[Senate Hearing 117-99]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                         S. Hrg. 117-99

              EMERGING THREATS TO ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                 COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 26, 2021

                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration
    
    
    		[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                  Available on http://www.govinfo.gov
                  
                  
                  
				________
	

		       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

46-034 			    WASHINGTON : 2021
                  
                  
                  
                 COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

                             FIRST SESSION
                             
                             

                  AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota, Chairwoman

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         ROY BLUNT, Missouri
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            TED CRUZ, Texas
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                     Virginia
ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
                                     CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee

                    Elizabeth Peluso, Staff Director
             Rachelle Schroeder, Republican Staff Director
             
             
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                  Pages

                         Opening Statement of:

Honorable Amy Klobuchar, Chairwoman, a United States Senator from 
  the State of Minnesota.........................................     1
Honorable Roy Blunt, a United States Senator from the State of 
  Missouri.......................................................     3
Honorable Katie Hobbs, Secretary of State, Arizona Department of 
  State, Phoenix, AZ.............................................     6
Honorable Al Schmidt, City Commissioner, Board of Elections, City 
  of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA..............................     7
Honorable Michael G. Adams, Secretary of State, Commonwealth of 
  Kentucky, Frankfort, KY........................................     9
Mr. Wade Henderson, Interim President and CEO, The Leadership 
  Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington, DC...........    10
Mr. Matt Masterson, Non-Resident Fellow, Internet Observatory, 
  Stanford University, Cincinnati, OH............................    12

                         Prepared Statement of:

Honorable Katie Hobbs, Secretary of State, Arizona Department of 
  State, Phoenix, AZ.............................................    39
Honorable Al Schmidt, City Commissioner, Board of Elections, City 
  of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA..............................    41
Honorable Michael G. Adams, Secretary of State, Commonwealth of 
  Kentucky, Frankfort, KY........................................    44
Mr. Wade Henderson, Interim President and CEO, The Leadership 
  Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington, DC...........    52
Mr. Matt Masterson, Non-Resident Fellow, Internet Observatory, 
  Stanford University, Cincinnati, OH............................    60

                  Questions Submitted for the Record:

Honorable Amy Klobuchar, Chairwoman, a United States Senator from 
  the State of Minnesota to Honorable Katie Hobbs, Secretary of 
  State, Arizona Department of State, Phoenix, AZ................    69
Honorable Amy Klobuchar, Chairwoman, a United States Senator from 
  the State of Minnesota to Honorable Al Schmidt, City 
  Commissioner, Board of Elections, City of Philadelphia, 
  Philadelphia, PA...............................................    70
Honorable Amy Klobuchar, Chairwoman, a United States Senator from 
  the State of Minnesota to Honorable Michael G. Adams, Secretary 
  of State, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Frankfort, KY..............    71
Honorable Roy Blunt, a United States Senator from the State of 
  Missouri to Honorable Michael G. Adams, Secretary of State, 
  Commonwealth of Kentucky, Frankfort, KY........................    71
Honorable Amy Klobuchar, Chairwoman, a United States Senator from 
  the State of Minnesota to Mr. Wade Henderson, Interim President 
  and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 
  Washington, DC.................................................    73
Honorable Amy Klobuchar, Chairwoman, a United States Senator from 
  the State of Minnesota to Mr. Matt Masterson, Non-Resident 
  Fellow, Internet Observatory, Stanford University, Cincinnati, 
  OH.............................................................    76
Honorable Roy Blunt, a United States Senator from the State of 
  Missouri to Mr. Matt Masterson, Non-Resident Fellow, Internet 
  Observatory, Stanford University, Cincinnati, OH...............    78

 
              EMERGING THREATS TO ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2021

                               United States Senate
                      Committee on Rules and Administration
                                                     Washington, DC
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in 
Room 301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Amy Klobuchar, 
Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Klobuchar, Blunt, King, Merkley, Padilla, 
Ossoff, Fischer, Hyde-Smith, and Hagerty.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HONORABLE AMY KLOBUCHAR, CHAIRWOMAN, A 
       UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Good afternoon. I call this hearing 
of the Rules and Administration Committee to order. I would 
like to thank Ranking Member Blunt, who is voting right now, I 
ran into him, he will be back very, very soon, and our 
colleagues, our witnesses for being here today for this very, 
very important hearing. This is about something that we have 
been seeing all over the country, and I don't--sadly, I don't 
think it is going to be the last time that we are talking about 
it. That is threats on our public servants who are working on 
the front lines protecting our democracy.
    Our witnesses here today, and we thank them for coming to 
talk about this, Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, 
Republican Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, Wade 
Henderson, the Interim President and CEO of the Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, as well as Matt 
Masterson, who is right in front of us as well, Former Election 
Assistance Commission member who is now a fellow at the 
Stanford Internet Observatory. Then also, we are going to hear 
remotely, I believe, from Kentucky Secretary of State Michael 
Adams, and I thank him for appearing as well.
    The freedom to vote is fundamental to all of our freedoms, 
and safeguarding that freedom not only requires protecting the 
right to cast a ballot, but also the right to have that vote 
counted. That right depends on election workers across the 
country, including volunteers who work to ensure that our 
elections are free and fair. In the last year, election 
officials and election workers in red, blue, and purple states 
have faced a barrage of threats and abusive conduct from those 
seeking to interfere with the certification of the 2020 
election or overturn the result. I have heard about threats 
from officials in my own state, including threats targeting our 
own Secretary of State Steve Simon, and from others across the 
country.
    These threats have persisted despite the last 
Administration's Department of Homeland Security calling the 
2020 election ``the most secure in American history''. They 
didn't stop after the 2020 election or after the violent 
insurrection on January 6th. Since then, multiple states have 
considered laws targeting election officials with removal, 
fines, and jail time for performing their duties in the same 
manner that made the 2020 election, with its record turnout in 
the middle of a public health crisis, actually so successful in 
terms of people voting.
    According to a survey of local election officials earlier 
this year, nearly one in three felt unsafe because of their 
job, and nearly one in six had received threats of violence. We 
should stop and remember that number again.
    One in six local election officials have reported 
experiencing threats of violence. There are no shortage of 
horrific examples from the last election. In Nevada, an 
election worker and veteran received calls telling her she was, 
``going to die.'' In Georgia, poll workers in 10 counties 
received bomb threats before the Senate runoff election. In 
Washington, an election official's home address was posted 
online along with crosshairs over her photo and the threat, 
``your days are numbered.'' These are not isolated incidents, 
and all three of the election administrators testifying today 
can attest to having their lives threatened.
    At the same time, election workers are facing increasing 
pressure in their job as states pass legislation threatening 
removal or fines for even accidental noncompliance with state 
election laws. In Iowa, the Secretary of State is now required 
to issue a fine of up to $10,000 any time a County Commissioner 
has a ``technical infraction.'' In Georgia, the restrictive 
voting law enacted in March gives unchecked power to the State 
Election Board to remove local election officials. We heard 
about these partisan takeovers of elections at our field 
hearing in Atlanta from one election official who had been 
ousted by the State Legislature after over a decade of service.
    Importantly, these threats have raised concerns about state 
and local Governments' ability to retain election officials and 
recruit workers to administer future elections. We are also 
seeing states taking actions that undermine public trust in our 
elections, including through sham audits like we saw in Arizona 
and that are happening right now in states like Pennsylvania 
and Wisconsin. In the face of these threats confronting our 
elections, it is up to us to take action to address this head-
on.
    The Freedom to Vote Act, which I introduced with the 
members of the Voting Rights Working Group convened by Leader 
Schumer, which also included Senators Merkley, King, and 
Padilla who are on this Committee, as well as Senator Manchin 
and Senator Kaine and Senator Warnock. That bill would do 
exactly that. The legislation includes critical provisions like 
Senator Ossoff's, who also serves on this Committee, his Right 
to Vote Act, which would allow voters to challenge practices 
that interfere with their right to vote in court, including 
actions to empower State Legislatures to determine the outcome 
of elections instead of voters.
    It includes Senator Warnock's Preventing Election 
Subversion Act to protect election officials from being removed 
for partisan reasons and make it a Federal crime to threaten 
election workers or volunteers. It includes my Protecting 
Election Administration From Interference Act to create 
protections against interfering with counting ballots, 
canvassing, and certifying elections, as well as strengthen 
protections for election records. Protecting those on the front 
lines of our democracy should extend beyond partisanship.
    That is why I am so pleased that Senator Blunt and I 
jointly announced this hearing, and I appreciated the strong 
statement he made going into this hearing. I am hopeful that 
this hearing will enable us to hear directly from our witnesses 
about threats that are striking at the foundation of our system 
of government, so we can work toward finding some common ground 
on how we can protect election administration and our election 
workers.
    With that, I turn it over to my friend and colleague, 
Ranking Member Blunt.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ROY BLUNT, A UNITED STATES 
               SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

