[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE BIDEN - HARRIS BORDER CRISIS:
NONCITIZEN VOTING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-96
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-763 WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
MATT GAETZ, Florida Member
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona ZOE LOFGREN, California
TOM McCLINTOCK, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Georgia
CHIP ROY, Texas ADAM SCHIFF, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina J. LUIS CORREA, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana ERIC SWALWELL, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
BEN CLINE, Virginia MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida Vacancy
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT
CHIP ROY, Texas, Chair
TOM McCLINTOCK, California MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina Ranking Member
KEVIN KILEY, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
WESLEY HUNT, Texas CORI BUSH, Missouri
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina BECCA BALINT, Vermont
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota Vacancy
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, September 10, 2024
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Texas.... 1
The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
the State of Pennsylvania...................................... 3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of New York....................... 6
WITNESSES
Cord Byrd, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Prepared Testimony............................................. 12
Rosemary Jenks, Immigration Accountability Project
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Testimony............................................. 16
Cleta Mitchell, Founder, Election Integrity Network
Oral Testimony................................................. 23
Prepared Testimony............................................. 25
Andrea E. Senteno, Regional Counsel, Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
Oral Testimony................................................. 37
Prepared Testimony............................................. 39
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution
and Limited Government, for the record......................... 61
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
An article entitled, ``Republicans Seize on False Theories
About Immigrant Voting,'' Sept. 5, 2024, The New York
Times
An article entitled, ``Cleta Mitchell, Trump push false
claims of noncitizen voting,'' Mar. 13, 2024, NPR
An article entitled, ``False claims about noncitizens voting
are having a real impact,'' Aug. 30, 2024, NPR
An article entitled, ``Elon Musk's misleading election claims
reach millions and alarm election officials,'' Sept. 10,
2024, The Washington Post
An article entitled, ``Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive
Videos About Noncitizen Voters,'' Sept. 7, 2024, The New
York Times
An article entitled, ``Biden's voter registration executive
order is targeted by GOP,'' Jun. 30, 2024, NPR
A report entitled, ``Noncitizen Voting: The Missing
Millions,'' May 5, 2017, Brennan Center for Justice
An article entitled, ``Top GOP lawyer decries ease of campus
voting in private pitch to RNC,'' Apr. 20, 2023, The
Washington Post
An article entitled, ``Rep. Chip Roy says election deniers
and Project 2025 contributors helped draft SAVE Act,''
Sept. 4, 2024, Media Matters
A document entitled, ``Voter Registration List Maintenance:
Guidance under Section 8 of the National Voter
Registration Act, 52 U.S.C. Sec. 20507,'' Sept. 2024,
U.S. Department of Justice
THE BIDEN-HARRIS BORDER CRISIS:
NONCITIZEN VOTING
----------
Tuesday, September 10, 2024
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:40 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Chip Roy
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Roy, McClintock, Bishop,
Kiley, Hageman, Hunt, Fry, Armstrong, Scanlon, Nadler, and
Balint.
Mr. Roy. [Presiding.] The Subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on
noncitizen voting.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
I thank our witnesses for being here today.
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of
the governed. As Americans, we know that to be the self-evident
truth listed in the Declaration of Independence. It really was
something truly unique at the time and in human history.
We, as American citizens, are not ruled. We govern. The way
we do that is at the ballot box. President Biden and Kamala
Harris' border crisis poses a direct threat to this fundamental
right, and it is intentional.
Radical progressive Democrats near universal opposition to
both H.R. 2 and the SAVE Act proves that this is all by design.
Now, less than two months before the 2024 election, this threat
could not be more real.
Last week, I released a 36-page report detailing the scope
of the border crisis. The report illustrates how the Biden-
Harris open border policies are fundamentally remaking America.
More specifically, it analyzes how the massive influx of
illegal aliens under this administration on top of the millions
of noncitizens already living in the United States could upend
Federal elections for years to come.
Since President Biden and Kamala Harris took office, over
8.5 million illegal aliens have crossed the Southern border;
5.6 million illegal aliens have been released directly into the
United States; almost two million illegal aliens that we know
of have evaded Border Patrol as what are called gotaways. Taken
together, at least 7.5 million illegal aliens have entered the
United States since January 2021, and they are living in every
corner of the country.
This year, the foreign-born population hit a record of over
50 million, 15.6 percent of the total population, the highest
level in U.S. history. Conservative estimates show noncitizens
make up about 30 million of that population, but it very well
could be much higher.
Noncitizens will vote in the 2024 election because our
system not only makes it easy to do but incentivizes doing so.
The Biden-
Harris Administration baselessly claims that it is
extraordinarily rare for noncitizens to illegally vote in
Federal elections.
A 2014 study from professors at Old Dominion University and
George Mason University estimated that 6.4 percent of
noncitizens, 1.2 million individuals at that time, illegally
voted in the 2000 election. The study concluded that
noncitizens very well may have tipped the 2008 Minnesota Senate
race in Al Franken's favor and drove President Obama's victory
in North Carolina.
We can debate the merits of that study, but the point
remains: It would only take a few thousand noncitizens voting,
much less than 1.2 million estimated, to impact the outcome of
our razor-thin elections.
In the 2020 Presidential election, regardless of what you
think, Arizona was carried by about 10,000 votes; Georgia by
about 12,000 votes; Wisconsin by about 20,000 votes, and
Pennsylvania by 81,000 votes.
Democrats know this, which is why they try to downplay and
distract from the issue. The other side also loves to point out
that, quote, ``It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote.''
That is technically true. They fail to mention that the Supreme
Court's interpretation of the National Voter Registration Act
of 1993, or the NVRA, literally prohibits States from verifying
citizenship during the voter registration process. This means
it is impossible for States to enforce the law on the front
end.
Consequently, the primary defense against noncitizens
registering to vote is a literal box-checking exercise on a
voter registration form. This is the only barrier the American
people have to ensuring that only citizens vote.
Because of the Supreme Court ruling, in Arizona, an
individual who can prove they are a United States citizen is
given a full ballot that includes all Federal, State, and local
elections. Someone who cannot prove they are a United States
citizens is given a Federal-only ballot, meaning they can vote
in Presidential, Senate, and Congressional elections. That is
the upside-down world that we have created.
As of August 9th, there were over 41,000 Federal-only
voters in Arizona who could not prove they were U.S. citizens.
Think about that.
The absurdity of the NVRA doesn't stop there. It also
forces States to provide voter registration forms to applicants
for driver's licenses or welfare benefits. This presents
multiple opportunities for noncitizens to register to vote.
Every State in the Union allows noncitizens to get a driver's
license. Nineteen States and D.C. even allow illegal aliens to
get a driver's license. Millions of noncitizens, including many
illegal aliens, are eligible for welfare benefits.
We know the NVRA is broken because noncitizens are
registering to vote and voting.
Since 2021, Texas has removed over 6,500 noncitizens from
its voter rolls. Over 1,900 had voting histories; since 2022,
Virginia has removed 6,300 noncitizens from its rolls; Alabama
removed 3,251 noncitizens from its rolls; and Ohio identified
597 noncitizens, 138 had voter histories.
The States that are doing the right thing and removing
noncitizens from the voter rolls are fighting with one arm tied
behind their backs because they get almost no help from the
Federal Government and Democrat-run States appear to have made
little to no effort to clean their voter rolls of noncitizens.
I introduced the SAVE Act to ensure that noncitizens,
whether knowingly or unknowingly, do not take advantage of our
flawed voter registration system. The bill is a simple bill
that requires States to obtain proof of citizenship before
registering an individual to vote in Federal elections.
A recent poll found that over 80 percent of Americans
support requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. The
SAVE Act's proof-of-citizenship requirement will ensure that
noncitizens do not register to vote, but it is easier for U.S.
citizens to comply with than driver's license applications in
States like New York and Pennsylvania.
The bill also requires every State to identify and remove
noncitizens on their voter rolls and gives them immediate no-
cost access to Federal resources containing citizenship data to
do so.
Finally, it imposes penalties on officials who illegally
register noncitizens to vote.
It passed the House in July with five Democrats supporting
it. Unfortunately, 198 Democrats, including every Democrat on
this Subcommittee, voted against it.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has refused to hold a
vote on the bill in the Senate, and President Biden even
threatened to veto it.
Now, Democrats are threatening to shut down the government
because they are so vehemently opposed to preventing
noncitizens from voting.
So, I ask my Democrat colleagues one simple question: Why?
The answer is obvious. The colleagues want citizens to
illegally vote in the 2024 election and future elections, is
the only reasonable explanation after forcing years of chaos on
the American people. They believe this will help their election
prospects and advance their quest to fundamentally remake
America. As Congress, we have a constitutional and moral
obligation to ensure that does not happen.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her opening statement.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to begin today by acknowledging that this is
our first Subcommittee hearing after the passing of our dear
colleague from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee. Sheila was a fierce,
fierce advocate for her constituents and an ardent defender of
American civil rights, particularly voting rights. Her
contributions to this Subcommittee and to Congress and the
country will be deeply missed.
Of course, I wish that she were here today to push back on
the lies, the innuendo, the half-truths, the speculation which
form the basis for this hearing.
This week, less than two months before the Presidential
election, House Republicans have threatened to shut down the
government unless the Senate agrees to pass the antivoter bill
under consideration in this Committee today.
The SAVE Act would impose unnecessary obstacles on the
ability of American citizens to register and vote, and would do
real tangible harm to our democracy by preventing American
citizens from voting; by causing chaos at election bureaus, and
by undermining faith in election results.
This legislation, crafted with the help of election deniers
and some of the architects of Project 2025, is part and parcel
with Republicans' ongoing effort to undermine faith in our
elections and to create unnecessary barriers to casting a vote,
particularly by suppressing the votes of young Americans,
communities of color, and language minorities.
