CARES dollars have ensured that our voters
    can make their voice heard safely and our staff don't have to
    risk their lives to help make democracy happen.
        Over the last several months, my office has gotten
    inquiries from across the country about how to do vote-by-mail.
    The reality is that every jurisdiction already does some form
    of vote-by-mail. That is what absentee voting is.
        The challenge for these jurisdictions is how to expand
    their ability to handle a whole lot more mail ballots. First,
    they need resources to expand their existing operations and to
    communicate with their voters.
        Beyond that, my main piece of advice is that we all need to
    start resetting expectations about results on election night.
    We are not going to know final results, and that is okay. To
    process ballots accurately takes time. We need to make sure
    jurisdictions have the time and space without having the
    election's validity questioned.
        Thank you again for inviting me here today.
        [The statement of Ms. Wise follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. Thank you very, very much.
        We now will hear from Ms. McReynolds for about five
    minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF AMBER MCREYNOLDS

        Ms. McReynolds. Good morning, Chairperson Lofgren and
    Ranking Member Davis and members of the Committee. Thank you
    for the opportunity to speak today.
        First, I want to say congratulations to my dad really
    quickly. He was just sworn in to a higher court in Illinois a
    few days ago, and we couldn't make it. So if he is watching,
    congrats, Dad.
        As mentioned, my experience not only is now, currently,
    running an organization that is supporting election officials
    across the country, but, formerly, I was an elections director
    and oversaw election processes for 13 years. And I am also an
    unaffiliated elector, which I will also like to highlight, in
    terms of my political affiliation.
        The pandemic has upended all aspects of our lives, and the
    voting process is no different. Simply put, our democracy is
    essential, and we must do everything we can to be sure that our
    election system is ready, resilient, and secure. Election
    officials are working each and every day to make this happen,
    even in extremely challenging circumstances and often with one
    hand tied behind their backs due to outdated laws and a lack of
    funding resources.
        What is clear to me during this pandemic and other
    challenges we have faced as a Nation is that Americans are
    resilient. And they deserve a voting process that is also
    resilient, not only from a pandemic, but from unfairness,
    barriers, burdens, from foreign adversaries, and from
    administrative deficiencies due to outdated policies that
    create long lines.
        Voting by mail has proven to be resilient both during
    natural disasters and also now during the pandemic. Expanding
    vote-at-home options is nonpartisan and supported by leaders on
    both sides of the aisle.
        I want to address a few key concerns that have come up
    recently.
        As noted in a CISA report released on July 31, and I quote,
    ``Disinformation risk to mail-in voting infrastructure
    processes is similar to that of in-person voting while
    utilizing different content. Threat actors may leverage limited
    understanding regarding mail-in voting to mislead and confuse
    the public.''
        Now, this report is critical at highlighting not only an
    issue within the security of our elections but particularly as
    it relates to vote-by-mail, and this includes casting doubt,
    without evidence, about the mail ballot process. Thus,
    combating disinformation and misinformation is a critical
    aspect of election officials' work right now.
        The Postal Service operations are critical for our election
    processes regardless of voting method. Mail ballots are
    actually just one piece of how the Postal Service supports the
    election infrastructure. Federal and State laws have legal
    mandates with regards to sending voter registration
    information, ballot issue notices, election information, poll
    worker appointment letters, polling place notification cards,
    and other required mailings. All of these are legally required
    and are at risk if the Postal Service is unable to process mail
    effectively or experiences delays. And this is especially
    important during the critical time period around election day.
        Some States, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
    Maryland, and Minnesota, have also not updated certain election
    laws and processes to ensure adequate time to process mail
    ballots, which has caused recent delays with election results.
        Local election officials and State officials have
    repeatedly highlighted this gap, and some State policymakers
    have refused to make the necessary adjustments even though they
    are simply operational, not partisan. States still have time to
    close those gaps and support election officials with their
    work.
        Let me be clear: Election results have never been final on
    election night. There are specific post-election processes,
    including receiving and counting military ballots, processing
    provisional ballots, auditing the voting system, and canvassing
    the election results, that happen, and then certification
    occurs.
        Additionally, many western voters are still casting ballots
    when the media starts to call winners in eastern States. This
    has been a problem for decades, and it is not new this year.
        As with every part of our election system, we must be able
    to deter, detect, and hold bad actors accountable that try to
    interfere with the voting process. While voter fraud is
    exceedingly rare in elections regardless of method, it is still
    critical for election officials to detect malicious activity
    and for voters to report suspicious activity to appropriate
    authorities. Our democracy functions when every eligible voter
    is able to exercise their right to vote.
        No system is perfect, and this is why it is critical to
    continually review and improve systems by enhancing security,
    access, and transparency. An example of a necessary improvement
    is ballot tracking systems or risk-limiting audits.
        Democracy is the shared DNA of our communities and
    throughout our history. Election administration and policy must
    be about who votes and not who wins, and we must put voters
    first. Just like the Postal Service, election administration is
    a service and must be free from partisan politics.
        [The statement of Ms. McReynolds follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. Thank you very much.
        We will now turn to Ms. Gupta.
        And you are recognized for about five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF VANITA GUPTA

        Ms. Gupta. Thank you, Chairperson Lofgren, Ranking Member
    Davis, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today for safe, fair, and accessible
    elections during the COVID-19 crisis.
        The fight for American democracy requires a new urgency as
    the Nation grapples with a confluence of crises, from a global
    pandemic, to a looming economic recession that is hitting
    communities of color hardest, to widespread outrage about State
    violence against Black people. Taken together, these crises
    really expose how deeply racial inequality continues to
    permeate American life. We need strong democratic institutions
    and voting options free from unnecessary encumbrances now more
    than ever.
        The Leadership Conference has been profoundly troubled by
    the recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service.
    Americans depend on the U.S. Postal Service for timely,
    affordable access to medication and daily necessities. It is
    also an essential service for voting amid a pandemic. Voters
    should not be forced to choose between their health and their
    fundamental right to vote, and sabotaging the U.S. Postal
    Service could do just that.
        Our Nation has a long and troubling history of denying
    people of color the right to vote. Even as we commemorate the
    March on Washington and celebrate the 100th anniversary of
    women's suffrage, we remember that African-American women and
    women of color were not able to exercise the franchise for
    decades after the ratification of the 19th Amendment. And while
    the Voting Rights Act of 1965 offered new tools to fight
    blatant forms of discrimination, people of color have continued
    to face barriers to voting, especially after five Justices on
    the Supreme Court invalidated the VRA's key enforcement
    provisions in 2013.
        Despite the best efforts of the Leadership Conference
    coalition to protect voting rights for vulnerable communities,
    voter suppression continues today to take its toll. What we
    have seen in this year's primary elections alone provides a
    dire warning of what we could expect in November without
    congressional action, from undelivered absentee ballots, to
    unreasonably long lines, to polling place closures, to
    undertrained staff, to disinformation campaigns that are
    specifically targeting voters of color.
        That is why lawmakers must act now to ensure that the
    general election is fair, safe, and accessible and support
    State and local election officials that are trying to do just
    this.
        First, it means taking immediate action to preserve the
    integrity of the Postal Service. The USPS is legally required
    to deliver mail to all postal addresses no matter how far it
    may have to travel or how profitable the work. The
    accessibility and affordability the USPS provides is crucial to
    seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, and rural and
    Tribal communities.
        In response to the alarming problems at the USPS and
    disinformation efforts to undermine voters' confidence in
    voting by mail from officials in the highest offices of the
    land, a bipartisan House majority passed the Delivering for
    America Act last weekend. This bill needs to be made into law.
    It would provide USPS with the $25 billion in emergency funding
    and restore services. And we are really encouraged by this
    important step to protect the U.S. Postal Service.
        However, our concerns on the upcoming election go well
    beyond the U.S. Postal Service. We are just over 2 months away
    from the 2020 general election, and States need funding to
    prevent a repeat of the disasters during the primaries this
    spring and summer. Congress must allocate the $3.6 billion that
    was in the HEROES Act now for States to fully prepare for
    November and provide voters with a range of options to safely
    cast their ballot.
        The Leadership Conference is pushing in States, as well, to
    expand online and same-day voter registration, to ensure access
    to no-excuse absentee ballots with prepaid postage, prohibit
    the requiring of notarization of witness signatures to cast an
    absentee ballot, automatically mail absentee ballots to all
    registered voters no later than 2 weeks before election day,
    require the counting of ballots postmarked on or before
    election day, and have widely available secure drop boxes.
        They must expand in-person early voting and ensure that
    voters residing on Indian lands can vote by maintaining safe,
    in-person voting options and provide secure return drop boxes.
        And, lastly, there is a huge urgency to provide funds to
    States to be able to educate voters about all of the rule
    changes and combat disinformation.
        We are also encouraging voters to make sure they understand
    how to take direct action themselves by making sure they are
    registered, making a plan to vote early, and to sign up to be a
    poll worker.
        For the past 70 years, the Leadership Conference coalition
    has fought to open the doors to our democracy. And for the next
    70 days, we are going to do everything that we can in our power
    to push Congress to safeguard the right to vote in the critical
    November election.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Gupta follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. Thank you so very much for your testimony.