    Senator Blunt. Well, thank you, Chair Klobuchar, and thank 
you for calling this important hearing. I want to thank our 
witnesses for joining us here today. I spent 20 years as either 
a local election official or the chief election official in our 
state. As Secretary of State, I know the hard work that goes 
into running our elections. State and local officials are 
responsible for ensuring that our elections are run 
effectively, and I think do a great job of taking on the 
responsibility of being sure that people have confidence in 
what happens at the end of that Election Day.
    For more than 200 years, states have been responsible for 
elections, and state and local election officials worked 
tirelessly, often managing multiple elections in a year, 
sometimes with different jurisdictions, but the same day with 
the jurisdictional boundaries that don't exactly meet, but just 
throws another complication into the challenges that local 
election officials have. They deal with the logistics that 
those elections bring, and I am grateful to them for doing 
that.
    Our role in Congress is to support states and their 
administration of elections and give them the help they need to 
innovate and serve the needs of their citizens. This type of 
work can be done in a bipartisan manner, and historically that 
is exactly what Congress has done. After the election in 2000, 
Congress passed the bipartisan Help America Vote Act. It was 
not called the ``Tell States and Local Governments How to Run 
Elections Act'' because it didn't do that and frankly didn't 
occur to Members of Congress at the time that that is what the 
system called for. I think it is better when we work together.
    We have repeatedly worked on iterations of a bill that has 
been solely crafted in this Congress by our friends on the 
other side. Senator Klobuchar and I try hard with this 
Committee to do what we can to bring the election community 
together. We have heard from local election officials that they 
have been subject to increasing threats as they go about their 
jobs for the election, for the American people. While I 
anticipate we will hear a lot from my colleagues about these 
threats, none of us want to hear--to see them happen. This is 
not an issue that just implicates just one party.
    In fact, when I used to do election training sessions, I 
would say there are two of you doing every job. One of the 
reasons is so you can watch each other, but an even bigger 
reason is so you can protect each other by being sure you both 
take that job seriously and your obligation to the other person 
working alongside you just as seriously. Threats and attempts 
to harm election officials, poll workers, or voters should be 
investigated, and where appropriate, they should be prosecuted. 
We have a chance to lower the temperature of the rhetoric 
surrounding elections.
    Today, this hearing provides us with an opportunity to get 
back to the bipartisanship that has for so long defined this 
Committee and on these issues, the United States Senate. We can 
work together to learn about emerging threats to election 
administration. We can learn how states deal with threats, how 
they share information about threats with other states, law 
enforcement and the Federal Government, and how if possible 
Congress can help states improve their ability to respond to 
threats of violence. This hearing provides us with an 
opportunity to hear about states' responses to cybersecurity 
threats. As we know, states will continue to deal with those 
types of threats as well.
    I have heard from many election officials who would like 
increased and improved information sharing, including 
information sharing about threats of physical safety for 
election officials, poll workers, and voters. As states 
administer elections, access to more and better information 
will help ensure elections continue to run safely and smoothly. 
Supporting election officials by ensuring they have the best 
information that they--available to them can help instill 
confidence in their part of the process, and just as 
importantly, strong confidence in the results of our elections.
    Our election workers deserve to be safe and secure in their 
jobs. Voters deserve to be safe as they mark their ballots. As 
I have mentioned, this is a very important issue that deserves 
serious attention. I want to thank my colleagues who are 
participating today and our witnesses for being here today. I 
look forward to a productive discussion.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you very much, 
Senator Blunt. I also welcome Senator Merkley and Senator Hyde-
Smith, who are here, as well Senator King who I see on the 
video screen.
    Our first witness today is Arizona Secretary of State Katie 
Hobbs. Secretary Hobbs has served as Arizona's 21st Secretary 
of State since 2019. She previously served in the Arizona State 
Senate, including as the Minority Leader, and the Arizona State 
House. Earlier in her career, she worked as a social worker and 
focused on issues including domestic violence, behavioral 
health, and homelessness. She also worked for Sojourner Center, 
one of the largest domestic abuse centers in the country. 
Secretary Hobbs earned her bachelor's degree in social work 
from Northern Arizona University and her master's degree from 
Arizona State University.
    Our second witness is Philadelphia City Commissioner Al 
Schmidt. Commissioner Schmidt is serving his third term and has 
served on the Commission since 2011. As City Commissioner, he 
is one of three members, and the only Republican, on the city's 
bipartisan Board of Elections. Commissioner Schmidt began his 
career as a policy analyst for the Presidential Commission on 
Holocaust Assets and also worked as a Senior Analyst at the 
Government Accountability Office. He earned a B.A. from 
Allegheny College and a Ph.D. in History from Brandeis 
University.
    We are going to have Senator Blunt introducing the other 
two witnesses. Okay, thank you. Senator Blunt will be 
introducing--I wanted to make sure we didn't miss you, Mr. 
Masterson.
    Our third witness is Wade Henderson. Mr. Henderson is 
currently serving as the interim President and CEO of the 
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Mr. Henderson 
previously served as President of the Leadership Conference 
from 1996 to 2016, and he has held leadership roles with the 
NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union. He is the recipient 
of numerous awards and honors, including the Hubert Humphrey 
Award for Civil and Human Rights, something near and dear to my 
heart, Hubert Humphrey, and the United States State 
Department's Eleanor Roosevelt Human Rights Award. Mr. 
Henderson earned his bachelor's degree from Howard University 
and his law degree from Rutgers.
    Senator Blunt. Glad to have Secretary of State Adams join 
us from Kentucky, who has been the Secretary of State since 
2020 and is here virtually with us today. Glad he can be part 
of this hearing. Previously he served on the State Board of 
Elections in 2016 and served in that position until he was 
elected Secretary of State.
    In 2007, Secretary Adams began his private practice in 
election law, first as general counsel to the Republican 
Governors Association. Previously, he held positions with 
Senator McConnell, Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher, and the 
Department of Justice in the Bush Administration. He earned his 
bachelor's degree from the University of Louisville and his law 
degree from Harvard Law School.
    Matt Masterson, the second witness invited by us today, is 
currently a nonresident fellow with the Stanford Internet 
Observatory. From 2018 through 2020, he served as a Senior 
Cybersecurity Advisor at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 
Security Agency.
    Before that, from 2014 to 2018, Mr. Masterson served on the 
Election Assistance Commission, including a period as its 
chairman. I am sure many of my colleagues will remember him 
from appearances before our Committee in both of those jobs.
    Early in his career, Mr. Masterson worked for the Ohio 
Secretary of State's Office, where he helped oversee voting 
system certification and efforts. He has a bachelor's degree 
from Miami University, his law degree from the University of 
Dayton School of Law. We are glad to have both of those 
witnesses, as well as the other three here with us today.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Very good. If the witnesses could 
please stand and raise their right hand. Do you swear that the 
testimony you give before the Committee shall be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Ms. Hobbs. I do.
    Mr. Adams. I do.
    Mr. Schmidt. I do.
    Mr. Masterson. I do.
    Mr. Henderson. I do.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Alright, thank you. You can be 
seated, and we will now proceed to your testimony. We will 
recognize each of you for a 5-minute statement. We will begin 
with Secretary Hobbs.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATIE HOBBS, SECRETARY OF STATE, 
         ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, PHOENIX, ARIZONA

    Ms. Hobbs. Thank you, Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member 
Blunt, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 
invitation to be here today. Next week will mark one year since 
the 2020 general election. Unfortunately, in Arizona and in 
other states, some choose to believe that the 2020 election has 
still not ended.
    To be clear, President Joe Biden won Arizona in a free and 
fair election, which was conducted according to the letter of 
the law. In Arizona there were at least nine post-election 
legal challenges, and although every challenge failed as the 
lawsuits mounted, so did the threats against me and other 
election officials. Two weeks after the election, armed 
protesters gathered outside my home and chanted, ``Katie, come 
out and play, we are watching you''.
    I never expected that holding this office would result in 
far right trolls threatening my children, threatening my 
husband's employment at a children's hospital, or calling my 
office saying I deserve to die and asking, what is she wearing 
today so she will be easy to get. These threats have continued 
against me and others, but what concerns me more is the near 
constant harassment faced by the public servants who administer 
our elections. Nearly every day they are on the receiving end 
of abusive phone calls and emails. In Arizona, orange jumpsuits 
were mailed to county supervisors. Last November, as election 
workers tabulated ballots inside the Maricopa County Tabulation 
Center, armed protesters were a frequent presence outside. We 
are already seeing high turnover among election staff, and I 
fear that many more will reach a breaking point and decide that 
this line of public service is no longer worth it.
    In truth, Arizona has one of the best run election systems 
in the country with robust processes to ensure the integrity of 
the election. This includes observer access during tabulation, 
pre and post-election logic and accuracy testing of machines, 
as well as post-election hand count audits. Arizona law also 
requires each county's board of supervisors to canvass the 
election and certify their results to my office.
    After these processes took place in November, I sat 
alongside Governor Doug Ducey, Attorney General Mark Brnovich, 
and Chief Justice Robert Brudenell to certify Arizona's 2020 
election. Despite the bipartisan certification of the results, 
our state legislature decided to perform a partisan ballot 
review. This exercise, performed by our state legislature was 
not an audit. The partisan ballot review in Arizona can best be 
described as a sham. The review was plagued by errors, errors 
that are simply unacceptable to actual election professionals.
    The Arizona Senate hired a firm, Cyber Ninjas, with no 
meaningful election experience or knowledge, and they made up 
the rules as they went along. Millions in tax dollars were 
wasted funding the audit and replacing voting machines rendered 
unusable by the Cyber Ninjas. The same legislators who billed 
it as the most transparent audit in American history now 
potentially face contempt of court for failing to produce audit 
documents. This entire exercise was an effort to sow doubt in 
the 2020 election results and is being used to justify voting 
restrictions.
    From the outset of the ballot review, I said that Arizona 
would become the blueprint for those looking to undermine 
elections. As other states now consider similar politically 
motivated reviews, I am all too familiar with the problems that 
such reviews create. Audits must be based on established rules 
and procedures. They must protect voter data and must be free 
of partisan influence. The ballot review in Arizona failed at 
each of these things and should not be replicated elsewhere.
    Many have remarked that the aftermath of the 2020 election 
was a reminder of just how fragile American democracy truly is. 
But at every turn, Americans have stepped up to protect it, 
election workers who counted ballots fairly and accurately to 
uphold the will of the people, officials who certified free and 
fair elections despite threats of political retribution or 
worse, judges who rejected dozens of bad faith partisan 
lawsuits, Capitol Police officers who stood their ground 
against insurrectionists.
    At every turn, the people who believe in American democracy 
have stepped up and protected it. One person in particular who 
spoke out against the big lie and efforts to undermine our 
democracy was Grant Woods, a former Republican attorney general 
from Arizona and an aide to Senator John McCain. He passed away 
suddenly this weekend, and I would be remiss if I didn't take 
the opportunity to acknowledge him and the way he stepped up to 
defend elections in Arizona and across the country.
    Now it is your turn. Continued inaction in the face of 
these threats to undermine our democracy will have long term 
consequences for the future of our country. I support the 
Freedom to Vote Act and I appreciate the Committee for holding 
this hearing. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hobbs was submitted for the 
record.]
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Secretary Hobbs. 
I didn't know that about Grant Woods. I met him before and am 
sorry for your loss. Thank you for mentioning that. Next up, we 
have Commissioner Schmidt.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AL SCHMIDT, CITY COMMISSIONER, BOARD 
 OF ELECTIONS, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Schmidt Thank you for inviting me to testify today on 
this very important topic. I am Philadelphia City Commissioner 
Al Schmidt. In Philadelphia, the Commissioners oversee all 
election operations in the city, from voter registration to 
election certification. I was first elected to this position in 
2011, reelected in 2015, reelected in 2019, and have overseen 
more than two dozen elections in my nearly 10 years of service.
    I am a Republican, and I believe that counting votes in our 
democracy is a sacred responsibility. For doing my job, 
counting votes, I would like to quickly share with you some of 
the messages sent to me and my family. ``Tell the truth or your 
three kids will be fatally shot.'' Included our address, 
included my children's names, included a picture of our home. 
``Cops can't help you.'' ``Heads on spikes.'' ``Treasonous 
Schmidt.'' ``You betrayed your country.'' ``You lied.'' ``You 
are a traitor.'' ``Perhaps cuts and bullets will soon arrive 
at'', provides my address. Names my children. ``RINO stole 
election, we steal lives.'' There are additional threats that 
my family asked me not to share today because they are so 
graphic and disturbing.
    I have three little kids. My youngest is seven years old. 
No matter what our party affiliation, this is not okay. Let's 
be clear: this is domestic terrorism. The whole point is to 
terrorize, to intimidate, and to coerce and to prevent our 
democracy from functioning as it should. In my case, this 
happened in the city where our democracy first began. It is not 
just threats. These aren't empty promises. Two men who drove up 
from Virginia were arrested outside of the Pennsylvania 
Convention Center, where election operations were consolidated 
in the 2020 election to, ``straighten things out'' and 
intercept an imaginary truckload of counterfeit ballots headed 
to the Convention Center.
    They were arrested with guns and ammunition and lock-pick 
tools. By the way, those two men were also arrested just across 
the street here on January 6th because of their activity on 
that day. They, like many others, were lied to and deceived and 
deranged by those lies. For what? To discredit an election that 
wasn't even close. Unfortunately, my experience isn't unique. 
My colleagues and staff received threats. Democratic and 
Republican election officials across the country have been 
subjected to similar threats or far worse. As a recent report 
by the Brennan Center and the Bipartisan Policy Center has 
detailed nearly one in five election officials now list threats 
to their lives as a job related concern. The threats rise in 
frequency and intensity each time election officials and bad 
faith political actors spread disinformation about the 2020 
election.
    This creates a vicious cycle in which elected officials lie 
to their constituents, deceived constituents believe those 
lies, and then demand that those same elected officials do 
something to fix a problem that never occurred. Then elected 
officials use those two demands as an excuse to do something. 
Most often, doing something means making voting less accessible 
and fuels more violent threats to election officials. This is a 
nationwide problem that demands a national response.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member Blunt, and Members of 
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 
I know working across party lines to find common ground on any 
topic is challenging, let alone on election reform. But for the 
sake of our republic, I hope you can work together to protect 
election administrators and our democratic institutions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schmidt was submitted for 
the record.]
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you so much, and I am so sorry 
this happened to you and your family. I am also sorry for you, 
Secretary Hobbs. This is unbelievably disturbing testimony. 
Next up, we have Secretary Adams of Kentucky. I think you are 
with us remotely.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL G. ADAMS, SECRETARY OF STATE, 
         COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY

    Mr. Adams. Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member Blunt, 
Members of the Committee. Good afternoon. I am Michael Adams, 
Kentucky's Secretary of State and Chief Election Official. I 
was elected in 2019, but I got my start in election policy at a 
little intern desk in your hearing room 22 years ago. It is an 
honor to be back here, albeit virtually. Today we discuss an 
unpleasant topic, but the news is not all bad. In Kentucky, 
voting has never been as accessible nor as secure as it has 
been in the 21 months of my term. Last year, three months after 
being sworn in, I asked our Legislature to grant me, a 
Republican, and our Democratic Governor joint emergency powers 
to alter election procedures as necessary to ensure public 
safety in the pandemic without sacrificing voter access or 
ballot integrity.
    We made absentee balloting more available and extended in-
person voting well beyond the one Election Day Kentucky had 
from 1891 through 2019. The result was a primary election and a 
general election that each set records for turnout, yet no 
spike in COVID-19 cases deriving from the in-person voting. 
This approach proved so successful and so popular that our 
Republican controlled Legislature voted nearly unanimously to 
make most of these temporary changes permanent--early voting, 
an absentee ballot request portal, drop boxes, a signature 
secure process, and more. All this good news ironically lends 
itself to a higher level of frustration by me, by our other 
election officials, by our legislators about the unwillingness 
of certain quarters on both sides of the aisle to accept the 
reality that our election process is accessible and secure. In 
our current populist, anti-establishment political culture, 
part of this is organic, a reflexive refusal to believe 
anything somebody in the Government says.
    This is not unique to elections, as we have seen with 
lagging vaccination rates. However, part of this is not 
organic, but rather is driven by political actors who perceive 
some benefit in misinforming voters. Addressing this should not 
be a partisan issue because misinformation is not limited to 
one side. In Kentucky, we election officials were subject to a 
misinformation campaign that resulted in numerous threats of 
violence and other verbal abuse. The so called All Eyes on 
Kentucky effort directed against us did not come from 
conservatives concerned about voter fraud. It came from 
progressives duped into believing that we were engaged in voter 
suppression.
    Worse, this misinformation effort was given oxygen by 
senior figures within the national Democratic Party. I remain 
grateful to our Democratic Governor for defending our state and 
calling out these lies. I am not here to take political shots, 
to engage in moral relativism, or to diminish the experiences 
of Secretary Hobbs or any other election official. To the 
contrary, I am here to show that the problem is even wider.
    The first step in ensuring the safety of our election 
officials is to do no harm yourselves. Please keep your 
rhetoric factual and responsible. Misinformation is the most 
serious threat our election system faces because it is upstream 
of so many other problems we face: safety of election 
officials, willingness of election officials including 
volunteer poll workers to serve, voter turnout, polarization, 
and ultimately, the accepted legitimacy of our democratic 
system. Election officials are at risk, but we are not unique 
in this.
    Public officials are at risk. Those of you serving our 
Nation in the United States Capitol certainly don't need me to 
inform you of this. In Kentucky, our Democratic Governor has 
received threats from some of the far right. Our Republican 
Attorney General has received threats from some of the far 
left. Even public health officials in our state have received 
threats. My fear is that school board members will be next, if 
they are not already. This shows the problem is worse than we 
might think yet also less susceptible to a simple solution in 
the form of yet another Federal law.
    At its best Congress plays a constructive role in election 
administration by providing funding--reliable, predictable 
funding--to our states, chipping in a share of election costs 
alongside state and local election funding. These efforts have 
been bipartisan, and for that reason, accepted across the 
political spectrum. I have no wish that you pass any particular 
election laws going forward, but if you do, I hope you will do 
so in a non-ideological, bipartisan fashion rather than 
furthering the polarization that plagues our politics. Thank 
you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Adams was submitted for the 
record.]
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Next up, Mr. 
Wade Henderson. Well, yes, go ahead. Then we will go to Mr. 
Masterson. Thank you.

OPENING STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, INTERIM PRESIDENT AND CEO, 
     THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Henderson. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Klobuchar, 
Ranking Member Blunt, and Members of the Committee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to testify today. I am grateful for your 
work to make sure that every voter can safely and freely cast a 
ballot that counts. Since the United States Supreme Court's 
decision in Shelby County v. Holder gutted the heart of the 
Voting Rights Act, we have seen a tidal wave of measures to 
restrict the vote.
    In just the last year surrounding the 2020 Presidential 
election, attempts to deny the franchise closely resemble the 
Jim Crow era in both intent and intensity. Some of the most 
troubling developments have been attacks on election officials 
and the election process itself. Make no mistake, this is race 
discrimination changing form and adapting to circumstances of 
today. It is no less egregious and no less perilous for our 
democracy. Today, I want to talk about how these threats to 
election administration are ultimately about denying people 
their freedom to vote.
    First, let's look at the astonishing rise in threats 
against election workers and their families. Election workers 
and administrators are absolutely essential to a successful 
democracy. No election official should live in fear. Yet, as 
you have heard today, Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, 
Commissioner Schmidt, and others have received death threats in 
connection with their jobs. A recent study by the Brennan 
Center, which has been cited, Brennan Center for Justice, found 
that one in three election workers feel unsafe and one in five 
listed threats to their lives as a job related concern. It is 
simply unconscionable that after showing up during a pandemic 
to deliver democracy to voters, election officials and workers 
are now the target of vicious attacks. These threats have 
devastating consequences not only for the people in danger but 
for democracy itself.
    Growing concerns around the safety and integrity of 
election work will lead to an exodus of election staff with a 
disastrous ripple effect across our democratic processes. For 
voters, that could mean longer wait times, closure of polling 
places, a rise in voter intimidation and harassment at the 
polls, and widespread loss of confidence in elections. 
Lawmakers must take immediate steps to keep the wheels of 
democracy turning safely for voters and election workers alike.
    Second, we must focus on the latest efforts to sabotage 
elections through sham election reviews. Whatever our color, 
background, or zip code, we believe that voters pick our 
leaders. Our leaders do not pick their voters. But in the wake 
of the 2020 election, some officials began pushing anti-voter 
reviews that are catastrophic to the integrity of our 
democracy. They also divert crucial time and taxpayer dollars 
from the issues that matter most to voters. President Trump's 
Department of Homeland Security called the 2020 election the 
most secure in our history. Nonetheless, officials launched a 
sham review in Arizona's largest and most diverse county that 
ultimately revealed a count closely matching the official 
results. This Arizona review has now formed the basis for 
others in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida.
    Why? Because despite pervasive barriers to the ballot, 
black, brown, and native voters in these states are turning out 
in the polls in historic numbers. Election review scams are 
blatant attempts to intimidate these voters and to discount 
their votes in the face of their emerging political power.
    Lastly, I want to acknowledge other equally sinister 
attempts to subvert democracy. In August, the Leadership 
Conference published more than 10 state reports that document 
pervasive patterns of racial discrimination in voting. As the 
reports note, since the 2020 election, states including 
Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and Texas have adopted sweeping 
anti-voter laws that make it harder to vote by mail, limit or 
prohibit ballot drop boxes, and force voters to navigate 
burdensome red tape to cast a vote that counts. Senators, I 
want to be clear, these years of overt and covert anti-voter 
tactics are taking their toll on voters of color. Communities 
trying to engage politically are forced to navigate tremendous 
barriers to the polls.
    These unconscionable tactics are also causing great fear 
and disillusionment about even participating at all. Perhaps 
most destructive, these tactics push Americans to lose hope in 
democracy and to lose faith in the power of their vote. Time 
and again, voters have shown up for democracy. Now I implore 
this body to show up for voters before it is too late. Members 
of the Senate must swiftly pass the Freedom to Vote Act and the 
John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and set the basic 
Federal foundation for voting access.
    I look forward to working with all of you to enact 
reasonable protections to build a democracy that works for all. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson was submitted for 
the record.]
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Next up, Mr. 
Masterson. Thank you.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF MATT MASTERSON, NON-RESIDENT FELLOW, 
  INTERNET OBSERVATORY, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CINCINNATI, OHIO