Former President Trump and his allies are once again using
the same old playbook, spreading a noncitizens voter lie as
part of a cynical campaign to undermine faith in our election
systems.
In 2016, the former President lied when he claimed that
millions had voted illegally only in the States that he lost.
They didn't.
In 2020, he lied about the security and accuracy of mail-in
ballots and claimed that voter fraud was the reason he lost
that election. It wasn't.
Now, he's lying again, this time about noncitizens voting,
to set the stage to challenge the 2024 election results, if he
loses.
The repetition of those lies doesn't make them true, but it
does make them propaganda. The SAVE Act and this hearing are
part of that propaganda campaign.
We've seen time and time again here in Congress and in
State legislatures across the country that bills combating
noncitizens voting are really about politics, not policy. These
bills are not rooted in reality, but are, instead, widely used
to stoke anti-immigrant fear and hatred.
Now, they are being used to sow distrust in our elections
as well. Because contrary to the claims you'll hear today,
noncitizen voting is extremely rare, and the so-called evidence
that our colleagues and their witnesses cite has been
repeatedly discredited with both large-scale studies and even
basic internet research.
The lack of a rational or evidentiary basis for this
legislation is far from the only serious problem with the SAVE
Act. This bill would be a disaster for eligible American voters
and lead to the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of
American citizens.
We know that bills like the SAVE Act which require onerous
and unnecessary proof of identity or citizenship to vote, or
register are more likely to suppress the votes of American
citizens, especially in communities of color and those with
many recently naturalized citizens--more likely to do that than
to prevent the infinitesimally small number of noncitizens who
might mistakenly cast a ballot.
We've seen the dangers of these types of laws in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where I reside, and elsewhere. In
2012, the Pennsylvania legislature passed an onerous voter ID
law to combat the equally nonexistent problem of in-person
voter fraud. That law's requirements would have
disproportionately burdened low-income, minority, elderly,
military, and disabled voters. It would have disenfranchised
over a half million eligible voters who were unable to easily
obtain the limited forms of ID that were required. Civil rights
advocates challenged that law on behalf of Pennsylvania voters
and won.
Troublingly, the SAVE Act goes even further than that State
law, including requirements to register for a Federal election
that would burden every eligible American voter, but especially
those that don't have ready access to documents like a
passport, specialized REAL ID, or a birth certificate. It would
impose additional burdens on already registered voters who
simply want to change their address or party affiliation.
It would require States to use unreliable database
information to verify citizenship, and election officials would
be charged with purging suspected noncitizens from voter rolls
in a way that inevitably targets naturalized American citizens
who are eligible voters. That's something we have already seen
happen in States like Alabama, Texas, and some of the others
that the Chair mentioned.
The SAVE Act, if it were to become law, would take effect
immediately in the days immediately preceding the 2024
election--throwing States' voter registration processes into
chaos. It would provide even more opportunities for extremists
to waste time and taxpayer dollars with baseless lawsuits and
frivolous election challenges.
So, here's the truth: Voters are already required to
declare they're U.S. citizens under penalty of law. That is
because every State has prohibited noncitizen voting in Federal
elections since the 1920s, and it has been a Federal crime for
nearly 30 years.
Because it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote and
register in Federal elections, doing so could result in
significant jail time and deportation. It defies common sense
that large numbers of noncitizens would intentionally risk
these dire consequences to vote.
Think about this: The criminal act of noncitizen
registration and voting, by its nature, creates a long paper
trail of registration forms with addresses; ballots, paper
ballots, et cetera.
Every reliable study ever done on this topic has determined
that noncitizen voting in State and Federal elections is
vanishingly rare and usually the result of a mistake. One such
study conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice using data
from the 2016 election found that, out of 23.5 million votes
cast in jurisdictions with high noncitizen populations,
election officials found only 30 votes were cast by suspected,
but not even proven noncitizens. That's one ten-thousandth of a
percent of the votes cast.
So, the facts simply don't justify the hysteria or the
threat to American citizens' franchise. Even the former Chair
of this Subcommittee, Speaker Mike Johnson, has admitted that
claims of noncitizen voting in Federal elections were not
provable.
The bottom line is the SAVE Act won't prevent noncitizens
from voting in U.S. elections because they don't, but it will
stop Americans from voting, and that's unacceptable.
Look, the reason we're having this hearing now is that
Congress must fund the government by September 30th to avoid a
shutdown. House Republicans have shown by their failure to
engage in good-faith budget negotiations or pass the number of
appropriation bills that need to be done they aren't really
interested in the basic duties of governance, but they do want
to stay in power and to gain power in the Senate and in the
White House. That's why they are supporting this voter
suppression bill instead of working to fund the government over
the next 20 days.
So, here we are, holding this farce of a hearing on a
dangerous bill targeting a nonexistent problem, a bill that has
already passed the Republican-led House, but is a total
nonstarter in the Senate. Rather than making it harder for
American citizens to vote, we should be protecting and
expanding access to the ballot box by passing bills like the
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
It is deeply disappointing that Republicans have chosen,
instead, to spend this Subcommittee's time appeasing the former
President and extremist election deniers ahead of November.
Democrats, however, intend to keep working to ensure that every
eligible citizen will cast their vote and have their voices
heard, because that's what the American people deserve.
I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady. I see we're off to an
agreeable start, as we always are.
I, too, want to say that we will miss the gentlelady from
Texas and her presence here in the Subcommittee, and I, too,
wish she were here for a, no doubt, spirited debate, and may
she rest in peace.
The Chair of the Committee not being present, I would now
yield to the Ranking Member for his opening statement.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also want to start off by commenting on the unfortunate
absence of our late departed friend, Sheila Jackson Lee.
Mr. Chair, Republicans rely on the false premise that there
is widespread noncitizen voting to advance dangerous
legislation like the SAVE Act and other burdensome, unnecessary
measures requiring proof of citizenship to vote in Federal
elections. In fact, it is measures like the SAVE Act that
represent the true threat to the right of American citizens to
vote.
As with so many of the Republican majority's proposals,
proof of citizenship requirements for voting in Federal
elections is a solution in search of a problem. American voters
are already required to declare that they are U.S. citizens
when registering to vote. Federal law already makes it a crime
for a noncitizen to vote or to register to vote in Federal
elections.
The consequences for noncitizens who vote are so dire that
it strains credulity to believe that they are doing so in
significant numbers, especially when the criminal act, by its
very nature, creates the evidence of the crime.
The data that we have on this so-called problem backs this
up. Every credible study has concluded that noncitizen voting
in Federal elections is practically nil. That has not stopped
Republicans from making the wild charge that noncitizens vote
in significant numbers, even though, as former Chair of this
Subcommittee and the current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson
said, ``it is not provable.''
So, Republicans and their extremist MAGA allies at
organizations like The Heritage Foundation, the incubator of
the nefarious Project 2025 blueprint for a potential new Trump
Administration, have resorted to spreading deceptive videos
about noncitizen voting on social media, as The New York Times
recently reported.
We've seen the MAGA playbook, and these extremists have run
some version of this play for years now. Indeed, without a
doubt, it is the same playbook Donald Trump is again relying on
to delegitimize the 2024 Presidential election, so that he has
a pretext for challenging the results if he loses.
How do we know that? Because the very same people behind
his efforts to overthrow the 2020 election, based on lies and
deception, are now spearheading the effort to advance the SAVE
Act.
One of them, Cleta Mitchell, who was on the now infamous
2020 call during which former President Trump asked the Georgia
Secretary of State that he, quote, ``just wanted to find 11,780
votes,'' is even at the witness table today. In other words,
Cleta Mitchell participated in the plot to steal the 2020
Presidential election, and the Republicans have the nerve to
call her as a witness in front of this Committee today.
Ms. Mitchell now Chairs the so-called Election Integrity
Network, which The New York Times referred to as an effort to
recruit, quote, ``election conspiracists into an organized
cavalry of activists monitoring elections.''
Given her history as a lieutenant in Mr. Trump's efforts to
overturn election results, are we, or the American public for
that matter, supposed to find her testimony credible, when she
alleges widespread noncitizen voting? We're not that stupid.
The SAVE Act and the false premise of widespread noncitizen
voting underlying it is based on the same tired conspiracy
theories we have all become accustomed to hearing from the
other side. It is not just some ridiculous talking point meant
to question the legitimacy of the upcoming election. These
burdensome, unnecessary proof-of-citizen measures are also an
extension of the Republicans' insidious decade-long effort to
suppress the voting rights of American citizens, especially
those of color, those from emerging ethnic, and language
minority groups.
Contrary to what the majority might say, measures like the
SAVE Act will weaken the right of every American, of every
eligible American citizen to vote--all to address a nonexistent
problem cooked up by MAGA extremists ahead of the next
election.
Imposing onerous proof-of-citizen requirements to register
for a Federal election will burden every American, will burden
every eligible American voter, but especially those who do not
have ready access to documents like a passport, birth
certificate, or military service record. It will
disproportionately impact voters who are poor or elderly or
disabled, as well as military service members overseas and
women who have changed their names after marriage.
Based on previous State-initiated efforts to require proof
of citizenship to vote and efforts to purge suspected
noncitizens from State voter rolls, we know for a fact that the
SAVE Act will disproportionately impact naturalized citizens
and language minorities, who also tend to hail predominantly,
though not exclusively, from racial and ethnic minority groups,
the very groups that Federal voting rights laws are also
intended to protect. It will further heighten the risk that
election officials charged with purging suspected noncitizens
from voter rolls will target naturalized American citizens and
language minority communities.