        And now we will turn to Commissioner Palmer.
        You are recognized for about five minutes.

              STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONALD L. PALMER

        Mr. Palmer. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairperson Lofgren,
    Ranking Member Davis, and members of the Committee. I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the Election
    Assistance Commission's ongoing work to support election
    officials and the voters they serve.
        Election officials are working tirelessly to ensure that
    elections are safe, accessible, secure, and accurate. I would
    like to thank Congress for funding to the States in response to
    the pandemic and to assist in the security of elections. The
    agency has distributed almost $1.2 billion in grant funding
    since 2018, including $400 million in recent CARES Act funds.
    These revenue sources have proven vital in preparing for
    November.
        While funding of the Commission and its mission remains
    below its historic budget levels, we were able to pivot and
    prioritize our response to COVID by bolstering existing
    programs and developing new services.
        The EAC held a series of virtual forums of lessons learned,
    discussing ways to improve election procedures for the benefit
    of voters. We hosted over 25 forums with officials to hear what
    went right and what went wrong. We discussed absentee and mail
    voting adjustments, in-person polling place safety, and
    assistance for voters with disabilities.
        Americans should feel confident that in-person voting
    locations will be safe for voting. We work closely with the
    Centers for Disease Control to revise guidelines to ensure in-
    person voting is a safe option for voters. And, of course,
    CARES Act funds have been used to purchase PPE for election
    workers and sanitize polling places.
        As we sit here today about 60 days prior to election day,
    the train is preparing to leave the station. The 45-day
    deadline for the sending of overseas and military ballots is
    September 19, only 3 weeks from now.
        The men and women who serve as election administrators
    across the country are engaged in a Herculean effort,
    overcoming the challenges of a pandemic and addressing the
    concerns and needs of the American people. They deserve much
    credit and respect.
        Right now, they are processing millions of voter
    registrations, recruiting and training poll workers, preparing
    ballots, testing the voting equipment, and focused singularly
    on making this election a success for Americans.
        The EAC is helping States prepare for the anticipated
    increase in the use of absentee or mailed ballots. States are
    using CARES Act grants to fund additional materials, postage,
    and personnel associated with this shift. Some are using this
    funding to implement online portals to request absentee ballots
    and make the process for requesting mailed ballots a more
    efficient and secure process.
        During the primary season, there were a number of ballots
    rejected due to the lack of signatures or that arrived past
    deadlines. In a recent EAC roundtable, a Postal Service
    representative recommended that voters requested their absentee
    ballots no later than 15 days prior to election day and
    returned no later than seven days prior to election day. In my
    opinion, voters should start the process even earlier, 20 to 30
    days prior to election day or ballot return deadlines.
        Voter education at the State and local level is essential
    to reduce the chances of error, omission, or delay in return or
    counting of a ballot.
        One critical item for in-person voting is to ensure----
        [Audio interruption.]
        The Chairperson. I think we have a glitch with Commissioner
    Palmer's WiFi perhaps.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chair, while we are waiting
    for him to come back and finish his statement, can I raise a
    point of personal privilege real quick and get an answer?
        The Chairperson. Sure.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. We had one of our members have to
    back out today, late notice. Will I get a chance to do a second
    round for the minority at some point?
        The Chairperson. Yes. I am planning to do a second round of
    questions.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The commissioner is back.
        The Chairperson. Mr. Palmer, I think your WiFi is going on
    and off.
        Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Deadlines, issues have arisen in
    jurisdictions that use postmarks to ensure ballots received
    after election day were mailed on time. As more States have
    begun providing prepaid envelopes to voters, there have been
    problems with the uniform application of postmarks for this
    type of mail.
        In New York and Wisconsin, local officials took the time to
    reach out to postal officials to ensure ballots would be
    postmarked, but thousands of ballots slipped through. The
    Postal Service has stated its policy is to postmark domestic
    election mail even when prepaid.
        A clear directive from the Postal Service that ensures
    every ballot sent as election mail receives a clear, legible
    postmark would support uniformity and help avoid any confusion
    or controversy.
        I would encourage city and county governing bodies to give
    election administrators whatever emergency support may be
    necessary to meet all deadlines and assure administrators that
    they have the support necessary to secure polling places and
    poll workers.
        The efforts of election administrators on behalf of voters
    who are not only here in the U.S. but also for our overseas and
    military voters are crucial to our democracy. We look forward
    to our continued work together to support election officials
    and the voters they represent.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Palmer follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. Thank you very much, Commissioner.
        And now we have a time when each Member of the Committee
    may question the witnesses for five minutes. And I would like
    to turn to the Ranking Member first to begin with the
    questions.
        Mr. Davis, you are recognized for five minutes.
        You need to unmute.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yep. Not like we haven't been on
    this rodeo before. I apologize.
        I do have some questions for Ms. Wise.
        If you could, Ms. Wise, just--first off, thanks for being
    here. I appreciated your opening statement.
        And, Ms. McReynolds, go Illini. Tell your dad I hope never
    to see him in the courtroom in Henry County, but
    congratulations.
        But I want to ask Ms. Wise: Many are pushing for your
    counterparts in other States to jump headfirst into all-mail
    elections, even at this late date. I am really concerned any
    sort of switch at this point on the calendar is going to cause
    some election administration issues.
        So I am going to give you a series of questions. Can I just
    get a ``yes'' or a ``no'' answer? Because I don't have a lot of
    time and I am the only one on our side.
        Was the reason King County delayed its move to all-mail
    elections was because it needed time to procure the necessary
    equipment, adequate personnel, and working space, yes or no?
        Ms. Wise. I don't know what delay you are speaking of.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Okay. Yes or no, it took King County
    four or five years to transition to all-mail voting, right?
        Ms. Wise. No.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. How long did it take?
        Ms. Wise. We went a decade ago to vote-by-mail. And I am
    not sure of, like, the actual process. I mean, I think 86
    percent of our voters were already permanent absentee voters at
    that point.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Okay.
        I understand the procurement process for high-speed sorting
    machines can take some time, not to mention staff training. If
    a State started today, it would be impossible for them to come
    up with the equipment, personnel, and space they needed by
    November, yes or no?
        Ms. Wise. It depends on how many absentee voters they have.
    So we are already processing mail ballots right now, right? I
    mean, every jurisdiction has some amount of absentee voters, so
    it just depends on how big.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I don't have a lot of time, and I
    don't want to be like some of my colleagues on other committees
    and have to reclaim my time.
        I understand Washington State, like my home State of
    Illinois, is a member of the ERIC system, which helps 30 States
    and D.C. keep their voter rolls up to date by comparing
    information across States. I think being a member of ERIC has
    benefited King County by ensuring you are able to send ballots
    to voters at the correct address, right?
        Ms. Wise. Correct. Yes.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
        The Postal Service's operational issues aren't new. I mean,
    recently, FiveThirtyEight found that more than 30 States have
    mail ballot request and return deadlines that are incompatible
    with longstanding Postal Service deadlines.
        More than 30 States have mail ballot request and return
    deadlines incompatible with longstanding Postal Service
    deadlines. With more Americans expected to vote by mail this
    fall, I am concerned these dual issues are pushing us toward
    major election administration issues in November.
        So I appreciate your time, Ms. Wise, and I agree we have to
    be better at our election administration.
        While I have a little more time, I would like to turn to
    you, Secretary Padilla.
        Mr. Padilla. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thanks for being here today.
        As you know, my office has sent you numerous letters
    requesting to meet with you and your staff, but we have heard
    nothing back. So it is good we are finally able to discuss the
    serious election administration issues that I see occurring in
    California. But, you know, unfortunately, we haven't been able
    to get this done beforehand. That is a little disappointing to
    me.
        I am absolutely disgusted by the advertisement I showed
    earlier, which was released by your Association of Secretaries
    of State. You lead that group. The greatest threat to the
    integrity of our elections is partisanship, and I have seen no
    better example of destructive partisanship than that ad.
        So I think it is important to focus on the current and
    serious election administration issues in your home State of
    California--rejected ballots, bungled registration lists, and
    rampant ballot harvesting. NPR says that over 100,000
    California mail ballots were rejected this year alone. Studies
    tell us young voters, people of color, usually pay the price.
    No well-managed system should have so many ballots rejected.
        In case you are not aware, the National Voter Registration
    Act requires you to maintain accurate voter registration lists.
    I say this because, considering how many times you have been
    sued or threatened to be sued for noncompliance with the NVRA,
    I am not sure this is getting through.
        You even entered into a legal settlement recently that
    forces you to comply with the law. But, apparently, that wasn't
    enough, because, just this past April, you received a letter
    that indicated that California is still not in compliance with
    the NVRA, particularly those sections requiring deceased or
    ineligible registrants to be removed.
        Are you aware of how many California registrants on your
    voter rolls are likely deceased or have moved out of State?
        Mr. Padilla. Multiple questions there, so if you afford me
    a few minutes, I will respond to each one of them.
        First of all, I agree we haven't been able to set up a call
    or a meeting, but I do believe my office has been responsive to
    every question and request for information that your office has
    made of mine, number one.