    Mr. Masterson. Thank you. Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking 
Member Blunt, Members of the Committee, I appreciate the 
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the ongoing 
and pervasive threats targeting election officials, workers, 
and private sector employees who support elections. The 2020 
election placed election officials at the center of national 
attention in a way not seen in decades, if ever.
    Record turnout and a smooth election day validated election 
officials' incredible work. Their reward for this 
professionalism and bravery? Months of threats against their 
lives and the lives of their family members. The perpetrators 
of these threats are fueled by online conspiracies that cast 
election officials as malicious actors bent on meddling in 
election results. Innocuous glitches and human errors have been 
stitched together to fit broad, conspiratorial narratives as 
alternative explanations for election results.
    Recently, myself and a team of students at Stanford 
published an oral history of the 2020 election, where we 
interviewed folks like Commissioner Schmidt and Secretary Hobbs 
and election officials from across the country and the 
political spectrum.
    Virtually all of those who we interviewed shared stories of 
calls, emails, social media posts threatening them, their 
staff, and their families. For instance, Secretary Barbara 
Cegavske of Nevada, a Republican, shared with us that she and 
her family and staff were targeted with death threats regularly 
and even had drones flown over her house. Or Tina Barton, a 
local Republican election official from Rochester Hills, 
Michigan, received death threats, including one that made clear 
that when she went out in public, she would find a knife at her 
throat.
    As the bipartisan Florida supervisors of elections recently 
wrote in a memo to their voters, ``During and after the 2020 
Presidential election, the integrity of our democracy has been 
challenged by misinformation, disinformation, and 
malinformation that sows discord and undermines trust in 
America's electoral process. Many of us have been threatened by 
our fellow citizens, who have been led astray by these 
deceptions.''
    If an additional protection is not provided to those who 
are threatened, many election officials may face the horrible 
choice of either continuing to receive threats for doing their 
jobs or leaving the profession. The field is already losing 
officials at an alarming pace.
    How do we respond to these threats and best support 
election officials? First, we must fund elections consistently 
at the state, local, and Federal level. Regular and consistent 
investment in our elections is needed, and a shared funding 
structure should be implemented in which all levels of 
Government pay for their portion of each election.
    Second, we must ensure the physical security of election 
officials, offices, and staff across the country. The recent 
creation of the Election Threats Task Force at the Department 
of Justice is an important and encouraging step, but a lot more 
must be done. Publication and use of threat data from the DOJ 
Election Task Force should provide necessary data after each 
election regarding the scope and scale of threats against 
election officials and workers, and the responses to those 
threats.
    Increased information sharing regarding those threats in 
order to ensure comprehensive data is collected, analyzed, and 
shared. Local and state law enforcement should be required to 
share activity directed against election officials and workers 
with Federal law enforcement within their state. In return, 
Federal law enforcement should regularly report to state and 
local officials regarding the activity in the jurisdiction with 
full transparency regarding any actions taken, including if 
investigations have been initiated.
    Penalties--following the 2020 election, there have been few 
consequences for those who have threatened election officials. 
Congress and State Legislatures should pass laws offering 
harsher penalties for threats or acts of violence against 
election officials, viewing them as a threat against our 
democracy. Privacy. Many threats, as we have heard against 
election officials and staff directly target their homes and 
their families. More must be done to protect their private 
information from malicious actors.
    Finally, physical security and doxing training. The 
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency should build 
on the work that they did on physical security in 2020 and 
offer training and guidance on physical security and doxing 
prevention measures, utilizing the protective security advisers 
who are present in the states across all 50 states and the 
territories. We must also continue to improve the cyber 
resilience of American elections. Securing the infrastructure--
securing this infrastructure goes hand-in-hand with protecting 
these officials.
    This starts by working with states to implement pre-
certification audits of paper ballots and then establishing 
working with CISA on a voluntary basis--cybersecurity baselines 
to include things like multi-factor authentication, network 
segmentation, access controls, patch management, and moving 
election websites to .gov, as well as additional scalable, 
proactive services from CISA to their state and local election 
officials.
    Our elections are imperfect. They are massive, messy, 
underfunded and under-resourced. But they are accurate, secure, 
accessible, and fair because of the tireless work of state and 
local election officials. The only response to the sustained 
attack on our democracy and against those who run it is a 
sustained investment in those working hard to protect it. I 
thank you and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Masterson was submitted for 
the record.]
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Just a factual 
question first. Do you all agree that threats against election 
workers increased during and after the 2020 election--violent 
threats? Everyone agree?
    Ms. Hobbs. Absolutely.
    Mr. Henderson. Yes.
    Mr. Masterson. Yes.
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Mr. Adams?
    Mr. Adams. Yes.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. Do you believe that makes 
it harder for states and local Governments to recruit and 
retain election workers and volunteers?
    Mr. Masterson. Yes.
    Mr. Schmidt. Yes.
    Mr. Adams. Yes.
    Ms. Hobbs. Yes.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Okay. Secretary Hobbs, can you expand 
on the extent these threats based on what you have seen and 
experienced as Arizona Secretary of State. Do you agree that 
there should be Federal action to address it?
    Ms. Hobbs. Absolutely. As I shared in my testimony, there 
were armed protesters outside of my house. I had to have 24 
hour security and install security features in my home. My 
son's phone number was doxed, and my husband's workplace, 
Children's Hospital, faced calls with horrible accusations and 
urging that my husband be fired because of me. No one should 
have to face this kind of behavior because of their work as an 
election official. Yes, Federal action is needed.
    There should be consistency across the country in terms of 
protection for election workers. Just as with many of the voter 
protections provided in the Freedom to Vote Act, it shouldn't 
matter what state you are in to determine the level of 
protections you are afforded. Furthermore, if it is for a 
Federal election, for a Federal office, then there absolutely 
should be Federal protections.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Commissioner Schmidt, can you share 
with the Committee more about your decision to speak up about 
the threats against you and your staff and your family?
    Mr. Schmidt. Well, I wrestled with it a little bit on the 
front end because on the one hand, you don't want to 
acknowledge people who do something like this. You don't want 
to sort of scratch that itch. You don't want them to know that 
they got to know that you read their text messages or their 
email messages.
    That was, on the one hand, why I was at first hesitant to 
share all this. But on the other hand, it is important to know 
exactly who these people are and what they are trying to do. 
Obviously, not just to me, to many others, and in many cases 
far worse than mine. At the end of the day, I think it was a 
matter of being public about it outweighed my reluctance to, 
you know, acknowledge that they were even doing something like 
this.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. You have previously noted that 
because of where you are located in a city, you had some law 
enforcement help, you had some legal support. Can you speak 
briefly to how that compares to experiences that might be faced 
by election workers in rural parts of your state or rural parts 
of the country, and sometimes their more difficult situations, 
actually?
    Mr. Schmidt. I would say despite all of this, I was very 
fortunate to be in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania Convention 
Center, surrounded by literally hundreds of police officers and 
Philadelphia sheriffs to keep us safe so that we could go about 
doing our job, which was to count votes, while demonstrations 
were occurring right out front.
    Whenever I left the Convention Center, sheriffs went with 
me, made sure that people who came at me were sort of kept at 
bay, going back and forth to City Hall from the Convention 
Center. We also--I think I was fortunate that we had a whole 
phalanx of city solicitors at our disposal to fend off all the 
litigation and other things that we were going through as we 
were trying to do our job.
    Most counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania don't 
have that. They might have one part-time solicitor. They 
certainly don't have the access to resources that we had in 
Philadelphia. You know, relatively, compared to them, it is 
almost embarrassing to be the person sharing this with you 
today because I am sure many of them were not as well protected 
as I was. At home, we installed a comprehensive home security 
system and made other investments to protect our home from 
people like this.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Henderson, could 
you just comment briefly on the importance of strong Federal 
protections for election workers like those in the Freedom to 
Vote Act?
    Mr. Henderson. Yes, Madam Chair. As we have heard from both 
Secretary Hobbs and Commissioner Schmidt, the courage that they 
have demonstrated in carrying out their responsibilities should 
not become the standard by which election administrators are 
measured. How can we possibly expect individuals, regardless of 
party affiliation, to come to the American people's rescue by 
serving effectively in their job as an election administrator 
when they face death threats that go beyond the norm based on 
disinformation that continues to spew forth in ways that 
corrupt the integrity of our elections.
    Certainly, we think that the For the People or the Freedom 
to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act 
have protections that indeed election workers can benefit from. 
The fact that they--it challenges, that legislation challenges 
the way in which election administrators carry out their 
responsibilities, that is to say it protects them from the kind 
of interference that we are seeing, it protects them from being 
replaced by partisan individuals who have no desire to carry 
out a fair and free election, but instead to manipulate the 
outcome in ways that affect the partisan nature of the 
election.
    What we have before us now are individuals who exemplify 
the best in our election system. The legislation, which is 
currently under consideration in the Senate has a number of 
provisions that would address these subversion bills that are 
being enacted in various states. Notably, I should point out 
the number of swing states that will make a difference in 
future elections.
    Whether it is Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Texas, 
Georgia, we are seeing state legislators enact these 
provisions. Only by enacting the Freedom to Vote Act and the 
John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, can we hope to 
address these issues.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am 
going to turn over to Senator Blunt and then Senator Merkley 
will be Chairing while I go and vote. Thank you.
    Senator Blunt. Well, thank you, Chair. For the three active 
election officials right now, Secretary Hobbs, Secretary Adams, 
and Commissioner Schmidt, I think everybody said it was harder 
to recruit and retain election workers now. What are you doing 
about that? When are your next elections in your state, 
Secretary Hobbs?
    Ms. Hobbs. We have jurisdictional elections going on right 
now, but most of those are by mail, so we are not having the 
same need to recruit as many poll workers as we will in the 
2022 election. We are certainly going to continue our efforts 
at recruitment and hope that people will take part in the civic 
engagement. But it is absolutely a concern, and we are 
absolutely seeing turnover in our offices and local election 
offices as well.
    Senator Blunt. Is your bigger concern the people that come 
and work polling places on Election Day or the people that are 
permanently identified as part of the election process by--in 
your office or the local election official?
    Ms. Hobbs. I think our concern really is the loss of that 
professional election administration and the drain, not just in 
Arizona, but across the country of folks that do this work and 
that they--as I said before, it is not worth it anymore for 
these not very high paying jobs and combined with the level of 
threat that they are experiencing at the moment.
    Senator Blunt. Okay. When you are talking about the not 
very high paying jobs you are talking about, in that case, the 
not very high paying permanent jobs.
    Ms. Hobbs. Government jobs, yes.
    Senator Blunt. Opposed to not very high paying Election 
Day--right.
    Secretary Adams, welcome back to the room, even if it is 
virtually, that you were an intern in 22 years ago. But same 
question, what are you seeing happen? Have you had elections 
where you had to have significant numbers of people available 
to conduct elections that day since November 2020? If you have, 
what have you done about that? In fact, I am sure you have.
    Mr. Adams. Well, fortunately, this year is an off year in 
Kentucky. We get one year off from elections every four year 
cycle. That is this year. We do have special elections for some 
vacant legislative seats, starting actually later this week 
with early voting. We have not really seen much of an impact in 
terms of professional election administrators, which is to say, 
State Board of Elections staff or my staff and the Secretary of 
State's office. We have not seen unusually large turnover with 
those folks. What we have seen, though, is a lot of turnover 
with our County Clerks who are elected officials.
    We have 120 counties in Kentucky. They all elect their own 
Chief Election Official at the county level. Last year, we had 
two clerks resign in the middle of their term. They just, they 
had enough. They were exhausted. It wasn't because they were 
threatened or harassed. It was because the job was extremely 
hard last year, and they were just done. This year, there is 
about 15 or so of 120 clerks that have told me they plan to 
retire next year. I think the number will grow bigger. That is 
an unusually large number of retirements. I think it is 
attributable more to exhaustion with the job. We have made 
voting much easier in Kentucky than it had been previously.
    Part of the price of that is it is a harder job now to run 
an election. We have seen some retirements there. With respect 
to our poll workers, it takes 15,000 volunteer poll workers to 
run an election in Kentucky. I testified to our Legislature 
right after I was elected in 2019 before COVID that we had a 
crisis brewing with our poll workers because they typically are 
well into their 60's or 70's. As they are increasingly 
unavailable, they are not being replaced by the younger 
generations.
    I am a Gen-Xer. GenX, unfortunately, has not stepped up in 
a volunteer fashion to be poll workers, so that is a big 
