[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                   AMERICAN CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS:
                    THE PATH TO ELECTION INTEGRITY
                      IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

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

                              JOINT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 
                             ACCOUNTABILITY

                                AND THE
                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              JUNE 7, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-41

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                       Available on: govinfo.gov
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-637 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                            
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York            Vacancy
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                                 ------                                
                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                        Ryan Giachetti, Counsel
                 Alex Phares, Professional Staff Member
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                

                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    Bryan Steil, Wisconsin, Chairman

Barry Loudermilk, Georgia            Joseph Morelle, New York, Ranking 
H. Morgan Griffith, Virginia             Member
Greg Murphy, North Carolina          Terri Sewell, Alabama
Stephanie Bice, Oklahoma             Norma Torres, California
Mike Carey, Ohio                     Derek Kilmer, Washington
Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Laurel Lee, Florida
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                  Page 
Hearing held on June 7, 2023.....................................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              

The Honorable Ken Cuccinelli, Chairman, Election Transparency 
  Initiative
Oral Statement...................................................     8

Mr. Charles Spies, Member, Dickinson Wright, PLLC
Oral Statement...................................................    10

Ms. Monica Evans, Executive Director, DC Board of Elections
Oral Statement...................................................    11

Ms. Wendy R. Weiser, Vice President, Democracy, Brennan Center 
  for Justice
Oral Statement...................................................    13

Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are 
  available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document 
  Repository at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

  * Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Article, Wall Street Journal, ``D.C. Let Voters Submit Via 
  Email After Mail Problems''; submitted by Rep. Bice.

  * Article, WAMU.com, ``Audit Finds High Number of D.C. Mail 
  Ballots Returned as `Undeliverable' in 2020''; submitted by 
  Rep. Grothman.

  * Article, Dcist.com, ``Mail Ballots Start Going Out to D.C. 
  Voters Ahead Of November Election''; submitted by Rep. 
  Grothman.

  * Letter, from Christopher Arps on an Email of Support - 
  Americans for Citizen Voting; submitted by Rep. Langworthy.

  * Article, Migration Policy Institute, ``Profile of the 
  Unauthorized Population Within D.C. Detailing Over 20,000 
  Noncitizens Live in the District''; submitted by Rep. 
  Langworthy.
                      Continued Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

  * Article, NBC Washington, ``D.C. Residents Concerned After 
  Mail-in Ballots Left Unsecured''; submitted by Rep. LaTurner.

  * Statement for the Record, League of Women Voters; submitted 
  by Rep. Norton.

  * Conciliation Agreement, Matter of Right to Rise USA; 
  submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Letter, from Common Cause on How Dark Money Would Be Allowed 
  Under ACE Act; submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Study, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, from Charles 
  Stewart on How Americans Voted in 2020 and Showing Increase in 
  Election Confidence; submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Letter, Appointing William Johnson Assistant Clerk of the 
  Committee; submitted by Rep. Steil.

  * Report, D.C. Auditor, 2016 Report of the D.C. Auditor Showing 
  D.C. Failed Own Audit; submitted by Rep. Timmons.

  * Transcribed Interview, Select Committee to Investigate 
  January 6th's Transcribed Interview of Richard Donoghue; 
  submitted by Rep. Torres.

  * Hearing Record, Select Committee to Investigate January 6th's 
  Hearing Record from 6/23/2022; submitted by Rep. Torres.

  * Transcribed Interview, Select Committee to Investigate 
  January 6th's Transcribed Interview of Ken Cuccinelli from 12/
  7/21; submitted by Rep. Torres.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                   AMERICAN CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS:
                     THE PATH TO ELECTION INTEGRITY
                      IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                      
                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, June 7, 2023

                        House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

                           jointly, with the

                   Committee on House Administration

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Bryan Steil 
[Chairman of the Committee on House Administration] presiding.
    Present for the Committee on House Administration: 
Representatives Steil, Loudermilk, Griffith, Bice, Morelle, 
Sewell, and Torres.
    Present for the Committee on Oversight and Accountability: 
Comer, Grothman, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, LaTurner, 
Armstrong, Timmons, Greene, Edwards, Langworthy, Raskin, 
Norton, Connolly, Khanna, Ocasio-Cortez, Porter, Bush, Brown, 
Stansbury, Robert Garcia of California, Frost, Balint, Lee of 
Pennsylvania, Crockett, and Goldman.
    Mr. Steil. The joint hearing of the Committee on House 
Administration and the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability will come to order.
    After conferring with Chairman Comer, we agreed that 
today's joint hearing will operate under the rules of the House 
Committee on House Administration.
    I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the 
Chairman may declare a recess at any time. Also, without 
objection, the meeting record will remain open for 5 
legislative days so Members may submit any materials they wish 
to be included therein.
    I will now recognize myself for the purpose of making an 
opening statement.
    I would like to thank Chairman Comer and Members of the 
Oversight and Accountability Committee for joining today's 
Committee on House Administration for our joint hearing.
    This is the third full Committee hearing in the Committee 
on House Administration's ``American Confidence in Elections'' 
series, leading up to the reintroduction of the American 
Confidence in Elections Act, or the ACE Act.
    The ACE Act is the most conservative election bill to be 
considered in the House in over 20 years. It works to boost 
voters' confidence and uphold the Constitution by ensuring 
states maintain primary control over elections, not the Federal 
Government. This is in stark contrast to House Democrats' 
efforts the last two Congresses, which would have nationalized 
our election system and centralized it in Washington, DC.
    Voters' confidence in our election system is not a partisan 
issue, and I will note that voters from both parties have had 
questions in the past. The ACE Act will equip states with 
voluntary tools that they can implement to boost voter 
confidence and strengthen election integrity.
    However, while the Constitution clearly reserved power over 
elections to the state, it explicitly gives Congress the 
responsibility to ensure the District of Columbia is governed 
effectively, including elections. That is why it is important 
to have today's hearing alongside the Oversight Committee.
    The goal of today's hearing is to discuss how we can ensure 
elections and boost voter confidence in the District of 
Columbia by implementing key election reforms outlined in the 
ACE Act.
    For years, D.C. elections have been mismanaged. In 2015, 
the Board of Elections sent verification postcards to 260,000 
inactive voters, with nearly 40,000 of those returned as 
undeliverable. It is a big number.
    In 2015, the D.C. Auditor reviewed a list of people who 
died the year before. Every single person reviewed was still on 
the voter rolls and eligible to vote.
    D.C. failed its audit. It is a huge problem. When a person 
dies, they should be removed from the voter rolls. The ACE Act 
fixes this problem.
    In 2020, D.C.'s bad decisions continued. During the 
primary, voters waited in line at some polling locations for 
hours and some never received mail-in ballots. D.C. then made 
the decision to allow voters to submit ballots by unsecured 
email. This raises serious concerns about election integrity 
and erodes confidence in our elections.
    In the 2020 general election, the D.C. Board of Elections 
mailed every person on an unmaintained list a ballot. A post-
election audit found that 11 percent of the 421,000 ballots 
sent were undeliverable. That is nearly 50,000 ballots.
    Two years later, during the 2022 midterm, 508,000 ballots 
were mailed, and nearly 90,000 were undeliverable. That is on 
top of hundreds of voters who were mailed incorrect ballots.
    Did D.C. work to address these errors? No. D.C. allows 
voting without a photo ID. D.C. allows ballot harvesting. D.C. 
allows noncitizens to vote. It is a huge problem. The ACE Act 
will fix it.
    We already know that left-leaning organizations accept 
millions in foreign money intended to influence American 
politics. We should all work against foreign influence in our 
elections. But what will D.C. do?
    Under a new local law, D.C. made elections more susceptible 
to foreign interference. After living here for just 30 days, 
embassy staff from Russia or China could cast a ballot in 
Washington, D.C. elections. This is beyond unacceptable.
    American elections should be for American citizens. Our 
Nation's Capital should be a beacon of democracy and a national 
model for excellence in elections administration.
    This is not about who wins or loses elections, but rather 
ensuring voters have confidence in our elections. That is why 
we need the ACE Act.
    I am focused on using Congress' constitutional authority to 
bring commonsense election integrity reforms to the District 
and protect its voters.
    The ACE Act takes D.C. from being the poster child on how 
not to run an election to being the model for states to follow.
    The ACE Act will make ten essential reforms in D.C., 
including, one, requiring strong voter ID laws; two, 
prohibiting noncitizens from voting; three, requiring annual 
voter list maintenance; and four, stopping unsolicited mailing 
of ballots to unmaintained lists.
    Contrary to what many on the left have said, including what 
I anticipate we will hear today, the data shows that states 
that have implemented commonsense election integrity laws have 
experienced increased voter turnout.
    It is time to follow the facts and not the false 
narratives. If Democrats want to work together to encourage 
more people to vote, they can start by supporting the ACE Act 
to strengthen voter confidence right here in our Nation's 
Capital.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Steil. And I now recognize the Chairman of the 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Mr. Comer, for the 
purpose of providing an opening statement.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Today we gather with our friends at the Committee on House 
Administration to consider the election laws of the District of 
Columbia and the provisions of Title I, Subtitle D of the 
American Confidence in Elections Act, or the ACE Act.
    The right to vote is a hallmark of our Republic. Americans' 
voices are heard when their ballots are cast. Americans must 
have confidence that our Nation's elections are free and fair.
    Unfortunately, in recent years we have witnessed firsthand 
how a lack of safeguards delay election results, creating 
uncertainty.
    Political operatives are abusing the practice of ballot 
harvesting in many jurisdictions across the country. Mail-in 
voting has been dramatically expanded without safeguards, 
hurting the voters' confidence in our election systems. For 
example, ballots are showing up at wrong or outdated addresses 
due to inaccurate voter lists. Ballots are even being sent to 
voters who have died.
    The primary characteristics of the American voting system 
should be transparency and certainty, not confusion and doubt. 
The American people should be confident in our voting processes 
and confident that their vote counts. And that includes in our 
Nation's Capital.
    That is why we are introducing the ACE Act. The ACE Act 
sets forth best practices to ensure a safe, accessible, and 
secure election system.
    Our Nation's Capital, which falls squarely under Congress' 
jurisdiction, will adopt these best practices and serve as a 
model for the rest of the country. The system will require 
valid identification to vote, prohibit ballot harvesting by 
unrelated third parties, ensure public access to observe the 
election process, ensure security of mail-in ballots, prohibit 
non-U.S. citizens from voting in D.C. elections, and implement 
other commonsense reforms, like routine maintenance of official 
voter rolls.
    This act also respects the Federalist approach to our 
election system enshrined in the Constitution. Instead of 
Federalizing our electoral system, as our Democrat colleagues 
tried to do last Congress, this Act respects the state to 
administer its elections in the best way for the voters of that 
specific state.
    The reforms of the ACE Act will hopefully create a system 
that other states will look to as a model for a secure election 
system. Americans need to have faith that their elections are 
secure, and this legislation works to restore confidence in 
these systems.
    I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses 
and to discussing how this body can legislate commonsense 
reforms to elections in Washington, D.C. that the states can 
look to as a model for secure and fair elections.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Committee on 
House Administration, Mr. Morelle, for the purpose of providing 
an opening statement.
    Mr. Morelle. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Steil, for 
welcoming us today.
    And thank you to Chair Comer and my good friend Ranking 
Member Jamie Raskin and my colleagues on the Oversight 
Committee for being with us today.
    I would say this is becoming tedious, but I think we passed 
that point months ago. For at least the seventh time this 
Congress, in what is not even 6 months old, the Committee on 
House Administration has held an elections-related hearing to 
discuss the speculative, by all measures entirely unproven, 
lack of integrity Republicans claim exists in our elections. It 
appears the Committee on House Administration has turned into 
the Committee on Redundancy Committee.
    The hyperfixation on the part of the majority concerns me. 
It concerns me because it appears my Republican colleagues 
refuse to believe the overwhelming conclusion reached by 
nonpartisan experts, by multiple Presidential administrations, 
including the Department of Justice under former President 
Trump, and by scores of witnesses under oath in front of 
congressional committees and grand juries: Our elections are 
secure.
    Instead, the majority has taken us deeper down a rabbit 
hole, desperately seeking some justification for their 
unpopular policies that would restrict access to the ballot. 
Today they have really gone off the deep end.
    Our colleagues in the majority have brought in our friends 
from the Committee on Oversight to see if maybe some new faces 
can help them find what the Trump Department of Justice, the 
FBI, thorough investigations and audits in Democratic-and 
Republican-led states, Federal and state courts across the 
country, and the Committee on House Administration have all 
failed to find: any evidence at all that our elections lack 
integrity.
    But today's hearing is even more cynical than in the past 
because it has the voters of Washington, DC, who already lack 
full voting representation in Congress, in its crosshairs.
    I want to be absolutely clear: Elections in Washington, 
D.C., are among the most accessible and democratic in our 
country. They are also among the most secure.
    The conservative Heritage Foundation's election fraud cases 
data base lists zero--let me repeat, zero--instances of voter 
fraud in Washington, DC, since 1979.
    But if we are being honest, this hearing is not actually 
about Washington, DC. This hearing and the entire ACE Act is 
about giving Republicans a platform to impose extreme 
restrictions on voters across this country.
    They know how unpopular these policies are. They also know 
these extreme restrictions are necessary for them to succeed 
electorally, because Republicans would prefer a world in which 
fewer people can easily vote, especially people they believe 
will not support their party's agenda.
    Perhaps instead of trying to disenfranchise voters, they 
should spend more time trying to make themselves more appealing 
to a broader swath of Americans, which might best explain why 
they have lost every Presidential popular vote since 1988 but 
one.
    For the Republican majority, these hearings about so-called 
election integrity are about the past, about how they cannot 
publicly accept the outcome of the 2020 election, even though 
they know it is the truth. But for Democrats, ideas about voter 
access and voting rights are about the future.
    These are two different views of the world. One is cynical 
and seeks to exclude and impede, to build barriers and keep 
voters out of the voting booth. The other, the one House 
Democrats hold dearly, is aspirational, optimistic, and 
inclusive.
    We have a vision of the Constitution so many Americans have 
embraced since before the Civil War, Americans who saw the 
urgent necessity of extending the right to vote to formerly 
enslaved people, to women, and to so many others, Americans who 
labored and organized and fought to realize that vision.
    My community of Rochester, New York, is an essential part 
of that legacy, the home and burial place of Frederick 
Douglass, who wrote The North Star from Rochester, New York. It 
is the location of Susan B. Anthony's historic vote in 1872's 
Presidential election where she was arrested for trying to 
participate in our democracy.
    House Democrats are proud to continue in this tradition, to 
walk the long but always righteous path toward real, full 
enfranchisement that so many throughout our Nation's history 
have walked before. It is disappointing that our Republican 
colleagues have chosen a very different path.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member on the Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability, Mr. Raskin, for the purpose of 
making an opening statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Chairman Steil, thank you very much. Good 
morning to you and Chairman Comer and to my friend, Mr. 
Morelle, the Ranking Member of House Admin.
    Good morning, everyone.
    What do you know, it has been more than a week, so it must 
be time for another hearing designed to inflict insult and 
injury on 700,000 disenfranchised Americans living in the 
Nation's Capital.
    Not only do our esteemed GOP colleagues want to block the 
statehood drive of our fellow Americans from Washington, D.C. 
and permanently deny them voting representation in the U.S. 
Senate and U.S. House, not only do they want to roll back home 
rule, micromanage the D.C. Council, and blame them for the 
problems caused by their second-class political status, now 
they want to lecture them about democratic elections and voting 
rights while making it far more difficult for D.C. residents to 
register and to vote in the elections that they do get to vote 
for, for the few offices open to them, like D.C. Council, 
school board, and Mayor.
    So, while the GOP is pushing the ACE Act to empower states 
to clamp down on voting rights nationally, they also seek to 
directly impose this extreme anti-voter, anti-democratic 
legislation as a political straitjacket on the people of 
Washington, DC.
    While Republicans claim to be advancing election integrity, 
the bill's obvious aim is to disenfranchise people and to make 
it more difficult to vote.
    And there is a history of this. In ``Democracy in America'' 
Tocqueville observed that democracy in our country is always 
either shrinking and constricting under attack or it is growing 
and expanding. And surely, it is time for us to get back on the 
growth track and to stop these assaults on voting rights.
    But Republicans have thrown away the legacy of President 
Lincoln and now embrace the big lies and electoral corruption 
and manipulation of Donald Trump, who runs their party like an 
authoritarian cult of personality.
    Instead of bringing the people of Washington, DC, into the 
Union on an equal footing with the people of the 50 states, 
they seek to bring the disenfranchisement and political 
marginalization afflicting D.C. to people all across America 
with their proposals for tactical voter suppression, election 
repression, and registration depression.
    And what is the justification for their sledgehammer attack 
on local elections in Washington today? There is none. D.C. 
already has free, fair, and secure elections for the public 
offices that are open to the people. In fact, D.C. has some of 
the most accessible and secure elections in the country.
    Through its pro-voter laws, D.C. has one of the highest 
registered voter rates in the country. And the local noncitizen 
voting policy identified by the Chair is just for local 
elections, not for D.C.'s nonvoting Delegate in the House of 
Representatives.
    And this policy, by the way, follows up upon what was a 
central article of faith for the Republican Party in the 19th 
century: that people who come to the country as immigrants, who 
are on the pathway to citizenship, should have the right to 
vote and participate in local and school board elections.
    And I would refer to my friend from Wisconsin a unanimous 
decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1863 called in re 
Wehlitz, unanimously upholding Wisconsin's longstanding 
practice of granting noncitizens the right to vote at every 
level of government in Wisconsin.
    And, of course, President Lincoln, if you studied history, 
was a great champion of giving noncitizens the right to vote in 
our country, which is why a lot of people, his opponents, anti-
immigrant opponents, argued that he was in public office 
illegitimately because of the immigrant vote in Illinois, 
Wisconsin, and New York.
    But in any event, the Heritage Foundation's election fraud 
cases data base identifies zero instances of voter fraud in 
Washington, D.C., since 1979. That is no election fraud in the 
Nation's Capital in the last 44 years. And D.C.'s very strong 
pro-voter, pro-registration policies are clearly conducive to 
election integrity and have not led to any episodes of voter 
fraud that I am aware of, but perhaps the majority has some in 
mind.
    The only plausible reason for this legislation today is for 
people who really know nothing about local Washington, DC, 
beyond Capitol Hill, to use D.C. as a whipping post, a guinea 
pig, and a sacrificial lamb in their effort to constrict the 
vote and depress participation nationally.
    With this hearing, our friends in the GOP have moved from 
the macro suppression of representation, voting rights, and 
political voice in Washington to the micro suppression of local 
voting rights to keep people from even getting to the polls to 
cast ballots for candidates for the few offices that D.C. 
residents are actually allowed to fill.
    This bill is unnecessary, unfair, undemocratic, and 
unworthy of this body.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Without objection, all other Members' opening statements 
will be made part of the record if they are submitted to the 
Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today.
    Pursuant to paragraph b of Committee Rule 6, the witnesses 
will please stand and raise your right hand.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Mr. Steil. Let the record show that the witnesses have 
answered in the affirmative and may be seated.
    I will now introduce our witnesses.
    Our first witness, Mr. Ken Cuccinelli, serves as the 
National Chairman on the Election Transparency Initiative. 
Previously, Mr. Cuccinelli served in the Federal Government, 
first as Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, and then as the Acting Deputy Secretary 
of the Department of Homeland Security.
    Our next witness, Mr. Charles Spies, is a D.C. voter, has 
been providing strategic political law counsel at the highest 
levels for over two decades.
    Our next witness, Ms. Monica Evans, serves as the Executive 
Director of the D.C. Board of Elections. Prior to joining the 
Board, Ms. Evans served as the Director of Grants Management at 
the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
    Our final witness, Ms. Wendy Weiser, directs the Democracy 
Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of 
Law.
    We appreciate all of our witnesses being here today and 
look forward to your testimony. As a reminder, we have read 
your written statement, and it will appear in full in the 
hearing record. Under Committee Rule 9, you are to limit your 
oral presentation to a brief summary of your written 
statements.
    I now recognize Mr. Cuccinelli for 5 minutes for the 
purpose of making an opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF KEN CUCCINELLI