        Number two, I couldn't agree more that the fundamental
    right to vote, to making it easier for eligible citizens to
    register to vote and to stay registered and to cast their
    ballot, should not be a partisan issue. But when you see
    different policies that are being implemented in different
    States that have the net effect of making it harder and,
    specifically, making it harder disproportionately on young
    people or communities of color, et cetera, lower-income
    families, to register, stay registered, and to vote, then it
    does have a discriminatory effect, and we absolutely stand up
    against that.
        To your question about vote-by-mail ballots that were
    rejected in our primary, I will tell you that the lion's share
    of those were ballots that were either postmarked after the
    primary election or arrived very late, beyond our postmark-
    plus-3 law in California--all the more reason to extend our
    postmark-plus-3 to postmark-plus-17 for the November general
    election so more ballots can and will be counted.
        You know, if we are worried about some of the effects of
    people----
        The Chairperson. The gentleman's time has expired, so if
    you could very quickly wrap up----
        Mr. Padilla. Sure.
        The Chairperson [continuing]. Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Padilla. So if we are really concerned about, you know,
    the unfortunate disenfranchisement of so many eligible
    citizens, then we should fully fund the U.S. Postal Service and
    we should fully fund elections.
        The Chairperson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Raskin, the gentleman from Maryland, is now recognized
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Raskin. Madam Chair, thank you very much.
        And I am actually greatly reassured by the testimony from
    our secretaries of State and these election officials that we
    are ready to go and we should stop spreading anxiety and
    disinformation about the elections.
        I confess that I am a little bit baffled by my friend, the
    Ranking Member's indignant complaint about the Democratic
    secretaries of State's completely unexceptional TV
    advertisement about White supremacy being both a political
    ideology and a strategy for maintaining power. One would think
    that the whole history of disenfranchisement in our country,
    with poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, White
    primaries, and so on, would vindicate the accuracy and the
    passion of that ad.
        And, indeed, when the gentleman repeatedly invokes ``over-
    the-top rhetoric,'' I don't know what he is referring to. But
    it strikes me as over-the-top rhetoric to link this ad,
    presumably made over the last several months--I don't know;
    maybe the secretary from California could tell us--but linking
    that ad to the violent assault on our colleagues on June 4,
    2017, something that took place 3 years ago, that strikes me as
    true over-the-top rhetoric.
        In any event, we face two key obstacles today, as Secretary
    Padilla puts it. One is COVID-19; the other is the continuing
    disinformation about voting which is scaring people and
    confusing people. And there is this incessant stream of
    propaganda from the highest levels of government trying to
    scare people about different forms of voting.
        Now, I want to focus on ballot drop boxes, because they are
    one of the ways that the States are working to address all of
    the problems caused by COVID-19, which, of course, has
    afflicted more than five million of our people and killed more
    than 180,000 of them.
        At least 34 States and the District of Columbia have used
    or plan to use ballot drop boxes this year, including my home
    State of Maryland. The President recently attacked ballot drop
    boxes via Twitter, claiming that ballot drop boxes are a voter
    security disaster that will facilitate fraud.
        So I wanted to come to Secretary of State Wise, if I
    could--or, I am sorry, you are not secretary of State, you are
    an election official. Ms. Wise, you say that in King County you
    have been using ballot drop boxes for years without any
    problems. Is that right? Can you explain how secure they are?
    What are the benefits of drop boxes? And then, also, how did a
    school bus hit a drop box, and how did the drop box survive and
    the school bus not make it?
        Ms. Wise. We have had drop boxes since we moved to vote-by-
    mail about 10 years ago. So we went from--when I was first
    elected, we had 10; we now have 70. That means 96 percent of
    our voters in King County have a drop box within just a three-
    mile radius of their home. And we have seen studies out of the
    University of Washington that proximity to a drop box increases
    turnout.
        So drop boxes are incredibly important. They served a
    really important service, especially when we didn't have
    prepaid postage, but now that I have secured prepaid postage,
    voters really have both options.
        These are secure drop boxes. These drop boxes are, in fact,
    manufactured by a company called Vote Armor. And more than half
    of our voters use our drop boxes. And they come in really handy
    for our voters that maybe want to wait until election day, a
    little bit more of our procrastinators. And so, election day
    and the day before, in fact, we see 50 percent of voters turn
    out to those drop boxes. They are securely designed, 1,000-
    pound boxes.
        We had the opportunity to host students at our facility. We
    have 99,000 square feet where we process our ballots. And so we
    hosted about 700 students, not at the same time. But that is
    why the school bus was on site, was to bring the students. And
    the driver just mistook the turn, crashed into the drop box.
    The drop box was completely fine, and the bus didn't look so
    great.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, I hope all the kids were okay, but that
    is a great advertisement for drop boxes and their sturdiness
    and their reliability.
        You also testify, Ms. Wise, that Washington is one of the
    five States, I think it is, that have conducted universal vote-
    by-mail elections, which is another target of the President,
    who says that vote-by-mail promotes fraud, it is not
    trustworthy, et cetera, et cetera.
        Has your State seen any significant increase in the
    incidence of voter fraud because they are doing universal vote-
    by-mail? And what do you think of the President's continuing
    attacks on States like yours?
        Ms. Wise. There hasn't been cases of fraud. In my
    testimony, as I said, the percentage rate of fraud happening--
    and this is when King County compared our data in ERIC to 30
    other States in which those voters were registered. There is
    not fraud happening.
        Mr. Raskin. And you just said it was 1-100,000th of 1
    percent.
        Ms. Wise. That is correct. That is accurate.
        Mr. Raskin. So what do you make of this attack on universal
    vote-by-mail?
        The Chairperson. The gentleman's time has expired, so if
    you could answer promptly, that would be wonderful.
        Ms. Wise. In Washington State, we are all permanent
    absentee voters. If you want to call it universal mail-in or
    whatever you want to call it, it is same thing as permanent
    absentee voters. When a voter signs up in Washington State,
    they are signing up to be a permanent absentee voter.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        The Chairperson. Thank you so much.
        The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Davis, is recognized
    for five minutes.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        And thank you to all of our witnesses here today. I
    appreciate your joining us.
        Now, one of the best but least known components of a good
    absentee ballot system is ballot tracking, which lets voters be
    able to tell online whether their ballots have been sent out,
    whether they have been received back, and whether their votes
    have counted.
        And I put language into the defense bill some years ago to
    require ballot tracking for the military and overseas voters.
    And my hope is that elections officials would open up to that
    for all voters, as many of them have.
        But I am concerned that most voters are unaware that they
    can track their ballots. Many registrars don't seem to do
    enough to let voters know about it, and it is buried on some of
    their websites. And so a lot of voters truly don't know about
    this service.
        Mr. Padilla, Mr. Secretary, I know that you have been
    working on this. Can you tell us how you promote Where's My
    Ballot? And have you had secretaries of State look to you to
    help them to be able to do this as well? Is it too late for
    them to do that? You know, what is the--not in detail, the
    procedure, but how can they afford themselves again of
    providing this service to voters?
        Mr. Padilla. Right. No, I appreciate the question.
        And so I should say, we, I don't believe, are the first
    State to expand statewide. Colorado might be the first State to
    have done it statewide. We have had ballot tracking prior in
    California. We had about 28 counties participate in the primary
    election. Voters in those counties had a great experience. But
    for purposes of November, we are expanding and mandating it
    statewide.
        This will always be counties [inaudible] voter education
    campaign about ballot [inaudible]. So I think we are off to a
    great start. [Inaudible] colleagues across the country,
    organized by the National Association of Secretaries of State,
    where we exchange these best practices and good ideas. And I
    know many others are looking at it [inaudible] county, we chose
    to invest some of the funding from the CARES Act and HAVA to
    underwrite the ballot tracking expansion statewide per county,
    so it didn't become a fiscal burden for individual counties.
        And, last, I just want to say, it is not just a great tool
    for voters, right--the transparency of your ballot moving its
    way through the mail delivery process, confirmation when it has
    been received and counted. Great for transparency for the
    voters, but it provides a great diagnostic tool, a dashboard
    for us to identify any bottlenecks or delays in the postal
    delivery. And so we can then work with regional or local postal
    officials to the make sure those ballots are delivered on a
    timely basis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
        I wonder if, Ms. Wise, Ms. McReynolds, if you would like to
    comment as well, particularly on that and really making it more
    prevalent and, again, giving voters the confidence that they
    can check this information.
        Ms. McReynolds. Yes, I am happy to weigh in for a second.
        Actually, Denver was the first pioneering office for ballot
    tracking, now, back in 2009, so 11 years ago that we created
    that. And then there is a commercial provider, and there is
    also a nonprofit provider, and then some States have built
    tools in-house. So over 30 States actually offer tracking on
    their websites.
        And there are actually still States right now that I have
    been working with to expand and implement ballot tracking like
    what California has done statewide for this election. So the
    window is closing, but there is absolutely time to do that. I
    have been working with various States to try to get that
    implemented and set up now. And, you know, a lot of States are
    in the process of trying to do that now.
        And, certainly, voters knowing about it is critical. And
    there is lots of ways to do that, through a voter education
    campaign or even, in a lot of States, when you register to
    vote, you can actually select the option to get electronic
    information about voting from the election officials. And so
    you can basically opt in at that point in the registration
    process in various States as well.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you. I appreciate that. And
    yet it feels as if there are a lot more people who could be
    doing it than are. So we have to do a better job of that. I
    appreciate it.