problem that we have. It is not due to threats or intimidation. 
It is just that we are losing poll workers and we have got to 
find a way to inspire people to volunteer, and not just in the 
election sphere.
    Senator Blunt. Commissioner Schmidt, what have you seen 
both with your permanent election day in and day out structure, 
and any concerns about recruiting people to be at the polling 
places for Election Day?
    Mr. Schmidt. We in Philadelphia, the three City 
Commissioners who oversee elections, there are two from the 
majority party and one from the minority party. I won't be 
running for reelection again in 2030. A big concern of mine is 
that I will either be replaced by someone who is elected, who 
is intent on denying the integrity of the election, regardless 
of evidence or on the other side, someone who will not be a 
sufficient check or balance to the Democratic majority on the 
Philadelphia Election Board.
    At the local level, it has been an ongoing problem with 
losing poll workers. Just as the Secretary just said, elections 
become increasingly complex. Our city and many counties in the 
Commonwealth acquired newer and better voting technology that 
is a lot more complicated, or at least it is a lot newer to 
those Election Board workers. In addition to, you know, the 
sort of strain that we have talked about here, and our 
Commonwealth also just instituted mail in, no excuse mail in 
ballot voting, which is an entirely new system of voting to the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
    We had absentee ballot voting before, but now that as well. 
Elections have become a lot more complex. You know, people say 
to me as they say to I am sure many who work in elections like, 
what do you do the other 363 days of the year? Really, what we 
are doing is working every day to make sure that Election Day 
runs smoothly because there are no redos when it comes to 
elections. They have to be right, and they have to be right 
every time.
    Senator Blunt. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. We are going to now 
turn to Senator Angus King, I believe is joining us 
electronically.
    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Glad to be with you, 
Secretary Adams. Delighted to have you with us today. First, I 
want to commend you for your comments at the beginning because 
part of the problem is we have converted political--political 
opponents into enemies and everything is a war. Once we get--go 
down that road of the heated rhetoric, we really need to back 
off from that. I have sitting next to me a big chart of Abraham 
Lincoln's second inaugural. He talked--that is where he said 
with malice toward none and charity for all. If anybody had any 
reason for malice, it was Lincoln at the end of the Civil War, 
but he didn't. I commend you for that. Let me ask you a 
question, is voter fraud a problem in Kentucky?
    Mr. Adams. Well, I would maintain that it is not currently, 
and it has happened in the past. Typically, it has occurred in 
a specific sort of situation where there is a perfect storm in 
three ways. Number one, it happens at the local level. It is 
not occurring at a statewide level or at a congressional level. 
It is happening in a small town or a small county where only a 
few votes can potentially tip a race.
    Number two, its generally for a job that involves 
patronage. In other words, there is some sort of reward for the 
winner and the ability to distribute funds or jobs or what have 
you. Then number three, it tends to occur in a place where 
there is poverty, where votes can be bought for a pretty small 
amount of money. That is where we typically see vote fraud. I 
am certainly not going to wish it away. It does happen. It is 
something that we work very hard to prevent, and when it 
happens, to prosecute.
    Senator King. I think what you said is very important 
because what you said is consistent with everything I have read 
and heard about voter fraud across the country, and that is it 
is isolated. It is not widespread, massive millions of votes. 
It is somebody--one person votes for a dead person or 
something, but it is very unusual and in rare cases. We are 
talking around the problem here with a lot of the conversation 
today has been about the danger and threats to election 
officials.
    The reason those threats are being made is that people are 
being told something that is untrue, that a, there was massive 
fraud, and b, that election officials were in on the fraud. Mr. 
Masterson, isn't--couldn't a lot of this be alleviated if our 
leaders would simply tell the truth to their followers?
    Mr. Masterson. Thank you, Senator King. Certainly, our work 
at the Stanford Internet Observatory and the work I did at CISA 
was to push people to the trusted sources of information about 
the facts with elections. That is your state and local election 
officials who have information about not only the security and 
integrity of the process, but the accessibility and how the 
system works.
    For us, one of the core recommendations that we have in 
combating the mis-and disinformation around elections is really 
driving and elevating the voices of our state and local 
election officials, as is done here in this hearing, to share 
the facts about how elections are run in the states. The fact 
that across all 50 states, our elections are bipartisan, they 
are transparent, and they are professional. So yes----
    Senator King. Well, the problem that I see is that this 
idea of massive voter fraud has become a pretext for 
substantial changes to election law around the country in the 
name of integrity of ballot integrity, when indeed it is the 
classic definition of a solution in search of a problem where 
you are making significant changes, which will inevitably 
affect a significant number of people.
    Mr. Schmidt, what about my thought that one of the most 
important--I mean, there are not enough state troopers in the 
world to guard every election worker. Bearing that in mind, 
isn't the best solution for our leaders to tell the truth to 
their followers about the fact that 2020 and every election in 
recent history has been straightforward and honest, and try to 
wean people from this idea that there is widespread, massive 
voter fraud?
    Mr. Schmidt. Not only are there not enough state troopers 
in the world to protect every election official, but there 
certainly aren't to protect their families as well. I think you 
are absolutely right in terms of the root or core of the 
problem, and the solution normally is to tell the truth. But 
that has only met with so much success.
    Typically, that would be the antidote. I haven't seen that 
be successful as I would like it to. In addition, I think it is 
really about removing motivations for elected officials to lie 
about elections on the one hand. Also, on the other hand, to 
take seriously and successfully prosecute these sort of 
threats, targeting elected officials, trying to intimidate them 
to either do one thing or not do another thing, to do their 
job.
    Senator King. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
I yield back.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator King. I will 
turn to Senator Hyde-Smith.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is 
for Secretary Adams. Mr. Secretary, in your testimony you said 
that voting in Kentucky has never been as successful or secure 
as it has since you took office 21 months ago.
    To echo the mantra of the Kentucky Senator on this panel, 
our Republican leader, our goal should be to make it easy to 
vote and hard to cheat. It sounds like you have been successful 
in achieving that in Kentucky, and I applaud you in that 
achievement. One of the key proposals you focused on has been 
to press the State Legislature to strengthen Kentucky's voting 
laws and voter ID.
    Now, due to your efforts, I think that you have 
accomplished that to show--Kentucky voters have to show a photo 
ID when casting their ballots, as well as in my State of 
Mississippi requires photo ID to be shown at the polls. There 
has been a lot of debate in this Committee about voter ID and 
about what sorts of ID states should be able to require. 
Secretary Adams, why do you think it is important to require a 
photo ID specifically?
    Mr. Adams. Well, I think we need the same degree of 
security in our elections that we need in any other respect in 
our lives, cashing a paycheck, entering a Government building, 
getting on a plane, and so forth. I think that is entirely 
reasonable. It is also important, I think that these laws be 
written in a humane way, that they ensure that people have a 
path to get a photo ID for free. We budgeted several hundred 
thousand dollars in our bill last year to make sure that people 
had access to photo IDs.
    We had our election--fortunately, we implemented this even 
in a pandemic and did not have the predicted disenfranchisement 
that folks thought we might have. Part of this is just for the 
obvious reasons, but the other reason to do this is to have 
credibility when you are trying to do what I have tried to do, 
which is make voting easier also.
    I found that the best way to do election policy is to be 
bipartisan and cross ideological, to work with both sides, and 
then you give both sides, if they are concerned about--the 
Democrats tend to be very concerned about access, and rightly 
so, Republicans tend to be very concerned about security and 
rightly so and so the best of both worlds is to say yes to 
both.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. You feel like it has truly helped 
secure accurate voters, or the elections in Kentucky? You think 
that this has been a step that actually did that?
    Mr. Adams. Yes. It is not a magic wand, to be sure. There 
are other things that we have done, that I think added security 
as well. The absentee ballot request and tracking portal, we 
use that to verify a voter's identity, but also to more 
efficiently ensure access to an absentee ballot and also help 
the voter track the ballot herself, from the comfort of her 
home, see where it is in the system. That holds us accountable. 
It is appropriate. We banned ballot harvesting. I asked for and 
got additional authority to get our voter rolls cleaned up. 
These things all got Democratic votes in our Legislature 
because they were paired with expanded access to the ballot. I 
think that is the best way, with respect to Congress, to make 
election policies is to do it in a bipartisan way.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. In your testimony, you spoke a little 
bit about the Election Reform Bill enacted in Kentucky. I want 
to outline how impressive a bipartisan achievement that that 
bill was. It passed the Kentucky House of Representatives only 
3 days after introduction by an overwhelming vote of 93 to 4. 
It passed the Kentucky State Senate just a few weeks later by 
an overwhelming vote of 33 to 3. It was signed into law by the 
Democratic Governor a few weeks after that.
    I am just hopeful that we can capture some of that Kentucky 
spirit here in the United States Senate and to learn to pursue 
legislation that can bring us together and achieve overwhelming 
support, just as you did in Kentucky. How has Kentucky been 
able to achieve such broad support for its election reforms 
when the issue has become so partisan in other states and on 
the Federal level? How did Kentucky achieve that?
    Mr. Adams. Well, some of it was, the luck I guess, of 
having to run an election in a pandemic. I approached our 
Legislature and asked for emergency powers to be able to make 
changes to acclimate our system to that reality. I didn't feel 
comfortable asking that I have all of that power by myself. I 
was the new kid in town and a Republican, and we had a high 
profile Senate race ongoing last year, so I asked the 
Democratic Governor to be included. I had seen what had 
happened in other states where there were--there was partisan 
warfare between branches of Government, between Democrats and 
Republicans in other states, and it led to election breakdowns.
    I didn't want that to happen in our state. I didn't know 
that that was going to set an example later for bipartisanship 
and legislation. I am really grateful for that. When Congress 
has been at its best, as with HAVA, folks have come together 
across party lines, and I hope that we can do that again.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you so much, and my time is out. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Next up, Senator 
Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. Well, Madam Chairman, if you stayed along 
a little longer, I could have called on myself.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. There we are.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. It is good to have you back. I 
wanted to ask you, Secretary Hobbs, some questions. The review 
of the ballots in Arizona, did they turn up cases of non-
citizens being organized to vote?
    Ms. Hobbs. No.
    Senator Merkley. Did you have some form of vote by mail?
    Ms. Hobbs. Yes.
    Senator Merkley. I was very struck when in a previous 
hearing of this Committee, we heard from a Senator that the 
strategy of voting by mail was a strategy to enable illegal 
immigrants to vote. Is there any sense that in Arizona you 
established vote by mail in order to allow illegal immigrants 
to vote?
    Ms. Hobbs. Absolutely not. In Arizona, vote by mail was 
established by a Republican Majority Legislature decades ago, 
and it is enjoyed by at least 75 percent of our voters every 
election and closer to 85 percent in this last one.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. We also had before this 
Committee, Jocelyn Benson, the Secretary of State of Michigan. 
I asked her the question because of their vote by mail if they 
had reviewed and they had done a search for that type of fraud. 
She had--and she sent us a letter that laid out every step of 
the way, how they ensure that its citizens voting and had found 
zero cases there. As far as I am aware, we have zero cases in 
Oregon and Oregon initiated vote by mail.
    We did have in Oregon, over the course of a decade in which 
61 million ballots were cast and sustained cases of--38 cases 
of voter fraud. I am not saying it doesn't exist. The two main 
types of voter fraud were somebody filling out a ballot in one 
state, like in a primary or general election, then moving to 
another state and filling out a ballot in their new state. That 
is certainly not a coordinated criminal strategy to undermine 
the legitimacy of elections, I don't believe.
    Ms. Hobbs. I would agree with you. That is the same kind of 
instances that we are seeing in Arizona.
    Senator Merkley. Well, that led me to my next question of 
what kind of problems you did find. Did you find ballots 
shipped in from China? Because I kept hearing in the news over 
months that this was a major, major problem in the Arizona 
elections.
    Ms. Hobbs. There were no ballots shipped in from China or 
anywhere else.
    Senator Merkley. What did you find for the fraud from this 
second audit--for this long extended audit?
    Ms. Hobbs. Well, it wasn't an audit, and the procedures 
that they went through really were not procedures at all, 
certainly not acceptable at any level by election 
professionals. They were on a fishing expedition to find 
problems. The problems that they came up with in their report 
were manufactured. In fact, the proper place for election 
challenges is in court. As I mentioned in my opening, we had 
nine such legal challenges in Arizona, and they all failed. 
There is simply no evidence of any of this widespread fraud 
that is continuing to be alleged in Arizona.
    Senator Merkley. Let me turn to Mr. Henderson. Mr. 
Henderson, we are hearing that fraud is continuing to be 
alleged in Arizona after basically none was found, according to 
the Secretary of State. You had mentioned that one of those 
steps and this strategy is weaponizing the examination of 
ballots or the reviews of ballots to spread distrust in our 
election system. Why? What is the purpose of this effort to 
undermine election systems when they are actually working well?
    Mr. Henderson. Thank you, Senator Merkley. It should be 
noted that in Arizona, which was, of course, the home of the 
first audit, it was quite clear that Maricopa County focused 