                           NATIONAL CHAIRMAN

                    ELECTION TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE

    Mr. Cuccinelli. Chairmen Steil and Comer and Ranking 
Members Morelle and Raskin, I am Ken Cuccinelli, chairman of 
the Election Transparency Initiative, where we work every day 
to help improve the transparency, security, and accessibility 
of elections in every state so that every American, regardless 
of color, creed, or party affiliation, has confidence in the 
outcome of every election.
    Top of mind for today is the reintroduction of the ACE Act, 
which we support, and its second pillar concerning the election 
administration in the Nation's Capital.
    Obviously, Congress can do this under article I, section 8, 
clause 17, which gives Congress power to exercise exclusive 
legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District.
    The ACE Act, which features a host of state-based election 
integrity reforms that Congress can enact at their discretion, 
preserves this constitutionally prescribed balance by requiring 
reforms in D.C. but allowing states to choose.
    Let me be clear: The ACE Act does not mandate changes to 
state election laws, and this is an important factor in ETI's 
support for the ACE Act. We view Congress in a role similar to 
a state legislature as it relates to the Nation's Capital, but 
only the Nation's Capital.
    D.C. should be the gold standard for fair and honest 
elections in which every legal vote is cast and counted openly, 
equally, and with the highest standard of integrity.
    But how is the administration of D.C. elections going?
    Well, these distressing details are contained in my written 
testimony, and the Chairman walked through some recent 
examples. But, without question, D.C. elections are in profound 
disarray and have been poorly administered.
    Thankfully, Congress can and should exercise its 
responsibility over D.C. to repair its self-inflicted broken 
system.
    Current D.C. election laws are fraught with a host of anti-
election integrity procedures and practices which, 
unfortunately, do more to sow doubt, confusion, and mistrust 
than they do to inspire confidence.
    For example, same-day voter registration and automatic 
voter registration. And I would stress, registering to vote 
should be an affirmative act taken by an elector, not an 
automated command between differing systems and data bases.
    Allowing preregistration of eligible 16-year-old residents, 
who are then automatically registered to vote upon turning 18.
    Inflating the voter rolls with potentially ineligible 
voters that are then ripe for mismanagement, abuse, and even 
fraud.
    No-excuse absentee voting with a permanent absentee voting 
list.
    No ID requirement to vote after the voter has voted once in 
a previous election, just proof of residence, no photo 
required.
    Unsecured and unguarded drop boxes.
    And D.C.'s infamous noncitizen voting law, which would 
allow green card holders and residents or those here illegally 
to vote, so long as they are 18 or older and have been in D.C. 
for at least 30 days.
    That is right, noncitizens, including foreign nationals who 
have pledged loyalty to other countries, such as Russia or 
China, would be allowed to vote in D.C., thanks in part to 
Senator Schumer and Senate Democrats who refused to preserve 
citizen-only voting when they had the chance.
    Even The Washington Post recognizes that elections in our 
Nation's Capital should not be decided by the votes of Russian 
and Chinese nationals working at their country's embassies or 
noncitizens in the country illegally.
    Ranking Member Raskin, who I sit before today, was asked 
during a February 6 Rules Committee hearing if he supported 
``allowing noncitizen staff of the Embassy of the Russian 
Federation the right to vote in D.C. elections.''
    He replied: ``I have opposed Vladimir Putin's massive 
social disinformation campaign against American democracy, and 
I am opposed to Russian subversion of democracy all over the 
world. So, if they asked me my advice, I would say, `Vote 
against that'.''
    And now you will all have the chance to do just that with 
the introduction of the ACE Act.
    The ACE Act would address D.C. elections through proven, 
fundamental, commonsense reforms rooted in ballot and voter 
integrity, beginning with voter ID for in-person and mail-in 
voting.
    Voter ID, and particularly photo ID, is overwhelmingly 
popular among virtually every voting demographic, regardless of 
party, race, or where a man or woman lives, because it protects 
the right to vote in elections that are secure and fair.
    Congress has work to do to fix D.C.'s elections and the 
problems referenced in my testimony today and my obviously 
longer submitted statement. These problems are America's 
problems, and the Election Transparency Initiative stands ready 
to assist in fixing them so the barriers to honest and accurate 
elections are replaced with those helping to guarantee 
certainty, trust, and confidence.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you, Mr. Cuccinelli.
    Mr. Spies, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF CHARLES SPIES

                         POLITICAL LAW PRACTICE

                            DICKINSON WRIGHT

    Mr. Spies. Thank you, Chairman and distinguished Members.
    My name is Charlie Spies. I am in the Political Law 
practice at the Dickinson Wright law firm and have spent the 
past 25 years as an attorney in the election law arena. I have 
served as counsel to the Chairman of the FEC, election law 
counsel for the RNC, counsel to the D.C. Republican Party, and 
have done election law work in over 30 states. My wife and I 
are D.C. residents, and I have worked on multiple challenges 
before the D.C. Board of Elections.
    If we can get reforms correct in D.C., it will be a model 
for states around the Nation.
    We are facing a crisis of voter confidence in this country, 
with polls demonstrating that 37 percent of Democratic-leaning 
voters and 71 percent of Republican-leaning voters share 
concerns about the election system.
    I want to be very clear: Free, fair, secure, well-run and 
transparent elections are a cornerstone of and certainly not a 
threat to democracy. Laws that create safeguards to ensure 
every legal vote is counted and increase transparency are not, 
to quote inflammatory rhetoric, so-called ``Jim Crow 2.0.''
    Effective election integrity efforts are not tedious, but 
instead they are important to increase confidence in our 
electoral process, which also results in increased voter 
participation.
    Georgia and Florida recently passed commonsense reforms 
similar to the ACE Act here, and the result has been more 
participation and more confidence in the outcome of their 
elections.
    The ACE Act will implement basic election reforms while 
also supporting states' rights to manage their own election 
processes by making D.C. into a model for fair, secure, and 
transparent elections.
    The two key principles of the ACE Act that will improve 
voter confidence are tools to make elections more effectively 
run and making elections more transparent.
    Locally, the challenges with the administrations of 
elections in D.C. have been outlined by the Chairman and Mr. 
Cuccinelli.
    The second component to improve voter confidence is 
transparency, which must include meaningful observation of all 
aspects of the voting process.
    Multiple states recently used the pretext of COVID to 
thwart election observation efforts. And when you do not let 
poll workers see what is happening, or you do not have security 
or cameras on drop boxes, then people are going to question the 
process.
    Transparency demonstrates that the process works and 
uncovers issues to be remedied in a timely manner. For example, 
Florida saw huge electoral turnout across all demographics in 
2022 after implementing similar reforms to the ACE Act, and 
that should be our goal with D.C. reforms also.
    The ACE Act contains numerous provisions to ensure D.C. 
elections are well-run and transparent: cleaning up voter 
rolls, adding voter ID requirements, prohibiting ballot 
harvesting, ending noncitizen voting, and expanding effective 
election observation.
    Despite dishonest and divisive cries of voter suppression, 
the American people overwhelmingly support commonsense reforms 
like this to the election process.
    Most of the reforms in the ACE Act have been tried in 
Florida and Georgia, and Florida's S.B. 90 was a model for many 
of the safeguards.
    The fact is that in Florida, despite assertions of 
suppression in 2022, turnout among all demographics was up, and 
the Court of Appeals to the 11th Circuit recently upheld the 
challenged provisions of it.
    The same can be said about Georgia. After Senate Bill 202 
was signed into law, Georgia received national backlash, but 
the reality is that Georgia saw record-breaking turnout last 
November, and a University of Georgia survey of voters taken 
after the elections found that exactly zero percent of Black 
respondents reported a poor voting experience.
    I am focused on Florida and Georgia because the ACE Act is 
based upon their commonsense reforms. And by bringing those 
here to Washington, DC, we can use it as a model for reform 
around the country.
    Thank you for the invitation to discuss the opportunity to 
use D.C. as the model for electoral reform, and I look forward 
to answering your questions.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Spies.
    Ms. Evans, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF MONICA HOLMAN EVANS

                           EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

                        D.C. BOARD OF ELECTIONS

    Ms. Evans. Thank you.
    Chairman Steil, Ranking Member Morelle, Chairman Comer, 
Ranking Member Raskin, and Members of the Committees, I 
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to 
address the operations of the D.C. Board of Elections. I am 
here today in my role as Executive Director of the DCBOE, and 
today I would like to discuss the process of administering 
elections in the District.
    The D.C. Board of Elections is a Charter independent agency 
comprised of a bipartisan three-board, who are each confirmed 
by the D.C. Council once nominated by the Mayor.
    As the Executive Director, I am appointed by and serve at 
the pleasure of the Board. Along with a small but dedicated 
staff, I am responsible for carrying out the Board's mission.
    My office does not introduce legislation, we do not pass 
legislation, nor do we opine on legislation. We do not comment 
on the policy decisions made or proposed by elected officials. 
We implement election laws as they exist or as they may be 
amended from time to time by elected officials. When needed, we 
comment to the D.C. Council regarding the administrative 
requirements and the fiscal impact of implementing pending 
legislation.
    Similar to Congress, the D.C. Council solicits feedback 
from constituents and hosts public hearings prior to the 
enactment of any legislation.
    As you know, in the District of Columbia there is also a 
30-day congressional review period for all Council-enacted 
legislation. Once a D.C. law passes congressional review, we 
administer it with neutrality and independence.
    Generally, DCBOE considers its efforts successful when all 
eligible individuals who wish to participate in the electoral 
process can do so simply, efficiently, and without barriers, 
and with confidence that their votes will be counted as they 
intended, and stakeholders have confidence in the management of 
the process and the result.
    DCBOE works and collaborates with states and local 
elections offices through its participation in national 
organizations, including the Election Center, the National 
Association of Election Directors, and the National Association 
of Secretaries of state.
    DCBOE interacts with the Election Assistance Commission. 
Our collaboration with the Federal Voting Assistance Program is 
to implement the online voter registration and absentee ballot 
request system for military and overseas voters. We are also 
pleased to work with inter-jurisdictional efforts that help us 
maintain our voter registration lists.
    Through the Electronic Registration Information Center or 
otherwise, our goal is simply to maintain accurate voter rolls 
in our jurisdiction, which is, relative to states, more 
transient and constantly in motion.
    We ensure the integrity of every election by putting 
measures and safeguards in place that warrant confidence in the 
elections process. We are transparent with our operations, and 
our reports are published on our website. Our operations are 
open and accessible to members of the public.
    Prior to each election, DCBOE conducts logic and accuracy 
testing that is designed to verify the ballot counting program, 
prepare voting equipment, and certify that the voting equipment 
properly reads and tabulates votes. Tests are conducted prior 
to every election and may be observed by members of the public.
    Further, DCBOE conducts a manual audit after primary and 
general elections. Members of the public are able to observe 
and verify that votes are correctly classified and tallied. The 
audit report must be completed before election results are 
certified.
    We conduct 100 percent signature verification on all 
returned mail ballots. Trained employees review scanned 
signatures from ballots against signatures we have on file. If 
there is a signature mismatch or if there is no signature, we 
have a cure process. Voters certify that they are the 
individual who voted by signing a voter certificate.
    DCBOE provides guidelines for poll watchers and election 
observers to ensure the orderly conduct of elections and to 
protect the rights of all participants in the voting process. 
We have also been awarded for our efforts.
    In closing, DCBOE has a dedicated staff that administers 
elections effectively and with integrity. We work with other 
jurisdictions to share information and election practices. 
Simply stated, we are charged with adhering to and implementing 
election laws that pertain to the District of Columbia.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you very much, Ms. Evans.
    Ms. Weiser, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF WENDY WEISER