        Secretary Padilla, I want to just give you an opportunity
    very quickly to respond a little bit, because the fact that you
    are sending ballots to every voter in California somehow seems
    suspect, and I wonder if you could just respond to that, that,
    you know, it opens the door to more fraud, if you would like to
    do that.
        Mr. Padilla. Sure. No, I appreciate it, and I will try to
    be concise.
        You know, vote-by-mail is nothing new in California and for
    many other States across the country. California is not the
    only one. No-excuse vote-by-mail, specifically, has been in
    place in California for a couple of decades.
        So vote-by-mail is absolutely convenient for voters. It has
    proven to be secure as well. You know, among the security
    measures that we have in place, starting with the ballots
    themselves, it is not quite like currency, but think specific
    paper types, watermarks, other distinguishing features of
    ballots. So it would be pretty darn hard to introduce fake
    ballots into the system. The alarm bells would go off almost
    immediately.
        Second, vote-by-mail ballots must be returned in the
    official envelope provided to the voter, each with a unique
    barcode for tracking purposes not just through the mail but for
    maintaining the voter's record of when somebody has voted to
    help guard against double voting.
        The all-important signature verification. When the voter
    returns their ballot, they must sign the back of the return
    envelope. And the first thing county officials do is check that
    signature against the signature on file as part of that voter's
    record to help confirm the identity of the voter. If the voter
    forgot to sign the envelope or the signatures do not match,
    California law requires counties to attempt to contact the
    voter to rectify any signature issues. Because we want to make
    sure a legitimate vote is counted. And if the voter says, hey,
    that wasn't me, well, then, obviously, we have something to
    look into. So----
        Mrs. Davis of California. If I could interrupt, sometimes
    people are afraid that the voter is deceased and, somehow or
    other, someone is going to get that----
        Mr. Padilla. Sure. So, on list maintenance, you know,
    county officials work constantly to maintain the accuracy of
    their rolls. They cross-reference coroner's data, for example,
    to identify deceased individuals to remove them from the rolls.
    In California, they also check----
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady's time expired, but I am
    going to go back to you when it is my turn, Secretary Padilla,
    to finish this.
        Mr. Padilla. Okay.
        The Chairperson. I would like to recognize the gentleman
    from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, at this point for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for
    convening this very important hearing this afternoon. It is
    Friday afternoon here on the East Coast. And I did not want to
    put on a necktie, but I did it, and I am reporting for duty.
    Thank you so very much.
        To my friend, the Ranking Member, thank you for playing
    that video a few minutes ago. I want to associate myself
    totally not with your comments, but I wanted to associate
    myself with the content of the video. You touted the benefit of
    the Voting Rights Act in your remarks, but you must understand
    that the Voting Rights Act is not fully enforceable now. It has
    been wounded, and your party refuses to fix it. But I just
    wanted to set the record straight that I, for one, associate
    myself with the video.
        Thank you, Madam Chair, for taking a moment to recognize
    this important day in American history. I recall this day 57
    years ago; oh, do I recall it so very well. I was 16 years of
    age, and my dad rounded up my best friend and me and put us in
    the car and drove us to Washington, D.C., through the night. I
    remember it so well. And thank you for making reference to
    that.
        Like many Americans, I have been watching the political
    conventions over the last 2 weeks, the Democratic convention
    last week and the Republican convention this week. And during
    each one of these conventions, many of the speakers said that
    this was the most consequential election of our lifetime. And
    they are so right. This election will determine--it well
    determine whether we will have a democracy, and it will
    determine, quite frankly, whether we have a President that
    follows the rule of law.
        I was very, very disappointed last evening to see President
    Trump use the precious real estate of the White House as a
    political backdrop for his reelection. Not only was it
    inappropriate to have this event at the White House, but it
    violated the Hatch Act and it violated CDC guidelines for
    protecting the public health.
        And, you know, I was reading this morning, it was reported
    that some of the delegates at the Charlotte convention now have
    COVID. And let's pray that those attending last night will not
    find themselves or their neighbors affected by the virus.
        But this hearing is important. It is incredibly important.
    As Ms. Gupta said early on in her opening remarks, we must have
    a safe, fair, and accessible election.
        So let me just ask one or two questions of Ms. Gupta, and
    then I will yield back.
        But, Ms. Gupta, I remember when you were at the Department
    of Justice, and thank you for your years of service, and wish
    you were back at the Department of Justice. And I will just
    leave it there. Thank you so very much.
        Ms. Gupta, at the recent Senate and House hearings on
    operational changes at the Postal Service, the Postmaster noted
    several times that the sorting machines that were removed from
    the post offices were not needed, and he refused to agree to
    their reinstatement. He also refused to make the commitment
    that election mail will be treated as first-class mail,
    although this is an accepted practice.
        Ms. Gupta, what is the potential impact of the Postal
    Service removing sorting and mailbox equipment and not treating
    election mail as first-class mail for voters during the
    upcoming election?
        Ms. Gupta. Thank you, sir, for the question.
        Six-hundred-and-seventy-one mail sorting machines were
    removed from 49 States in the last few months under Postmaster
    General DeJoy's leadership. And every sorting machine actually
    has the ability to process about 30,000 pieces of mail per
    hour. And so the refusal to restore them really gets to some of
    the functionality of a system that Americans rely on and are
    going to rely on now more than ever amid a pandemic, where
    surges of Americans will be voting by mail to protect our
    public health.
        And so there is a lot of concern that if the decommissioned
    machines and mailboxes are not restored that it could really
    undermine or slow down the system for voting by mail. It also
    has the potential to confuse voters, to add to disinformation.
        And so this is why there has been such an urgency to get
    these post mailboxes restored. You know, voters need to have
    confidence in the vote. There is also--there are the policy
    changes, and then there is the confidence that voters need. And
    amid so much disinformation, voters need to feel like the U.S.
    Postal Service is going to be a reliable service to vote by
    mail.
        On the first-class-mail piece of this, it is really
    critical that vote-by-mail ballots are treated as first-class
    mail and have expedited priority. First-class mail moves
    significantly faster than marketing mail. And in the past
    years, it has been a courtesy that USPS has often treated
    election mail as first-class mail.
        And so it is critical that Postmaster General DeJoy issue a
    formal policy. He gave some verbal commitment to treating some
    mail-in ballots this way, but there is a need to formalize this
    policy, which is why the bill that the House passed this past
    weekend really needs become law so that----
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
        Ms. Gupta [continuing]. Voters can have the confidence that
    this will be the case nationwide.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. Thank you so much.
        The gentleman yields back.
        I would now like to recognize the gentlelady from Ohio, the
    chairperson of our Elections Subcommittee, Congresswoman Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate
    it.
        I really don't have any questions, but I would just tell
    you, I listened to the Ranking Member, who was so typically
    misleading. The bill that we put in the HEROES Act does not
    require, does not request universal vote-by-mail. And he knows
    it. What it does is give people options so that they can be
    safe when they decide to go out and vote. He knows that. I
    don't know why he continues to say it.
        We have a President that votes by mail and then tells the
    American people that they should not. It is no wonder to me
    that we have destroyed the confidence in every single
    institution in this country. People have lost faith in
    government. They don't believe in the President, the Senate,
    the House, nothing. Now we can't even believe in the Postal
    Service, a place where my uncle worked for 42 years. I have two
    postmasters in my family, and they are appalled by what they
    are seeing today.
        The post office was a place where, when we came out of
    school, back when my uncle was coming out of college, you
    couldn't get a job anyplace else, so they carried the mail. He
    carried mail for 42 years. And it takes DeJoy and this group to
    destroy it.
        It is just amazing to me that we talk about wanting to
    believe in the Constitution, that everybody has a right to
    vote, but day after day they put up roadblock after roadblock.
    It is just lip service. They really don't want everybody to
    vote, because if they did, they would try to make it easier and
    not harder.
        He asked someone about their purging or their voter rolls.
    The last purge we had--and to the credit of my Republican
    Secretary of State, he reached out to places like the NAACP,
    the Urban League, churches, et cetera. He found 50,000 people
    in one week that should never have been purged--in one week. So
    we know that what they do is not perfect.
        And today--and I hope Mr. Davis reads this--today, our
    Secretary of State published a list of 116,000 people who are
    going to be purged after the November election to make sure
    that they have an opportunity to save their registration. That
    is what we ought to be doing, instead of trying to tear down
    everything that is good in this country, which is what they
    want to do, because they figure, if we make it difficult and we
    just let people stay at home, they won't vote and we will win.
        You know, he keeps talking about bipartisanship. There is
    no bipartisanship with these people. You know, it just gets to
    be, you know, always talking about things like fraud. The only
    fraud is that they want people to believe that they care about
    our vote. They don't.
        It is just disheartening to me that, at this time when
    people are dealing with so much, when they have lost their
    jobs, when they can't get their unemployment insurance, when
    their kids are hungry and they don't know if they can go to
    school, that we are playing these games instead of making it
    easy for people to go to the polls.