I wish I could say that these are unintended consequences,
but the truth is, to the bill's supporters, voter suppression
is a feature, not a bug. I would suggest to the Chair that the
important constitutional prerogative of protecting voting
rights entrusted to Congress would be better served if this
Subcommittee focused on advancing measures like the John R.
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would strengthen the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, rather than holding a hearing on a
bill that is based on a false premise, has already passed the
House, and is dead on arrival in the Senate.
With that, I look forward to the witness testimony, and I
yield back.
Mr. Roy. Without objection, all other opening statements
will be included in the record. We will now introduce today's
witnesses.
The Honorable Cord Byrd. Mr. Byrd is the Secretary of State
for the State of Florida. He previously served in the Florida
House of Representatives, where he was a member of the Public
Integrity and Elections Committee, including a term as Vice
Chair of the Committee. Mr. Byrd also Chaired the State
Redistricting Committee and served as Vice Chair of the
Judiciary Committee.
Ms. Rosemary Jenks. Ms. Jenks is cofounder and Policy
Director of the Immigration Accountability Project, a nonprofit
organization that works to advocate and educate the public on
questions of immigration policy. She has worked on immigration
policy in a variety of organizations for more than 30 years.
Ms. Cleta Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell is a Senior Legal Fellow
at the Conservative Partnership Institute and the founder of
the Election Integrity Network. She has worked in private
practice for many years counseling clients on campaign finance
and election law matters.
Ms. Andrea Senteno. Ms. Senteno is the Regional Counsel of
MALDEF's Washington, DC, office, where she oversees the
organization's legislative and regulatory work and litigation
activity. Previously, she served as a Legislative Staff
Attorney at MALDEF, working on immigration and voting issues.
We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and
raise your right hand?
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you about to give is true and correct to the best of
your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
the affirmative and they have been seated.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered in
the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
summarize your testimony and limit it to five minutes.
I'm going to advise you all that votes are being called
imminently on the floor of the House. They have been called.
When were they called? All right.
We are going to proceed, and we will make a decision on
whether we go through some of you or all of you, depending on
the vote time, but I would like to move forward a little bit.
So, Secretary Byrd, if you don't mind starting, you have
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF CORD BYRD
Mr. Byrd. Good afternoon, Chair Roy, Ranking Member
Scanlon, and the Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here today.
In 2004, the bipartisan Baker-Carter report, prepared by
President Jimmy Carter and Chief of Staff to President Reagan
James Baker, stated that, quote, ``fraud in any degree and in
any circumstance is subversive to the electoral process,'' and
that ``the best way to maintain ballot integrity is to
investigate all credible allegations of election fraud and
otherwise prevent fraud before it can affect an election.''
Voter fraud includes voting by noncitizens in Federal
elections. Every illegitimate vote of a noncitizen negates the
legitimate vote of a citizen. Nationally, preventing
noncitizens from registering to vote and voting is the No. 1
priority of States committed to election integrity.
To put the issue in context, Florida has approximately 13.5
million active registered voters and that number changes every
minute of every day. According to USCIS services, 94,100
Floridians became naturalized U.S. citizens in 2023 alone. That
is a large number but, in elections, small numbers matter. As a
reminder, in 2000, only 537 votes in Florida determined the
outcome of the Presidential race. Miami-Dade County alone,
Florida's largest county, has over 715 precincts. A single
illegal noncitizen vote in each precinct can change the outcome
of a Presidential election.
The NVRA of 1993 introduced national procedures for voter
registration. It mandates that any person who applies for a
driver's license may, if eligible, submit a voter registration
application for Federal elections and must swear or affirm that
he or she is a U.S. citizen.
Remarkably, however, Federal Courts, most recently
including the U.S. Supreme Court, have interpreted the NVRA to
prohibit States from requiring proof of citizen at the time a
person registers. In effect, Federal law forces the States to
use the honor system. This is unacceptable.
Florida needs the assistance and cooperation of the Federal
Government to properly verify the citizenship status of persons
in the United States. The Federal Government has plenary
authority over who becomes a naturalized citizen and is the
only source for citizenship status verification. The challenge
States face is that there is not a Federal legal status
database that is current and reliable.
While the issue has garnered the attention of other States,
and now, thankfully, Congress, Florida has been addressing this
challenge for more than a decade. In 2012, after filing a
lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, Florida
became one of the first States to receive access to DHS's SAVE
database for purposes of voter registration. Florida relies on
this database to verify a person's citizenship status.
To be frank, the SAVE database is neither time-nor cost-
efficient and it requires an alien registration number, which
States occasionally do not possess, to access the information.
Perhaps most importantly, the database also lacks the most
current information, which requires further time-consuming
investigation. Indeed, because of the lack of timely
information, States are sometimes unable to verify a person's
citizenship status. This, too, is unacceptable.
Thankfully, under your leadership, Chair Roy, the House
passed the SAVE Act to address the deficiencies in Federal law
that, unfortunately, make it difficult for States to maintain
clean voter rolls.
Thank you, also, for taking Florida's advice and amending
the SAVE Act to require the Federal Government to proactively
provide immediate notification when a resident of the State is
naturalized.
Because States face challenges with verifying citizenship
on the front end, they must do so on the back end. Clean voter
rolls become even more necessary for ensuring clean elections.
Florida has robust voter roll maintenance procedures to
identify registered voters who are not U.S. citizens.
The names of potential noncitizens are reported weekly to
the Florida Department of State, which then conducts a manual
case-by-case investigation to determine whether the person is
registered to vote and to confirm whether the person is, in
fact, a U.S. citizen using the SAVE database. Once the
investigation is complete, and if the Department determines
that the person who is registered is a noncitizen, due process
is afforded, and the noncitizen is prohibited from voting.
Florida is committed to ensuring that all eligible
Floridians can vote. However, we are equally committed to
preventing election fraud and protecting the integrity of
Florida's voter rolls.
Despite conducting a fair and honest election in 2020,
Florida did not rest on its laurels. In 2022, for example,
Governor DeSantis signed a law creating the Office of Election
Crimes and Security. This is not a fake or contrived issue. In
Florida, we are prosecuting and convicting noncitizens who are
attempting to fraudulently influence our elections.
Florida law States that ``a person may become a registered
voter only if that person is a U.S. citizen.'' In 2020,
Floridians amended the State constitution to make clear that
``only a citizen of the United States'' shall be eligible to
vote. That amendment passed with more than 80 percent of the
vote.
Floridians have changed our State's constitution; we have
strengthened our laws; we have engaged in litigation, and we
have an office dedicated to investigation election crimes. The
only impediment to doing more is the Federal Government. That's
why States need action from our Congressional leaders, so we
can fulfill our Constitutional duties under the law.
In conclusion, I leave you with the words of Mark Twain who
said, ``Citizenship is what makes a republic . . . .'' I
implore you to work with the States to ensure that our Republic
remains strong by only allowing American citizens to vote in
American elections.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Byrd follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Secretary Byrd, thank you very much for that.
Ms. Jenks?
STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY JENKS
Ms. Jenks. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and the
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this
hearing.
I'm Rosemary Jenks, Cofounder and Policy Director of the
Immigration Accountability Project, IAP. As the name implies,
we focus exclusively on immigration policy and how it impacts
America, including our elections. IAP is also a founding member
of the Only Citizens Vote Coalition.
As you know, the Immigration and Nationality Act makes an
alien who falsely claims U.S. citizenship--for example, by
registering to vote or who illegally votes--inadmissible to the
United States and deportable from the United States. The 18
U.S.C. 611 also makes it a Federal crime for a noncitizen to
vote in a Federal election.
Based on data from the Census Bureau and the Department of
Homeland Security, we estimate that there are currently around
30 million noncitizens residing in the United States. The open
borders policies of the Biden-Harris Administration have added
at least 7.5 million of these noncitizens on top of regular
legal immigration in just the last almost four years.
Obviously, this massive population of noncitizens would
have no impact whatsoever on our elections if they were
securely prevented from voting. However, the requirements of
the 1993 Voter Registration Act, or ``motor voter law,'' and
the 2002 Help America Vote Act, make it virtually impossible to
prevent noncitizens from registering to vote, either
accidentally or intentionally.
Neither a driver's license nor a Social Security number
provides proof of U.S. citizenship. All 50 States and the
District of Columbia issue driver's licenses, including REAL
IDs, to lawfully present noncitizens, while 19 States also
issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
Moreover, every alien who is authorized to work in the
United States is eligible for an SSN. The Biden-Harris
Administration has been handing out work authorization
documents like candy to inadmissible aliens, with SSN issuances
following close behind.
So, we have Federal voter laws that do not require proof of
citizenship to register to vote, combined with a massive
population of noncitizens with valid driver's licenses and
SSNs. When you add to that President Biden's unprecedented
Executive Order 14019, along with the huge network of NGO's
receiving billions of dollars in Federal, State, and local
funding to provide services to the millions of illegal aliens
being released into our country by the Biden-Harris
Administration, you have a recipe for fraud.
There are strong indications that some of these NGO's are
providing the aliens with voter registration forms. For
example, the contract New York City signed with an NGO called
Homes for the Homeless to provide migrant housing includes a
requirement that the NGO, quote, ``provide and distribute voter
registration forms to all persons.''
Imagine you're a new arrival to the United States with
limited English proficiency. If a government official, whether
at the DMV or some other agency, or an NGO paid by the
government to take care of you, hands you a form and says,
``Just check this box and sign your name,'' you're probably
going to comply. As soon as you do, you are guilty of a
deportable criminal offense. You have, essentially, been
entrapped into a criminal act by a government agency or NGO,
acting either with indifference or with nefarious purpose.
Do we at IAP believe that millions of noncitizens are going
to show up at polling locations to vote in November? No, but
some surely will. The problem is that, once a noncitizen's name
is on the voter roll, that name can be attached to a ballot and
voted.