                       VICE PRESIDENT, DEMOCRACY

                       BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE

                           NYU SCHOOL OF LAW

    Ms. Weiser. Thank you, Chairman Steil, Chairman Comer, 
Ranking Member Morelle, and Ranking Member Raskin.
    Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of American 
democracy, but they are facing serious and, in many ways, 
unprecedented threats.
    The problem is not voter fraud. We have just had two of the 
most secure Federal elections in American history.
    The problem is a sustained, anti-democratic push to reduce 
access to voting, meddle in election administration and 
equipment, and create a climate of fear around elections while 
underinvesting in real access and security needs.
    This push has been driven by false claims and election 
denial, and it threatens to undermine the freedom to vote and 
election integrity in future Federal elections.
    At the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank 
and law center, we are tracking four kinds of threats.
    First, Americans are facing a more concerted effort to 
restrict access to voting than we have in generations. Last 
year, voters in 20 states faced 33 new laws making it harder to 
vote, and this year we are on a similar track.
    These laws especially target voters of color. And it is not 
the case that turnout is up equally across all demographics. In 
fact, nationally, the turnout gap between White and non-White 
voters was larger in 2022 than in any Federal general election 
since at least 2000, and it is growing.
    Second, our elections face elevated levels of harassment 
and threats of violence. Election officials in particular have 
been targeted relentlessly, but voters and even elected 
officials have not been spared.
    Third, we are seeing increasing efforts to sabotage 
election administration and outcomes, from attempts to prevent 
certification of valid results to new laws making it easier for 
partisans to interfere in election counting and election 
administration.
    Fourth, there are increased threats of infiltration of 
election systems, along with risks from aging and less secure 
equipment.
    These problems are not specific to the District of 
Columbia. They are national problems that require a strong 
national response. And I submit that response is the Freedom to 
Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which came achingly close to becoming 
the law last year, and Congress should pass that now.
    Today's hearing on the ACE Act underscores the central role 
that Congress ought to play in ensuring that every eligible 
American can cast a ballot and have that ballot securely 
counted.
    The U.S. Constitution gives Congress extremely broad 
authority to set baseline national standards for voting and 
election administration in Federal elections.
    Unfortunately, the ACE Act's mandates for Washington, DC, 
fail to meet this moment. Rather than improving voting access 
and election integrity, it would roll back critical pro-voter 
advances that are working well in the District and across the 
country.
    For example, it would repeal same-day registration and 
impose one of the earliest registration deadlines in the 
country, transforming D.C.'s registration system from one of 
the most accessible in the country to one of the least.
    And although Congress has the authority to make laws for 
D.C., it should afford the District the same opportunity as 
other jurisdictions to set its own local election rules, 
subject to whatever baseline pro-voter election standards that 
Congress sets for the Nation.
    At bottom, the ACE Act would restrict voting access for 
D.C.'s hundreds of thousands of voters, none of whom have 
voting representation in the Congress considering this bill, 
and that is unfair.
    The people of the District of Columbia deserve the same 
local sovereignty that other Americans have. They also deserve 
the full representative citizenship that can only be obtained 
via statehood.
    D.C. has a larger population than Vermont or Wyoming, and 
its citizens pay more taxes than those of 22 states. D.C. 
voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of statehood. For the 
District's majority non-White population, this is not just a 
matter of self-determination, but also an essential civil 
rights issue.
    So rather than focusing solely on D.C. and trying to make 
the District a model for others, we urge Congress to address 
the urgent threats facing our national elections. Congress 
should pass sensible pro-voter, pro-democracy baseline 
standards that apply equally across the country, the standards 
in the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. Our democracy can 
not wait.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you very much.
    I will begin our questions today, followed by Ranking 
Member Morelle. We will then alternate between parties, and 
because this is a joint hearing, alternate between membership 
of each Committee by seniority, respectively.
    We have 57 Members here, about one-eighth of the House of 
Representatives, and so I will hold us quite tightly to the 5 
minutes.
    I will now recognize myself for the purpose of questioning 
our witnesses.
    Ms. Evans, if I can start with you. You are the current 
Executive Director of the D.C. Board of Elections. You do not 
make election law, but you implement election policy. Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Evans. That is correct.
    Mr. Steil. And so, in Washington, DC, if you are a D.C. 
resident, you would need a photo ID to board an airplane. You 
would need a photo ID to buy a six-pack of beer.
    Do you need a photo ID to vote in a D.C. election?
    Ms. Evans. When an individual shows up to a vote center, 
they do not need to submit a voter identification.
    Mr. Steil. So you do not need photo ID if you are voting in 
Washington, DC.
    Ms. Evans. That is correct.
    Mr. Steil. Although you would need it to buy a six-pack of 
beer, you would need it to board an airplane.
    Ms. Evans, did D.C. just pass a law that would allow 
noncitizens to vote in D.C. elections?
    Ms. Evans. In D.C. local elections, that is correct.
    Mr. Steil. So, starting in 2024, next year, noncitizens 
will be allowed to vote in D.C., correct?
    Ms. Evans. In local elections, that is correct.
    Mr. Steil. So, Mr. Cuccinelli, if I can, Ms. Evans said not 
only does D.C. allow noncitizens to vote, they do not require 
photo ID to vote in D.C. elections.
    Doesn't that mean that people who are not eligible could 
vote in D.C. elections?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes, particularly when you have a system 
that is not running very well in the first place. Yes.
    Mr. Steil. So, isn't it important that people are who they 
say they are when they show up to the polls, and photo ID would 
help ensure that?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Absolutely. And that is actually the 
phrasing I recall Vice President Harris using in a BET 
interview about 2 years ago.
    Mr. Steil. So, Mr. Cuccinelli, let me shift gears slightly. 
Under D.C.'s kind of crazy new noncitizen voting law, doesn't 
that mean that embassy staff at the Russian Embassy or the 
Chinese Embassy, after being in Washington, DC, for just 30 
days, could vote in D.C. elections?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. That is exactly what it means.
    Mr. Steil. And so, if Washington, D.C., implemented photo 
ID for voting and allowed noncitizens to vote, an individual 
working at the Russian Embassy could pull out a Russian Embassy 
passport and vote in our Nation's Capital?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. That is exactly right.
    Mr. Steil. That is ridiculous.
    The ACE Act----
    Mr. Cuccinelli. That is also exactly right.
    Mr. Steil. It is ridiculous. This is the Nation's Capital. 
We should not have Russian Embassy or Chinese Embassy staff 
voting in our elections. In fact, only U.S. citizens should be 
voting in American elections.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, the ACE Act is the strongest conservative 
election integrity legislation to be considered in the House in 
a generation. But the left kind of comes at it with these 
visceral attacks, the same attacks that they tried to use in 
Georgia when Georgia passed their voter integrity provisions. 
In fact, last night the Committee on House Administration 
Democratic Twitter account said the ACE Act directly threatens 
the District and our democracy.
    Does photo ID threaten the District and our democracy?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. No, it protects it.
    Mr. Steil. Does prohibiting noncitizens from voting, is 
that a threat to democracy?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. It protects the democracy and the value of 
U.S. citizenship.
    Mr. Steil. Does maintaining clean voter rolls, is that a 
threat to democracy?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. No. It is a protection for democracy.
    Mr. Steil. So, what are they talking about?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. They are talking about a 20-year-old 
narrative where they attack anything that makes elections 
cleaner and more secure and more transparent. It is not a new 
attack. It has been going on for a long time. This is just the 
modern version of it.
    We heard the ``Jim Crow 2.0.'' Charlie Spies touched on 
this. And Georgia was the center point of this over the last 2 
years. That is where the real explosion took place.
    Mr. Steil. And after all this hyperbole in Georgia, the 
President of the United States leans in, makes false claims. 
The Washington Post comes back, gives four Pinocchios to the 
President. The false narrative is driven. Major League Baseball 
removes the All-Star Game from Atlanta off this false 
narrative.
    Then we get to the election. What happens in Georgia? Was 
the narrative, was the Democratic narrative proven true?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. No, they had record turnout. The narrative 
was proven completely false. And one of the universities down 
there, obviously from the left side of the spectrum 
politically, polled after and found that zero percent--zero 
percent--of Black voters had a bad voting experience. And the 
Black and White report of good voting experience was within 
tenths of a percent of one another, over 72 percent of both 
populations.
    Mr. Steil. Which shows that putting in place good election 
integrity laws actually increases voter confidence and 
increases voter turnout across demographic groups.
    I think that is important. That is what the ACE Act does. I 
appreciate your comments here.
    And I yield back.
    I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5 
minutes for the purpose of asking questions.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me begin.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, did Joe Biden win the 2020 Presidential 
election?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, he is the President today, so, yes.
    Mr. Morelle. Yes, he did win the election?
    Mr. Spies--that is your answer, he did win the election?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. He is the President today. So, yes, he won 
the election.
    Mr. Morelle. Well, the question of whether or not he is the 
President and the question of whether or not he won the 
election are actually two different questions.
    In your opinion, did he win the election?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. He is the President today and he got the--
and it is because he won that election, yes.
    Mr. Morelle. OK.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. And he won that election because the Hunter 
Biden story was suppressed and because of Zuckerbucks.
    Mr. Morelle. Wow.
    Mr. Spies, did Joe Biden win the 2020 Presidential 
election.
    Mr. Spies. George Bush won the 2000 and 2004 election. 
Donald Trump won the 2016 election. Brian Kemp won the 2018 
election. And Joe Biden won the 2020 election. All were 
challenged.
    Mr. Morelle. OK. Ms. Holmes, did Joe Biden win the 2020 
election?
    Ms. Evans. I am assuming you are addressing me, Ms. Evans. 
And, yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Morelle. I am sorry. Ms. Evans, my apologies, yes.
    Ms. Weiser, did Joe Biden win the 2020 election?
    Ms. Weiser. Yes, he did.
    Mr. Morelle. I would like to stick with you, Ms. Weiser.
    In the aftermath of the 2020 election, the threats to 
election workers rose significantly, many election workers 
targeted by internet rumors, public officials, even by the then 
President of the United States. And yet they are a key element 
in our democratic process. Commonsense rules are needed to 
ensure election workers can keep their workplace safe and 
secure.
    And I would love your opinion. First of all, can more be 
done to protect poll workers and others who facilitate and 
support our elections? And then does the ACE Act do enough, in 
your opinion, to support safety and security of election 
workers?
    Ms. Weiser. Thank you for your question.
    Absolutely, more can and must be done to protect election 
workers in America. The Brennan Center has been actually 
surveying local election officials for the past several years, 
and we have documented an alarming spike in threats and 
harassment of election officials.
    Just earlier this year, we found that nearly one in three 
election officials have been threatened, harassed, or abused 
for doing their jobs. Forty-five percent fear for the safety of 
their colleagues, and more than one in five are concerned about 
being assaulted on the job. And the concerns are actually the 
highest for election officials that are serving communities of 
color in America.
    In addition to facing these threats, they have too few 
resources to address them. And across the country, election 
officials are reporting that they do not have the resources to 
ensure the physical safety and security of their election 
workers, of their polling places, and of their homes, and this 
is something that Congress can assist.
    But, in addition, we need to have clear standards that 
ensure that election officials have the same protections as 
voters and others against harassment and intimidation. We need 
to protect their privacy and against doxxing. And we need to 
have baseline national standards that actually reduce the 
incentive to threaten and harass election officials and 
depoliticize election administration.
    These are critical reforms, most of which are in the 
Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. They are not in the ACE 
Act, which does not at all address the safety concerns of 
election officials.
    To the contrary, actually. It has some provisions that 
increase risks of election officials by empowering partisan 
polling place observers and preventing election officials from 
being able to manage polling places to ensure the safety of 
election workers in the polling places.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, the subject of the hearing concerns the 
confidence of the American public in the integrity of election 
process.
    And I believe Americans, if they have any reason to be 
concerned, it would be about the efforts of the former 
President to overturn a fair and legitimate election to retain 
power and stop the peaceful transfer of power, which has been 
so fundamental to American democracy.
    Richard Donoghue served as the second-highest ranking 
official at the Justice Department during the Trump 
Administration. He testified under penalty of perjury about a 
conversation former President Trump had with you on December 
31, 2020. He testified the President asked you whether the 
Department of Homeland Security could seize voting machines--
frankly, a desperate attempt to overturn the election.
    I note that in your--my colleague Mrs. Torres has asked 
about your response, which is at significant odds with the 
testimony under perjury. I look forward to your response to her 
questions.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chairman of the Committee on Oversight, Mr. Comer, is 
now recognized.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, you have already stated that you are like a 
majority of Americans. You oppose allowing non-U.S. citizens 
the right to vote. Is that correct?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Absolutely.
    Mr. Comer. On January 31 of this year, I introduced House 
Joint Resolution 24, a resolution disapproving the D.C. 
Council's bill to allow noncitizens to vote.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, would you have supported this bill?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Absolutely.
    Mr. Comer. I am glad you say that. I am also glad that 42 
of my Democrat colleagues agreed with you and voted in favor of 
that legislation when it passed the House on February 9.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, do you agree that allowing foreign 
nationals, including foreign nationals from countries that are 
openly hostile to the United States, to cast votes in the 
municipal elections of our Nation's Capital pose severe 
security risks?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I certainly do, and find it a rather brazen 
invitation to foreign interference in a local election.
    Mr. Comer. I have to state this, Mr. Chairman. The D.C. 
Mayor and City Council members play a crucial role in emergency 
preparedness for the city. And now foreign nationals will have 
a say in who holds those elected positions? That is something 
that we should all be very concerned about.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, Title I, Subtitle D of the ACE Act would 
prohibit a noncitizen from voting in a D.C. election. Do you 
support such a provision?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Absolutely.
    Mr. Comer. So, the ACE Act uses what it considers to be 
best practices and implements them within the District, which 
falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress, to have our 
Capital become a poster child for safe, secure, and accessible 
elections.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, do you believe the reforms contemplated by 
the ACE Act would bring us closer to this goal?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Much closer. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Raskin, the Ranking Member on the Committee on 
Oversight, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    I am charmed by my colleagues' sudden interest in Russian 
subversion of American elections, something that they used to 
describe as the Russian hoax.
    If only they had shown a fraction of the interest in 
stopping Donald Trump's sellout of the American Government to 
Vladimir Putin on everything from NATO to Syria to Ukraine as 
they are showing about the possibility that a handful of 
Russian diplomats could sway an advisory neighborhood 
commission election in Dupont Circle, America would be in a 
much stronger position today.
    Mr. Spies, several provisions of the ACE Act seek to shield 
or limit donor disclosure, masking the true source of funding 
in our elections and hampering the ability of the FEC to 
enforce the foreign national prohibition. The ACE Act could 
lead to millions of dollars in hidden foreign spending hitting 
our airwaves and influencing our elections.
    Now, I want to talk about this kind of foreign 
interference. As you know, it is unlawful for any person to 
solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation from a 
foreign national.
    Do you agree it is important to ensure that foreign 
nationals do not make a contribution or donation of money or 
something else of value in connection with a Federal, state, or 
local election?
    Mr. Spies. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. And you are counsel to the super-PAC Right to 
Rise USA. Is that right?
    Mr. Spies. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. In Matter Under Review 7122, the FEC fined 
Right to Rise USA and American Pacific International Capital, 
APIC, a California corporation controlled by two foreign 
national Chinese citizens, $940,000, at the time the third-
largest penalty the FEC had ever issued. The penalty followed 
reporting that identified two illegal APIC donations totaling 
$1.3 million to Right to Rise.
    Now, as I am sure you remember, Mr. Spies, you were also 
fined by the FEC in this matter as the treasurer of Right to 
Rise.
    This incident is a concrete example of actual foreign 
interference in our elections. Shouldn't Congress be doing 
everything in its power to stop concrete actual foreign 
interference, like strengthening the ban on foreign national 
money and promoting disclosure of the true sources of election-
related spending?
    Mr. Spies. Almost everything you just stated there was 
factually incorrect. I would suggest the staffer who wrote that 
for you should research what happened there.
    Long story short, what you are talking about is an American 
subsidiary under the control of U.S. citizens that gave money 
to a super-PAC. Everybody----
    Mr. Raskin. So, what was the fine for?
    Mr. Spies. There was a conciliation agreement, which means 
that you settle with the Commission. And the PAC paid----
    Mr. Raskin. Because of foreign money, right?
    Mr. Spies. It was not. There was never foreign money. The 
allegation was that it was U.S. money, but that a foreign 
national was the counsel at the foreign company.
    By having legal review of whether it was permissible to 
contribute, that meant that you had a foreign citizen allegedly 
involved in the contribution, but it was never alleged to be 
foreign money. This was U.S. money, but there was a foreign 
lawyer involved in it.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. I am going to have to cut you. Send us a 
memo about the rest of it.
    Mr. Spies. So, you can----
    Mr. Raskin. All I have got is the FEC decision. OK, forgive 
me. I am reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Spies. So, it was just----
    Mr. Raskin. I am reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. It is my 
time.
    Ms. Weiser, we just went through the unprecedented agony of 
a President of the United States trying to overthrow a 
Presidential election, trying to get the Vice President of the 
United States to step outside of his constitutional role and to 
declare the President who lost the victor in the election. We 
heard people not far from here chanting, ``Hang Mike Pence, 
hang Mike Pence,'' driving him out of the body. There was an 
attempt to substitute the loser for a winner in a Presidential 
election.
    We experienced a violent insurrection. There have been 
hundreds of convictions. People have just been convicted of 
seditious conspiracy, which means conspiracy to overthrow the 
government.
    And now, instead of dealing with that reality, which poses 
a serious threat to the Union, a dagger pointed at the throat 
of the United States of America, instead our colleagues come 
forward with legislation to try to impose a photo ID on local 
elections in the District of Columbia.
    Do you see something as strange or perverse about this 
response to the actual threats to democracy in America?
    Ms. Weiser. Thank you. Thank you for your question.
    I do agree that the ACE Act does not address these critical 
threats that are urgent, and that Congress needs to address as 
quickly as possible heading into Federal elections and instead 
focuses on actually rolling back voting rights solely in the 
District of Columbia.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And before I get in my questions, I just want to bring up 
something that I had heard earlier. And I am a bit surprised 
that the minority is criticizing this committee for having so 
many hearings on a piece of legislation that is very important 
to Americans.
    Look, debate, careful consideration, and transparency is 
the hallmark of American legislative process. I look out at the 
crowd here and I can see people who are probably on both sides 
of this issue. However, it is testimony that this many people 
are here to hear logical debate and consideration.
    Now, I probably should not be surprised, because in the 
last Congress this Committee was handed an 884-page election 
overhaul bill that was rushed through by the Democrats--884 
pages long. We had two hearings, two short hearings, and no 
markup before it was rushed to the House Floor.
    This bill is one-sixth of the size of that bill. We have 
had seven hearings, including today. We have got more scheduled 
to come.