        And now people are wondering, if they go to the polls, if
    they vote by mail, if their vote will even count. I mean, I
    don't know any handwriting experts that work at these boards of
    elections. My signature is different now than it was at 18 when
    I first registered to vote. It is not going to be an exact
    match.
        And so they play all of these games.
        So, Madam Chair, I really don't have any questions. I just
    want to say, let's stop the charade. Just admit you don't want
    people to vote, just admit that you don't care, and it will be
    better, because at least people will know how honest you are.
        I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady yields back.
        The gentleman from California, Mr. Aguilar, is now
    recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Chair Lofgren.
        And I share the frustration that my colleague, Chair Fudge,
    had with some of the statements that we have heard.
        Secretary Padilla, on election night, Americans are used to
    hearing about projected winners, especially on the night of the
    election. But what some voters may not know are that those
    projections are based off of unofficial results that often take
    time to line up with the eventual certified results. And
    certifying results takes time in each jurisdiction, and each
    State sets requirements for that.
        Can you discuss the process for canvassing and certifying
    an election in California and why in some cases it takes more
    time to ensure that the official results are accurate?
        Mr. Padilla. Certainly. And I appreciate the question
    because it is important for us to set the expectations now,
    both with the press and with the public, of what election night
    may be like.
        I think California has developed a reputation for taking a
    little while to finish counting ballots and certifying results,
    but it is all for a good reason. In California, we are unique,
    just the size of our electorate. You know, we are approaching
    21 million voters on the rolls. So the sheer volume takes
    longer than in many other States with much smaller populations.
        But some of the policies that we have in place, starting
    with vote-by-mail--you know, I mentioned in my testimony that
    we have extended now the postmark-plus-3 policy to postmark-
    plus-17 for purposes of this November. So, come election day,
    we won't even have all the ballots in hand to finish counting.
    It is going to take days, if not weeks, depending on the health
    of the Postal Service, for ballots to arrive in county
    elections offices.
        When the polls close at 8 o'clock in California, we start
    hearing some numbers. Those are votes that came in early enough
    to county elections offices so they can be prepared and
    processed and ready to be counted, and we start providing
    preliminary results.
        The overall experience is that we have a decent sense of
    the outcome of most contests on election night, but for close
    contests and for final results, it does take weeks. Because in
    that canvass period that you reference, Congressman, we have
    the signature verification process that is happening.
        California is one of the States that offers same-day
    registration opportunity, where we have to process the
    registration before we count the ballots. If there is a need
    for a voter to cast a provisional ballot because of some issue
    when they tried to vote in person that is a manual process that
    also takes a few minutes. We go through these lengths to
    preserve both the integrity of the election and the right to
    vote for every eligible citizen.
        And let's not forget the required post-election audits that
    are required of every county after every election. In
    California, counties have a month after the election to certify
    their results, and then my office takes another week to certify
    statewide results.
        The issue for this November is with so many other States
    ramping up vote-by-mail significantly, possibly for the first
    time. You know, think Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio,
    Arizona, and others. If the Presidential contest is too close
    to call on election night in enough key States, we may not know
    the final outcome for at least a few days.
        And our worry, going back to the disinformation that I
    spoke of during my testimony, is we are going to be hearing,
    you know, a lot of conspiracy theories and lies during that
    timeframe that threaten to undermine confidence in our
    elections.
        The public and the press need to understand this is simply
    the process at work. It is maintaining the integrity of the
    process. And it is better to be patient. We want to get the
    vote count right, not rush to get it fast.
        Mr. Aguilar. Yeah. And it is important to set those
    expectations now, and I appreciate it.
        For the life of me, I just can't understand why the Ranking
    Member spends so much time devoted to California elections laws
    and spreading his own misinformation about our processes. Maybe
    he wants to move to California. You know, that is something
    that is available to him as a private citizen in the future.
        On August 20--and this will go to Secretary of State
    Padilla and Director Wise--the President mentioned that he
    might send sheriffs, law enforcement, and attorneys general to
    in-person voting locations. Days later, the Acting Secretary of
    Homeland Security, Chad Wolf, stated that his department lacks
    the authority to police polling stations.
        Can you explain how the use of law enforcement at in-person
    voting locations could affect turnout, as well as other issues
    and concerns you see with this possible course of action,
    Secretary of State Padilla and then Director Wise?
        Mr. Padilla. Sure. And I will try to be brief.
        Look, even before I get to the law enforcement question,
    President Trump has been publicly honest about why he is trying
    to undermine the Postal Service and vote-by-mail: He is trying
    to stop vote-by-mail.
        More recently, he has threatened to send law enforcement
    officials to monitor polling locations. By the way, both of
    those actions violate California law. So I want to make that
    absolutely clear.
        But if you look at attacks on vote-by-mail, he is trying to
    make vote-by-mail harder, forcing people to vote in person; now
    the presence of law enforcement, which is against the law,
    would only serve to intimidate people trying to vote in person.
    Put those two together, it is nothing but a recipe to try to
    suppress the vote, plain and simple.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman's time has expired, but, Ms.
    Wise, if you could very briefly respond. And then I will go to
    my five minutes.
        Ms. Wise. You know, we have political party observers for
    both parties at our drop boxes as well as where we are
    processing ballots on hand. There is no need to have additional
    observation, if that is what is needed. We don't need any more
    people there at the drop boxes and vote centers. As we really
    try to service our voters, our voters in Washington State can
    also register all the way up to an election day.
        So we have the security that we need on site, and we are
    prepared to handle our voters. And anything else to that would
    really cause intimidation, concern for election administrators
    as a civil servant and to our voters.
        The Chairperson. Thank you very much.
        I----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chair? I didn't want to
    interrupt the witnesses, but I have a couple points of order to
    raise.
        The Chairperson. I am sorry?
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I didn't want to interrupt the
    witnesses, but I have a couple points of order to raise.
        First off, I notice that some of our colleagues are not
    following the rules you laid out to stay on video and keep
    their video open. So I would appreciate that reminder going out
    again. These are the videoconferencing rules that were passed
    and put into place.
        The second point of order, I would go back to the partisan
    performance of my colleague, Ms. Fudge, who mentioned that I
    want to allow people not--clearly, my opening statement stated
    I want to stop disenfranchisement, the unfair attacks----
        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois [continuing]. People of color----
        The Chairperson. Mr. Davis, that is not a point of order.
    But you will have----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois [continuing]. And the partisanship is
    coming from----
        The Chairperson. You will have an opportunity to make an
    additional statement when it is your turn.
        The chair now recognizes myself for my five minutes of
    questions, and you will be heard after that, Mr. Davis.
        I promised, Mr. Padilla, to go back to you to let you
    finish the explanation of how sending ballots to every
    registered voter is secure. If you could briefly finish
    addressing that issue, I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Padilla. Sure. I think I was in the middle of talking
    about some of the list maintenance that every county elections
    office does to maintain the accuracy of the rolls as best as
    possible--you know, cross-referencing with coroners records,
    for example, to remove deceased individuals from the voter
    rolls. In California, individuals in State prison or on parole
    for a felony conviction lose the ability to vote until their
    time served is done, and so they cross-reference with our
    Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to search for
    names as well.
        You know, here is a bright spot in automatic voter
    registration in California. Since the launch of the program,
    yes, more than two million previously eligible but unregistered
    Californians now added to the rolls. Another roughly five
    million individuals that have previously registered were able
    to update their registration, again, leading to more accurate
    rolls. And maybe close to five million individuals that were
    afforded the opportunity to update, confirm their record is
    accurate. And that is just the transactions through the DMV. So
    a great chunk of our current electorate that has recently
    updated or confirmed the accuracy of their information.
        We talked about the ballot tracking tool earlier. We have
    another tool online for voters to verify their registration
    status. That is also a core element to our voter outreach
    campaign between now and election day, encouraging people to go
    online and verify their registration, including their address,
    so that, before county elections officials mail those ballots
    out, we know we are sending them to the current address.
        And, in the interest of time, I will just acknowledge,
    prior in the conversation, I mentioned some of the various
    safeguards to confirm the integrity of those vote-by-mail
    ballots when they come in--signature verification, et cetera.
        The Chairperson. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Wise, would you address how Washington makes sure that
    there is security in these mailed-in ballots?
        Ms. Wise. Washington State also does signature verification
    of each of our voters. I can attest, myself, I have been
    challenged twice for my signature changing over the years. And
    so, if a signature starts to change, we are proactive in
    reaching out to those voters. But in vote-by-mail, that is how
    you ensure that the voter voted their ballot and no one else
    did.
        But as Secretary Padilla already said, we do a lot of list
    maintenance here in Washington State, between doing felony
    checks with courts or Social Security Administration or Public
    Health, we are constantly scrubbing those voter rolls to make
    sure that they are up to date and that they are accurate.
        We are mailing ballots out in Washington State to all of
    our voters at least twice a year, which also keeps our voter
    rolls up to date and accurate.
        These are secure elections that we have been doing, again,
    for over a decade in Washington State.
        The Chairperson. Thank you very much.
        I would just like to talk again about how long it takes. In
    2018, Speaker Ryan was complaining about how long it took for
    the vote to be counted in California. Now, obviously, if we are
    accepting ballots that were postmarked on election day or prior
    for 17 days after the election, we are not even going to have
    all the ballots in hand on election day.