In States that automatically mail ballots to registered
voters, a ballot will be mailed to whatever address the
noncitizen provided, whether it's the address of a migrant
shelter, a hotel, a homeless shelter, or a residence. What will
happen to that ballot and others like it? Will it be harvested,
filled out, placed in a drop box?
Opponents of requiring proof of citizenship to register to
vote, including every Democrat on this Subcommittee, dismiss
those who support it by saying it is already illegal for
noncitizens to vote, but they know noncitizens, including
illegal aliens, do register and vote. Otherwise, why would H.R.
16, the amnesty bill that all the Democrats on this
Subcommittee have cosponsored, explicitly allow DHS to waive
illegal voting for amnesty applicants? Why would H.R. 3194, an
amnesty bill that three of the Democrats on this Subcommittee
have cosponsored, and the Biden-Harris Administration wrote,
automatically waive both illegal voting and false claims to
citizenship?
Why is it OK if even one American citizen's vote is
canceled by an illegal vote? What if it's your vote? It's time
to pass the SAVE Act.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jenks follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. I thank you, Ms. Jenks.
Ms. Mitchell?
Ms. Mitchell, can you hit your microphone?
STATEMENT OF CLETA MITCHELL
Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Chair, thank you. Ranking Member and the
Members of the Subcommittee, I'm Cleta Mitchell, Senior Legal
Fellow at the Conservative Partnership Institute.
There are several reasons why the SAVE Act is absolutely
necessary. Safeguarding American voter eligibility is and does
exactly what the title says; it safeguards American voter
eligibility, and it's desperately needed to secure the 2024
elections.
The SAVE Act will reverse a decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court from 2013 in which the Court ruled that only Congress can
direct and decide the content of the Federal voter registration
form to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register and vote
in U.S. elections.
Quite simply, the SAVE Act would do what the Supreme Court
determined in 2013 that only Congress can do, which is to
safeguard eligibility for voting in Federal elections by
requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote.
With the borders opened on January 21, 2021, by the Biden-
Harris Administration, and illegals pouring across our borders
by the millions, and being taken who knows where in our
country, the SAVE Act has become absolutely vital to protecting
our elections from illegal voting by noncitizens.
Not only will the SAVE Act require documentary proof of
citizenship to register to vote, but it also contains other
components that are vital for the 2024 elections.
It requires that States compare their existing voter list
to citizenship data, to identify and remove noncitizens who are
already registered.
It establishes a new criminal penalty for those who
knowingly register noncitizens to vote.
It requires Federal agencies to make available to the
States, at no cost, citizenship data that State and local
election offices can, in fact, confirm citizenship of persons
registered or seeking to register.
One important aspect of the SAVE Act would be to ensure
that the 22 States who allow same-day registration--meaning
that a person can register and immediately be allowed to vote--
will not be eligible to vote until having provided proof of
citizenship. This requirement alone will interrupt one of the
biggest threats to the integrity of the 2024 election--the
organized roundup by political advocacy groups of scores of
illegals to register and vote them on the same day, before
anyone can determine if those individuals were eligible to vote
in the election.
Democrats oppose the SAVE Act, ostensibly, because it is
already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal election.
Yes, it is, and it is also illegal for millions of people to
swarm across our borders without documentation, but,
nonetheless, this administration, under Border Czar Kamala
Harris, has adopted just such a policy of opening the door and
letting anyone and everyone into our country--illegally,
already against the law.
If the Democrats sincerely want to keep noncitizens from
voting, then let me ask you: Where are the enforcement actions
from the Department of Justice? Where are the memos to U.S.
Attorneys across the Nation warning about potential violations
of the prohibitions on noncitizen voting? Where is the FBI
hotline to report suspicious registrations of illegals? When is
the Merrick Garland press conference announcing that it's
illegal for noncitizens to register and vote in the election,
and violators will be apprehended, prosecuted, and deported?
Did I miss that public education campaign? I must have--because
it doesn't exist.
The Democrats' plan for 2024 is to change the electorate.
If they cannot persuade the American people to want their
Marxist policies for America, just import voters who don't
speak the language; don't have a shared commitment to our
country and our national principles. Get them into the very
porous voter registration system and collect their votes.
Just Facts researcher James Agresti published a report that
a conservative estimate is that there will be, based on his
past experience, between one and nearly three million
noncitizens who will vote in the 2024 election.
Democrat-controlled cities like San Francisco, New York,
and Washington, DC, have granted voting rights to noncitizens.
Leftist groups have fought the citizenship question on the 2020
Census. Every Democrat in Congress voted against putting the
citizenship question back on the Census.
Every Democrat in Congress also voted no to apportioning
U.S. House seats based on citizenship instead of population.
Why? Because California would have lost four U.S. House seats
in 2010 and three more in 2020 if only citizenships--if only
citizens had been counted for apportionment of the U.S. House.
That's not only U.S. House seats; that's seven electoral votes
for the Democrats. It is why Democrats voted no on reversing
the decision of the District of Columbia to allow noncitizens
to vote. For Democrats, noncitizens are their future political
base.
Please do the right thing. Pass the SAVE Act. Save our
elections. Save our country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mitchell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Mitchell.
As much as I hate to do this, because it's going to cutoff
Ms. Senteno, I think we need to get over to the floor and vote.
So, I'm going to apologize profusely. You get more time to
prepare and we look forward to hearing your testimony. So, we
will stand in recess while we go to the floor.
Thank you all very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Roy. [Presiding.] I call the hearing back in order.
Thank you for your patience when we went over to the floor to
go vote.
We will now proceed with the final testimony. I apologize
again because I know that we had to break. Now, the spotlight
is all yours.
STATEMENT OF ANDREA E. SENTENO
Ms. Senteno. Good afternoon Chair Roy, Ranking Member
Scanlon, and the Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Andrea
Senteno, and I am the Regional Counsel of the D.C. Office of
MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund.
For 56 years MALDEF has worked to promote the civil rights
of all Latinos living in the United States. I thank you for
this invitation to appear today.
The MALDEF focuses its work in five subject matter areas,
education, employment, immigrant rights, voting rights, and
freedom from open bias.
Since its founding, one of MALDEF's top priorities has been
to secure equal voting rights for all Latinos and to promote
increased civic engagement and participation within the Latino
community.
The MALDEF has litigated numerous cases in court to
challenge at large systems, discriminatory redistricting,
ballot access barriers, undue voter registration requirements,
voter assistance restrictions, and failure to provide bilingual
ballot materials.
At 19 percent of the total population, Latinos accounted
for 51 percent of the Nation's population growth between 2010-
2020. Similarly, the Latino population is responsible for
significant growth in the U.S. electorate.
Latinos represent an estimated 50 percent of the total
growth of eligible voters from 2020 to this year's Presidential
election. Latinos are expected to make up 17.5 percent of the
total voting population in the upcoming general election. An
estimated 1.8 million Latinos become eligible to vote each
year.
Despite these facts, there's a misrepresentation that the
Latino community is still overwhelmingly composed of
noncitizens. The majority of Latinos, of the Latino population
is U.S. born and 81 percent of all Latinos in the U.S. are
citizens.
Unfortunately, national demographic change is often
perceived as a threat to too many in political power, and the
result historically has been persistent at increasing efforts
to suppress the vote and political power of the Latino
community.
These perceptions of the Latino population and its growth
serves as the basis for unsupported allegations of widespread
voter fraud often attributed to noncitizen immigrant Latinos.
Yet, overwhelming evidence has shown that noncitizens are
not voting in U.S. elections in mass. Noncitizens are barred
from voting in Federal elections, and it is a Federal felony to
register to vote unlawfully.
Every State in the Nation currently prohibits noncitizens
from voting in State elections. Voters in every State must
affirm or verify their citizenship to register to vote. State
election officials must verify a voter's eligibility.
Numerous studies such as those by the Brennan Center and
the Cato Institute have shown that there is no significant
number of noncitizen voting. Multiple efforts to try to produce
evidence of significant noncitizen voting have failed.
This makes sense when one considers the unlawful, that
unlawful voter registration and voting carries deep immigration
consequences, including deportation and the inability to ever
naturalize in the future.
This voter fraud disinformation targets Latinos and voters
of color. The suppression tactics take the form of things like
unlawful voter purges, restrictions to language assistance at
the polls, or restrictions to mail ballots.
In 2019, MALDEF successfully sued Texas Secretary of State,
David Whitley, and others, challenging an advisory to country
registers to single out naturalized U.S. citizens for
investigation and removal from the voter rolls based solely on
the fact that they were born outside of the U.S.
There is an allegation of over 95 thousand non-U.S.
citizens to be on the voter rolls and thousands to have alleged
illegally. This claim was based on erroneous information,
including outdated driver's license information.
Ultimately, the case settled, and State officials were
required to change the way that they identified voters to
investigate as at least 25 thousand voters on those rolls, on
the erroneous purge list were actually U.S. citizens.
These types of tactics undermine the public's trust in our
elections and erode voters' confidence in participating in our
elections. Unfortunately, H.R. 8281, the SAVE Act, fails to
meet the needs of many of the voters in the U.S. who need
Congress to lead the way in safeguarding the right to vote
against voter discrimination.
When approximately 30 percent of the U.S. citizen voting
age population is unregistered to vote, Federal and State
legislators must work to encourage voter registration of
eligible voters, not hinder it. Safeguarding each eligible
citizen's right to vote should not be a partisan issue.
The MALDEF urges Congress to pass H.R. 14, the John R.
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. This bill would provide
voters with necessary and effective tools to push back against,
to push back and prevent voter discrimination where it occurs.