the most--the largest and most diverse county in Arizona was 
intended to demonstrate by way of the private company Cyber 
Ninjas that apparently fraudulent votes had been counted and 
determined the outcome of the election. Fortunately, the very 
thorough not review itself, because the review wasn't thorough, 
but the examination of what occurred in Arizona has 
demonstrated clearly that no fraud existed.
    Yet that effort has spawned similar initiatives in states 
like Wisconsin and Texas and Pennsylvania. In Texas alone, that 
state was won by the previous President. Yet, notwithstanding 
that, there is a desire to determine whether fraudulent votes 
were cast. Certainly the use of a focus, as some have 
mentioned, you mentioned on undocumented immigrants, the effort 
to focus on Latino voters, African-American voters, Asian-
American voters usually occurs based on the demographic changes 
that have taken place in those communities and the emergence of 
new sources of political power among communities of color.
    This effort to host--to hold reviews, these sham reviews, 
is intended to intimidate those voters and to discourage them 
from coming out in future elections. We have seen that in state 
after state, and Texas is a good example where a previous 
investigation was conducted by the Department of Justice 
focusing on individuals who were previously legal residents but 
had not yet become citizens, and somehow suggesting that that 
population have cast votes fraudulently. There was absolutely 
no evidence to that effect. Many of the voters who had 
previously been in that pool of legally admitted resident 
aliens went on to become United States citizens and should have 
been entitled to vote.
    The effort to intimidate them into not coming back at 
future elections has been consistent and throughout states that 
have chosen to have these audits. That is why we say, they are 
intended to really disenfranchise future voters.
    Senator Merkley. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate 
that.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Merkley, 
and thanks for all your work in this area. Senator Hagerty is 
next.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Chair Klobuchar. Secretary 
Adams, I would like to turn my next questions to you. In your 
experience, Secretary Adams, do voters tend to have more 
confidence in elections when the rules are set by members of 
their community in accordance with local conditions and 
preferences, or when the rules for all 50 states are actually 
dictated in completely partisan fashion by Washington 
politicians and bureaucrats?
    Mr. Adams. Well, I can't say that I have lived through that 
experience, but I can tell you that I believe that part of the 
reason we were able to produce this reform that got praise here 
in Washington and around the country is because we were allowed 
to, because we were allowed to, as a state, solve these 
problems for ourselves. One thing I have seen in polling is, 
folks, I am pleased to say, have confidence in me, but they 
have more confidence actually in their County Clerk.
    That doesn't surprise me because they know their County 
Clerk. They go to church with them. They go to grocery with 
them. The more decentralized our system is, I think, the 
likelier that these policies will be supported by the people 
who then utilize them, and they actually see people they know 
being the poll workers and being the County Clerks.
    Senator Hagerty. That makes complete sense. Secretary 
Adams, numerous polls show that overwhelming majority of 
Americans support common sense election security measures like 
voter ID laws. Many states have enacted such laws. In your 
view, would Federal legislation that nullifies popular state 
election security laws like voter ID increase or decrease 
election security?
    Mr. Adams. Well, I think the thing that we absolutely must 
have for the system to work is public confidence in our 
elections. I do think there are some things that have been 
debated in this chamber that would reduce the security of our 
process. But there is no question they would significantly 
impact voter confidence in our system. The reason I was able to 
get expanded access to the polls in my legislation is because I 
also had security measures to show folks that we were serious 
about that. I think these things have to be paired together.
    Senator Hagerty. Do you think Federal legislation proposed 
by Democrats that requires unlimited ballot harvesting in every 
state would reduce election integrity and security, Secretary 
Adams?
    Mr. Adams. I do, and I can tell you about a specific case 
in Kentucky before my term. We had a mayor of a small town go 
to Federal prison. She engaged in a ballot harvesting scheme. 
Her control of public housing led to her ability to put under 
duress the residents of public housing and compel them to vote 
by absentee ballot under the supervision of her campaign 
volunteers.
    Then those votes delivered the ballots back. There was no 
state law against ballot harvesting at the time. There is now. 
There were Federal charges ultimately brought. But that is the 
kind of stuff I do not want to see happen. Certainly going into 
an election year with local elections on the ballot, as we have 
in Kentucky in 2022, again that is where you typically see 
these sorts of attempts occur. I would certainly oppose any 
Federal effort to overturn our new law to ban ballot 
harvesting.
    Senator Hagerty. Let me turn to election administration 
itself, Secretary Adams. In your view, would enacting on a 
completely partisan basis, by the way, Federal legislation 
proposed by Democrats that overrides state election laws and 
puts Washington politicians and bureaucrats in charge of 
elections in every state. Would that constitute a threat to 
election administration in and of itself?
    Mr. Adams. Well, potentially. I think it certainly would be 
a threat to public confidence if there is just one version, one 
partisan or ideological version of election policy, and it is 
foisted at a national level upon all the states. I don't think 
it would be well received. I think people have confidence in me 
and their county clerks and their poll workers and their 
Governor, for that matter, and I think that folks tend to be in 
more contact with us and see us as directly accountable.
    They tend to trust us more on these issues. I do think that 
federalism is a good thing. Diversity of our country is a good 
thing, and I think that federalism respects that diversity. To 
be clear, I don't think Congress should tell California or 
Arizona or Utah or any state that does things differently from 
Kentucky, how to run their elections either, even if they don't 
like the way those states do those things. I think that all 
states ought to have the right to make those decisions. That is 
what the Constitution actually contemplates.
    Senator Hagerty. I would like to try just a different 
topic. It has been raised already in these discussions today. 
That has to do with the reprehensible notion of threats 
surrounding elections, particularly threats to election 
officials, which I condemn at any level. Secretary Adams, you 
noted in your testimony that it has never been easier to vote 
in Kentucky. That is the case in Tennessee as well, where 
Secretary Tre Hargett has done an excellent job. We have had 
record voter turnout in 2020, thanks to his great leadership 
there.
    You noted that you and your fellow Kentucky election 
officials actually received threats of violence in 2020, 
resulting from a misinformation campaign by a left wing group 
that was egged on by national Democrats. Can you elaborate a 
little bit more on that unfortunate episode?
    Mr. Adams. Sure. I am not trying to target anybody or make 
any hay. I just want to note that this is unfortunately not 
limited to one side of the aisle. In this case, unfortunately 
there was a misinformation campaign that alleged that Kentucky 
was engaged in vote suppression, that it was some sort of 
intentional act by Republicans, namely me, to keep folks from 
voting, specifically African-Americans from voting--it was 
really reprehensible.
    I would say the number one person who helped us push back 
on that was our Democratic Governor. As far as I am concerned, 
it was one of his finest hours in his job as Governor, having 
the courage to stand up to the national media and out of state 
groups and call them on it and say this is false, that we 
actually have made it easier to vote than we ever had in 
Kentucky before. In fact, we had the highest turnout we have 
ever had in a primary election in a pandemic last year.
    Unfortunately, my office got thousands of abusive calls. To 
be clear, most of them were--very few of them actually were 
actual threats. A lot of harassment. A lot of verbal abuse of 
my staff, state workers and election staff. This had two 
problems. One of the obvious, it is a horrible way to treat 
people.
    The other problem is, unfortunately, our calls--phones were 
so logged with those that we believe that some Kentuckians who 
were calling to get information about how to vote an absentee 
ballot or where to go vote on Election Day were not able to get 
through. There is a real suppression angle to this as well.
    Senator Hagerty. Well, thank you for sharing that 
experience. It is regrettable on both fronts. Thank you, Madam 
Chair.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Next up, Senator 
Padilla.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, as 
most of you know, before I joined the Senate, I served as 
California's Chief Elections Officer for six years, and in that 
time I recall proudly working with so many local election 
administrators up and down the State of California, as well as 
with my colleagues from states around the country with the 
shared objective of making sure our elections were as safe, as 
secure, and as accessible as possible.
    In California, I believe we succeeded in meeting that goal, 
and that is in no small part due to the hard work, dedication, 
and absolute professionalism of our local elections workers as 
well. These dedicated Americans are indispensable to the 
strength of our democracy, and it is because of that experience 
that it has been so deeply and personally troubling for me to 
hear story after story of election workers who now fear simply 
going to work, who are afraid that their nonpartisan work to 
help Americans exercise their right to vote and that their 
votes be fairly counted, will make them the subject of threats 
of violence or worse.
    Election workers deserve better, and this Congress owes 
them better, and I hope that we, working together, can deliver 
that. Question for Ms. Hobbs--Secretary Hobbs. Beyond the 
recruitment of qualified full-time election workers, as we 
know, successful elections also rely on the army of temporary 
workers, poll workers by another name, to help staff the polls 
to guide voters, and perform day of election tasks like 
checking voters and checking registration status, providing 
ballots, etc.
    Are you concerned that these ongoing threats to temporary 
election workers as well may also affect the administration of 
elections, including causing so many to choose to not volunteer 
or be reluctant to volunteer?
    Ms. Hobbs. That is certainly a concern we have in Arizona. 
You know, people stepped up in 2020 to fulfill this role in 
record numbers, and we are going to continue to try those 
recruitment efforts. I hope that people will be engaged in that 
way, but I think that what folks have seen in the aftermath of 
the 2020 election is certainly going to put a chilling effect 
on that.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. I think on a related front, we 
know that the Presidential election of 2020 was a fair election 
period. Joseph Biden was elected President of the United 
States, period. Donald Trump lost, period. Those are three 
factual statements. But even today, more than nine months after 
President Biden was sworn in, there are still many in the 
Republican Party who are unwilling to acknowledge these basic 
facts. Instead, a right wing ecosystem of misinformation and 
disinformation continues to perpetuate the big lie that the 
election was stolen.
    Many Republicans refuse to speak up against it. This 
question is for Mr. Masterson. Mr. Masterson, what is the long 
term consequence of these types of misinformation and 
disinformation campaigns, including how they relate to the 
security of future elections or voter confidence in elections?
    Mr. Masterson. Thank you. Senator Padilla, it is good to 
see you. The long term consequences start with the erosion of 
trust and doubt and deception around our democratic 
institutions. The reality is that if our voters do not trust or 
believe in the results of our elections, our democracy is 
unhealthy. You know, struggling to succeed. The reality is, 
that has implications, as we have talked about today, for the 
security of those who work in elections, it has implications 
for America on the national stage, and the health of our 
ability to work with and support emerging democracies across 
the world.
    It impacts us civically and in all kinds of ways where 
truth and facts not just around our democracy, but around any 
area of life begin to fall by the wayside. We have seen that 
certainly around COVID and the COVID vaccine as our information 
ecosystem continues to suffer.
    Senator Padilla. Yes, and last year's census count as well 
for, as we recall experiencing. Madam Chair, I want to have the 
opportunity to finish my next question because this is the 
former Secretary of State in me shining through. We know that 
professional post-election audits based on proven standards and 
methodologies are an important tool for ensuring the accuracy 
and the integrity of election results while building voter 
confidence. I know such audits are a standard part of the 
election certification process, not just in California but in 
states across the country.
    But these audits stand in stark contrast to the type of 
sham audit that was called for this year by the Republican 
State Legislature in Arizona and is being considered by the 
Republican State Legislature in Pennsylvania. Secretary Hobbs 
and Commissioner Schmidt, can you describe how these Republican 
driven sham audits, my words not yours, differ technically from 
the professional standard driven audits that are required in 
many jurisdictions and how they too might impact voter 
confidence?
    Ms. Hobbs. Senator Padilla, I don't know that there's 
enough time left in the day to do that. I will just say that in 
Arizona, the results were canvassed, certified, litigated, and 
legitimately audited, according to the law. What we saw in this 
sham audit was absolutely not a real audit. It detracted from 
transparency--there was no transparency. There were lapses in 
security. Every other professional auditing standard that you 
would see in place was just not there and overseen by people 
with an entirely partisan agenda.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Mr. Schmidt.
    Mr. Schmidt. As a former senior auditor who believes 
strongly in the importance of audits when they are legitimate 
and when they are real and when they are carried out by 
qualified people who know something about auditing and 
something about elections, that is not what we have seen to 
date. In Pennsylvania, every county in the Commonwealth 
conducts an audit after each election. In most counties, 
including ours, we conduct a secondary audit that is even more 
comprehensive on top of that.
    The nexus between your question, the audits, or the so-
called audits and the threat issue are, I know in my experience 
and many others, the threats died down after Election Day, 
after the new President was sworn in. Now that the Legislature 
is talking about instituting some sort of bogus audit in the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, they returned. This level of 
activity rises and falls. It spikes and decreases whenever 
there is sort of this comprehensive misinformation and 
disinformation effort, both around election time and now around 
audits as well.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, both. You know, let alone from 
what I understand in Arizona, the but otherwise would be 
unauthorized access to the actual voting systems themselves and 
with that pretense for future elections. Secretary Hobbs, as 