    I do not see that as a problem. I see that as doing things 
the right and proper way.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Now, with that said, Mr. Cuccinelli, 
article 1, section 4, of the Constitution grants primary 
authority to states to run elections how they see fits and 
gives Congress purely a secondary role.
    Why is that important?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, I would add one item as to why it is 
important that gets rarely discussed, which comes from my old 
DHS hat, and that is the simple matter of, you know, we have 
had comments, from myself included, about election 
interference. If you have 51 different elections, picking your 
President--we will take the one national election--it is the 
security equivalent of a diversified financial portfolio. If 
you hack a state, you have hacked one state.
    If H.R. 1 and H.R. 4 of the previous Congress had become 
law, you would have had one big election system. You hack one 
election system; you can actually affect outcomes much more 
easily.
    The more you hack, more states, the more likely you are to 
get caught. That is a high, high deterrent for a nation-state. 
So that is a very little discussed benefit to the states 
running elections. They are all done differently, District of 
Columbia included. And that is a real benefit for American 
security.
    Mr. Loudermilk. But, under our current Constitution, and I 
know some want to change this, the District of Columbia is 
subject to congressional authority. Correct?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes.
    Mr. Loudermilk. And I want to divert a little bit because 
of something that was asked earlier. We were talking--the 
Chairman was talking about foreign nationals, you know, that 
live here. Now they can vote in D.C.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, I know you are an attorney. Do we have 
foreign nationals that do live in the United States that are 
not citizens?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Millions of them.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Do we have those that have permanently made 
the United States their residency or their domicile that are 
not U.S. citizens?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Millions of them.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Let me read to you what the qualifications 
for the office of Mayor in the District of Columbia currently 
are: No person shall hold the office of Mayor unless he is a 
qualified elector.
    Would someone that we described, the Chairman described 
earlier, that may be a foreign national, that worked at the 
Russian Embassy but now just decided to stay in D.C., and 
because our current status of not--just allowing anybody to 
come to the country and stay here would not force them to 
leave, is that a scenario that is possible? And would that 
person be a qualified elector?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Under the current definition.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Second qualification: Has resided and 
domiciled in the District for 1 year immediately preceding the 
day on which the general or special election for Mayor is to be 
held.
    Is that scenario possible, that someone who is a former 
employee of the Russian or Chinese Embassy decided to stay in 
the United States, is qualified to vote in the District of 
Columbia, could run for Mayor of the District of Columbia?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Absolutely.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Has not been convicted of a felony while 
holding the office.
    And then it talks about various types of employment.
    Now I am not an attorney, but I can read some legal 
documents. And, from what I am seeing here--I could be wrong. 
This could be something else in the code book for the District 
of Columbia. But what I am reading right here directly off the 
District of Columbia's qualifications is that someone who is--
has worked for an adversary to the United States could run and 
become Mayor of the District of Columbia.
    Is that what you read?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes.
    Mr. Loudermilk. I will submit my other questions for the 
record, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Holmes Norton is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The D.C. Statehood bill is clearly constitutional. As 
leading constitutional scholars said in a letter to Congress, 
and I am quoting: There is no constitutional barrier to passing 
the bill.
    In the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House passed the 
D.C. Statehood bill. This Congress, the bill has 193 cosponsors 
in the House and 45 in the Senate.
    The bill would admit the state of Washington Douglass 
Commonwealth and reduce the size of the Federal District, also 
known as the District of Columbia.
    The state would consist of 66 of the 68 miles of the 
current Federal District, and the reduced Federal District over 
which Congress would retain plenary authority would consist of 
the other 2 square miles. There is no precedent for Congress 
admitting new states and reducing the size--there is precedent 
for Congress admitting new states and reducing the size of the 
Federal District.
    The Constitution's Admissions Clause gives Congress the 
power to admit new states. Congress has admitted all 37 new 
states into the Union by simple legislation since the original 
13 states. The Constitution's District Clause gives Congress 
plenary authority over the Federal District. Congress used this 
authority to reduce the size of the Federal District by 30 
percent in 1846.
    Not only is the D.C. Statehood bill constitutional, the 
state of Washington Douglass Commonwealth would meet the three 
traditional criteria Congress has used in evaluating 
prospective states, namely, support for statehood, commitment 
to democracy, and sufficient population and resources.
    In particular, in 18--I am sorry--in 2016, 86 percent of 
D.C. residents voted for statehood.
    Ms. Weiser, why do you think D.C. residents overwhelmingly 
support statehood?
    Ms. Weiser. Thank you very much for your question.
    D.C. residents, like all citizens, desire and deserve 
political self-determination, a say over what happens in their 
community, and a voice in the national government over what 
happens in the country, as well.
    Ms. Norton. There is nothing preventing Congress from 
passing legislation tomorrow to admit the state of Washington, 
Douglass Commonwealth, other than partisanship, spurious and 
specious arguments, and dog whistles like the statement from a 
Republican Senator that the new state, which would be majority 
Black and Brown, would not be, and I am quoting, a well-rounded 
working-class state, end quote.
    I urge my colleagues to pass the D.C. State bill and to 
keep their hands off of D.C.
    Ms. Raskin. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Norton. I yield to the gentlelady from Maryland.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Ms. Norton.
    I just wanted to correct the record about this.
    Mr. Spies seemed to deny what I asserted. I would like to 
submit for the record the conciliation agreement in the matter 
of Right to Rise USA, which specifically says on page 4: Right 
to Rise USA violated 52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(2) when its agent, Neil 
Bush, solicited a foreign national for a political 
contribution.
    Mr. Raskin. Right to Rise USA violated 52 U.S.C. 
30121(a)(2) by accepting APIC's contributions. Respondents will 
cease and desist and will pay a civil penalty to the Commission 
in the amount of $390,000.
    And this was signed by--for the respondents by you, Mr. 
Spies, on February 13, 2019.
    Do you deny any of that?
    Mr. Spies. I would be happy to explain, if you would like 
to give me more time.
    Mr. Raskin. Sure. And we can also explain it by entering 
into the record how a Chinese-owned firm entered U.S. 
Presidential politics August 3, 2016.
    Enter that, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Steil. Without objection.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    Mr. Steil [continuing]. The gentleman may answer----
    Mr. Raskin. Please.
    Mr. Steil [continuing]. The question.
    Mr. Spies. What you just read is that somebody solicited, 
that the conciliation agreement agreed that Mr. Bush solicited 
foreign--a foreign national. And what that meant is that he 
spoke with the counsel of a foreign parent company about 
whether it was permissible for domestic money to be 
contributed. No foreign money was contributed to the super PAC.
    Mr. Raskin. No----
    Mr. Spies. It was----
    Mr. Raskin. It says you accepted APIC's contributions. If 
it was American money, why would you be entering into an 
agreement to embrace your own guilt in the matter?
    Mr. Spies. I was the counsel for an organization that found 
it was better to conciliate than continue to litigate.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. So, you did plead guilty to it.
    Mr. Spies. I did not plead guilty. The organization did not 
plead guilty.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman's time is up.
    Mr. Spies. You are misunderstanding how it works.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mrs. Bice is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I appreciate the witnesses for being here today.
    First, let me say that I come from the great state of 
Oklahoma. And, in Oklahoma, we have some of, if not the most, 
secure election laws in the entire country.
    And, as such, in 2010, we passed a voter initiative to 
require voter ID or voter verification at the polls. It passed 
by almost 75 percent. And I believe that, if you were to put a 
ballot initiative together nationally to ask if citizens should 
be required to verify proof of identification at the polls, 
that you would see an overwhelming number of individuals would 
support that initiative.
    Ms. Weiser, I want to start with you. You earlier mentioned 
that the--I am sorry. When--in 2020 and 2022, there were mail-
in ballots submitted across the District of Columbia and mailed 
out to every single general election voter. Is that right?
    Ms. Weiser. Yes, I believe that is correct.
    Mrs. Bice. And, in 2020, wasn't it true that there were 
ballots that were not accepted and/or voters that were not able 
to vote, and because of that, there was the opportunity for 
email ballots? Is that correct?
    Ms. Weiser. I am not familiar with the email ballot, with 
whether or not there were email ballots.
    Mrs. Bice. Ms. Evans, would you like to address that?
    Ms. Evans. During the 2020 primary election, individuals 
did not receive their mail ballots. And due to health reasons, 
we utilized the platform we have for military and overseas 
voters. And so, we did follow the guidelines as far as 
acceptance of those ballots through that--through that channel.
    Mrs. Bice. Do you believe, Ms. Weiser, that accepting email 
ballots is--diminishes voter confidence?
    Ms. Weiser. We believe that internet voting is not yet 
secure nationally as a standard to roll out across the country. 
And let me just----
    Mrs. Bice. Mr. Spies--yes or no, it is not confident. There 
is a lack of voter confidence.
    Ms. Weiser. In a number of circumstances, a small number of 
ballots can be done securely. We would not recommend expanding 
that.
    Mrs. Bice. Mr. Spies, if I can ask you the same question. 
Do you believe that email ballots would diminish voter 
confidence?
    Mr. Spies. Yes.
    Mrs. Bice. Mr. Cuccinelli?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Bice. And why is that?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, because we are all, in our own lives, 
all too familiar with the hacking of our own email systems, 
much less everyone else's. And so, when you are reliant on that 
form for voting, especially in an arrangement where there is no 
identification even required, much less attempted, it guts 
confidence in the outcome.
    Mrs. Bice. And isn't that a reason why we actually asked 
for proof of identification when we go to the polls, Mr. Spies? 
We want to be able to ensure that the individual that is 
submitting their ballot is actually who they say they are. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Spies. That is exactly right. And I would just note 
that the 75 percent statistic you noted in terms of voter ID 
for Oklahoma is very similar to all the national polling out 
there, which shows over 75 percent support for voter ID.
    Mrs. Bice. And currently voter ID is not required for mail-
in ballots. Is that correct, Ms. Evans?
    Ms. Evans. That is correct.
    Mrs. Bice. And you mentioned in your testimony that 
signature verification is used. How confident are you in 
signature verification?
    And, if I can ask, do you sign your signature the same way 
today that you did 20 years ago?
    Ms. Evans. I am confident in signature verification in the 
District of Columbia. We have trained individuals who have 
numerous signatures for which they can use to verify----
    Mrs. Bice. Where do you get the signature information----
    Ms. Evans. We get----
    Mrs. Bice [continuing]. That you are utilizing?
    Ms. Evans. We get some of it from the Department of Motor 
Vehicles. We get some of it from actual voter registration 
applications. And, when individuals vote in person, they sign 
the poll pads. And those signatures are captured. So, we have a 
number of signatures we can use to verify signature.
    In the event that we are unable to verify signature, 
because, as you mentioned, signatures do change over years, and 
if an individual cannot verify that signature, it is elevated 
to another level of review.
    If the second level of review still cannot verify, we have 
a cure process where we reach out to the voter and we get a 
signature and we get a certification that indicates that that 
is that signature.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you. My time is limited. So, I want to 
make sure I get the last question in.
    And that is, in regard to the mailed ballots that were done 
in 2020 and 2022, every voter received a mail-in ballot for the 
general election. But there was a significantly high amount of 
return ballots: 11 percent in 2020 and 17 percent in 2022.
    What are you doing to ensure that you are providing due 
maintenance on the voter lists in the District of Columbia?
    Ms. Evans. Actually, the returned mailed ballots assist us 
in our list maintenance process. Once we get those ballots, 
that will serve as the first mailer in that process. And that 
will lead us to our process where we can move voters to an 
inactive status.
    Mr. Steil. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mrs. Torres is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Torres. Mr. Cuccinelli, during your April 27, 2023, 
appearance, I asked you about your January 6th Select Committee 
transcribed interview, specifically about the several instances 
where various Trump officials approached you on the ability of 
the Department of Homeland Security, where you served as Acting 
Deputy Secretary, to seize voting machines.
    This included a series of attempts, including a December 
31, 2020, call, which was 58 days after the election and only 7 
days before the attack on the Capitol, from former President 
Trump regarding seizing voting machines.
    You testified before the January 6th Select Committee and 
this Committee that the former President asked you about 
seizing voting machines. However, your prior testimony was 
inconsistent with Mr. Donoghue's recollection of a call from 
President Trump. You said that Mr. Donoghue's recollection 
might be a misunderstanding.
    This Committee and I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. 
Cuccinelli, by next Wednesday as we seek clarity about exactly 
when after the election the former President asked you about 
DHS authority to seize voting machines, particularly after you 
informed his campaign that DHS and DOJ lacked such authority.
    Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to include the 
following items in the record: The Select Committee to 
Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol 
transcribed interview of Richard Donoghue and the June 23, 
2020--2022, hearing on the January 6th investigation record, 
both of which include former--Mr. Donoghue's testimony 
regarding former President Trump's call to Mr. Cuccinelli 
regarding seizing voting machines and the Select Committee to 
Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol 
transcribed interview by Ken Cuccinelli from December 7, 2021.
    Mr. Steil. Without objection.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chair, because witnesses' 
credibility matters to this Committee.
    Ms. Evans, you know, Republican majority states have shown 
their voter priorities, first, by redistricting practices, 
gerrymandering every community that does not agree with their 
extreme agenda; two, shutting down polling locations in 
communities that do not agree with their extreme agenda; three, 
purging voters simply because they missed an election; and 
four, promoting disinformation in districts that are 
represented by Members of Congress that do not agree with their 
extreme agenda.
    To all of the D.C. residents that are here, let me 
apologize to you for what has been put on the record about you 
and your right to be a citizen of a state, of a community where 
you live and pay taxes. I do not know a better example of 
taxation without representation than what you go through every 
single day under this extreme majority.
    Ms. Evans, please tell us a little bit about how D.C. makes 
pro-voter policies, how they put those policies in place to 
improve voter access, specifically how you reach out to voters 
who may feel disconnected when they hear disinformation, and 
they see that there has been no progress in them being able to 
cast their votes for representatives that truly represent their 
community.
    Please tell us about these processes.
    Ms. Evans. Thank you.
    Our processes are really around voter education and 
outreach, and we have a very robust division at D.C. Board of 
Elections. And we make information available in several 
different formats. We use print media. We use television/radio 
media. We attempt to address the digital divide by sending 
material to residents in the District of Columbia, yard signs, 
door hangers. All of those are mechanisms that we use to get 
information to the residents and voters in the District of 
Columbia.
    In addition to that, we hold roundtables and townhalls to 
receive feedback. And, as far as the passage of legislation and 
laws, District Council and the Mayor do the same.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Ms. Evans.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Higgins is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Americans watching this are asking themselves, what is the 
problem with picture ID, and what is the problem with photo ID? 
Why not have photo ID to present when you cast your vote in the 
United States of America?
    Americans watching are wondering, regarding mail-in 
ballots, why would there be an automatic mechanism to deliver 
mail-in ballots or absentee ballots to every registered voter? 
Americans are watching and wondering, why would anyone expect 
that an election system that was designed to encourage fraud, 
why would you expect it to not experience fraud? Because 
corruption is born in the heart of man, ladies and gentlemen, 
not in the mechanisms of man.
    And Republicans in Congress are carefully and judiciously 
addressing the very serious concern of election integrity by 
focusing on D.C. election mechanisms for two primary reasons. 
One, the Constitution grants every sovereign state the right to 
determine the means by which elections will take place within 
that sovereign state. But Congress has unique authority over 
D.C. because it is our Nation's Capital.
    And election integrity is indeed a national concern. So, we 
must address this concern but do so within the parameters of 
our constitutional authority. This is why we are focused on 
D.C.
    To my D.C. citizens, brothers and sisters, you live in a 
beautifully unique city, the Capitol of the Nation that stands 
as the beacon of hope for the entire world. It is a Capital 
City that belongs to all the people, and the people of American 
are concerned about election integrity.
    So, we put forth legislation through our constitutional 
authority as Congress for Washington, DC. that could stand as a 
model for the entire Nation, for the sovereign states that have 
the authority to determine the means by which elections take 
place within that state. And these commonsense proposals of 
photo ID, legitimate photo ID to cast a vote, it is difficult 
to comprehend how anyone would oppose such a measure.
    The commonsense proposal of limiting the numbers of ballots 
that are uncontrolled, delivered to homes across that voting 
area, collected in unsecured ballot boxes, it is common sense 
to control that.
    Might I suggest that we take a step back, all of us, and 
recognize the work that has been done by Republicans in this 
Congress to address this very serious issue carefully and 
judicially by allowing and conducting hearing after hearing 
after hearing with significant debate, as one of my colleagues 
stated earlier.
    Ms. Holman Evans, you strike me as a good lady with 
beautiful intent to serve her community. I sense that you are 
very serious about doing your job, and I commend you for that. 
And I would ask you candidly here before the entire country, is 
there any single measure of the legislation proposed that you 
would consider to be a commonsense control that should be 
enacted to help us secure our elections in your jurisdictional 
authority? Is there any measure here?
    Ms. Evans. In my role as the Executive Director, I do not 
provide opinions.
    Mr. Higgins. I am asking for your opinion. I am giving you 
the opportunity, good lady. I recognize----
    Ms. Evans. Thank you.
    Mr. Higgins. I respect you as an American. I have stated as 
such. I am asking you, is there not one commonsense measure 
within this where we could seek concurrence and agreement? This 
is the diplomatic way.
    Ms. Evans. Thank you for the question.
    As I mentioned, I am here in my official capacity as the 
Executive Director of D.C. Board of Elections.
    Mr. Higgins. So, you are going to decline this opportunity 
to opine is the way I am reading that.
    Well, let me say----
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman----
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. We are going to move forward. We 
are going to move forward as a body.
    Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you very much.
    The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Sewell is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As a daughter of Selma, Alabama, and the Ranking Member of 
the Election Subcommittee on House Administration, as well as 
the author of the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement 
Act, ensuring that elections are safe, secure, and accessible 
is something that I take very deeply personal.
    Voting is a cornerstone of our democracy. And far too often 
the integrity of our elections is undermined by misinformation, 
false claims, and voter fraud during the election 
administration process.
    In the 2020 election, there was no evidence of a voting 
system being deleted, votes not counting, votes lost, or votes 
being compromised in anyway. A recent study by the Brennan 
Center revealed that voter fraud is a very rare occurrence. 
Voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent. And the few cases 
of voter fraud came from mistakes made by the voter or election 
administrators.
    Allegations of widespread voter fraud are attempts to 
distract voters from the implementation of restrictive voter 
policies that limit access to the ballot box. Contrary to what 
my Republican colleagues have asserted about the ACE bill being 
a model for the rest of the Nation, the ACE bill is a dangerous 
policy that would have a severe impact on the rights of voters 
and on voting rights and access, especially to the District of 
Columbia.
    Washington, D.C., has the highest voter registration rate 
in the Nation. D.C. voters can vote early, by mail, or drop 
ballot--or drop box. Voting in D.C. is accessible to voters 
with disability and nonspeaking--non-English-speaking voters.
    D.C. has implemented pro-voter policies that has made 
voting very accessible to its residents. Even the Conservative 