We look forward to working with Congress to advance the
voting rights of all Americans and ensure our elections make it
possible for every eligible U.S. citizen to register and cast a
ballot. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Senteno follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. We will now proceed under the five-minute rule
with questions. I will recognize the gentleman and my good
friend from California, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are two basic
questions implicit in this hearing. The first is, should
noncitizens be allowed to vote?
The Constitution is silent on this point. So, it falls to
State legislatures to answer this question for their own
elections, and for the Congress to answer that question for
Federal elections.
The States and Congress have answered that question clearly
and decisively, that American citizens and only American
citizens have a right to vote to guide the American Nation. To
me, that's the most fundamental definition of citizenship.
I think that's a view held by the overwhelming majority of
Americans. It's obviously not held by many Democratic officials
in the jurisdictions that they control. The irony is that so
many of them just a few years ago were complaining about
foreign influence in American elections by making internet
posts. Now, they've got no problems with illegals actually
voting in our elections.
That's beside the point. Assuming that most people agree
that voting in American elections should be the exclusive right
of American citizens, the next question is, how do we prevent
the votes of foreign nationals canceling out the votes of
American citizens?
To this question the Democrats tell us well, that's a
nonissue, because there's no evidence that foreign nationals
are casting votes in American elections. If you look at the
actual studies, that's simply not true.
The Chair mentioned the 2014 Old Dominion/George Mason
University study of noncitizens voting. They concluded 6.4
percent of noncitizens voting in 2008, and that 2.2 percent
voted in 2010.
That's not the only study out there. In 2014 Stanford
University came to a similar conclusion. They concluded, and I
quote,
The proportion of noncitizens who voted was less than 15
percent, but significantly greater than zero. Similarly, in
2010 we found that more than three percent of noncitizens
reported voting. In addition, the analysis suggests that
noncitizens' votes have changed significant election outcomes,
including the assignment of North Carolina's 2008 electoral
votes and the pivotal Minnesota Senate victory of Democrat Al
Franken in 2008.
That is before the last four years, when this Administration
has allowed an additional 7\1/2\ million illegal migrants into
the country. A population that is larger than the State of
Arizona, our 14th most populist State with nine Congressional
districts and 11 electoral votes.
At the moment, the RCP average tells us that only 1.1
percent of the vote separates Harris and Trump. So, if two
percent of those votes is illegal, I guess, that's the
definition of rare illegal voting. Well, that means that two
percent of Americans' votes are being canceled out by those
illegal votes of foreign nationals. That is more than enough to
decide the Presidential election.
Even if this was not happening, the mere perception of it
is enough to destroy public confidence that the vote will
accurately reflect the will of the American people.
Now, Secretary Byrd, isn't it true that many States have
done surveys of their voter rolls and found thousands of
foreign nationals on them? That many of them have a history
voting?
Mr. Byrd. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. McClintock. Can you give us any additional details on
that?
Mr. Byrd. So, I can tell you, in Florida we have been at
this process for more than a decade. As I mentioned, we sued
the Department of Homeland Security in 2012, so we have some
experience of this.
Since 2022, Florida has removed over a million individuals
off the voter rolls. Some of which includes noncitizens. In
fact, we have two individuals who have recently been arrested
and prosecuted for attempting to fraudulently influence
elections in Florida.
So, this isn't a fake or contrived issue.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Mitchell, what do you know on this
subject?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, I conclude in my written testimony some
examples of exactly how problematic it is. How many--I'll give
you a couple of examples.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation sued the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania in 2018 to obtain the records regarding
noncitizens being added to the voter rolls in Pennsylvania. The
Department of Transportation admitted that there was a quote,
``glitch in the system that added 100 thousand aliens to the
Pennsylvania voter rolls.''
That State, that litigation is still ongoing because of
efforts by the State, Department of State in Pennsylvania to
not answer the questions.
Mr. McClintock. The Democrats have just told us that's,
don't worry about that. That the penalties are so great that no
one would dare to illegally vote.
It's already a Federal crime to cross the border without
permission to begin with. It's a felony to do so repeatedly.
As you pointed out, that by definition, has not acted as a
deterrent for any of these individuals. I know in California
you can't prosecute somebody for voting illegally, unless you
can prove they actually knew it was illegal.
All a defendant would need to say is, hey, they handed me a
registration form. They sent me a ballot. How was I to know?
That's a valid point. How many people are in legal jeopardy and
don't even know it?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, that this is one of the things that
people don't realize, is that these are, this is a really
vulnerable population.
As Ms. Jenks pointed out in her comments, if somebody hands
you a form and you don't really speak the language, and
somebody's shepherding you around and they're responsible for
getting you benefits, and you're just putting your name on
things, how do they know?
That is happening. It is happening as we speak. That one of
the things that's problematic is that--I also include in my
testimony, a reference to some announcements by Virginia's
Governor about removing more than 63 hundred noncitizens who
are on the Virginia vote rolls.
Those were people who self-declared. Who realized, oh my
gosh, we are on the voter rolls, and we're not supposed to be.
There are several other States that have done likewise.
So, this is a big, this is not an insignificant problem.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Roy. Thank you. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. We continue to say well, it must be
like this. We've heard some testimony about removing millions
of people from the voter rolls in Florida.
Without any clarification about how much, or how many were
actually foreign nationals. Without any clarification with
respect to whether or not they'd actually voted.
We've heard again about Pennsylvania. There's no evidence
to back up the assertion that was made, that 100 thousand
noncitizens have been registered to vote. That's actually been
disputed repeatedly.
So, it seems Ms. Mitchell is playing fast and loose with
the facts to further this conspiracy theory.
Ms. Senteno, we talked earlier about the civil rights
advocates in Pennsylvania who challenged a misguided voter ID
law that would have disenfranchised almost a half million
people. It would have meant that IDs like care facility IDs,
retired and veteran, military and veteran IDs, student IDs, and
more were inadequate to vote with.
We know that other policies that construct unnecessary
barriers to voting like the SAVE Act, disproportionately impact
students, military, disabled folks, elderly folks, minority,
and low income folks.
Can you talk about why these types of proposals are such a
burden on these populations?
Ms. Senteno. Yes, thank you. I want to start from the
premise that if a State is going to burden the right to vote,
there must be evidence to justify it.
The fact is, that stringent voter identification
requirements impose real costs on democracy and specifically on
voters. In 2006, the Brennan Center for Justice found that 25
percent of African Americans and 16 percent of Latinos did not
have a current valid government issued photo ID, compared to 11
percent of all U.S. citizens surveyed.
So, many State issued IDs, they're generally offered for
free in States that require votes to display them to vote, but
the documents that voters must obtain to get those free IDs,
themselves are not necessarily free. The opportunity to obtain
those documents are also not equal across different
demographics and income levels.
So, just in Texas, to obtain a birth certificate, it's $23
at minimum. Or, if you need to obtain a certificate of
citizenship, the price for that is over $1,300 to obtain that
document.
So, when you take into account the time and expense
necessary to gather those documents, it is very clear that this
puts a disproportionate burden on voters of color, on poor
voters, on voters with disability, on the elderly, and on young
voters.
Ms. Scanlon. That is exactly what we saw in Pennsylvania.
I'm particularly concerned about suppression of young people's
votes.
Particularly, as at least one of the majority's witnesses
has been an outspoken proponent of making it more difficult for
college students to vote. Student IDs are not considered an
acceptable form of ID to vote under the SAFE Act, even if
coupled with additional proof of citizenship.
Many young people these days don't have driver's licenses
or even passports. So, can you talk about why this proposal and
other similar voter suppression tactics are particularly
harmful to our young voters, our newest voters?
Ms. Senteno. Yes. That's exactly right. Obtaining an
acceptable photo ID can be especially difficult for young
people. Student IDs are one of the easiest and affordable ways
for students to prove their identity.
For the Latino community, this is a particularly concerning
issue, given that the Latino population nationally is
comparatively young.
The median age of Latinos is 30.4 years, compared to 38.9
for the total population. More than a quarter of K-12 students
are Latino. This is the future of the U.S. electorate.
So, when you combine these factors with the expense and
difficulties of obtaining necessary documents to obtain certain
types of identification versus a student ID, the result really
is the suppression of young voters who are more likely to be
voters of color.
Ms. Scanlon. Ms. Senteno, according to a recent The New
York Times article, in late July, MAGA activists affiliated
with Ms. Mitchell's Election Integrity Network, met on a Zoom
call to discuss how to keep undocumented immigrants from voting
in November. A problem they claim inaccurately, to be a looming
threat to a fair election.
The article quoted one participant suggesting that school
enrollment figures be assessed to find neighborhoods with large
numbers of immigrants. While another activist recommended
hanging up signs in ethnic neighborhoods, warning people not to
vote if they were not eligible.
Reportedly said it's unfortunate, but sometimes the only
way you can find out is to look for ethnic names. I believe,
Ms. Mitchell has also advocated for having town watch type
operations at Departments of Motor Vehicles.
How does disinformation about noncitizen voting, and voter
suppression couched as election integrity, predictably lead to
the targeting of Latino citizens and other voters of color?
Ms. Senteno. Yes. So, this goes back to the misperception
of who is the Latino community. The assumption that large
populations of Latino communities are going to be areas where
there are mostly noncitizens.
To assume that Latino populations are inherently all
noncitizen, it would really be making an assumption based
inappropriately on race.
So, voter disinformation in this way, very predictably
targets Latinos because of that misperception of who we are and
the assumption that we are not predominantly U.S. citizens and
therefore eligible to vote in the United States.
It's incredibly harmful and it will ultimately result in
the disenfranchisement of Latino voters, of naturalized
citizens, and voters of color.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady. I will now recognize the
gentleman from North Dakota.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just start by
saying thank you for working with me on the underlying bill of
the SAVE Act in that most people don't know this, but North
Dakota is unique in the country.