you said, we don't have enough time in the day. Thank you, 
Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Padilla. 
Next up, Senator Ossoff.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our 
panel. I appreciate your presence here and your answers. 
Secretary Hobbs, nice to see you again. Secretary Hobbs, this 
question is for you. One of the many destructive effects of the 
lies and conspiracy theories fabricated by the former President 
and his attorneys to discredit the outcome of the 2020 election 
was the dramatic increase in threats of violence, attempts to 
intimidate election officials at all levels.
    There was a famous press conference held by a man named 
Gabriel Sterling, the Chief Operations Officer in the Office of 
the Secretary of State in Georgia, a Republican and a 
Republican appointee in which he urged the then sitting and 
defeated outgoing President to cease the lies because people's 
lives were at risk. Georgia has really been at the epicenter of 
this trend. We have seen, as I said, election officials at all 
levels from the Republican Secretary of State and his family, 
all the way to the good samaritan, nonpartisan volunteers at 
polling places subject to abuse, harassment, and threats. We 
saw threats against polling places themselves.
    I have offered legislation to strengthen Federal law 
protecting election officials. I would like you to comment 
based upon your experience as the Secretary of State, how in 
addition to the fear and the harm done by threats of violence 
themselves, how this impacts election administration and really 
is an assault on voting rights.
    Ms. Hobbs. I think what has been much more ongoing and 
constant than the threats themselves are the level of 
harassment that is coming into election offices. To our office 
for sure, not just the elections division, but other divisions 
of our office, keeping people from doing their jobs and then 
election offices across the state. As the Commissioner 
mentioned, when there is something--things seem to die down, 
and then there is heightened awareness again because there is a 
sham audit being proposed or whatever, then things level up 
again. For my office, it has been nearly constant.
    It has been really--people that go to their jobs as public 
servants every day are exposed to this, and it is just--it is 
wearing them down. It is not just the threats, it is this 
constant harassment. Certainly some level of Federal protection 
against the threats would be helpful. But there is just--it 
is--I cannot describe how constant it is and how draining it is 
on people that are having to answer those phones, those emails, 
or check those social media, and it is taking away from their 
ability to do their jobs.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr. Henderson, 
one of the most concerning aspects of SB202, the election law 
that was enacted in Georgia, is that it empowers partisan 
officials at the state level to take over, reconstitute, and 
perform the functions of local Election Boards at the county 
level. This could empower these partisan state officials to 
make decisions about polling places, about polling place 
locations, which can often change at the last moment, about 
processes that should be free of partisan interference and 
under local control, perhaps even decisions about ballot 
disqualification or result certification. Can you please 
comment on how such laws threaten the impartial and fair 
administration of elections?
    Mr. Henderson. Thank you, Senator Ossoff. I should note 
before I answer that Georgia is also the state that has chosen 
to limit voters' access to water and food while they are 
standing in often incredibly long lines that result from having 
closed polling places that would otherwise have been used 
during an election.
    We know that housing discrimination still--it still exists 
in states around the country, and often polling places are set 
up in a way that particularly caters to a community of 
interest. Often, polling places that are closed would otherwise 
serve black communities, brown communities. It is a huge 
problem. The fact that you and Senator Warnock have introduced 
legislation that would seek to limit the ability of State 
Boards of Election to interfere at the local level to remove 
individuals who would otherwise and have served in a 
nonpartisan way for years but would now inject a level of 
partisanship in their responsibility, is something that for us 
is a huge problem.
    That is why we support the inclusion of the effort to 
protect against election subversion in the Freedom to Vote Act. 
This does have a real impact on individuals' willingness to 
trust the election, to feel that their votes will be protected, 
and even to turn out in future elections, which is really the 
purpose of many of these subversive laws. We think it is a huge 
problem, and we know that some of these issues, of course, 
existed because of the 2020 election. We have the big lie, and 
the emergence of misinformation and disinformation have 
certainly corrupted the integrity of the elections and the way 
some view that. However, as had been noted at the outset and 
questions that had been posed to the panel, truth is an 
antidote to much of this.
    If we were able to ensure that previously elected officials 
would speak truthfully about the outcome of the election, that 
would help us certainly protect against this kind of corrosive 
effect. In the absence of that, we need new Federal protections 
that ensure that elections will be administered fairly, in a 
nonpartisan way that respects and protects the interests of the 
actual voters themselves.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. Briefly, with--I 
am already over time here, Madam Chair, I recognize that, but I 
would note that is of particular concern, these elections 
subversion measures where, as we saw in the most recent 
election, the President was putting pressure on the Governor of 
Georgia, the Secretary of State of Georgia, and the United 
States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, to 
overturn the election results.
    Thank you for your testimony, and I would note as well that 
I have introduced the Voters Access to Water Act to prevent 
localities and states from banning the provision of hydration 
to voters who are standing in line by nonpartisan good 
samaritan volunteers. I thank Chair Klobuchar for including 
that bill in the latest draft of the Freedom to Vote Act, and I 
yield.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Thank you for 
your good work. We are going to have a second round. People 
liked your interesting exchanges so much, we have had several 
requests. I am just going to ask a few questions here. 
Secretary Hobbs, you mentioned this in a recent answer you 
gave, but could you give a little more detail about harassment 
directed at your office, how it has impacted public servants 
who are not even responsible for elections like those who 
assist with registering businesses or notarizing documents?
    Ms. Hobbs. Yes, absolutely. The Business Services Division, 
Library Division, and even Address Confidentiality Program have 
calls to their lines or emails sent to them with harassing and 
threatening language. As I mentioned, this has been near 
constant in Arizona since the election almost a year ago. There 
was a staff member in business services who took a call. It was 
threatening in nature, and she--and this is not her job. She is 
not trained in threat assessment, but she kept this caller on 
the phone to get as much information as possible to be able to 
report this to law enforcement and continue to allow this 
abusive behavior so that--because she was afraid if she didn't, 
that somebody was going to get hurt.
    This was really traumatic for her and, you know, impacted 
her work for the rest of the day. But also keeping the caller 
on the phone kept her from doing her normal job. This is a 
division where the most common tasks in terms of what that 
division does, take around four to six weeks in turnaround 
time. This is not helping at all. It is bad for our 
constituents. We have also delayed the opening of our Capitol 
Museum that is under my purview as well, until we could arrange 
security because of what happened here on January 6th.
    I wasn't willing to put our staff in harm's way when people 
who were still upset about the election and still directing 
their anger toward my office could utilize that avenue as well.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Very good, thank you. Mr. Masterson, 
we know that misinformation on social media platforms like 
Facebook is widespread, and there has been bipartisan pushback 
on this right now, whether it is the work that today we have a 
second hearing actually on this in the Commerce Committee with 
Senator Blumenthal and Senator Blackburn, on other platforms, 
specifically Snap and YouTube, as well as TikTok.
    We now know that in the new trove of documents recently 
came out that Facebook deliberately turned off election 
misinformation safeguards right after the election. They were 
worried the safeguards were slowing the growth of the platform. 
Can you briefly explain the severity of the problem of election 
misinformation spread through social media? Do you agree that 
this has been part of the problem with threats?
    Mr. Masterson. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Absolutely. 
This is one of the large challenges. Following the 2020 
election, the Stanford Internet Observatory released a report 
on mis-and disinformation targeting the 2020 election that 
looked at exactly this challenge and made a number of 
recommendations.
    The report highlighted the fact that individual platforms 
suffered from the challenge for consistent moderation of 
content around election and election information and promotion 
of correct or factual election information, again highlighting 
the voices of state and local election officials and also the 
cross-platform challenges that, you know, even if action was 
taken by one platform, a tweet would show up again, maybe in a 
YouTube video or posted on Instagram somewhere. There are a 
number of steps that could be taken.
    The first that we recommend is transparency around the 
data, the interactions with this type of content that the 
platforms can offer a lot more insight to researchers, to 
Congress, and nonprofits around the type of interaction. The 
second is consistent enforcement. Having your policies up on 
your platforms and consistently enforcing the rules around that 
in a transparent way that folks can understand.
    Finally, as we prepare for 2022, that continued need to 
highlight the voices of state and local election officials. For 
instance, search engines, Google could ensure that when someone 
searches for information on election information, the first 
thing to come up is the Secretary of State or local election 
website, as opposed to a trove of mis or disinformation around 
the election.
    I know many of the platforms and worked with many of them 
throughout 2020 to prepare. There was a lot of steps taken, but 
there is a lot more that could be done around transparency and 
support to state and local election officials to combat what is 
undoubtedly coming in 2022 and 2024.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Even beyond election misinformation, 
it has been just coming out more and more, I was seeing today 
the information that Facebook was--they changed their 
algorithms in 2017, I believe. That anger or any kind of 
emotion emoji was worth five times more in the spread of 
information than a like. I just want you to think about that. 
So, if you put some content out, Secretary of State, about 
elections or you put some content out about anything, that is 
just kind of factual, you know, you might get a like people 
agree with you. Maybe I put one out that Senator Blunt did a 
bill together. We did this. We did that.
    You put something out that makes people angry, they are 
going to spread it five times more. I mean, that is a fact. If 
you can get people to do that anger thing and the anger emoji, 
then you are in for five times more the spread.
    I just want all of you to think about that in terms of, you 
know, you may have disagreements about, you know, what 
misinformation is, what it isn't, but that polarization really 
on both sides at that principle, when you have this dominant 
platform that is doing that, that can change literally dynamics 
in how people relate to each other, which I think feeds into a 
lot of what we are seeing. I don't know, Mr. Henderson, if you 
wanted to comment on that,
    Mr. Henderson. Madam Chair, thank you so much and I 
couldn't agree more with your observation. You are absolutely 
right. This disinformation, misinformation campaign has 
certainly undercut public willingness and acceptance of the 
election results as we know them to be. That is a huge problem. 
But I also want to point out that in some minority communities, 
many of the difficulties that we are talking about today with 
the attacks on election administrators are built on top of 
efforts that have already taken place in their states because 
of the elimination of the pre-clearance provisions of the 
Voting Rights Act based on the Supreme Court's decision in 
Shelby County v. Holder. Just two examples of that point.
    In North Carolina, immediately after the Shelby County 
decision was handed down, a monster anti-voter bill was enacted 
into law that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in overturning 
it, announced that it was carried out with almost surgical 
precision to impact black voters. We see the same thing in 
places like Texas. My colleagues at the Mexican-American Legal 
Defense and Education Fund brought a lawsuit involving the city 
of Pasadena, Texas, that immediately after the Shelby County 
decision, decided to completely remake its election procedures 
for the local Government.
    It moved from a city with eight local seats in the city 
election to a group of six with two at-large seats with the 
intent of disenfranchising or the effect of disenfranchising 
Latino voters. Those kinds of problems are--abound in states 
like Alabama and Florida, so that is a huge problem. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Very good, thanks for highlighting 
that. Senator King, a guy that tries to minimize anger on his 
social media posts in favor of constructive comments. I turn it 
over to Senator King and then Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I hope I can 
remain constructive. First, I want to be clear, as one of the 
authors and sponsors of the Right to Vote Act that we worked on 
over the summer, it is entirely within the authority of 
Congress, Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution does in fact 
begin by saying Legislature shall enact voting regulations. But 
then there is a semicolon in the word. But, and it goes on to 
say, Congress may by law alter or amend such regulations.
    Let's get rid of this idea that there is no role for 
Congress or the Federal Government in election laws. Of course, 
the 15th Amendment and going into the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
were examples of that. I think that is important. What we are 
trying to do, what I was trying to do and working on this bill 
is not take over state election laws. I am a former Governor.
    I am a big believer in states rights. We are trying to set 
a floor, a national floor for protecting the right to vote and 
protecting the integrity of the voting system, and to be sure 
that that there aren't efforts in particular states to 
disenfranchise citizens, but it is not--nobody wants to take 
over and run the election system of any of our states, but we 
think that it is very similar to what we do in the area of the 
environment.
    We have basic national standards on the environment and 
then states set their own standards within that context. The 
second thing is, I think the testimony of Mr. Adams, Secretary 
Adams today may be very important because what he said was that 
he engineered, he and working with the Democratic Governor in 
Kentucky, a bipartisan election bill that reflected the views 
of both parties. It passed by the Legislature--passed by the 
Legislature by a huge majority.
    That is exactly what we ought to do here. I heard my 
Republican colleagues, Senator Hyde-Smith and Senator from--