        What percentage do we think, Secretary Padilla, will be
    votes by mail?
        And I have to note that both parties have observers at all
    of the registrar of voters' offices, and not a single complaint
    was filed in 2018. No complaint was filed, because there was no
    problem, even though people were complaining here in
    Washington.
        Can you address that issue? What percentage of the votes
    will not even be in hand on election day?
        Mr. Padilla. So, I mean, it is tough to really ballpark,
    but it wouldn't be surprising if half the ballots or half the
    votes weren't in hand when the polls close on election night
    because of the volume that comes in by mail so close to
    election day.
        You know, I mentioned one marker during my testimony, that,
    for the March primary, 72 percent of ballots cast were vote-by-
    mail ballots, the majority of those coming in by mail, a
    significant chunk also coming in through drop boxes, and a
    growing number of people who choose to receive their ballot by
    mail, filling it out at home at their leisure, and then
    dropping them off in person. So I wouldn't be surprised if that
    72-percent mark goes up to 80 percent, closer to 90 percent.
        The Chairperson. Okay.
        My time has expired, and so I will turn now to the Ranking
    Member for his five minutes on the second round.
        You are recognized, Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am glad the witnesses and the people watching on C-SPAN
    get to see why I always say at almost every hearing, the
    biggest threat to our election process and election security is
    partisanship. It is very disappointing. We had a couple of
    colleagues actually talk about being more partisan. I am the
    13th most bipartisan Member of Congress, according to The Lugar
    Center. I will compare with almost all of my colleagues about
    how to work together.
        It is disappointing, though, that we also see--it is a lot
    of talk about accuracy when it comes to the election process
    and inaccuracy on this hearing from some of my colleagues.
        The HEROES Act clearly states that if there is an emergency
    declaration in order, that all voters on every registration
    roll would get a ballot mailed to them. That is the bill that
    was passed. That is what it says. I am not making things up.
        I am very disappointed that some my colleagues today have
    decided to actually be encouraged by the hateful rhetoric that
    we see in our political environment today. That is the
    partisanship that I am talking about. That is the type of
    rhetoric that allowed my friends to get shot on a baseball
    field--it is wrong--by somebody who was screaming
    ``healthcare'' while they were firing.
        And you talk about no fraud? We didn't seat an elected
    Member of Congress because of ballot-harvesting fraud in North
    Carolina's Ninth District.
        I just--it is like Groundhog Day, and every single hearing
    is the same thing, and it gets frustrating.
        And I am sorry to the witnesses, but, Mr. Palmer, I have a
    question for you. You know, we want to make sure that every
    lawful vote is counted this November and people can vote safely
    and securely.
        The EAC has put out, on a bipartisan basis, the suggested
    timeline for when States can move to vote-by-mail. Can you
    briefly explain why it takes a long time to move to vote-by-
    mail? And very briefly, please, because I have some more
    questions.
        Mr. Palmer. Sure. In our discussions, it is a significant
    transition, and most of the leaders [inaudible] universal vote-
    by-mail [inaudible] a significant absentee or permanent
    absentee, you know, category of individuals who are voting that
    way.
        Most of the States in the country, a majority at least,
    have less than 10-percent absentee vote--voters that vote by
    absentee. It takes time for voters to get used to voting by
    mail and being accustomed to the Postal Service transmission.
    That is why often the lockboxes become important. But I think
    that we found that, after COVID discussions, that we needed to
    prepare for increased absentee and mail voting, not necessarily
    wholesale transitions to all-vote-by-mail systems.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
        Mr. Palmer. That would be----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I have to move on, Don. I apologize.
        I want to get back to the question that I asked Secretary
    Padilla.
        You know, the Election Integrity Project found over 450,000
    California registrants on your voter rolls are likely deceased
    or have moved out of State.
        Since you received this letter last April, can you tell us
    approximately how many of these 450,000-plus registrants you
    have removed that would get a ballot mailed to them if the
    provisions in the HEROES Act were implemented because we are in
    a national emergency?
        Mr. Padilla. So, again, I don't have precise numbers for
    you, but rest assured we are working with each and every county
    to perform the ongoing list maintenance.
        Several counties, including Los Angeles County, which was a
    big focus of that effort, has recently, for example, sent
    mailers to every active registered voter in an attempt to
    identify those that may no longer be at their address and to
    verify the address of those who are.
        And, ultimately, even if a ballot goes to somebody who
    might have moved, it doesn't mean that ballot is being cast. We
    have the security measures that I have articulated already that
    would prevent a fraudulent ballot from being cast by mail.
        Voter fraud is exceedingly, exceedingly rare, so the
    current safeguards are working.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Mr. Secretary, it was not rare
    enough to not seat a Member of Congress in one of our
    elections.
        Mr. Padilla. That was North Carolina, sir, not California.
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I agree, but it is the same
    harvesting process. And we have to make sure they are----
        Mr. Padilla. So let me address that, because you have
    brought it up a few times. So here----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois. I have to move----
        Mr. Padilla [continuing]. Is the law in California----
        Mr. Davis of Illinois [continuing]. Almost out of time.
        And we just mentioned earlier, unfortunately, that the NVRA
    is not being followed. That is the law too, sir. That is why I
    question California so much, because there are too many
    questions about what laws you want to follow and what laws you
    actually do.
        That is a process that we can--I certainly would have liked
    to have met with you during the NASS conferences we requested.
    We did not get a response from your team. I offer again, I
    would love to sit down with you on an extended basis to have a
    meeting and talk about these issues, because 10 minutes in a
    partisan hearing clearly is not enough for me to get the
    answers and for you to actually get the answers out of me that
    you would like.
        So thank you, sir.
        I appreciate everybody's time today. Disappointed in the
    rhetoric once again. But I look forward to working with our
    witnesses in the future.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, is now recognized
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Raskin. Chair, thank you very much.
        Well, I suppose, then, the disappointment is mutual on our
    two sides about the rhetoric. My friend Mr. Davis says that the
    biggest threat to elections is partisanship. But, you know, I
    started to think about that, because, of course, partisanship
    is a reflection of a free society. Under the First Amendment,
    people can form political parties, and then we have partisan
    competition. That alternative to that is a one-party state, a
    dictatorship, an authoritarian state, you know, some kind of
    strongman, Putin in Russia or Orban in Hungary or any of the
    other friends of Donald Trump around the world. I guess a one-
    party state would get rid of the problem of partisanship.
        The problem is partisanship invading the electoral system.
    So that is like, you know, Katherine Harris in Florida in 2000,
    when she was both the chair of the Bush campaign and also the
    head of the elections. That is certainly something we have to
    deal with through the system of federalism, where the States
    have moved away from partisan brawlers running elections and,
    instead, trying to move towards independent, nonpartisan
    administration of our elections.
        But, of course, the leading partisan in this electoral
    process is Donald Trump, who calls ballot drop boxes a voter
    security disaster, who said he wants to get rid of all the
    ballot harvesting in a tweet, and then we learned that he gave
    his ballot to a third party to go and mail. And then his
    incessant attack on the post office, where he opposed what we
    passed in the HEROES Act, and he said, on national TV, ``They
    want $25 billion for the post office. Now they need that money
    in order to make the post office work so it can take all of
    these millions and millions of ballots.'' It could not be
    clearer that that is partisan sabotage of our ability to have a
    free and fair election in the United States of America in 2020.
        I would like to ask some of our guests who have come from
    around the country: The partisanship is obvious, coming from
    Donald Trump and his sycophants, but isn't this also an attack
    on federalism? When he attacks what Washington State is doing
    in terms of its drop-off boxes or its direct mail-in voting,
    when they attack California or North Carolina or--any State
    where they think the people are going to vote against Donald
    Trump, they attack the electoral system. Isn't that a serious
    threat to federalism?
        And I would like to ask Ms. Wise and Secretary Padilla
    about that.
        Ms. Wise. I am a nonpartisan election official that has
    appreciated running elections in a nonpartisan way for our
    voters in Washington State and for King County. And I think
    that what I do know is that voters deeply appreciate the
    opportunity to vote by mail.
        One of the things that worries me is, if we talk about
    rejection rates, how do you account for how many people stopped
    waiting in line after six hours? I believe it is people's
    fundamental right to have their ballot wherever they want it.
    If that is by mail or if that is at a vote center, we need to
    provide an opportunity for our voters.
        So, as a nonpartisan election official who has dedicated
    half of my entire life to running elections, I am saddened to
    see us politicize administrative tasks like postal worker--my
    grandmother was also a postal worker--and election
    administration and to demonize election workers. We are civil
    servants, a lot of us nonpartisan, just trying to do the good
    work to make sure that our voters can have their voice heard.
        We fundamentally believe that democracy at its finest is
    when all voices are heard. And how you do that is you remove
    barriers, therefore increasing access. But I question, how many
    people do we lose when we make them stand in line, when they
    have to go to the right place out of 700 places?
        Mr. Raskin. Yeah, I appreciate that very much.