We are the only State without voter registration. We also
have what I believe to be the best voter ID citizen voting law
in the country.
So, you can do both and it was seriously helpful to make
sure we could get the bill in a place where it didn't affect
400 thousand of my constituents every primary and every
general.
With that, I yield to you.
Mr. Roy. I thank my friend from North Dakota. I was proud
to work with him and the rest of my colleagues to make sure
that the bill is comprehensive in its impact and what it's
trying to attempt to do.
Also, frankly avoids a lot of what is being alleged that it
would do. Ms. Mitchell, if you might respond to some of the
allegations that were just made.
The bill specifically contemplates ensuring through its own
text that those that are naturalized would get materials and it
would be a requirement under law that the Federal Government
would get those materials to States immediately so to avoid the
problem of those who are naturalized having, not have the
documentation necessary.
As well as providing for a mechanism by which an individual
can go and register to vote with a sworn affidavit of those
that are there in the, the officials in the local government.
Acknowledging that they've done what they need to do to present
the information.
In other words, we provide every means possible. Would Ms.
Mitchell agree with that?
Ms. Mitchell. Yes, Mr. Chair. That is one of the things
that's really important, is to actually read the bill.
If you read the bill, then you will understand that there's
a whole laundry list of types of documentation that can be
used. There are a couple of failsafe followups. Then, there's a
catchall, which is, or any other reasonable approach that the
election officials may decide. There's really no reason to make
that the boogeyman.
The problem is that we have a very porous voter
registration system in this country.
Mr. Roy. Right.
Ms. Mitchell. We have to do something to protect the
integrity of our election.
Mr. Roy. Would you agree that the construct under the SAVE
Act is far less onerous than that of numerous States, including
New York, Pennsylvania, and other States in terms of what they
have to do for driver's licenses for example?
Ms. Mitchell. Well yes. Here's the other thing, Congress
passed the Real ID Law years ago.
Mr. Roy. Right.
Ms. Mitchell. To get a real ID, you don't have to be a
citizen, but you do have to provide either your citizenship
data or you have to provide your paperwork showing that you're
in the country legally, that you are a permanent resident with
a green card.
So, Congress has already addressed the issue in a context
which Congress cared about, which is, that we want to protect
Federal buildings, Federal military installations, and
commercial aircraft from people who, we want to know who they
are when they're entering those facilities.
So, Congress has already taken the step to identify a
process. I don't know why voting should be any less susceptible
too improper.
Mr. Roy. I agree. Secretary Byrd, I'd like to turn to you.
I appreciate you being here again and illuminating how you guys
are engaging with it in Florida.
Does the Constitution give States primary jurisdiction over
elections?
Mr. Byrd. It does, Article 1, Section 4.
Mr. Roy. If the State of Florida passed a law requiring
proof of citizenship to register to vote in Federal elections,
if they did that right now, without the SAVE Act, would you be
able to enforce that law under existing law and precedent?
Mr. Byrd. We would not. We'd be in violation of the NVRA.
Mr. Roy. Can you explain that quickly for the average
viewer?
Mr. Byrd. Sure. Well, the NVRA prohibits States from
requiring citizenship documentation on the front end when
somebody registers to vote. So, in Federal courts in
interpreting NVRA, most recently the U.S. Supreme Court has
said that we cannot require that proof of citizenship. We have
to add the person to the rolls and then only on the back end do
the list maintenance. So, in essence, we're playing whack-a-
mole with people who we've seen repeatedly register and
removed, register and removed because we can't require the
information on the front end.
Mr. Roy. Am I correct that Florida was only able to really
truly gain access to the SAVE system because you sued to do so?
Mr. Byrd. That is correct.
Mr. Roy. So, States have barriers. To get to the Federal
Government, to get the information necessary to determine who
citizens are in the first place, correct?
Mr. Byrd. That is correct.
Mr. Roy. Florida sued to gain access to the SAVE system. Am
I correct that the SAVE system is still inferior in terms of
you being able to have access to the information needed to
check citizenship?
Mr. Byrd. Woefully inadequate, untimely. It costs the
States money. Many times, we don't have the information
necessary from the individual attempting to register to vote to
gain access which then we don't have the verification even when
we do have access to it.
Mr. Roy. So, without the SAVE Act, can you as Secretary of
State be as competent as you feel you should be that we know we
do not have citizens voting in the State of Florida--
noncitizens voting in the State of Florida?
Mr. Byrd. It makes it very difficult to fulfill my
constitutional duties.
Mr. Roy. I would now yield time to the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Hunt.
Mr. Hunt. The fundamental question that we must answer
today, is America worth preserving? I, of course, think it is.
This is the greatest country in the world. I love this country.
I'm a veteran, served in combat. I'm a United States
Congressman. I think this is by far the greatest country in the
world.
If the United States is a country worth preserving, then I
think we must protect the integrity of our elections and do
everything in our power to do just that. I am showed at the
SAVE Act which has already passed the House in a bipartisan
fashion is even controversial to many Democrats. They're the
ones that constantly are shouting about preserving democracy.
Safeguarding our elections is the bedrock of our democracy.
It's something that both sides should easily support and agree
on. They say that noncitizens voting in an election is not a
real issue.
If some noncitizens are registered to vote, it's not a
significant amount to make a difference. Well, in my home State
of Texas, we just removed thousands of noncitizens from voter
rolls. Some of these recently hotly contested elections, that
amount could even be enough to swing an entire election,
especially this year.
Undermining the integrity of elections is not an oversight.
It's a threat to democracy. For all of us, this is about
democracy. For all of us, this should be about democracy.
It's time that we as a body acknowledge that threat. Now,
Democrats on the left aren't just focused on replacing American
voters. They're focused on replacing American jobs as well.
Under the Biden-Harris Administration, jobs and foreign-
born workers are significant increasing while jobs for Native
born workers are declining. Critics say that these illegal
immigrants are needed because they'll do the jobs that
Americans won't do. What they fail to say is that Americans
won't do the jobs when Bidenflation is outpacing their wages
and fixing the illegal immigration problem with help American
workers.
I'll fix the problem for you. The immigration problem is a
minimum wage issue. It hasn't always been the case. In recent
years, the left has decided to slowly erode everything that we
hold dear as a country.
They want to erode our culture, our history, our
patriotism, and last, our vote. Do you remember during the
George Floyd riots when the left wanted to reimagine policing?
Now, the left wants to reimaging voting.
So, therefore, regardless of their citizenship, can choose
our next President. That's not the American way. The left wants
to reimagine everything that makes America special. They even
want to reimagine our Constitution.
One example is a recent The New York Times article speaks
to itself. The Constitution is sacred. It's also dangerous.
``One of the biggest threats to American politics might be the
country's founding documents,'' said the author.
Now, I'm sitting there right now, and I got to tell you all
I'm Black and I'm a veteran. I have six forms of government ID,
six. I've been Black for my whole life. I've been a veteran
since 2000 when I was at West Point.
The insinuation that Black and Brown people cannot get an
ID to vote like every other citizen regardless of your race,
religion, color, or creed is insulting. I actually refer to
this as soft bigotry of low expectations. We as all Americans
should want free and fair elections.
We aren't making it more difficult for people to get an ID
to vote. I have an 18-month-old little boy. Do you know the
first thing that he got when he was born that I had to sign
for? A birth certificate.
So, the idea that this costing thousands of dollars and all
of a sudden onerous and burdensome on Hispanic people and Black
people like me is absurd. I have a very large family. My mom
has eight brothers and sisters.
Every last Black person that I know in my life which is
quite a few, every last one of them has a government ID. It
would be insulting to talk to my family and say to them, you
know what? Sorry, you all. We're Black and it's just so hard
for you to get an ID like all the White people.
That's absurd. We as a country have got to reject this
farce. I speak so strongly against this because I view myself
as an American first. I'm a veteran. I am a husband. I am a
Congressman.
I'm someone that served this country. I'm an educated Black
man. Somewhere down the line, I am Black, I am proud, and I
understand that. I never want to do is marginalize a single
group in this country by saying that you weren't good enough to
get an ID because my 18-month-old has an ID.
We as a country have got to clean up our roles to ensure
that we have free and fair elections regardless of your race,
religion, color, or creed. That's why I reject the assertion
that we, no matter what color you are, cannot reach that very
low bar of having a government ID to figure out to how to vote
for the leadership and the future of this country. With that, I
yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his time. I
recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania for a unanimous
consent request.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I have some unanimous consent
requests. First, an article from the September 5th, The New
York Times entitled ``Republicans seize on false theories about
immigrant voting.'' A March 13th, 2024, article from NPR,
``Conservatives are warning about noncitizens voting.'' It's a
myth with a long history.
Another NPR article from August 30, 2024, the ``GOP is
making false claims about non-citizens voting.'' It's affecting
real voters. An article from this week, ``Elon Musk's
misleading election claims reach millions and alarm election
officials.'' An article from September 7, 2024, The New York
Times, ``Heritage Foundation spreads deceptive videos about
noncitizen voters.''
Mr. Roy. Without objection, those will be entered into the
record.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
Mr. Roy. I will now recognize my friend, the gentleman from
North Carolina. I assume he has no unanimous request for The
New York Times or NPR articles.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Senteno, I don't know
if you were shocked. Congressman Hunt just said he has an ID.
Were you shocked by that or surprised by it?
Ms. Senteno. Was I surprised? No.
Mr. Bishop. Do you think generally people who are
naturalized citizens take pride in that accomplishment?
Ms. Senteno. I would assume yes.
Mr. Bishop. Are you familiar with the educational process
accompanying naturalization?