Heritage Foundation's election fraud cases data base list zero 
incidents of voter fraud in the D.C.--in the District of 
Columbia since 1979. D.C. is a model and an example of the 
implementation of pro-voter policies that the entire Nation 
should look at.
    However, the ACE bill is egregiously attempting to further 
disenfranchise D.C. voters by removing proactive voter policies 
that make their elections some of the most accessible elections 
in this Nation.
    To be clear, D.C. voters deserve the same right to 
political self-determination as other Americans. The ACE Act 
would restrict voter access to D.C.'s hundreds of thousands of 
voters, none of whom have voting representation in this body, 
Congress. It would do so, despite the fact that Congress has 
long delegated its authority over D.C.'s elections and local 
governance to the D.C. Council under the D.C. Home Rule Act of 
1997--of 1973. Sorry.
    Ms. Weiser, you spoke very eloquently of why it is so 
important that we give greater voter access. Can you talk a 
little bit about why prohibiting same-day registration and any 
registration in the 30 days prior to elections would transform 
not only D.C. voter registration into one of the least 
accessible but that would be detrimental to take on as a model?
    Ms. Weiser. Thank you very much for this question.
    The same-day registration provision that is in place in 
D.C. and has been for 10 years is in place in 22 other states. 
It has been working well. And these are--include red states, 
blue states.
    Ms. Sewell. It does not include my state of Alabama, 
unfortunately, and I know my constituency would love to have 
more pro-voter policies and better access to the ballot box.
    Ms. Weiser. Indeed. It actually provides better options for 
voters to register to vote. It works well. It is secure. And it 
actually has been shown to significantly improve voter 
participation and especially voter participation among voters 
of color who are disproportionately voting at much lower rates 
right now.
    Ms. Sewell. Not only do I agree with you, I would say that 
what we should be focused on is passing the Freedom to Vote Act 
and the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and not 
this ACE bill.
    Thank you, and I yield the balance of my time.
    Mr. Steil. The gentlelady yields.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
    You know, I want to be clear about what is happening here. 
The D.C. City Council has passed and enacted a number of pro-
voting policies to increase voting accessibility and to protect 
the right to vote.
    Now what we are seeing here introduced by the other side of 
the aisle is to pass legislations that would--legislation that 
would strip the D.C. government and its residents of their 
ability to determine the rules that govern their elections.
    So, let us take a look at the policies that the District of 
Columbia has passed that are now under threat.
    Ms. Weiser, D.C. residents can register on the same day and 
vote. Correct?
    Ms. Weiser. That is correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And how long has same-day registration 
been in place in the District of Columbia?
    Ms. Weiser. I believe it has been in place for a decade.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Ten years, a decade.
    And, in 2020, the D.C. General Auditor found that in its 
audit of the 2020 election that same-day registration came 
with, quote, no evidence of fraud or glitches. Yet, despite 
this, the legislation before us would eliminate same-day 
registration.
    And, in your testimony, you stated that eliminating same-
day registration after 10 years of successful use would serve 
no valid purpose.
    So, I ask you, given that the legislation here being 
presented by the Republican side of the aisle would be to 
eliminate it, what possible reason could we--could there be to 
eliminate same-day registration when it has been so successful 
and so devoid of fraud?
    Ms. Weiser. I can not think of any valid reason to 
eliminate this pro-voter reform that is working well in states 
across the country and has been working well in D.C. for a 
decade.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. There is no valid reason.
    In fact, this ACE Act, as Republicans are calling it, 
eliminates this provision. And we are also seeing that they--
that D.C. recently passed a provision to send mailed ballots to 
voters to improve voter access while maintaining the security 
of their elections. They want to eliminate that as well. And, 
at you testified today, D.C.'s most recent elections have been 
among the best run in the Nation.
    So, what potential reason could there to be eliminate 
sending mail-in ballots to voters?
    Ms. Weiser. There is no good reason to eliminate that, as 
well. D.C.--there are eight other states that have this policy 
in place and some for decades. This has also been shown to be 
fraud-free and provide voters with reasonable options and 
convenience in voting. And it has led to both greater voter 
turnout and more secure elections.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, we have heard from experts that 
there is no valid reason to be eliminating same-day 
registration, mail-in ballots.
    If there is no valid reason, I think it stands to conclude 
that the only real reason that we see this push is political. 
It is a political reason.
    And, in one of the Blackest cities of America, to have--and 
to even have the idea of proposing the Federal Government strip 
voting rights in one of the Blackest cities in this country, 
that has a history of enslavement, a history of that enslave--a 
history of freed people seeking refuge here and then being 
punished with disenfranchisement, this cuts to the core of not 
just the present moment but American history.
    I think what is striking about this is how afraid the other 
side of the aisle is of free and fair elections. And last year 
Republicans were so afraid of a fully representative democracy 
in the District of Columbia that they insisted on denying the 
people of D.C. Statehood.
    Today Republicans are so afraid of democracy that they want 
to disenfranchise predominantly Black voters who have been 
disenfranchised for as far back as when Black people were 
enslaved in the United States of America.
    This has nothing to do with election integrity. This is 
about racial control. And this is not new. We have to look no 
further than an explanation from Senator John Tyler Morgan of 
Alabama, a former Confederate slave holder, who said at the 
time: ``In the face of this influx of a Black population from 
the surrounding states, Congress found it necessary to 
disenfranchise every man in the District of Columbia in order 
thereby to get rid of this load of `Black suffrage' that was 
flooded in upon them.''
    That is the true statement. History cannot be reversed No 
man can misunderstand it. Straight, verbatim from history, and 
it is shameful to see that recreated today.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentlelady yields back.
    For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Oklahoma seek 
recommendation?
    Mrs. Bice. I ask unanimous consent to enter a Wall Street 
Journal article dated 6-3 of 2020, ``D.C. Lets Voters Submit 
Via Email After Mail Problems,'' to the record.
    Mr. Steil. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    And I appreciate each of you, not only your service to this 
issue but really trying to work at this to where there is a 
larger consensus built about not just what is fairness but 
really who fits where: what the responsibility is for local 
people and what the responsibility is for the Federal 
Government.
    Ms. Evans, you primarily are probably in the middle by 
virtue of being in D.C. You have our help and the help from 
your own elected officials.
    What information is publicly available or available to 
those who would wish to have data and information on not just 
mail-in ballots but the time a ballot is requested, the day it 
is mailed out, the day it is received back, the day it is--is 
this trans--is this available to a person or persons who would 
wish to gain access to the data and follow the data and be 
aware of that?
    Ms. Evans. Thank you for the question.
    And we do have information on our website as far as the 
number of mailed ballots, the number of individuals who voted 
in person. We also have an after-action report that we publish 
on our website after each election. We also have information 
regarding all of the Freedom of Information Act requests that 
we have received. That is available on our website.
    We make every effort to ensure our process is transparent. 
And, even while we are conducting elections and conducting a 
post-election audit, we have those processes open to members of 
the public to come in and view those for themselves.
    Mr. Sessions. OK. Thank you.
    The thing that I would like to see if you would be open to 
receiving is actually real transparency where you had a data 
base that you worked within that you would make available that 
says this person requested a ballot, this person was mailed a 
ballot.
    This is, I am sure, what is available to you internally to 
where you are able to effectively run your operation. But it is 
not unusual where this information is available in other 
locations to where, if someone wanted a snapshot, I suppose 
that you would maybe form a different file if someone wanted to 
know who has requested a ballot.
    Do you then have separate information that you make 
available to people on a daily basis, or do you segment this? 
How do you provide that information?
    Ms. Evans. Under the Elections Modernization Amendment Act 
in the District of Columbia, voters do not actually have to 
request a mail ballot. We send a mail ballot to all registered 
voters. And so that information would be consistent with 
registered voters as far as who receives a mail ballot.
    Mr. Sessions. So, the day before--2 weeks before an 
election or 3 weeks before an election, you would have a list 
of all the registered voters. That would be available to anyone 
that would choose to get that list, or is it available to 
candidates? Or how is that made available?
    Ms. Evans. Lists of registered voters are made available. 
You can even go inside of your public library, and we do post 
those lists of registered voters in the District of Columbia.
    Mr. Sessions. Why inside a public library? Is that 
transparency?
    Ms. Evans. That is one place, not the only place.
    Mr. Sessions. Is it available if a person were to, say, 
please give me a list of all the registered voters in 
Washington, DC, by precinct?
    Ms. Evans. It is.
    Mr. Sessions. So that--that you would then they would come 
and purchase, or would you send them the data?
    Ms. Evans. It is not something we sell. They have access to 
the data. We would correspond with the individual as far as the 
best format to get that information to them.
    Mr. Sessions. So, it could be they would receive it by via 
email or come to a data base and then download it?
    Ms. Evans. We have secure mechanisms to forward large data 
files to individuals. So, when we have large data files, we do 
have to follow protocols to ensure that we are adequately able 
to get that information to the requestor.
    Mr. Sessions. So, moving back to this question of when a 
person mails in their ballot, is there notification given to--
or a person can ask for it at the time they receive a mail--
that you receive a mail-in ballot?
    Ms. Evans. Are you speaking about the personal individual, 
the personal voter?
    Mr. Sessions. I am talking about any individual that mailed 
back their ballot to----
    Ms. Evans. Yes, we do have mail ballot tracker with 
intelligence.
    Mr. Sessions. That is available to where people would be 
available.
    Ms. Evans. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Sessions. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you very much.
    The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Connolly's recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I feel like I am in ``Alice in Wonderland'' listening to 
all this.
    Ms. Evans, Ms. Evans, Ms. Evans, over here.
    Loud and clear now, I want you to really be heard. So, I am 
listening to the two people to your left. And, my God, I am 
worried. It sounds like D.C.'s a mess. It sounds like 
everything's broken. It sounds like people are cheating. They 
do not know where to go. They do not know how to vote. They do 
not know who to vote for.
    And it is all your fault, and D.C.'s doing a terrible job 
that has discredited elections and really eroded confidence, 
especially that word ``confidence.''
    Is that you view?
    Ms. Evans. It is not. I suggest----
    Mr. Connolly. Loud and clear, Ms. Evans. Is that--did he 
accurately describe D.C.'s voting situation?
    Ms. Evans. The processes in the D.C. elections, not 
accurately.
    Mr. Connolly. Not accurate.
    How about like not accurate at all? Or should I be worried? 
I Lynch in Fairfax right across the river where Mr. Cuccinelli 
used to live.
    And, by the way, I am delighted to hear a former Trump 
member--Trump Administration member express concern about 
Russian interference in elections. I think that is really a 
good thing. We have been saying that since 2016.
    So, confidence or not?
    Ms. Evans. Confidence.
    Mr. Connolly. Should I be confident?
    Ms. Evans. Confidence, several measures and safeguards in 
place to ensure confidence.
    Mr. Connolly. Ms.--is it Weiser?
    Ms. Weiser. Weiser.
    Mr. Connolly. Weiser. Excuse me.
    Ms. Weiser, do you know when the Constitution was adopted?
    Ms. Evans. Yes. 1787.
    Mr. Connolly. 1787. Very good. Well, actually it was 
written in 1787.
    Ms. Weiser. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. It was adopted in the next year.
    Ms. Weiser. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. And Mr. Cuccinelli cited Article 1 about the 
powers of Congress over the Capital.
    What was the Capital in the Constitution in 1787 or 1788? 
Do you know.
    Ms. Weiser. I believe there was no Capital in the 
Constitution.
    Mr. Connolly. There was no Capital. They had not yet 
decided where the Capital was going to be. Is that correct?
    Ms. Weiser. That is my understanding.
    Mr. Connolly. And do you know when the Capital, when we 
finally did decide to be a Capital and where it would be?
    Ms. Weiser. I believe it was in 1801.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, 1790 but 1802 we established, like, a 
local government procedure.
    Ms. Weiser. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. And the primary author and driver of the 
Constitution, James Madison of our home state of Virginia, he 
wrote in the Federalist Paper 1 year after he wrote the 
Constitution, and I quote, Federalist Paper No. 42, that the 
Federal District would have a municipal legislature for local 
purposes derived from their own suffrages.
    What do you think he meant by that?
    Ms. Weiser. I believe he was expressing the same values of 
local self-determination that we have been talking about today 
and that the residents of D.C. have been asking for.
    Mr. Connolly. What percentage--you are with the Brennan 
Center. What percentage of Americans do not vote in the 
Presidential election?
    Ms. Weiser. What percentage----
    Mr. Connolly. Do not vote in the Presidential election.
    Ms. Weiser. Well, the--all Americans are entitled to vote 
in a Presidential election.
    Mr. Connolly. Not my question.
    Ms. Weiser. How many do not vote?
    Mr. Connolly. About 40 percent. Right?
    Ms. Weiser. It is----
    Mr. Connolly. What percentage of Americans commit voter 
fraud every year?
    Ms. Weiser. It is an infinitesimally small percentage.
    Mr. Connolly. Right. So, if I say to you I have got a 
problem that affects 40 percent of Americans and I have got 
another problem that affects almost no Americans, where would 
you put your investment?
    Ms. Weiser. I would certainly put my investment----
    Mr. Connolly. Right.
    Ms. Weiser [continuing]. In ensuring free----
    Mr. Connolly. But the----
    Ms. Weiser [continuing]. And fair access to elections.
    Mr. Connolly. The two gentlemen to the left of Ms. Evans 
and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want 
to somehow persuade us the real problem is that infinitesimally 
small, almost nonexistent fraud problem.
    And that is why we have got to restore confidence. We have 
got to restore integrity, which the bigger problem is 
suppression of voting, barriers to voting. Why not make it 
easier so 100 percent of Americans participate in their 
Presidential elections and not only 60 percent?
    But, of course, that is not what they want. And they are 
doing all of this not because they are worried about process 
and integrity. They are worried about outcomes. And that is 
what this is all about. And so, when you can not win elections, 
try to--try to select who gets to vote. It is an old practice 
and a reprehensible one.
    And that is why I feel like I am in ``Alice in Wonderland'' 
here, not addressing the real problem and manufacturing a 
problem that is designed to deny Americans their franchise, 
especially in the District of Columbia.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from the great state of Wisconsin, Mr. 
Grothman, is recognized.
    Mr. Grothman. Very good.
    First of all, I would like to enter into the record an 
article by Martin Austermuhle in the--from NPR, an article 
regarding mail ballots and the number that were undeliverable 
in the 2020 election.
    And second, I would like to enter into the record an 
article from the D.C. list, again, a lot of mail ballots going 
out that were undeliverable, this in the 2022 election.
    Mr. Steil. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. I have been a long opponent of excessive 
use of mail ballots for two reasons. One, I do not think the 
mail ballots, unlike when I show up in person, we know for sure 
who filled them out. I do not know how--I realize you might 
have a witness on there, but it seems to me there is no way to 
do follow up or make sure the person who says is on the ballot 
really filled out the ballot.
    And, second, I do not know if we can make sure, like, 
again, when I vote, we know I am all alone in the town of 
Greenbush. Somebody's not whispering in my ear as to who to 
fill out the ballot. When that is filled out at home or a mail 
ballot, from what I can tell, there is no guarantee that that 
person has not been coached.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, in these areas in which we use absentee 
ballots, what efforts are being made to make sure that the 
person who filled out the ballot is not being coached by, say, 
their spouse, by their roommate, by their--somebody from their 
union, you know, boyfriend, girlfriend? How do we know that 
that person is not being coached in the current system?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, we--we do not.
    Mr. Grothman. We do not know they are not being----
    Mr. Cuccinelli. We do not know that.
    Mr. Grothman [continuing]. Coached?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. There is no way to know that.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, if we had nothing but absentee ballots 
going out to people and we were, say, in a country, a Communist 
state, say North Korea, what would we say about election 
results in North Korea if all the ballots were being filled out 
perhaps in the presence of a member of the Communist Party? 
What would we say about an election like that?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. That it is not a real election.
    Mr. Grothman. Have there been any nonpartisan groups in the 
past commenting on the idea of ballots being returned when you 
do not know if that--returned on absentee ballots?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. That has happened frequently, and I would 
point that your email concern----
    Mr. Grothman. Didn't Jimmy Carter----
    Mr. Cuccinelli [continuing]. And the Carter-Baker----
    Mr. Grothman. Wasn't he part of a----
    Mr. Cuccinelli [continuing]. Commission. You are thinking 
the same thing I was. Back in 2005, they raised this as one of 
the areas of greatest vulnerability.
    Mr. Grothman. Right. It could be something like North Korea 
where there is a person sitting next to the person who fills 
out the ballot, dealing with an apathetic person, an apathetic 
boy, you know, girlfriend, apathetic member in a sorority or 
fraternity, whatever. Right?
    And there is no protection that we can make to make sure 
that someone is not coaching that person. Right?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Not unless we are prepared to send someone 
from the government into every house, no.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, that--that is horrible.
    And how do we even know that person filled out the form? I 
realize, at least in Wisconsin, there is a place for a--a 
witness. I think in some--other states in which you do not even 
need a witness.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. There are.
    Mr. Grothman. My goodness. No witness at all? Which states 
are they?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, there are a number of them. I do not 
have them memorized, but it is not--it is not a small number.
    Mr. Grothman. Wow. So there--so when we come down to a 
Presidential election, there are states in which somebody 
returns a ballot, and we do not even know for sure if that 
person filled them out. Right?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. There are plenty of those, yes.
    Mr. Grothman. How can that be a fair election? That sounds 
like something you would do in North Korea or Communist China. 
That is going on right here in the United States. People are 
filling out ballots. It is not like when I go to the town of 
Greenbush Town Hall and people know Glenn Grothman is filling 
out Glenn Grothman's ballots. Right? That is going on in the 
United States. And we claim we have fair elections?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. The only way to achieve the goal you are 
talking about is in-person voting.
    Mr. Grothman. Oh, my goodness. Well, that is--that is kind 
of shocking.
    And, again, we have situations in which we can have the 
head of the sorority, the abusive boyfriend filling out that 
person's ballot. And we have no idea, no idea when we count 
those ballots at the end that that is the way. Why wouldn't we 
go back to the system of having as many people as possible vote 
in person? Or if they are in a nursing home, have members of 
both parties watch that person fill it out, so we know that 
person's filling it out and we know that person is not being 
coached.
    Why wouldn't we do that if we wanted an honest election?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, if you wanted an honest election, 
that is a good way to do it.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, do you feel that these past elections 
can be described as honest elections if there are states in 
which the electoral votes are determined by votes that we do 
not know who filled them out or we do not know even if the 
right person filled it out, if they were not being coached? Can 
we call those honest elections? Would we call those honest 
elections if that was what was going on in, say, North Korea?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Certainly not North Korea I do not think we 
would ever do that. But--but there is a confidence problem with 
many of the systems you have described, even in our own 
elections.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, hopefully eventually Congress steps in 
and solves this flaw.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Brown is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Once again, we find ourselves in the middle of an attempt 
to undermine the rights of the District of Columbia and its 
residents.
    My colleagues on the other side of the aisle consistently 
choose to focus on local D.C. matters instead of the problems 
facing the entire Nation like the cost of healthcare, 
addressing gun violence, and protecting reproductive rights and 
the LGBTQ community.
    However, if the majority is choosing to focus on elections 
in D.C., I would be remiss not to bring up the voting rights of 
D.C. residents. The 700,000 residents of the District of 
Columbia lack the political representation given to America--
Americans in all 50 states.
    So, let us not beat around the bush. The failure to grant 