        And there are those who clearly want to blame the messenger
    if the election officials bring back a result that is untowards
    them. For the first time in American history, we have a
    President who is saying, I am not going to necessarily follow
    the results, and people are questioning whether he is actually
    going to leave office. I mean, this is a deranged situation
    that we are in.
        Secretary Padilla, what about you? Do you interpret this as
    an offense against federalism, to be questioning all the State
    election officials, the secretaries of State, about balloting
    processes that have evolved over the decades towards greater
    inclusion?
        Mr. Padilla. Look, I think it is both offensive and
    insulting, not just to State elections officials but to local
    elections officials across the country, like Ms. Wise, and the
    untold number of volunteers, people who sign up to work as poll
    workers to help administer our elections in person.
        In California, we believe in both election security and
    accessibility. It is not an either/or. And now we have to be
    worried about accessibility, security, and safety because of
    the COVID-19 pandemic.
        Voter enfranchisement is not voter fraud. You know, it has
    come up a couple times, so I want to talk about the options for
    how these ballots come back in. In California, we----
        The Chairperson. The gentleman's time has expired, so I
    will give you an opportunity to talk about that when it is my
    turn.
        And the gentlelady from California is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And, Madam Chair, before I ask a question, I just wanted to
    ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the Science
    Advances study dated August 26, 2020, by Michael Barber and
    John Holbein.
        The Chairperson. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Mrs. Davis of California. Okay.
        And I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the
    article from Politico dated August 26, ``Intel Officials
    Contradict Trump on Voting By Mail.''
        The Chairperson. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you very much.
        I wanted to ask Ms. McReynolds: Several excuse States--
    those who require any number of excuses, as we know, from
    people, including whether or not you are pregnant, by the way--
    have changed their rules to allow a one-time exemption, so the
    concern about COVID counts as an allowable reason to request an
    absentee ballot. And this, of course, is better than nothing
    but certainly no substitute for eliminating excuses entirely.
        Do you think those voters in those States are aware that
    they can now vote by mail by virtue of the fact that COVID is a
    concern and a fear that they might have? Do you think that they
    are aware? And how can we best educate them and make sure the
    excuse situations run smoothly? Have you actually seen whether
    there is a big attempt to do that in these excuse communities,
    in excuse States and counties?
        Ms. McReynolds. I appreciate the question. And I actually
    do--we have significant concerns about voter confusion in some
    of these States because of these changes and, frankly, because
    the States lack money to communicate and do voter outreach
    efforts to actually let voters know about that.
        Also, in, for instance, a State like Missouri, they have
    absentee voting, and there is one process for that, and that
    requires an excuse and some extra steps. And then they created
    a new process for what is called mail-in voting. And for mail-
    in voting, you cannot drop off your ballot in person, but if
    you apply for an absentee ballot, you can. And so the Secretary
    of State yesterday announced that they are actually not going
    to roll out the boxes that they have actually purchased. So
    they literally have ballot boxes in storage that Missouri is
    not going to roll out.
        So, yes, I am very concerned about confusion, especially in
    the States with excuses and age limitations, like Texas. If you
    are over 65, it is one process; if you are under 65, it is
    another. And I think that that is extremely confusing to
    voters.
        Mrs. Davis of California. And maybe I will ask all the
    participants on the panel here whether they think that no
    excuse is the better way to go or if they think that those
    States that continue to have people actually be intimidated, in
    many cases, and maybe even choose not to vote as a result, that
    that is okay as well. I just wonder if everybody would weigh in
    on that really quickly.
        Mr. Padilla. I do. There is no reason for no-excuse vote-
    by-mail to not be in effect nationally when the security
    measures show that it works. We maintain the integrity of the
    election, and we make it convenient and safe for voters.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
        Ms. Gupta. I would say, Congresswoman, that, especially
    amid the global pandemic, it is more imperative now than ever
    that no-excuse absentee voting be made available in every
    State.
        And States that continue to erect barriers to this, it is
    hard to understand the rationale for it, given the experience
    without glitch in many other States that have been using this
    system for quite some time.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
        Ms. McReynolds. And I would add, yes, at the very least,
    no-excuse should be available in every State. I, for one, came
    from a State where we had no-excuse and then we transitioned
    because of voters choosing this method of voting.
        I think that is a really important point here, is that this
    isn't politicians or people pushing this down people's throats.
    Voters themselves are opting in to vote this way across this
    country, and it is their choice. It is not anybody else's
    choice; it is the voters' choice.
        So I would take it a step further, based on my experience,
    that I think the models that, for instance, I was a part of
    creating in Colorado and then have happened elsewhere can take
    it to the next level. But, at least for right now, no-excuse is
    absolutely critical.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
        Ms. Wise. Agreed, no-excuse across the country.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Uh-huh.
        And Mr. Palmer?
        The Chairperson. It looks like--Mr. Palmer, has your WiFi
    gone out?
        There you are.
        Mr. Palmer. Congresswoman Davis, can you hear me?
        Mrs. Davis of California. Yes I can. Thank you.
        Mr. Palmer. I looked like I got frozen.
        I think the majority of States are taking the no-excuse or
    excuse with COVID as the primary way to request a ballot. They
    see that as a secure method that they are comfortable with. And
    so you are going to see a lot of that in November.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Would you like to see no-excuse
    voting be more universal in our country?
        Mr. Palmer. I think I am very comfortable with no-excuse
    absentee or no-excuse mail. I think the primary reason, at
    least in the experience I had, was that that ability to request
    from the voter to an election official confirms the identity
    and address of the individual, and it gives a comfort level
    that a lot of legislatures and election officials are
    comfortable with across the country.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
        The Chairperson. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        I would like to recognize the gentleman from North
    Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, for five minutes at this point.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you again to the chair for convening
    this hearing today. This is a very healthy discussion. I hope
    we have a lot of listeners and viewers, because this is a
    conversation that we must have.
        The Ranking Member was very vocal a few moments ago in
    talking about North Carolina, talking about the 2018 election
    in North Carolina Nine, and I am somewhat of an expert on that
    subject. The record should be clear, Madam Chair, the record
    should be absolutely clear that Congress didn't seat the so-
    called winner in that election. Why? Because the board of
    elections didn't certify the election.
        The board found substantial election fraud by Republican
    operatives. Republican operatives not only harvested ballots in
    that election but they destroyed the ballots. I remember it so
    very well. Investigators found that the Republican operatives
    had overseen a network of people who collected absentee
    ballots, which is a violation of our law, and then completed
    those ballots while they were working for Mark Harris, who was
    the Republican nominee in that district.
        And so I just want the record to be perfectly clear.
        To Secretary Padilla, thank you for your testimony today,
    and thank you for your patience with us.
        Nearly half of all registered uniformed and overseas voters
    hold their legal voting residence in California, Florida, and
    the State of Washington. Uniformed servicemembers continue to
    rely primarily on postal mail for their ballots, and the most
    common reason for ballot rejection in 2018 was that the
    completed ballot was received after the State's receipt
    deadline.
        The goal should be that every eligible voter has access to
    the ballot. That is what I think it should be. Every voter
    should have access to the ballot.
        How are you working to ensure uniformed and overseas voters
    have access to that ballot during the pandemic? What are your
    recommendations to uniformed and overseas voters on how best to
    vote in this election?
        Mr. Padilla. No, I appreciate the question.
        As you know, Federal law requires ballots for military and
    overseas voters to go out well in advance of even the rest of
    individuals who vote by mail domestically. So we are coming up
    on that deadline of what we call E-45, 45 days prior to the
    election, to provide ample time for the ballots to get to the
    voter who is overseas.
        I mentioned earlier that we are extending the postmark-
    plus-3 policy in California to postmark-plus-17, probably the
    most generous policy in the Nation, allowing ample time for the
    ballots to be returned. That may be something else to consider
    for an improved national standard, because members of our
    military come from every State in the Nation.
        Mr. Butterfield. Sure.
        Let me ask you this. If uniformed voters rely heavily on
    the postal mail to return their ballots, what impact does a
    delayed Postal Service have on the ability of men and women in
    uniform and their family members to return their ballots on
    time?
        Mr. Padilla. We are certainly hoping to properly support
    and fund the U.S. Postal Service so that members of the
    military, who are serving to defend our democracy and willing
    to pay the ultimate price for our democracy, can participate in
    our democracy and not be disenfranchised.
        An added tool: I have talked about our ballot tracking
    system, Where's my Ballot, in California. Of course, every
    member of the military registered to vote in California can and
    should subscribe to that to receive those alerts and
    confirmation messages when their ballot has been received and
    counted.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
        At this point, I would recognize for five minutes the
    gentlelady from Ohio, the chair of the Elections Subcommittee,
    Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much again, Madam Chair.
        Let me just say that I think it is important that people
    vote the way that they are comfortable voting. If they feel
    comfortable voting from home, they should be allowed to do it.
    And they should be allowed to do it without having to have a
    notary or two adult witnesses or some other foolishness that we
    have in these States.
        Voting is sacred. You talked about John Lewis when you
    first started. It is sacred. It is constitutional. And I think
    that we need to treat it that way. And so those who want to
    vote from home should be able to; those who want to vote in
    person should be able to.
        What we have done in our legislation is to say that, if
    things are so dangerous and you cannot vote in person, we want
    to give you this alternative, and we don't want to make it
    difficult for you. We don't want to put any more impediments in
    your way than we need to.