Ms. Senteno. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Do they impart that becoming a naturalized
citizen is what you have to do to be able to vote and that you
have the voting right, the franchise by virtue of being
naturalized?
Ms. Senteno. It would be my understanding. I can't tell you
specifically whether that's part of the curriculum or how that
comes about.
Mr. Bishop. Do you think someone who has worked hard and
followed the process to become a naturalized citizen would take
offense at the prospect of their vote being diluted by people
who are not citizens having access to the vote?
Ms. Senteno. I can't speculate as to what a specific
individual may or may not believe about their vote. What I can
say is that the idea that a vote is being canceled out because
of widespread noncitizen voting is simply false. We have no
evidence that there is widespread noncitizen voting, and we
have no evidence that votes have been canceled out by something
that we haven't been able to prove.
Mr. Bishop. Well, let me first tell you. I don't have any--
I don't think it requires speculation. I'm pretty sure that
someone who's driven to become a United States citizen had
accomplished that landmark in their life.
I think they'd be proud of the right to vote. I think they
would be absolutely committed to the idea that folks who
haven't gone through the same process that they've done and
accomplished the same outcome should not be voting. Why is the
lack of evidence that it is happening on a widespread basis a
reason not to guard against it?
Ms. Senteno. Because when we know that there is no evidence
of widespread noncitizen voting but we do know that documentary
proof of citizenship laws prevent eligible citizens from
registering to vote, it's simply bad public policy.
Mr. Bishop. How do they prevent them?
Ms. Senteno. We have lots of evidence that documentary
proof of citizenship, restrictive voter laws prevent U.S.
citizens from exercising their right to vote by preventing them
from being on the voter rolls.
Mr. Bishop. Same idea as like Congressman Hunt not being
able to get an ID?
Ms. Senteno. Obtaining documentation is incredibly
difficult for many individuals.
Mr. Bishop. So, it's the same point he was making. All
right. How about that, Ms. Mitchell? What about that?
Ms. Mitchell. Oh, I just don't believe that people in
this--the vast majority of people are able to get IDs. They're
able to get their documentary proof of citizenship. They're
doing it every day by the millions.
The problem is that we don't care enough about our voting
system to make certain that we treat it with the respect that
it deserves. We require it for people to get a real ID, but not
to register to vote. We make it impossible. We make it very
difficult for States to be able to ascertain who is and who is
not a citizen for voting purposes.
Once they get on the list, I just read during the recess
that the Department of Justice sent out a memo today to people
all over the country, election officials, reminding them that
they are not allowed to remove ineligible voters because now is
the black-out period. Well, that's not even actually true. It
just goes to show you that this Justice Department can produce
a memo of guidance on issues that it cares about.
Mr. Bishop. When you say it doesn't, it's not a question
that we, you meant universally, don't care enough about our
voting. Actually, there's another prospect there, isn't it?
That is, it's not a question of not caring about our voting.
It's actually an intention to see to it that the circumstances
are chaotic enough that a vote that you depend on that cannot
legitimately cast nonetheless has the opportunity to be cast.
Isn't that right?
Ms. Mitchell. That's absolutely right. They throw around
the insults and the accusations that you're a racist. You're a
vote suppressor.
Mr. Bishop. Isn't that the best technique? If you're trying
to see to it that noncitizens vote and turn the margin in close
races and you consider that to be essential to your political
success, then what are you going to do? You're going to say,
(1) we don't think there's a problem, and (2) you're a racist
if you suggest that we enforce the law. Isn't that what you do
if you want to--
Ms. Mitchell. Absolutely. The other thing is there's always
this discussion there's no widespread. Well, No. 1, how do we
know?
Mr. Bishop. They don't know.
Ms. Mitchell. How do we know? We don't know. We know that
noncitizens are registering. We know that noncitizens are
voting. How do we know whether it is or isn't widespread if we
don't investigate it, if we don't make it a priority, if we
don't require documentation? We don't know.
Mr. Bishop. As is sometimes said, the absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I would
now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming.
Ms. Hageman. Secretary Byrd, there have been a variety of
attacks levied against House Republicans for advocating for
election integrity which includes preventing noncitizen voting.
They are based on noncitizens--are based on noncitizen voting
already being illegal. Just because noncitizen voting is
illegal doesn't mean that it can't occur and we must be
vigilant in ensuring the strength of our laws.
The House Rule 10, Clause 2 lays out the general oversight
responsibilities of the standing committees to analyze, quote,
``The application, administration, execution, and effectiveness
of Federal laws.'' Also, quote, ``Conditions and circumstances
that may indicate the necessity or desirability of enacting new
or additional legislation.'' Secretary Byrd, very simply, is it
possible for noncitizens to illegally vote in Federal
elections?
Mr. Byrd. It is.
Ms. Hageman. Do you have examples of this occurring?
Mr. Byrd. We do. I mentioned the two individuals in Florida
who've been recently arrested and charged with illegally
attempting to vote in Florida elections.
Ms. Hageman. Both of those situations occurred after
Congress made it illegal for noncitizens to vote, correct?
Mr. Byrd. That is correct.
Ms. Hageman. Do you think Congress should consider
legislation such as the SAVE Act to close the gaps which allow
noncitizens voting?
Mr. Byrd. It is absolutely critical.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Is amending the NVRA an important first
step?
Mr. Byrd. The NVRA must be amended.
Ms. Hageman. Can States when administering services such as
social and medical benefits impact, either intentionally or
unintentionally, the Federal prohibition of noncitizens voting?
Mr. Byrd. Yes.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Ms. Mitchell, I want to ask you about
President Biden's Executive Order 14019 on promoting access to
voting. Can you speak to some of the concerns with this
Executive Order?
Ms. Mitchell. Absolutely. First, I believe that it's
unconstitutional. Having said that, why is it that the Biden
Administration has absolutely resisted every effort to turn
over any of the plans by any of the agencies? The House
Committee on Administration issued subpoenas in July to every
cabinet secretary and asking for the plans for implementing
Executive Order 14019.
Not a single agency plan has been turned over to the House
Administration Committee. I included in my written testimony a
file from a whistleblower who sent to me. He is a U.S. marshal,
and he sent the Department of Justice guidelines, instructions
to all the U.S. marshals requiring them, notifying them that
they are required to offer voter registration materials and
voter education materials to everyone with whom they come into
contact, including--and he sent me a file of someone who had to
be registered to vote who is a prisoner in a Texas Federal
facility.
He's imprisoned for violating Federal law because he was
deported and returned. He's a Mexican citizen. It says that in
his file. He was registered to vote. They are required to give
him voter registration materials. That is happening in Federal
prisons all over the country.
Ms. Hageman. So, let me ask you. Is it your understanding
that they are actually implementing the very plans that they
refuse to turn over to Congress?
Ms. Mitchell. They're absolutely doing that. We only know--
we get bits and snatches from people--from whistleblowers and
from various sources but nothing official. If you want to know
the most, you go to the Demos website which is a left-wing
organization. They have literally been dispatched by the White
House to Federal agencies to help them implement this plan.
They know more about what's going on in these agencies to
implement this Executive Order than any Member of Congress.
Ms. Hageman. Are they involved with implementing the
Executive Order?
Ms. Mitchell. Yes, they are.
Ms. Hageman. Have they been--are they in compliance with
FACA or the Federal Advisory Committee Act in that regard?
Ms. Mitchell. No, they are not.
No, they are not.
Ms. Hageman. So, they're violating FACA in doing this?
Ms. Mitchell. They are violating that. Yes, they are. They
brag about all the agencies that they have assisted over the
last three years with implementing the Executive Order.
Ms. Hageman. This Executive Order obviously involves these
various Federal agencies in the voting process. Besides the
concern that these agencies do not have expertise in this area,
should the American people be concerned that this will be
administered by politically appointed officials of the Biden-
Harris Administration?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, absolutely because the original
Executive Order required that every plan had to be submitted to
the White House to the Director of the Office of Domestic
Policy which at the time was held by Susan Rice. It also goes
on to say that Federal funds and grants will be disseminated
through the White House by the Office of Domestic Policy by
Susan Rice. We do not know to this day who got the grants, how
much they got. We know nothing about that.
Ms. Hageman. So, in terms of these plans, were they all
submitted to the White House for review?
Ms. Mitchell. We presume that they were because they were
directed to do that, but we don't know.
Ms. Hageman. They're being implemented as we speak?
Ms. Mitchell. They're being implemented as we speak.
Ms. Hageman. We as Congress have not been able to get our
hands on the documents?
Ms. Mitchell. Not a single document.
Ms. Hageman. I guess I have a question. Why would they want
to hide this information?
Ms. Mitchell. That's a good question.
Ms. Hageman. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming. I recognize
my friend from Pennsylvania for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. Scanlon. Knowing how much you love NPR articles. I
would introduce June 30, 2024 article, ``Republicans are
turning Biden's voter registration order into a partisan
flashpoint.'' Also enter the Brennan Center for Justice report
entitled, ``Noncitizen Voting: The Missing Millions.'' That's
the 2017 report we were discussing.
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
I will now recognize myself for five minutes, and I thank
the gentlelady from Wyoming. Question for you, Ms. Senteno. I
apologize. I think I'm not pronouncing it exactly correct. Ms.
Senteno, how many Democrats voted for the SAVE Act in July?
Ms. Senteno. I'm not aware. I can look into it and get back
to you.
Mr. Roy. Five--five Democrats voted for it, and three of
whom are Hispanic, one of whom is Black. Do you believe that
their vote was a discriminatory vote?
Ms. Senteno. Do I believe their votes were discriminatory?
Mr. Roy. Right. Do you believe those votes or they
supported that or voted for that because they support
discriminating against minority voters?
Ms. Senteno. I believe that those votes are bad public
policy.