D.C. Statehood is disenfranchisement of local community, many 
of which are Black and Brown, plain and simple.
    Congress should never turn a blind eye to the voting rights 
of every person in this Nation. That is why I am a proud 
cosponsor of Congresswoman Holmes Norton's bill, H.R. 51, which 
would grant D.C. Statehood and which Democrats passed in the 
117th Congress and will work to pass every session until it 
becomes law.
    In his testimony in 2021 before the Oversight Committee, 
Wade Henderson, the President of the Leadership Conference on 
Civil and Human Rights, expressed strong support for D.C. 
Statehood and the bill. He rightly observed that: Until D.C. 
has voting representation in Congress--and I quote--the effort 
of the civil rights movement will remain incomplete.
    Ms. Weiser, do you think that the racial demographics of 
the District's residents have played a role in the campaign 
against their disenfranchisement?
    Ms. Weiser. Thank you very much for your question.
    I do agree that the disenfranchisement of the 700,000 
residents of D.C. does disproportionately impact voters of 
color in America who disproportionately make up the bulk of 
D.C.'s residents. And historically it--the historical record is 
very clear that race discrimination was--certainly played an 
important part in disenfranchising those citizens.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you.
    D.C. Statehood and home rule are matters of racial justice. 
If D.C. were admitted as a state, it would have the highest 
percentage of Black residents of any state. It is time for this 
majority to stop its selective interference in local politics 
and spend its time more wisely, protecting the votes and voices 
of D.C. residents. It is time to make D.C. a state.
    And, while we are at it, let us take a long--let us take 
long overdue objection to protect the voting rights of all 
Americans.
    And, with that, I would like to yield the balance of my 
time to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. I would like to thank Ms. Brown for her 
courtesy and for that powerful statement.
    I would like to ask Ms. Weiser: In the course of statehood 
admissions over the development of American history, there have 
been 37 states admitted from the original 13. Are you familiar 
with the kinds of objections that were raised to certain states 
being admitted? It was said, for example, that Hawaii and 
Alaska were not contiguous; therefore, they could not be 
admitted. Texas was a foreign country; therefore, it could not 
be admitted. West Virginia used to be part of Virginia; 
therefore, it could not be admitted. And so on.
    Are you familiar at all with that record of objections?
    Ms. Weiser. I am not very familiar, but I have read that.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, today it is said that Congress does not 
have the authority to modify the boundaries of the District of 
Columbia, even though in 1846 Congress modified the boundaries 
of the District of Columbia in order to retrocede to Virginia 
Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax County, when Virginia slave 
masters were afraid that Congress was about to abolish the 
slave traffic in the District of Columbia, which, in fact, it 
did in the middle of the Civil War. So they were prescient 
about that.
    But it established the precedent that Congress has the 
authority modify the boundaries of the District of Columbia. 
Article I, section 8, clause 17 says: Congress shall exercise 
exclusive legislation over that District to become the seat of 
government ceded by various states not more than 10 miles 
square. It establishes a maximum area but not any kind of 
minimum area for the state.
    Would it be in the history of the enlargement of democracy 
and the treatment of all citizens equally to admit Washington 
as a state today?
    Ms. Weiser. Absolutely.
    Mr. Raskin. And I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The 
gentlewoman yields back.
    Mr. LaTurner is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to enter into the record an article from NBC 
Washington dated 10/1/20 entitled ``D.C. Residents Concerned 
After Mail-in Ballots Left Unsecured.''
    Mr. Steil. Without objection.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Elections are the bedrock of our constitutional Republic. 
It is crucial that Americans everywhere are confident that 
their vote is properly counted, and their voices heard at the 
ballot box.
    Most voters support commonsense election reforms, 
provisions like voter ID, ballot counting oversight, and 
prohibiting breaks or pauses in ballot counting until the vote 
tabulation is complete.
    We also need to make it easier for our troops serving 
abroad to vote and prevent outside third-party groups from 
influencing our electoral process.
    Ms. Weiser, do you believe convicted felons should have the 
right to vote?
    Ms. Weiser. Thank you for your question.
    We do support restoration of voting rights, full 
restoration for people upon completion of their time of 
incarceration.
    Mr. LaTurner. Does that include convicted murderers?
    Ms. Weiser. That includes anyone who is released from 
incarceration and has been deemed to be fit to be a member of 
the community.
    Mr. LaTurner. Mr. Cuccinelli, I appreciate you being here 
today.
    D.C. has experienced many issues with outdated voter rolls 
and a lack of routine list maintenance.
    Why are accurate voter rolls so important for the 
administration of an election? And how does the ACE Act's 
requirement of maintaining accurate voter rolls assist in 
running elections?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, they are--voter rolls serve as the 
foundation of who may legitimately participate. When you have 
circumstances like an 11 percent failure rate in the 2020 
statistics related earlier here, in the voter rolls in terms of 
returns to D.C., particularly when you are mailing out actual 
ballots, you are literally sending--in D.C.'s case, that is 
over 50,000 ballots that are hitting mailboxes or post offices 
without a legitimate eligible recipient, based on their own 
system.
    That is 50,000 ballots that are floating around out there 
that were never requested by a voter and can be snatched up and 
voted on by others, particularly when you have an unsecured 
drop box system to receive them.
    Mr. LaTurner. I have long been a proponent of the 
Federalist model of government.
    Do you believe that it is the best electoral system for our 
Nation? And expound if you might on what role should the 
Federal Government be playing.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Certainly, the Federal Government should be 
making it easier for states to clean up their rolls instead of 
getting in the way, as much current Federal law or at least 
court rulings lead to, unfortunately.
    I also believe, as I noted earlier, that separate elections 
by state provide an additional level of security for us as a 
Nation against potential foreign interlopers and that that is a 
tremendous benefit to us, though it does mean that the rules 
and laws, as you go from one state to another, will be 
different, as is allowed under the Constitution and has been 
practiced for 250 years, 240 years in this country.
    Those are all benefits for the United States of state-by-
state type of elections.
    Mr. LaTurner. This is an important hearing today, and it is 
important that we draw attention to it. There are millions of 
Americans across the country that are concerned that their vote 
do not count. They are concerned. They want to make certain 
that when they see a result--less and less commonly on election 
night--they want to have confidence that the person that got 
the most votes actually won.
    So, this is an important issue for us to discuss. What you 
are hearing from the other side of the aisle is that there is 
nothing to see here, there is no problem. And we know that that 
is just not true, and we know that the majority of the American 
people support commonsense regulations in this regard.
    I think my home state of Kansas has some of the most secure 
elections in the country and serve as an example for other 
states, commonsense things like voter ID, that you prove that 
you are who you say you are, that we are able to have ballot 
counting oversight.
    This is commonsense stuff. The American people expect us to 
be talking about it and leading on it here in Washington, DC.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome back to all of the folks who have been continuing 
to stand up for the cause of keeping hands off of D.C. I see 
you and I recognize you.
    To jump right back in it, Washington, DC, has not had a 
single modern instance of voter fraud. The Republicans' own 
Heritage Foundation election fraud cases data base lists zero 
instances of voter fraud in D.C. since 1979.
    Three D.C.-based hearings in--and I can only think of one 
reason why we are here yet again to give and conduct all of 
this oversight on this one midsize city that does not have a 
state or any representation.
    We are not seeing this oversight over conservative areas. 
We are not seeing this oversight over majority White areas or 
White states. So, it must be that D.C. has over 45 percent of 
Black folks with a very suppressible vote, because that is the 
real goal here, to disenfranchise Black and Brown voters.
    Republicans know that when people are able to vote freely 
and without odd constraints, like too long lines and places 
that they cannot access, or rules that suppress their ability 
to access the ballot and to vote, when they can vote, they do 
not win elections, so they make it as difficult as possible and 
outright deny the right to many Americans.
    And the disenfranchise is not just limited to continental 
United States.
    Ms. Weiser, are the people residing in the U.S. 
territories, such as Puerto Rico or Guam or the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, able to vote for the President?
    Ms. Weiser. I believe they are.
    Ms. Lee. Those same people are United States citizens, 
correct?
    Ms. Weiser. That is correct.
    Ms. Lee. Millions of residents of the five U.S. 
territories, 98 percent of whom are people of color, are denied 
full voting rights despite paying nearly 4 billion in Federal 
taxes and having a population equivalent to that of the five 
smallest U.S. states combined.
    We are perpetuating a system of colonialism and 
paternalism. These folks do not have full voting rights in 
Congress or the Senate.
    Earlier this year, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell 
took to the Floor of the Senate and said that quote, ``It is 
about time the Federal Government provides some adult 
supervision for D.C.''
    Let me just say, the folks who are duly elected to 
represent the city of D.C. are not children. The voters, the 
folks of voting age, they are not children. The last two 
hearings on D.C. were entitled ``Overdue Oversight of the 
Capital City.'' They are not even trying to play down the dog 
whistles anymore.
    I was going to ask some semi-rhetorical questions to Ms. 
Evans to highlight the absurdity of this third D.C. hearing on 
disenfranchisement. I will answer them myself, though.
    I was going to ask about the 535 voting Members of 
Congress, of how many of those Members did D.C. get to vote 
for. The answer was zero.
    I was then going to ask, of those 535 voting Members of 
Congress, do any of them know more about or care more about 
D.C. and its nearly 700,000 residents than D.C.'s locally 
elected officials? This is, of course, conjecture, but I think 
you would probably say that these 535 of my colleagues do not 
know or care more about the day-in and day-out needs or desires 
of the people of D.C.
    My Republican colleagues seem to subscribe to this belief 
that D.C. residents are incapable of self-government and that 
D.C. residents need Members of Congress from faraway places to 
regulate their conduct. It is beyond offensive, and it is un-
American.
    I will yield the remainder of my time to Ranking Member 
Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much to the distinguished 
gentlelady and for her trenchant comments there.
    Mr. Spies, I think you have given me an idea for some 
legislation as I read more into your case. I understand you 
entered into the conciliation agreement with the Federal 
Election Commission because you were working with a wholly 
owned subsidiary of a foreign company and a foreign national 
directed the contribution into Mr. Bush's super-PAC, and that 
was why you had to enter into it.
    But if the foreign national had not directed it but it had 
just come from a domestic subsidiary of a foreign national, I 
think--you can correct me if I am wrong--that would be 
permissible under the law today. And I do not think that should 
be the case. I think a wholly owned corporate subsidiary in 
America should not be able to give money in our elections.
    Do you agree with that?
    Mr. Spies. I agree with your reading of the law that a 
domestic subsidiary that is under American citizen control, 
using funds generated in the United States, is allowed to 
contribute.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Thank you.
    Yield back to Ms. Lee.
    Mr. Steil. The time has expired.
    Mr. Goldman is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Here we are again, yet another hearing, our third one in 
the Oversight Committee, on the 700,000 residents of the 
District of Columbia, which represents 0.002 of the total 
American population.
    Now, the subtitle of this hearing is ``The Path to Election 
Integrity in D.C.''--``election integrity,'' a term that we 
hear all the time from our Republican friends, and it is a term 
that is used all the time around the country to justify voter 
restriction laws in numerous states with Republican 
legislatures.
    Ms. Weiser, since 2020, how many states have passed laws to 
restrict voter access?
    Ms. Weiser. Thank you very much for your question.
    Last year, before the election, there were 20 states that 
had passed 33 new laws restricting access to the vote.
    This year, I believe we are--I will send you the--we are 
about to put out new numbers of how many have passed----
    Mr. Goldman. What is the general justification for these 
voter restriction laws?
    Ms. Weiser. Virtually all of these are justified under the 
purported need to stop voter fraud, many of them using the same 
disinformation about election denialism and the 2020 election.
    Mr. Goldman. So, let us talk about voter fraud.
    Ms. Evans, how many cases of voter fraud have ever been 
proved in the history of Washington, DC?
    Ms. Evans. I do not have statistics as far as the history 
of D.C., but as far as----
    Mr. Goldman. Are you aware of any?
    Ms. Evans. There have been cases that have been brought to 
our attention of suspected voter fraud. As far as proven voter 
fraud, I have no information. However, based on what has been 
brought to my attention, the numbers are less than one percent, 
closer to zero percent.
    Mr. Goldman. Well, let me just tell you that, according to 
the Heritage Foundation, the answer is zero.
    Ms. Evans. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. And you are correct that the percentage of 
voter fraud across the country is infinitesimal.
    But let us talk a little bit more about voter fraud.
    Mr. Spies, do you know what the last congressional--which 
congressional election last had to be redone because of 
widespread voter fraud? Do you know where that was?
    Mr. Spies. Indiana----
    Mr. Goldman. No.
    Mr. Spies [continuing]. I assume.
    Mr. Goldman. Well, maybe. But are you aware of North 
Carolina 9 in 2018?
    Mr. Spies. Yes. And I am also aware of Louisiana, Indiana, 
North Carolina.
    Mr. Goldman. Right. Well, in North Carolina 9, as I am sure 
you know, there was a massive voter fraud scheme perpetrated by 
Republicans.
    And so, what we have here is essentially a circular vacuum 
where Republicans are talking about voter fraud that does not 
exist--and, when it exists, it is perpetrated by Republicans--
to justify voter restriction laws passed by Republican 
legislatures based on phantom and false information about voter 
fraud.
    That is ultimately the problem that we have here. And 
really it is, as Ms. Weiser said, complete disinformation. 
Voter fraud is not a thing. It is not a thing that affects 
elections.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, let us talk about the 2020 election, which 
I know you worked in the Trump Administration in a senior level 
at Department of Homeland Security.
    What is CISA?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. CISA is one of the eight agencies of the 
Department of Homeland Security. It has been so since 2018.
    Mr. Goldman. And it oversees our election security, 
correct?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. No. That is not accurate. The states 
oversee that. CISA networks the states together to stay in 
touch with one another about threats to their elections.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. I am not sure of the difference. But you 
are aware that the head of CISA in 2020, who worked in the same 
Department of Homeland Security as you did, stated that the 
2020 election was the most secure in our history, are you not?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I am familiar with the quote to which you 
are referencing, yes.
    Mr. Goldman. Right. And do you have any basis, factual 
basis, to disagree with that assessment from the head of our 
election security agency in the Department of Homeland 
Security?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. So that is not an election security agency, 
and he had no factual basis to make the statement. That is the 
province of the states.
    Mr. Goldman. Interesting.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman's----
    Mr. Goldman. All right. Glad we have that on the record.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Palmer is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, does the allegation of no or few charges of 
election fraud indicate that there is no election fraud?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. No. No, sir.
    Mr. Palmer. I thank you for that answer.
    I want to ask you about the ACE Act and requiring the 
presentation of a photo ID before casting a ballot in person.
    Would that lessen the probability of election fraud?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. It would.
    Mr. Palmer. Is that used in other states?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. It is used all over the country and for 
many more things than merely elections. I have a list of about 
100 different things we require IDs for--including, by the way, 
in the District of Columbia.
    Mr. Palmer. Right. Before you can do a number of things.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Adopt a pet, yes.
    Mr. Palmer. Yes.
    I also want to talk a little bit about the integrity of 
voter files. I think it was about 10 years ago, maybe a little 
bit longer, that the Pew Research Center published a report and 
said there are 24 million Americans improperly registered. I 
think they said 2.7 million of them are registered in multiple 
states, 1.8 million of them are deceased.
    For instance, the state of Michigan, according to 
information from another group that is involved in voter 
integrity, is 105 percent registered to vote.
    Now, for some of my people who do not quite understand the 
math on that, that means there are five percent more people 
registered to vote than are actually old enough or qualified to 
vote in the entire state of Michigan.
    Is that a problem?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. That sort of circumstance would be a huge 
problem, yes.
    Mr. Palmer. How about over 800,000 inactive voters still on 
the rolls in Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Any time you have a large inactive voter 
roll that is not being cleaned, it is a problem.
    Mr. Palmer. 1.5 million more people registered to vote in 
Los Angeles County than live in the county who would be 
eligible to vote?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes. And I believe a court ordered them 
just recently to remove 1.2 million ineligible or dead or gone 
voters.
    Mr. Palmer. Right. So, there are things----
    Mr. Cuccinelli. That is just the one county, Congressman.
    Mr. Palmer. That is just one county. That is Los Angeles 
County.
    By the way, in the state of Michigan there are 16 counties 
that are over 110 percent registered to vote, including one 
that is 119 percent. And I believe in citizenship and 
patriotism, but don't you think that is going a little bit too 
far?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Palmer. I think the thing that we need to do is 
recognize that there is a large percentage of the population 
that has lost confidence in our elections, and we need to make 
sure that every individual citizen who is eligible to vote 
knows their vote counts.
    The old saying in politics, perception is reality, I think 
that is true in other issues, particularly with election fraud. 
And it may be, as some have said, that there is little to no 
election fraud. But, from my perspective, there should be zero 
election fraud.
    How do you feel about that?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I certainly agree with you. And I would 
note, just as a lawyer, we talk about not just justice, but the 
appearance of justice, and I would say the analogy applies in 
elections.
    We want the best run, cleanest, most accessible elections. 
We also want them to be clearly, cleanly run and with 
integrity. So, the appearance is important to the confidence in 
the outcome as well as actually doing the job well.
    Mr. Palmer. I have done quite a bit of work on this. And 
again, going back to the District of Columbia, in 2022, there 
was reporting that the District of Columbia was at risk--is at 
risk of being formally removed from the ERIC program, which 
assists multiple states in keeping clean voter rolls. This is 
due to D.C.'s inconsistency in reporting on its own data--not 
somebody else's data, their own data.
    Can you explain how the ERIC system works and how this 
potential removal would affect D.C. elections? And is that a 
problem?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. So, the ERIC system has its own 
controversy.
    Mr. Palmer. I understand.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. But the idea is that, because states that 
run their own elections and the District of Columbia, that when 
individuals might otherwise show up on two voter rolls, the two 
states work via the ERIC system to remove that person from the 
appropriate voter roll from which they should be removed. That 
does not often happen, which is one of the problems, even in 
making the ERIC system useful even in that way.
    Mr. Palmer. Do you think we need to add another criteria, 
that proof of citizenship--that states and the District of 
Columbia should be allowed to require proof of citizenship in 
order to vote? I mean, when we passed the 1993 National Voter 
Registration Act, then Member Nancy Pelosi went to the 
microphone and argued that it would protect us from voter 
fraud.
    Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I absolutely think citizenship requirements 
are appropriate and the Federal Government should get out of 
the states' way in allowing them to enforce that.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Stansbury is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today.
    And I want to just take this opportunity to say that there 
is one thing that I agree about on this Committee hearing this 
morning, which is that there is an unprecedented attack on our 
democracy and elections happening across the Nation right now. 
But it is not as our friends across the aisle would have us 
believe in this hearing this morning.
    In fact, the greatest threat to our democracy right now is 
the systematic erosion of voting rights across the United 
States. In fact, in 2021, more than 400 anti-voter measures 
were put forward by state legislatures and by this body, by the 
current majority in this body, that would put into place 
discriminatory voter ID laws, restrictions on polling locations 
that could lead to hours-long waits, the elimination of early 
voting, bans on mail-in voting, and gerrymandering.
    These efforts not only undermine our democracy, they are a 
systematic attack on the voting rights of poor people and 
people of color in communities across this country.