Bill Hagerty from Tennessee talk about the Democrat bill. As 
far as I am concerned, we have put a proposal out there.
    If the Republicans are willing and want to come forward 
with proposals of their own, maybe involving election integrity 
that they think are important or maybe involving anti-voter 
suppression, I don't know, but we have heard nothing but 
silence since our bill was put out into the public realm in 
early September. I want to make it clear here and now on the 
record that I, for one, would be very willing and able to enter 
into constructive discussions with my Republican colleagues on 
what they would like in the bill. I am tired of hearing it 
referred to as a Democrat only bill. It is a Democrat only 
proposal, but now is the time for negotiations. Now is the time 
for Republicans to come forward and say, okay, here is the way 
we think we should do it.
    I think I am speaking for my colleagues in the Democratic 
caucus, I, of course, am an independent, but I think this is a 
time when we ought to try to come together as two parties and 
work on a bipartisan proposal to deal with the issue of voter 
suppression. Indeed, if there are questions of voter integrity 
that need to be dealt with, that ought to be part of this 
package, let's bring them forward and have those discussions. 
You know, you can't clap with one hand.
    We need both sides to come to the table, and I think the 
example of what happened in Kentucky, what Secretary Adams has 
testified to today, is a terrific example for us to follow. I, 
for one, am ready to follow that example. I address my comments 
to Chairman Blunt or to the Vice Chair Blunt and to his 
Republican colleagues. If there are issues on elections that 
you are concerned about, or if they are provisions of the bill 
that we have come forward with that you are concerned about, 
bring them forward to us and let's try to work something out.
    The American people--it would be a great thing for the 
American people to see Congress working in a bipartisan way to 
deal with elections, to try to de-escalate the conflict to some 
extent, and get us to a place where we are able to come to some 
reasonable consensus that will protect access but also protect 
the integrity of the ballot. That is what I wanted to add to 
the conversation, Madam Chair.
    I hope you will second me and say that you yourself, as one 
of the authors of the Right to Vote Act, would also be willing 
and anxious to enter into these discussions should our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle be willing to make 
their own proposals. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Of course, we are always open to 
that. It has just been very difficult because time is ticking 
by here and we have worked very hard on the bill, and we are 
proud that Senator Manchin has his name on it and that we have 
gotten our caucus behind it. In this very room, we made a 
number of changes to the bill to make it easier for rural areas 
to comply. Through the months with Senator Merkley's help as 
well made several other changes.
    The whole idea is just to simply guarantee people the right 
to vote in a way that is safe--in a way that will limit some of 
the horrible aftermath that we saw in this last election and 
other places in terms of suits that shouldn't have been brought 
and in terms of people now questioning the very democracy in 
which the ground that we stand on is founded. That is the idea. 
We think you should make it easier to vote.
    In the past, this has been bipartisan, as Senator King has 
so beautifully pointed out many times, including, as Mr. 
Henderson knows, the Voting Rights Act. Years back, it was 
always a very bipartisan endeavor. It has been disappointing, 
but that doesn't mean that we are going to back down from 
trying to get some kind of agreement or, most importantly, 
getting something passed. With that, I turn it over to you, 
Senator Merkley,
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 
President Henderson, when I asked about the motivation for 
folks spreading distrust in the election system, you noted that 
it was to intimidate voters and decrease turnout. From your 
previous comments, assuming you would probably also agree that 
the goal is to justify election laws that under a facade of 
election security, that are actually about blocking targeted 
groups from voting. Is that a fair way for me to put it?
    Mr. Henderson. Absolutely, Senator Merkley. I agree with 
that completely.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. I was thinking about how 
historians look at an 80 year period in which the only thing 
that was blocked by extended debate in the filibuster were laws 
to protect the voting rights and political power of black 
Americans for 80 years. But the point that historians make is 
it reached a point where they couldn't talk about stopping 
political power for black Americans.
    They had to talk about freedom of speech on the floor of 
the Senate, extended debate, and that was the cover story. 
First Amendment was a cover story for blocking political power 
for black Americans. Is the argument about or the discussion of 
election fraud--the cover story today for blocking the 
political power of black Americans and other citizens from 
minority communities.
    Mr. Henderson. I think your analogy, Senator Merkley, is 
absolutely on point. I think the argument that we are now 
dealing with a climate of fraud and insecurity about our 
elections, which is based again on the big lie, based on 
information that has been refuted time and again in a 
bipartisan way, not just by Democrats, but by the previous 
President's Department of Homeland Security, saying that it is 
the most secure election we have had.
    That kind of information is ignored in favor of the 
disinformation, misinformation, much of it found on Facebook 
and other social platforms, but of course, reinforced by 
statements of the previous President that somehow he lost the 
election through fraud, and that is used to justify harsh new 
legislation that has the effect of blocking black, brown, 
native voters, Asian American voters from participating. Even 
though those are the voters where we see the largest level of 
demographic growth in communities that would author--or rather 
provide voters at the polls. I agree with you completely.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. Secretary Hobbs, so our former 
President seemed to really hate vote by mail, and you told me 
you have vote by mail in your state and that it is fraud free. 
Why? Why do you think that former President Trump hated vote by 
mail so much?
    Ms. Hobbs. I am under oath, so I don't know that I should 
speculate on the former President's thought process. But I 
mean, the fact is that it makes it easier for people to 
exercise their freedom to vote. What we saw when people showed 
up in historic numbers in an election that had multiple 
challenges was that they made their voices heard and it didn't 
go his way. It seemed like from my perspective that what he was 
trying to do was sow doubt in the process and make it harder 
for states who didn't already have robust voting by mail to 
want to implement it.
    Senator Merkley. Okay, I am going put forward a theory, and 
then I am going to ask if you think it holds water. My theory 
is this that it is very easy to manipulate the vote on Election 
Day. By that, I mean, you decrease the number of precincts and 
communities you don't want to turn out.
    You decrease the number of election officials at those 
polling places so there is longer wait times and you can put 
out--probably not the election result, but others can put out 
misinformation about the location of the polling places. The 
elected officials can change the polling places from two years 
earlier, and even information has been put out at times that 
says, oh, we are so sorry, you missed the vote last week, so 
people think they missed the votes when the vote is actually 
the upcoming Tuesday.
    There are many ways to decrease turnout on targeted areas 
on Election Day and vote by mail is an antidote to all of that. 
There is no way--so if we want to talk about fraud, shouldn't 
we talk a lot about the fraud conducted on Election Day? We 
don't really. I want to give you an example. Georgia Public 
Broadcasting said that after 7 p.m. in 90 percent nonwhite 
polling places, the wait time was 51 minutes and in 90 percent 
white polling places, the time was 6 minutes. Huge differential 
by perhaps--I don't know that it was a deliberate strategy, but 
quite possibly a deliberate strategy--it is certainly possible 
it was deliberate.
    Then the analysis went on to note that there's rules in 
Georgia to make the polling places fair in terms of one polling 
place with a cap of 2,000 voters per polling place, but it is 
not enforced. Then I found another analysis said that other 
states have protections that are not enforced.
    My point here is that when I think about the 1 out of 1.6 
million votes cast in Oregon that has been found to be election 
fraud, and across the country, similar rates, aren't we facing 
really a lot of Election Day fraud were strategies to make it 
hard for some people to vote in their community as opposed to 
other communities? Is that a fair thing in your observation 
across the country?
    Ms. Hobbs. I am not clear if you are characterizing 
limiting access to voting on Election Day--is that what you are 
characterizing as fraud?
    Senator Merkley. Yes.
    Ms. Hobbs. Okay, yes. I would agree that the less access we 
provide to voters, whether it is limiting voting to one day or 
otherwise limiting it, the more upper--the less people are 
going to show up to vote, the harder it is going to be to do 
that.
    Senator Merkley. When our Committee went down to Georgia, 
Senator Klobuchar and I listened to stories about people 
waiting, I think five hours was one testimony. Then you think 
about, oh, and it now is against the law to pass out water, or 
if you have to go to the bathroom, you lose your place in line. 
I mean, that is really the type of fraud I am talking about and 
that has a huge impact.
    Mr. Henderson, President Henderson, in your previous work 
with the ACLU and your current work with the leadership 
conference, has there been a systematic study of Election Day 
fraud in terms of kind of stealing the right to vote through 
the manipulation of polling places and polling information?
    Mr. Henderson. Senator Merkley, certainly the organizations 
that I have been affiliated with have studied Election Day 
fraud in that context now. I don't know whether they have 
prepared a specific report. The leadership conference has not. 
But I think your point, which is that there is a history of 
misinformation on Election Day that is intended to dissuade or 
disenfranchise minority voters from turning out at the polls.
    For example, they note that Election Day is actually the 
following Thursday, as opposed to the Tuesday on which an 
election is held, or information that says the polling place 
that you previously used has been closed, but you weren't 
notified, to the extent that that has occurred. That kind of 
information predates these attacks on election officials and, 
as pernicious as the attack on election officials is, it does 
not operate in isolation.
    These and other provisions, which you have talked about, 
the kind of Election Day fraud that is directed at particular 
groups of voters with the expectation that they will not cast 
ballots on that day has existed for some time, which is why I 
referred to many of these changes as being done in the spirit 
of Jim Crow laws that existed prior to the adoption of the 
Voting Rights Act.
    Senator Merkley. I will just close with the notion that I 
would love for ACLU or other organizations to study Election 
Day fraud because I think it is very relevant and it is 
relevant to why vote by mail and early voting are so important 
because they take away the ability to conduct such fraud. I 
think far more Americans, millions of Americans are affected by 
those long lines or intimidation at a polling place, or 
misinformation about where a polling place is, or located in a 
place with no parking. There is many strategies, many forms of 
Election Day strategies.
    I want to thank you all for your service to our Nation and 
the election system. It is absolutely essential that for a 
democratic republic to function well, the foundation has to 
function well. The foundation is integrity in elections and 
trust in that integrity. We have a lot of work to do, and I 
thank you very much for being engaged in that work.
    Chairwoman Klobuchar. Very good. Well, thank you very much, 
Senator Merkley. I want to thank Ranking Member Blunt. He had 
to go to another meeting, but I want to thank him for helping 
us put together this hearing. I want to thank all the witnesses 
and members of the Committee for this informative hearing.
    I also want to thank you for your courage, those of you who 
have received threats, most likely everyone who is a witness 
has received a threat one way or another, and as we all know, 
up on this side of the dais. I want to thank you for being 
willing to come forward. Commissioner Schmidt, your testimony 
about receiving a message saying, tell the truth or your three 
kids will be fatally shot. I don't think anyone is going to 
forget that testimony as we look to what we need to do to fix 
this situation.
    The names of your 7 year old son, 11, and 14 year old 
daughters, your address, photos of your house brings home just 
how horrifying these threats can be. We can all agree that 
these attacks on election workers and their families are 
inexcusable and that if we don't act, we can't expect public 
servants to continue to perform the essential tasks of 
administering our free and fair elections.
    As we pointed out, it isn't just in urban areas, it is in 
suburban areas, it is in rural areas where they may have even 
less access to law enforcement assistance, as you pointed out. 
As Mr. Masterson said in his testimony, election workers are 
the guardians of our democracy. It is clear, as Secretary Hobbs 
and others have noted, that there is a need for action. We need 
to protect those on the front lines of our democracy.
    I think that while a lot of work is done on the state 
basis, I am a big believer in that. But I also think at some 
point as a Federal Government, we need to stand up, as Senator 
King pointed out. Congress and our--actually the drafters of 
our Constitution anticipated that the Congress would have a 
role in making or altering the laws of elections. You know, at 
the very least right now, what we are talking about is that it 
should be a Federal crime to intimidate and threaten or coerce 
those who administer our elections in a Federal election. We 
need to protect against interference in the counting of 
ballots. We need to protect local officials from arbitrary and 
unfounded removal.
    We need to protect against the mishandling of Federal 
election records, which puts both the personal information of 
voters and the security of voting systems at risk. After all, 
the election for President is a Federal election for our entire 
country, and those that work in this building are in the 
Federal system. We need to empower voters to challenge efforts 
in states to make sure that they are not undermining election 
results and enshrine the right to have their votes counted.
    Those are--these provisions are included actually in the 
Freedom to Vote Act, and Senator King extended the olive 
branch, I also invite my Republican colleagues to work with us 
on these commonsense solutions. I want to thank you all coming 
from different parts of the country, different political views, 
different backgrounds, united to upholding our democracy and 
protecting our election officials, of course, your own 
families, but also those that work for you in your offices, as 
well as those at work across your state.
    Thank you very much for your good work. Our election 
officials, regardless of their party, were truly the heroes in 
this last election, and we thank you for your work. Thank you 
very much. The hearing is adjourned. We will keep the record 
open for one week. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

		[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  

                                  [all]