Mr. Roy. Ms. Jenks, you mentioned earlier but I want to
explore just a little further that last Congress our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle passed legislation, the Dream
and Promise Act, that in part allows DHS to waive the
inadmissibility of aliens that illegally voted if doing so is
deemed to be in the public interest. Now, why would they do
that if there's not a problem with people who are illegally
present in the United States voting?
Ms. Jenks. There's only one reason to do that and that is
illegal aliens are voting. There's no other explanation. By the
way, the American Dream and Promise Act that was introduced in
this Congress contains the same provision. The U.S. Citizenship
Act that the Biden Administration wrote and submitted to
Congress in the first week is worse because it actually
automatically waives noncitizen voting and false claims to U.S.
citizenship so registering to vote.
Mr. Roy. How many illegal aliens has the Biden-Harris
regime allowed into the country in their tenure?
Ms. Jenks. At least 7\1/2\ million allowed to enter the
country and remain.
Mr. Roy. That number comes from public sources, right, the
government reported sources of the number of releases into the
United States.
Ms. Jenks. Correct.
Mr. Roy. Whether they're unaccompanied children or whether
they're notices to appear under the parole program, the CBP One
app, whatever it is that releases under the administration's
policies, which total somewhere in the range of 5\1/2\ million
plus the roughly two million gotaways. Is that correct?
Ms. Jenks. Yes.
Mr. Roy. So, 7\1/2\ billion people now in the United
States. If just one percent of those individuals, we're
talking--doing math in my head really quick. Is that 75,000?
If one percent of those individuals were registered to
vote, that's a pretty significant number, correct? That could
have a significant impact on elections in the States where, for
example, Al Franken won his Minnesota Senate seat by 300 votes
where a number of Congressional colleagues of ours have won by
300 and something votes, where Mariannette Miller-Meeks won by
six votes. So, would you agree that's a pretty significant
number?
Ms. Jenks. Absolutely. It's not just the 7\1/2\ million
illegal aliens. It's also the rest of the noncitizens who are
in the country. So, the legal immigrants, refugees, they're
all--foreign students, all these categories of noncitizens, all
of them representing 30 million people, some percentages are
voting.
Mr. Roy. Ms. Mitchell, there have been concerns stated by
some colleagues frankly on both sides of the aisle that if we
pass the SAVE Act today about two months out before the
election, that will have an limited impact. Now, my perspective
and my answer, I want to see if you'd agree, is that the SAVE
Act is effective at the time of enactment. That's how it's
designed. That is how it's written.
That 22 States and the District of Columbia allow voters to
register to vote on election day meaning passing the SAVE Act
would have an impact all the way up to Election Day. That the
SAVE Act also requires all States to remove noncitizens from
their existing rolls through Election Day and give them the
tools to do so that we discussed, access to the databases that
we talked about. So, would you agree that even if we pass the
SAVE Act now or in the coming week or two that it would have a
massive impact on securing the 2024 election?
Ms. Mitchell. I absolutely do. That's why I think it's so
important that you're having this hearing and I think it's so
important for Congress to pass the SAVE Act for it to become
effective immediately.
Mr. Roy. Secretary Byrd, would you agree with that?
Mr. Byrd. Absolutely. With the SAVE Act or what the NVRA
prohibits is a systematic removal process. States can still do
an individualized process per person. If we had more access to
more information, we could definitely do more list maintenance
which is critical to ensuring a fair election and trust in the
electorate.
Mr. Roy. Without the SAVE Act or something similar, are you
able to know how many people slip through the cracks and vote
illegally, the President of United States, and vote in the
State of Florida?
Mr. Byrd. It makes it very, very difficult to near
impossible.
Mr. Roy. Well, I appreciate that. Now, I'm going to yield
back the balance of my time. I'm going to recognize my friend
from South Carolina, Mr. Fry.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Chair, for having this hearing. I think
this is an incredibly important topic. I'm having a little bit
of deja vu. I served in the State legislature and even before
that, I followed the arguments about voter ID.
The clarion call from the Democrats was this is going to
suppress turnout, that it's going to limit people from
exercising their right to vote, that it was going to have
disastrous effects on South Carolina voting. It has done
everything but that. In fact, turnout is much better now with
voter ID in South Carolina and other States.
So, the arguments against commonsense things that quite
frankly the American people you ask--this polls incredibly well
not only among Republicans, but among Democrats and
Independents, really all parts of our country support this
except when you cross the Potomac into Washington, DC. You hear
the Ranking Member say that it's going to have--one said it was
going to hurt voters because they would have to provide
documents. The reality is according to the bill for applicants
without supporting documentation of citizenship, the SAVE Act
permits State officials to check a variety of State and Federal
databases.
Another myth was it would somehow delay their registration.
The bill text is pretty clear as well, that they would be able
to do that within 24 hours of accepting that application. So,
again, I just go back and fundamentally reject because in the
plain language of the text itself, it does the exact opposite
of what the Ranking Member was referring to.
So, Ms. Mitchell, I'm going to you because in your
testimony--and I really want to explore this--there was a DOJ
order from President Biden, Executive Order 14019. A
whistleblower came forward. You were talking with them, working
with them on a report. Talk to us about what that Executive
Order was, what it did, and the contents of your findings just
briefly.
Ms. Mitchell. Well, the Executive Order is word for word
the Executive Order that Bill Clinton issued after the National
Voter Registration Act was enacted by Congress in 1993. The
difference is Congress did not take any action to authorize
Federal agencies to spend Federal tax dollars and Federal
employees' time and Federal resources to register people to
vote. There's no Congressional authority for it. The Chief
Executive has no authority to order anything with regard to
voter registration.
So, the fact is that it is an order that's based on the
NVRA. It orders every Federal agency to develop a plan. That
plan was supposed to be submitted to the White House by
September 2021. It was to say how this agency planned to
implement and conduct voter registration.
More problematic to me are the voter education materials,
which is a euphemism in Democratic voter parlance for get out
the vote. I don't want my Federal tax dollars being spent to
turn out voters because I know the voters that they're going to
turn out. I don't think that they're treating all citizens
equally. They're treating certain populations differently with
our tax dollars.
Mr. Fry. I would echo that--
Ms. Mitchell. I don't think it's legal.
Mr. Fry. --Ms. Mitchell, particularly from noncitizen
prisoners, right? That's where at least the U.S. marshals and
the DOJ were going with this. Is that correct?
Ms. Mitchell. In the Federal Bureau of Prisons, that
there's no safeguard in the Executive Order saying, now be
certain that you follow State law and that you don't register
felons to vote. Be certain that you follow Federal law and
you're not registering noncitizens to vote. You don't have to
be a citizen to go into get food stamps or other kinds of
benefits. You don't have to be a citizen. These employees are
ordered to nonetheless register them to vote.
Mr. Fry. That's equally troubling. When you look at the
legal framework of this, an illegal alien by registering, say,
with some social services is given an application possibly to
vote. It might be a mistake. Regardless, they are given that
option based on this Executive Order. Is that fair to say?
Ms. Mitchell. That's exactly right, sir.
Mr. Fry. So, it's pretty easy to get added to the voter
rolls. It is nearly impossible to get removed.
Ms. Mitchell. That's exactly right.
Mr. Fry. Isn't that the conundrum that we find ourselves
in?
Ms. Mitchell. That is exactly right.
Mr. Fry. Isn't that what the SAVE Act would protect,
prohibit, and fight against is give States that option to
remove noncitizens from their voting rolls?
Ms. Mitchell. That's right. To keep them from getting on
the rolls in the first place.
Mr. Fry. Why, Ms. Mitchell, then is it so hard to
understand that or so problematic for my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to think that this was actually a
pretty decent policy, that noncitizens should not be voting in
United States elections?
Ms. Mitchell. Because they don't agree with that premise.
They want noncitizens to be counted for all purposes. They want
noncitizens to be voting.
The State of Vermont controlled by Democrats has now
extended that right to all noncitizens in the State, San
Francisco, New York, the District of Columbia. The Democrats
have voted to--we see the pattern. They vote for noncitizens.
They vote against anything that would keep noncitizens from
being recognized as an important and critical part of our
political system.
Mr. Fry. So, say one thing and do another. Sounds like
Washington, DC. Thank you, Ms. Mitchell.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, and I
thank the witnesses. Let me allow the Ranking Member, the
gentlelady from Pennsylvania, to insert some more documents
into the record.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. We've had a lot of discussion here
about the Executive Order or the voter registration list
maintenance guidance that the DOJ published just in September,
making clear that Congressional--that Congress has already
dictated what has to be done with respect to list maintenance
and set those restrictions, not that it's anything new by this
administration. I'd also like to put in a Washington Post
article, ``Top GOP lawyer decries ease of campus voting in
private pitch to RNC,'' presentation by Cleta Mitchell at donor
retreat. Urged tougher rules that can make it harder for
college students to cast ballots. Second one and finally,
``Rep. Chip Roy says election deniers and Project 2025
contributors helped draft the SAVE Act.''
Mr. Roy. Was there a specific request on the thing you
mentioned from DOJ?
Ms. Scanlon. Yes, sorry.
Mr. Roy. Was it specific--what was the actual document?
Ms. Scanlon. Just to put in the documents since it was
referenced repeatedly here.
Mr. Roy. Got it. OK.
Ms. Scanlon. Then the Washington Post article and the Media
Matters article.
Mr. Roy. Got it.
Mr. Roy. Without--I just want to be clear. Without
objection.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
Mr. Roy. With that, this concludes today's hearing. We
thank the witnesses for appearing before the Committee today.
Without objection, all members will have five legislative days
to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or
additional materials for the record. Without objection, the
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent
.aspx?EventID=117612.
[all]