    So, it should not be of any surprise to us that the only 
jurisdiction, local jurisdiction, that this body has any 
purview over, that the majority would haul our Capital City in 
front of us to talk about your amazing and progressive voting 
rights legislation, which has actually protected the people of 
D.C. and their voting rights.
    I am shocked. I am disgusted. The bill that is being talked 
about this morning would continue that systematic erosion at 
the Federal level and contribute to the disenfranchisement not 
only of the people in this city, but in communities across the 
country that have historically been disenfranchised generation 
after generation.
    We have seen this undermining of voting rights in the 
Supreme Court with the gutting of the Voting Rights Act and the 
failure across our Capitol in the Senate for the Senate to act 
to protect voting rights.
    Luckily, here in the House we have a strong group of 
Democrats who have been fighting to protect the voting rights 
of the people of this country and to carry forth the vision of 
Dr. Martin Luther King and of course the great John Lewis and 
the rights that they marched for across our communities.
    But in spite of these systematic efforts to undermine 
voting rights across the United States, there are shining 
lights.
    In fact, in my home state of New Mexico we just passed 
voting rights legislation to protect and expand voting rights 
in our Tribal communities, to expand opportunities for our 
communities to access the ballot box.
    And one of those shining lights is actually the Capital 
City, Washington, DC, which has some of the most important and 
progressive voting rights laws on the books.
    And I want to thank Ms. Evans for your work and the work of 
your folks who are making sure that the people of D.C. have 
access to the ballot box here in this city.
    But I think it is important--I know we have heard a lot 
this morning about the impacts that these voting rights 
restrictions have had on communities across the country, but it 
is also important to talk about the things that we can do at 
the local level, whether that is in Washington, DC, in states, 
or Tribal communities like mine.
    And so, Ms. Weiser, I know you have talked about this in 
your testimony, but I was struck in particular by some of the 
notes that you provided about important things that we can do 
to shore up our voting rights system.
    So, could you talk to us a little bit about the 
recommendations that you have for protecting voter rights?
    Ms. Weiser. Thank you very much for the question.
    I will start by saying, most of the recommendations that we 
have for shoring up voting rights are actually--have been 
passed by this body in the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.
    They include policies to modernize voter registration, make 
it secure and accessible for everyone, automatic voter 
registration, online registration, same-day registration.
    They include ensuring baseline national standards so that 
everyone can access early voting and has opportunities also to 
engage in mail voting.
    It includes the restoration of voting rights for citizens 
who are formerly incarcerated to give them a second chance once 
they return to their community.
    It includes protections for election officials. It includes 
safeguards against interference in our elections.
    So, these are critical threats, and Congress can actually 
put in place commonsense measures to both expand access to 
voting while ensuring election integrity.
    And if I may, can I just correct one misstatement I said 
before? I was asked about the voting rights of individuals--
citizens in the territories. And they can vote in Presidential 
primaries, but not in the general election. And that is 
actually not only a violation of policy, but I believe a 
constitutional problem.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you.
    And I will just conclude by saying that it should be no 
surprise that the party of the big lie on January 6 is 
hauling----
    Mr. Steil. The gentlelady's----
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Our Capital City in front of 
this body----
    Mr. Steil. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. To further undermine a 
population that is already disenfranchised----
    Mr. Steil. The gentle----
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. And that has already----
    Mr. Steil. The gentlelady's time has----
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Had their voting----
    Mr. Steil. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Stansbury. So, Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate----
    Mr. Steil. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. That we address the voting 
rights----
    Mr. Steil. The gentlelady's time has expired. The 
gentlelady's time has expired.
    The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Ms. Weiser, I would like to talk to you a 
little bit about some of your written testimony on ballot 
collection restrictions.
    I mean, our hearing today is about the District of 
Columbia, and I do not think it would be a surprise to anybody 
that North Dakota and D.C. are two very different places.
    In my home state, sometimes you have to drive several 
hundred miles to access a post office, but that is not the case 
in D.C., and your written testimony implies that restrictions 
on ballot collection disproportionately harm voters in rural 
areas with post offices and very different things. But, again, 
we are talking about D.C.
    Do you know how many post offices are located in D.C.?
    Ms. Weiser. I do not.
    Mr. Armstrong. I think it is 60.
    Do you know how many square miles D.C. is?
    Ms. Weiser. I do not.
    Mr. Armstrong. It is just under 70, 68.3.
    That would mean, by--I mean, that there is essentially a 
post office every 1.13 square miles in Washington, D.C. And I 
can, again, I can talk about the difficulty accessing post 
offices in rural areas and how to solve that. We have had that 
discussion in--actually, in this Committee over since my entire 
time being in there.
    But when you are telling me that there is a problem with 
ballot collection in the District of Columbia, a city with a 
post office every 1.13 square miles, it sounds to me like--I 
mean, to my constituents, that is laughable. And I would be 
really interested in what you would tell me to tell my 
constituents at home.
    Ms. Weiser. Well, thank you.
    So, I was addressing the policy nationally. But in D.C. it 
is voters with disabilities and elderly voters, even if they 
have post offices nearby, may need assistance in actually--they 
might not be able to use the benefit of mail balloting if they 
lack mobility and do not have that assistance.
    Mr. Armstrong. But that is not unique to D.C.
    Ms. Weiser. No.
    Mr. Armstrong. I mean, we have--I mean, it is everybody. 
And at least in D.C. you have a post office every 1.13 miles.
    Ms. Weiser. That is not unique to D.C., but in most places 
actually, ballot assistance is, in fact, permitted. And members 
of both political parties engage in it. It is a secure way of 
providing voters with assistance, especially those voters with 
disabilities, limited mobility, or voters who are very far from 
post offices.
    Mr. Armstrong. All right. I am going to switch gears a 
little bit. And outside of the policy involved around letting 
foreign nationals vote, which I find fascinating, I have some 
questions on what safeguards exist in that space.
    I do not know how many foreign nationals are in D.C. at any 
given time, but I would assume that, comparatively, because we 
are embassies, we are the seat of the government in the United 
States, that it is significantly higher than the population as 
a whole.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, I think you and I would agree that allowing 
foreign nationals to vote in an election is a bad idea.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. True.
    Mr. Armstrong. But even if you and I agree that that policy 
is a bad idea, it exists, right? It is about to implement that.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. In D.C. and a few other places, yes.
    Mr. Armstrong. What safeguards are in place to make sure 
they are not voting at home?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, none yet.
    Mr. Armstrong. OK. What safeguards should be put in place 
to make sure?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, I mean, the----
    Mr. Armstrong. I mean, you can take a foreign passport and 
say, ``I am going to vote in a D.C. municipal election. I work 
at the Norwegian''--my wife is from Oslo, Norway--``Norwegian 
Embassy.'' Are we checking with the Norwegian Government if 
they are voting in two elections at once?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. No. I do not think we care, honestly. I 
mean, we might care if the other election was in Maryland or 
Virginia and D.C.
    Mr. Armstrong. Well, of course.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. But we clearly do not care if it is D.C. 
and Norway.
    Mr. Armstrong. I mean, I think that--but we should care. I 
mean, every state with a university deals with these issues. I 
mean, North Dakota has the easiest ballot. We are the only 
state in the country without voter registration. We have a 30-
day residency requirement. You go to school at the University 
of North Dakota. You go to the school at NDSU. You are from 
Minnesota. You are from Illinois. You are from Iowa. We want 
you to be able to vote in North Dakota provided you are not 
voting in Iowa.
    Why aren't we setting up those safeguards here?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. That is an excellent question, Congressman. 
I do not have an answer to that.
    Mr. Armstrong. I mean, I do not know what the closest D.C. 
election has been in the last 10 years, but I am assuming there 
has been something that has been fairly close.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Probably primaries, yes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes. I mean, and----
    Mr. Cuccinelli. And I would note, I am hearing occasional 
allegations that are partisan in nature, like the Republicans 
are trying to change outcomes in D.C. That is not going to 
happen.
    Mr. Armstrong. Well, you know who I do not want to change 
the outcome in any U.S. election? Foreign citizens that are 
voting at home.
    I mean, voting is a sacred right. It is a sacred right in 
North Dakota. It is a sacred right in Minnesota. It is 
everywhere. But when you are voting in one place, you are not 
voting in another place. I mean, that is how this is supposed 
to work, particularly in the Nation's Capital.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. That is not a requirement in the D.C. 
noncitizen voting allowance.
    Mr. Armstrong. Well, outside of being terrible policy, I 
think the safeguards in place absolutely do not exist, and what 
you are telling me is that is true.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Correct.
    Mr. Armstrong. All right. I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    We have been going strong for two and a half hours, and so 
we are going to provide our witnesses and our staff to take a 
10-minute recess, and then we will reconvene.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Steil. The Committee will reconvene and come to order. 
We will continue with our questions.
    Ms. Bush is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to our witnesses for being here.
    St. Louis and I are here today in opposition to 
Republicans' continuing assault on our democracy and in support 
of political self-determination for the residents of 
Washington, D.C.
    Let us get one thing straight at the top. The idea that 
Republicans care about election integrity in D.C. is a joke. 
Just 2 years ago, I was barricaded in my office right here in 
D.C. This is the party of insurrection, whose supporters 
attacked the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow what? A 
democratic election.
    When Republicans talk about election integrity, they are 
really talking about voter suppression. They are talking about 
carrying on the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow by actively 
disenfranchising Black and Brown communities through 
legislation like the American Confidence in Elections Act to 
undermine voter access and fair and impartial election 
administration.
    And they are talking about maintaining anti-democratic 
control over D.C., which has had a significant Black population 
since its creation, was majority Black from the late 1950's 
through 2011, and remains majority non-White.
    The United States is the only democracy in the world that 
denies the residents of its Capital voting representation in 
the national legislature.
    D.C. residents have been demanding voting representation in 
Congress for more than 200 years. And in a 2016 referendum, 86 
percent of D.C. residents voted for statehood.
    Republicans want to pretend that D.C. Statehood is a power 
grab for the Democrats, a power grab for the Democratic Party. 
They say it is a political, a ploy to gain seats in the Senate.
    But that does not--it just does not really make sense.
    So, Ms. Weiser, if D.C. became a state, would Republicans 
be forbidden from running in its congressional elections?
    Ms. Weiser. Absolutely not.
    Ms. Bush. Ah, OK. So, they can still run. OK. Got it.
    Let me ask you, Ms. Weiser, in a democracy, should 
political rights be controlled--be conditioned on who voters 
might elect?
    Ms. Weiser. No, absolutely not. That would be 
inappropriate.
    Ms. Bush. It would be inappropriate. Thank you.
    So, D.C. Statehood is not about one party or the other. It 
is about freedom and it is about political self-determination. 
It is about overcoming the White supremacist violence of voter 
suppression in this here historically Black city. It is about 
the voices of real people whose lives and whose struggles 
matter.
    So, Republicans should stop the hypocrisy.
    Again, I remember being barricaded in my office trying to 
figure out how to protect my staff. And my words were: If they 
come to this door, we bang until the end. And I meant that, if 
you touch my staff. Because they did not sign up for this. They 
did not sign up to be in a position to where their bodies are 
on the line. They signed up to do a work for the people of St. 
Louis.
    So, stop the hypocrisy. Stop talking about don't tread on 
me, when that is exactly what that party is doing to the people 
of D.C. Stop trampling on their lives. Stop trampling on their 
freedoms. Stop trampling on our democracy. Stop holding D.C. 
hostage and let Congress, once and for all, grant the people of 
D.C. what they have been long demanding: statehood.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentlelady yield? Will the gentlelady 
yield?
    Ms. Bush. OK. If you have still got it, go. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. Oh, I am sorry. Were you still questioning?
    Ms. Bush. I started saying it, so----
    Mr. Raskin. I yield back to you.
    Ms. Bush. OK. Well, I yield back to you.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, you are very kind.
    I was struck by the gentlelady from St. Louis' remarks. The 
violent insurrection that took place on January 6, 2021, was a 
reflection of a sentiment that a White majority in the country 
can not lose a Presidential election. And I think a lot of the 
legislation today proceeds on the same theory, that there has 
got to be something wrong with the elections if they are not 
headed in the direction of Donald Trump and his team.
    So, I thank you for giving us that juxtaposition, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Steil. Time has expired.
    Mr. Langworthy is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter 
from Christopher Arps of Americans for Citizens Voting, an 
email of support from 6/6/23.
    Mr. Steil. Without objection.
    Mr. Langworthy. And I also ask for unanimous consent to 
enter into the record the Migration Policy Institute's profile 
of the unauthorized population within Washington, DC, dictating 
that over 20,000 noncitizens live in the District.
    Mr. Steil. Without objection.
    Mr. Langworthy. I would like to thank our witnesses for 
being here today to speak about the sacred right to vote in 
free and fair elections.
    I will put it bluntly. Allowing noncitizens to vote in 
American elections is a slap in the face to every American who 
fought and sacrificed for this right.
    In 2021, New York City became the largest municipality in 
the country to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. 
However, even former Mayor Bill de Blasio, a committed 
progressive, he refused to sign this legislation when it came 
to his desk. Even he agreed that there is a value to American 
citizenship and the right to vote.
    While I was Chairman of the New York State Republican 
Party, I sued New York City's Council, and the courts ruled 
against the city allowing noncitizens to vote, deeming it 
unconstitutional.
    Allowing those who are not American citizens to vote in our 
elections, whether it is here in the Nation's Capital or in any 
locality or state, it threatens the integrity and the security 
of our elections and devalues what it truly means to be an 
American citizen.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, Congress is given tremendous authority over 
the government in the District of Columbia, and this includes 
authority over elections within the District. On the other 
hand, Congress' role in the state and local elections is 
generally quite limited.
    What actions could Congress take to ensure that other 
municipalities do not follow the lead of New York City and open 
their municipal elections to noncitizens?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, what you are doing here with the ACE 
Act is obviously a good step, because in the area you have the 
greatest authority, the District of Columbia, you are--you 
would be advancing protection of citizenship.
    And I agree with you, Congressman, on the value of 
citizenship itself is devalued when noncitizens vote, and 
appreciate, frankly, the role you played in New York in dealing 
with the city of New York's attempt to massively devalue its 
U.S. citizens' own votes in that city.
    This is a problem across the country. It is being dealt 
with state by state. You mentioned an article by Chris Arps of 
St. Louis, if I recall correctly. He has been a leader in 
advancing this bipartisan position, by the way, of going state 
by state to try to reinforce what most Americans always assumed 
to be the case, and that is that only Americans get to vote in 
American elections.
    Mr. Langworthy. Absolutely.
    D.C.'s radical proposal to allow noncitizens to vote in 
D.C. elections has rightfully received a tremendous amount of 
attention. I mean, frankly, I mean, we have welcomed employees 
of Vladimir Putin and President Xi to vote in our District 
elections here, people that are here on a permanent basis.
    But I suspect that that is not the only anti-election 
integrity measure that has been adopted by the D.C. Council in 
recent years. Can you talk about what else in D.C.'s election 
law compromises election integrity and should be fixed?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. So, it has been mentioned here repeatedly 
that the Heritage Election Fraud Data base does not contain any 
D.C. cases. I would note that--no personal offense to my fellow 
witness here--but D.C.'s administration of its elections over 
the years is so sloppy and careless they do not have the 
measures in place to catch fraudulent activity. They do not 
have the desire to do it. And even if they did, the D.C. 
Counsel's office, it would be nearly a miracle to see the D.C. 
Counsel's office actually advance a prosecution.
    And when you have that behind you, I know as a former 
attorney general, and you are on the front lines, you do not 
bother putting the cases together, because you know they are 
not going to go forward.
    Mr. Langworthy. What other anti-election integrity measures 
do you envision that they could attempt to enact in the months 
ahead?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, certainly what is contained in the 
ACE Act. Photo ID is the most obvious, including its 
application to mail-in ballots so far as they are allowed.
    Perhaps the next large-scale change that would be 
beneficial in terms of confidence and reducing the prospect for 
fraud is stopping the mailing out--unsolicited mailing out of 
ballots--not applications, but ballots themselves.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you.
    And I will say it again. Allowing noncitizens to vote in 
American elections is a slap in the face to every American who 
fought and sacrificed for this sacred right. Our Nation's 
Capital and many other cities around the country should never 
throw away centuries of progress and sacrifice.
    I have fought this for years dating back to my time as a 
statewide leader in New York, and I will continue to fight for 
American values here in Congress. It is not only a national 
security threat, it is a slap in the face to American citizens 
who cherish our freedom.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    I believe this mic is working? Yes? No? I know we had some 
technical difficulties before.
    All right. We will continue on, and I will get the mike 
going, though.
    But Mr. Garcia is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I just wanted to just start off by saying that I take 
voting very seriously. I appreciate all the discussion around 
voting.
    I am an immigrant, and so, for me, the day I raised my 
right hand and took an oath to our country and Constitution and 
earned the right to vote--I was in my twenties--it was, to this 
day, the most transformational moment of my life, and it is 
something that is incredibly important to me personally. And 
so, I just want to thank everyone's work on voting rights.
    Now, I consider myself a patriotic immigrant. I am also a 
former mayor and someone who cares deeply about democracy. And 
like many of our conversations in this Committee, I find 
today's conversation deeply disturbing and offensive in so many 
ways.
    Now, this Committee has now for the third time chosen to 
waste our time on working and trying to figure out local laws 
and what D.C. should or should not be doing. I loved my time in 
local government and as mayor of my community and when I served 
on the council, but I oftentimes feel like I am back on my city 
council whenever we bring up the District of Columbia here in 
D.C.
    And I encourage my House colleagues that, if they want to 
get so involved in local government, they should run for office 
here in Washington, DC. There are plenty of City Council seats 
that are open. There are plenty of positions to be appointed 
to. And they should stop making D.C. their partisan playground 
for attacking elections, attacking mostly non-White voters, and 
attacking our democracy.
    Now, D.C. residents are Americans who deserve the same 
rights and privileges as anyone else. Folks here are working 
hard to ensure that people have access to the ballot box. And 
we do not need House Republicans pushing voter suppression and 
a voter suppression campaign on D.C. I remind us that D.C. has 
the highest voter registration rate, I believe, in the Nation.
    Now, let us start with some facts.
    There is no crisis of American confidence in elections 
except for when Donald Trump created one across the country.
    Now, many people rightly fear for the integrity of our 
elections when Trump welcomed the Russian support and 
interference in 2016.
    This whole rant about elections and the destruction of our 
democracy starts with former President Donald Trump.
    Now, let us be real clear. Joe Biden won the last election, 
as much to the dismay of Donald Trump and many House 
Republicans, by earning 7 million more votes and 74 more 
electoral college votes than Donald Trump.
    Now, it was Donald Trump's ego, disregard for the 
Constitution and the rule of law, and his pathological fear of 
being a loser that led him to lie to the American people. Many 
people knew then and know now that he continues to lie and 
repeat this great lie to cover for him and his loss.
    Now, there is no evidence of voter fraud in D.C. or 
anywhere else. The District of Columbia mailed each registered 
D.C. voter a mail ballot for the 2020 election, and there were 
200,000 residents voted by mail with no evidence of voting 
fraud.