        Let me just ask each of you, since you all have fortunately
    dealt with this for some time, and, you know, people, like my
    secretary of State, are hoping for more resources. Because they
    are saying, well, we could make this easier if we could put
    postage-paid envelopes, because people will send them back, but
    we don't have the money to do that. Some of the smaller States
    are saying, we need resources for new equipment, because we
    cannot physically put all of these pieces of papers into a
    machine at the kind of speed we need to do it.
        So tell me, what do you think that it would take to really
    get all of our States up to speed resource-wise? You may not
    have an exact number, but for those who have not been doing
    this for a long time, what do you think it is they will need to
    be able to do this well?
        And anyone that wants to answer, please feel free to.
        Mr. Padilla. Well, I will go first, if that is okay.
        First of all, the House of Representatives has already
    taken a significant step in passing the HEROES Act, right? It
    was about $3.6 billion for election modernization and
    administration. I reference in my testimony the recent modest
    appropriations through the CARES Act and the remaining HAVA
    funds. Those are helpful but nowhere near enough.
        And to really put it in context, the last significant
    Federal investment in election modernization and security was
    after the Florida 2000 election debacle. Congress did more in
    response to butterfly ballots and hanging chads than we have
    done in funding or policy in response to documented Russian
    interference in the 2016 election or in preparation for the
    November 2020 election in the era of COVID.
        So additional funding and consistent support for elections.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
        Anyone else?
        Ms. McReynolds. Yes, I would add a couple of things.
        And our organization is working with States on this very
    topic. We have, for instance, an operational toolkit that helps
    them figure out what quantity of mail ballots they are going
    have and then the staff they need.
        So there is still a limited window to implement things like
    ballot tracking and also, for instance, drive-up ballot drop-
    off and things like that, and then certainly to plan adequate
    staffing. So, you know, we want folks to utilize the tools that
    have been created by nonprofit organizations like mine to help
    support election offices. And there are other experts and
    officials that are also working this very topic.
        So those things are all happening. Those are going to
    continue to happen. And, at this point, it is really late to
    order significant equipment, because there is just not a way to
    get that in. What we do want to make sure is that the
    applications get processed, the ballots get processed, and that
    States can process things and have timely results.
        The one flag I would finally say is that, in States like
    Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland, they
    all have policy problems on the books in our State laws that
    prevent election officials from processing ballots prior to
    election day. And that is what creates delays.
        And so those State legislative bodies need to act--and they
    can still do so now--to enable election officials the ability
    and the time they need to actually process ballots.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you. That is something we can do before
    this election, even if we can't get the equipment.
        Ms. Gupta. Congresswoman, if I could also add to that? Can
    you hear me?
        Ms. Fudge. Yes. Please.
        Ms. Gupta. Okay. Just, there still is time for States to
    spend on prepaid postage, to your point that you were making
    earlier.
        And there is also a necessity, as folks have recognized, to
    increase in having younger poll workers. Poll workers typically
    are retirees. We need to make sure that there are enough poll
    workers. And we are doing a lot of poll-worker recruitment at
    the moment, but they need training, they need PPE, and all of
    that costs money.
        Those are resources that, if Congress can support, we can
    make sure that there are--and the NGO community and others are
    working to do this--that there are adequate numbers of poll
    workers that will reduce the need to shut down polling places
    so that we can avoid the kinds of images that we saw in
    Wisconsin. But all of this costs money.
        But this is still--there still is very much a window to get
    this done with additional resources around the country.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
        The Chairperson. Thank you very much.
        The gentlelady's time has expired.
        And, unfortunately, Mr. Aguilar had to leave, so I will
    recognize myself for my five minutes of questions.
        I am going return to you, Mr. Padilla, because I cut you
    off. The five minutes was up. And you were going to explain the
    California procedures where voters get to decide who to give
    their ballot to if they don't want to put it in the mail. Can
    you talk about that?
        Mr. Padilla. So I think the more appropriate term here is,
    you know, what the policy may or may not be on ballot
    collection.
        And so let's put this in context. So California voters
    were--every active registered voter will receive a ballot in
    the mail, by the California schedule, early October, 29 days
    prior to the election. That is the last day for counties to
    send ballots out.
        Voters then have options for how to return the ballot. The
    easiest is by mail. California is one of the States that covers
    the return postage so voters don't have to look for stamps in
    their drawer in the kitchen.
        If people don't feel comfortable with the Postal Service
    because of what has been in the news, they can deliver their
    ballot to any secure ballot drop box that is convenient to them
    in the several weeks leading up to the election.
        Voters also have the option of dropping the ballot off in
    person, if that is their choice, at any voting location in
    their county over the course of the several days that in-person
    voting is being offered.
        And after all that, if--you know, life happens. If you have
    a sick child or some sort of emergency and you can't get your
    ballot back personally, California law empowers voters to
    decide for themselves who they trust to return their ballot for
    them. It used to be limited to immediate family members in the
    same household, but I don't know about you, but I trust my
    neighbor. You know, if we were tied up, I would confidently
    hand my ballot to my neighbor to return for me, if that is what
    I felt comfortable doing.
        So that is really what the California law is: multiple
    options, and voters decide how they choose to return their
    ballot or who they trust to return their ballot for them if
    that is their choice.
        The Chairperson. So I think it is important, all of us who
    are watching the North Carolina debacle--and that was, North
    Carolina does not permit voters to decide that they want their
    neighbor to take the ballot in. But there was a conspiracy,
    really, by political operatives who violated the law. They put
    in false applications for absentee ballots. They destroyed
    ballots. I mean--and they committed crimes, and they were
    prosecuted and convicted of those crimes.
        I would like to ask this. In California, have there been
    any convictions or arrests for misconduct relative to ballots
    being handed to somebody other than the postman?
        Mr. Padilla. Well, we have no documented cases from a March
    2020 primary, but I would also suggest that it is one of the
    tremendous values added of our ballot tracking system. Voters
    will have those alerts, including confirmation of when their
    ballot is received and counted. So more transparency and more
    spotlight on the process is good for election integrity and
    public confidence.
        The Chairperson. So, again, I would like to say that, in
    the 2018 election, both parties had observers, and they were
    there election day, and they were there after election day,
    looking at everything. And there were no complaints filed. You
    know, there were complaints in North Carolina because a crime
    was committed. But not a single election was subject to the
    very partisan people who were there cheering on their side--
    there was no misconduct. So I just think it is important to
    clear the record on that point.
        I would just like to ask this of the election officials
    here. It is possible to have your vote disqualified if your
    signature is off or you don't sign. What steps and what
    education efforts should we make so that all the voters who are
    using a vote-by-mail system have a better chance of their vote
    actually being counted?
        Mr. Padilla, you want to start?
        Mr. Padilla. Sure.
        Well, for purposes of this upcoming election, California
    voters should know that if they are voting by mail, that
    signature on the envelope is required. California law requires
    counties to contact the voter if there is any issue with that
    signature--if there is a missing signature or there is a
    signature mismatch--affording that voter an opportunity to
    correct whatever the issue may be so that their ballot can be
    counted and their voice heard in the process. Of course, if it
    wasn't that voter returning that ballot, then there is another
    issue, maybe, to look into.
        In preparation for November, to try to avoid these issues,
    a public information campaign reminding people to sign the back
    of the envelope; a public information campaign to sign up for
    the ballot tracking tools; public education campaign to verify
    the status of their voter registration.
        And, by the way, when a California voter checks their voter
    registration status part of the information on that record is
    the determination of their votes in prior elections. If they
    voted provisionally or they voted by mail, confirmation that
    those ballots were received and counted, and if not, why not.
    So there would be a flag if there was a signature issue from a
    prior election.
        So a lot of wraparound assurances that the ballot will be
    counted, but opportunities for voters to address any issues
    that they have.
        The Chairperson. My time has expired, and I am going to
    call time for me to be fair. And, really, we have each had a
    chance to ask two sets of questions.
        So I would like to ask unanimous consent that all members
    have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
    and that written statements be made part of the record and,
    also, that additional questions may be sent to each of the
    witnesses. And if that occurs, we would ask, if possible, for
    you to promptly answer those questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairperson. I also ask unanimous consent to enter into
    the record the following materials: ``Considerations for
    Modifying the Scale of In-Person Voting'' by the Election
    Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council, as provided on
    the Election Assistance Commission's website; ``Considerations
    for Election Polling Locations and Voters''' by the Centers for
    Disease Control; ``Guidelines for Healthy In-Person Voting'' by
    the Brennan Center; ``Ballot Drop Box Guidance'' created by the
    Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
        And, without objection, those items are made part of the
    record.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chair, I forgot to ask, may I
    ask unanimous consent to submit a letter from Louisiana
    Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin for the record?
        The Chairperson. Of course. Without objection, that is part
    of the record.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairperson. Seeing no further business before us, let
    me thank each of the witnesses for taking the time to be with
    us today. Your testimony was enlightening, and it is very much
    appreciated.
        And if there is nothing further, without objection we will
    adjourn this hearing, with many thanks to all of you and all of
    the Members.
        [Whereupon, at 3:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]