    Now, this legislation that Republicans are discussing and 
want to promote will actually make it harder to vote in D.C. 
and will have less of a voice for the American people.
    So I just want to repeat that, despite the fact that it 
keeps being mentioned, there is no voter, some widespread voter 
fraud happening in D.C.
    Ms. Weiser, can you remind us how common in-person voter 
fraud actually is?
    Ms. Weiser. An American is more likely to be struck by 
lightning than to commit in-person voter fraud, according to 
multiple studies over decades.
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely. Thank you.
    And if voter ID laws do not actually work or solve any 
problems, their impact is really about making it harder for 
Americans to vote.
    And so, we should be clear. Voter ID requirements 
disproportionately affect non-White voters. That is clear, and 
I think that has been studied.
    Ms. Weiser, can you remind the Committee what happened 
after the passage of the Texas 2021 voter suppression omnibus 
bill, which required the presentation of driver's licenses, 
absentee ballot applications? What happened then?
    Ms. Weiser. The Brennan Center actually studied the impact 
of just one of the provisions in this massive voter restriction 
bill, which is the requirement that voter ID numbers be 
provided with absentee ballots and absentee ballot 
applications.
    We found that tens of thousands of ballots were rejected, 
10 percent of those mail ballots, and that it was 
disproportionately African-American voters and Latino and Asian 
voters. Nineteen percent of Latino and Asian ballots were 
rejected, and 16 percent of African-American ballots.
    Mr. Garcia. We should be holding hearings about that 
travesty. We should be holding hearings about disenfranchising 
non-White voters across this country that is happening in state 
legislature after state legislature.
    So, I just want to thank you for your work. I want to thank 
and once again restate my position that Washington, D.C., 
should be a state and the people here deserve the same rights 
as anybody else in this country. And I want to thank you for 
your time.
    And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me just touch on a couple of points first.
    One, I thought everybody had agreed that the Russian 
interference alleged in the 2016 campaign had pretty much been 
debunked, but apparently not. I heard it here today just a few 
seconds ago.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield for a second?
    Mr. Griffith. I will not yield.
    I will say in addition that the mail ballots in D.C.--I 
have a friend who lives up here. As you might know, several of 
us do. And they received multiple opportunities to vote. They 
obviously did not exercise that.
    And in that regard, I would ask General Cuccinelli, we have 
heard today that the Heritage Election Fraud Data base shows no 
cases of fraud in D.C.
    Do you have an explanation why that might be?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I certainly do. The nature of the system in 
D.C. is very poor, so catching it in the first place is much 
more difficult. There are other jurisdictions that do a much 
better job of that.
    But I will also tell you, as a former attorney general, 
that no one bothers to put those cases together when you have 
an office like the D.C. Counsel's office, which it would take a 
near miracle for them to bring a voter fraud case. So, when you 
do not have a prosecutor behind you who will actually bring the 
case, you do not put the case together.
    So, people need to understand that context.
    Mr. Griffith. All right.
    Let me switch gears, because I have heard all about D.C. 
Statehood.
    As those who study history know, D.C. was originally 
created to form a city that did not or a location for the 
Federal Government to locate that would not give advantage to 
any one state. And it was created out of land from both 
Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia, our home state, 
Attorney General.
    And so, I have thought about this problem, because the city 
is a lot larger than it was when it was originally founded and 
there are a lot of permanent residents.
    And so, for a number of years now I have introduced a 
retrocession bill, because when Virginia took back or when the 
people in Virginia decided they did not want to be a part of 
D.C. and everybody thought that was OK, they were given back to 
the Commonwealth of Virginia. And so, Alexandria and parts of 
Arlington were originally a part of D.C.
    So, I have had a retrocession bill in for some time, and I 
have one that would then take everything except the Federal 
complexes and put it into the state of Maryland.
    Is this something that you think is appropriate?
    And while you are at it, let us talk about the 
constitutionality, because I have questioned whether the 
Virginia retrocession was constitutional. And, clearly, if it 
was, then a retrocession of the territory currently located 
within the District of Columbia that had originally belonged to 
Maryland could be also retrocessed or given back to the state 
of Maryland, and then all of those folks would have the 
opportunity to vote for a congressional person and would no 
longer have the feeling that they have been cut out.
    Because I think they have got some legitimate concerns 
there, except that it was never intended to create a new state. 
It was always supposed to have been coming out of these two 
territories. And so that, to me, seems to be the better 
historical and constitutional answer.
    Would you agree and opine on that?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes. I agree on both counts, first of all, 
that it is constitutional; second of all, that it is not only 
appropriate by opinion, it is appropriate by history. That is 
what happened on the Virginia side of the river. That is what 
should happen on the Maryland side of the river.
    And the Founding generation that put the law in place to 
originally establish the ten-mile-by-ten-mile District of 
Columbia is viewed by courts as more--because they also wrote 
the Constitution, James Madison was noted as being involved in 
the formation of the District of Columbia where it is, also 
wrote the Constitution--the courts view laws passed at that 
time as more closely connected to the Founding and, thus, more 
likely constitutional, and the acts of this body start with a 
presumption of constitutionality to begin with.
    So, then you fast forward to 1846 when Virginia got its 
property back, if you will, or its portion of the land back, 
and with no challenge. And so that is, in my view, would be a 
lay-up constitutionally for your bill to pass constitutional 
muster as it has already been done in both directions.
    Mr. Griffith. But I would be correct, if it were deemed by 
the Supreme Court not to be constitutional, then you would have 
to take those portions of Virginia and put them back into the 
District of Columbia before you moved forward.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes. It is all or nothing, yes.
    Mr. Griffith. That is correct. So, if they were to create 
statehood, it would only be appropriate that Alexandria and 
parts of Arlington would be returned to D.C. for statehood 
purposes as well, would it not?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Logically, yes, but the more historically 
appropriate course is for each state to get its territory back 
minus the Federal buildings.
    Mr. Griffith. And let me just clarify on the challenge that 
we heard earlier, challenges to electors in the bodies based on 
law and the 12th Amendment.
    And it is interesting because there is a statement from 
Abraham Lincoln when electors were challenged in 1865 from the 
1864 election and that many people on both sides of the aisle 
have voted for challenges over the years, including my 
colleague who raised the issue.
    And I do not know what the folks who were storming the 
Capitol were thinking, but there were many of us who believed 
that what we were doing was following the Constitution, and so 
did the unanimous Supreme Court.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Frost is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Well, here we go again. Committee Republicans are so 
adverse to actual oversight that they are trying to reinvent 
two of their most tired narratives.
    First off, Republicans act like the voters of D.C. are 
incapable of self-governance. So much for the party of small 
government.
    And second, Republicans cry out about rampant voter fraud 
to explain away the fact that they can not win over the 
majority of Americans when we talk about the people who are 
going to vote.
    The truth is that voter fraud incidents are scattered and 
amount to less than a rounding error in election results. We 
know that to be true. We heard a witness say you are more 
likely to be struck by a bolt of lightning to find a legitimate 
voter fraud case.
    The truth is that the D.C. election system is among the 
most accessible and secure in the Nation.
    And so, the truth is that Republicans are holding this 
hearing to try to push the ACE Act as part of their far-right 
extremist fantasy of election restrictions to help them hold 
power.
    For people listening at home who do not know what is in 
this, let me tell you. Annual voter roll purges. Restrictions 
on ballot drop boxes. An outright ban on same-day voter 
registration. An outright ban on ballot mailing programs that 
will disproportionately harm elderly people and folks with 
disabilities. Throwing away countless mail-in ballots even if 
they are sent days before the polls close. And, for now, stops 
just short of a poll tax and literacy test.
    Ms. Weiser, you are a Yale-educated attorney. You have 
taught at NYU Law. You have founded and directed the Voting 
Rights and Elections Project at the Brennan Center. And you 
have spent your career focused on this issue. So, I want to ask 
your opinion on a few questions.
    Ms. Weiser, in your opinion, are there any legitimate 
reasons for Americans to believe that American elections, 
whether in 2016, 2020, or last year, are not secure?
    Ms. Weiser. There is no legitimate reason to believe that 
there is any significant voter fraud in American elections. 
There are some threats to election integrity that Congress 
should address, but they are not voter fraud.
    Mr. Frost. And when we talk about election integrity and we 
are talking about the ability for Congress to ensure that 
people can vote--that it is accessible, that it is simple, and 
that it is easy--is that what you mean by election integrity?
    Ms. Weiser. An election with integrity is indeed an 
election where every eligible American can cast a ballot. It is 
an election that has protections against efforts to sabotage 
and interfere with election outcomes and interfere in election 
administration. It is an election free of violence and 
intimidation and an election with adequate security protections 
against cybersecurity threats.
    Mr. Frost. Republican officials want to use hysteria and 
disinformation to justify stifling turnout because it seems 
like when more people vote they end up losing. And, to me, it 
seems like there is something wrong with your platform when you 
have got to keep people from voting in order to win.
    But, Ms. Weiser, in your opinion, why might Americans 
believe that our elections--specifically, the 2020 election--
lacked integrity?
    Ms. Weiser. Unfortunately, we have seen a real aggressive 
wave of dis-, mis-, and mal-information about the integrity of 
the 2020 election. Court case after court case, election expert 
after election expert, and government agency after government 
agency have all found that there was no significant fraud or 
misconduct, that it was one of the most secure--it was the most 
secure election in American history. And yet, that is not what 
many Americans are hearing through their disinformation 
channels.
    Mr. Frost. Have you heard some of that disinformation on 
the Committee today?
    Ms. Weiser. I have heard some false statements about the 
integrity of our elections.
    Mr. Frost. You know, every day I feel like I see my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle mimicking what is 
going on in my state where--and I worked for the ACLU and 
knocked doors for this--to restore voting rights to over 1.4 
million returning citizens in the state of Florida.
    And a large group of these folks who served their time went 
to register to vote and, by election officials, were given a 
card that said you are registered to vote. Then months later, 
to have a knock at their door, to be arrested, and put in jail 
by Ron DeSantis and the Republican Party in Florida that has 
created an election police force to arrest people.
    Do things like that stifle turnout and mess with the 
integrity of our elections?
    Ms. Weiser. We are deeply concerned with those kinds of 
official intimidation efforts. We do believe that it is harming 
turnout. It is intimidating voters, not just returning citizens 
who are eligible to vote but----
    Mr. Frost. But all voters.
    Ms. Weiser [continuing]. Other people in their community as 
well.
    Mr. Frost. And you want to know the thing that really gets 
to me. I cried when I saw those videos. There were things that 
were in common here. They were either Black, Latino, or poor.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Balint is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    We certainly have work to do to overcome the dark sordid 
past of suppressing voting in the United States. Poll taxes, 
literacy tests, use of the Grandfather Clause, women being 
denied the right to vote, violence against Black citizens who 
have attempted to vote. We have work to do to overcome this 
horrible history.
    And, like the District of Columbia, my home state of 
Vermont has been working hard to make sure that we implement 
commonsense strategies to make sure every eligible voter can 
vote. And one of those strategies is allowing same-day voter 
registration.
    So, Ms. Weiser, does same-day voter registration increase 
the number of eligible voters participating in our elections?
    Ms. Weiser. Yes, it does. There are a long string of 
studies that show that it increases voter participation from as 
much as--from three to nine percent.
    Ms. Balint. And is there any indication that same-day voter 
registration increases voter fraud?
    Ms. Weiser. There is no--there is no evidence of increase 
in voter fraud in states that have same-day registration. Their 
voter fraud rates are just as low as those in the rest of the 
country.
    Ms. Balint. Can you say that one more time, because I think 
this is really, really important.
    Ms. Weiser. There is no factual connection between same-day 
registration and increased voter fraud that has been 
demonstrated anywhere in the country.
    Ms. Balint. So, when a state like Vermont or District of 
Columbia makes a decision that one of the most important things 
that we can do as elected officials is to make sure anyone who 
is legally able to vote is easily able to vote, that is 
something that we should all be striving for, correct? I mean, 
we should be wanting more people to vote, not restricting 
people who are eligible to vote from voting.
    Ms. Weiser. I agree with that. And I should note that the 
states that do have same-day registration have multiple layers 
of protection in place to ensure that it does not increase any 
risk of voter fraud.
    Ms. Balint. That is right. You know, one of the other 
things I was sitting here thinking about is that, you know, 
when you look at what is going on right now in this hearing and 
the issues that people of color have had to face throughout our 
history, and are still facing just in being able to cast legal 
ballots, it is similar to the struggles that rural voters have 
had as well.
    And, as a former middle school teacher, I think a lot about 
the students that I have had over the years that have been born 
into rural poverty in my state and may be born into a family 
that does not have a high level of education.
    And I was--in preparation for this hearing, I did some 
digging into the numbers. And over 18 million Americans who did 
not complete high school or only have a high school diploma do 
not have a driver's license. These are the people that are 
going to be turned away to vote because they do not have an ID.
    And so, as my colleague Max Frost just said, it is about 
restricting people from voting, whether they are people of 
color, whether they are the poor, whether they are rural voters 
who do not have a high income or educational level of 
attainment.
    And I can not understand why this is such a focus of my 
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to prevent 
Americans who are legally eligible to vote from voting. And can 
you help me understand this? What is going on here?
    Ms. Weiser. I do support reasonable and nondiscriminatory 
ID requirements. Americans should certainly have to demonstrate 
they are who they say they are. But what we are seeing and what 
has been raising significant concerns are these overly 
restrictive ID requirements like what you are talking about, 
requiring people to show a driver's license to vote in a 
jurisdiction where large numbers of people do not have driver's 
licenses, that many Americans do not have.
    And that risks disenfranchising huge swathes of the 
population, by our earlier research, up to 11 percent of 
Americans, and that is disproportionately in voters of color, 
voters with disability, elderly voters, young voters.
    Ms. Balint. And so, you know, my understanding is adults--
make sure I get this right. Adults who earn less than $30,000 a 
year are five times more likely not to have a driver's license 
than somebody that earns over $100,000 or more.
    Ms. Weiser. Right.
    Ms. Balint. I think it is really clear what is going on 
here. And I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Crockett is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I do not really know where to begin. So, we are going to 
start with a few questions. I got a little quiz for you all. 
So, we have been talking about the right to vote. I just need a 
yes or no from each of the witnesses, and we will start with 
Ms. Weiser. Is voting a constitutionally protected Federal 
right?
    Ms. Weiser. Yes, it is constitutionally protected through 
multiple provisions.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. Ms. Evans, yes or no?
    Ms. Evans. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. Mr. Spies, yes or no?
    Mr. Spies. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. And, Mr. Cuccinelli, yes or no?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. It is constitutionally protected.
    Ms. Crockett. OK, thank you.
    We have heard a lot of talk today about things such as 
buying alcohol.
    Ms. Weiser, is alcohol a federally protected constitutional 
right?
    Ms. Weiser. It is not.
    Ms. Crockett. Ms. Evans?
    Ms. Evans. It is not.
    Ms. Crockett. Mr. Spies?
    Mr. Spies. No.
    Ms. Crockett. Mr. Cuccinelli?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli.
    Ms. Crockett. Cuccinelli.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. You need an ID to buy it, but no.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. All right.
    And, finally, we like to talk about guns, or at least some 
people in this building love to talk about guns. Guns. Is there 
an amendment dealing with guns in our Federal Constitution?
    Ms. Weiser. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. Ms. Evans?
    Ms. Evans. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. Mr. Spies?
    Mr. Spies. Spies. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. Spies. And yes, sir?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes, there is, and you need an ID to buy 
it.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. So, let us talk about it. So, I hail from 
the great state of Texas. And what is interesting to me is we 
always want to talk about privileges and compare what is 
required for a privilege versus comparing what is required for 
a constitutionally protected right under our Federal 
Constitution.
    And it is interesting that, in this Chamber, we love to 
talk about the Second Amendment, and we want to make sure that 
everyone has guns. And we only have one amendment in our 
Constitution that deals with guns, and it is the Second 
Amendment.
    And, Professor Weiser, you were just about to say, we have 
multiple provisions, so you were messing up my test a little 
bit. So, I am not going to let you answer the question. I am 
going to go down here to these experts. Let us start and go the 
other way.
    Do we know how many amendments actually address voting in 
our Constitution?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, it depends how you count them, but 
you could say three--14, 15----
    Ms. Crockett. OK. Mr. Spies?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Plus, the D.C. amendment.
    Mr. Spies. And maybe First.
    Ms. Evans. Yes, I would agree with that.
    Ms. Crockett. OK, Professor, go ahead and break it down.
    Ms. Weiser. I believe it is six.
    Ms. Crockett. There we go. There we go. So, we got the 
14th, we got the 15th, 17th--wait a minute, did I mess up--
19th, 24th and 26th. There we go. All right. So, we have six 
amendments.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Twenty-third.
    Ms. Crockett. And every time we dealt with an amendment 
dealing with voting, we were expanding upon access. Is that not 
correct?
    Ms. Weiser. That is correct. That is the history of this 
country, expanding----
    Ms. Crockett. OK. The history is to expand, but obviously 
there are some folks that want to rewrite history and make sure 
we go back in time. So, let us also talk a little bit more 
about history for a couple of seconds.
    There was this little thing called the Voting Rights Act. 
Are you familiar with that?
    Ms. Weiser. Yes, I am.
    Ms. Crockett. Are you also familiar with this thing called 
Bloody Sunday?
    Ms. Weiser. Yes, indeed.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. So, are you familiar with the fact that 
there are Black folk that died in this country to make sure 
that Black folk had access to the ballot box?
    Ms. Weiser. Yes, that is correct.
    Ms. Crockett. Are you also familiar with the fact that 
probably around 1913 or sometime around there was maybe a 
women's suffrage march?
    Ms. Weiser. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. And that was a fight, again, for women to 
have access to the ballot box, was it not?
    Ms. Weiser. Yes, it was.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. So, we have had throughout history these 
fights to make sure that everyone is accessing the ballot box. 
But seemingly, when it comes down to, say, guns in this 
country, which is the No. 1 killer of children in this country, 
we have not had half as many hearings about guns as we have had 
on voting rights. And every time we seemingly have a hearing on 
voting rights, we are talking about the fact that people are 
cheating.
    So, let us talk about who is cheating. I got a few 
articles. Are you familiar with the fact that there was 
recently a settlement with this little news company called FOX 
News?
    Ms. Weiser. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. Oh, OK. That was for about $780-something 
million. Was it because they were lying about the elections?
    Ms. Weiser. Yes. It was for a----
    Ms. Crockett. OK. There we go. I am running out of time so 
I am going to keep going.
    There also was this article, because I do not want us to 
base anything on Georgia at all--please, Jesus, not Georgia--
OK, because Georgia purged 87,000----
    Ms. Greene. Will the gentlewoman yield? I think Georgia 
matters.
    Ms. Crockett. I will not yield. I am reclaiming my time.
    All right. So, there were 87,000 people that were purged 
that were legitimate voters. So no, we do not want to copy off 
of Georgia.
    Also, another GOP voter admits he committed fraud, another 
one in Pennsylvania, a man who admits he voted for Trump with 
his dead mom's name because he listened to too much propaganda.
    Mr. Steil. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The gentlelady from the state of Georgia, Ms. Greene, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to remind everyone that Georgia's votes 
matter. And everyone should care about each state in the United 
States of America and voter rights.
    And I would also like to remind everyone that in order to 
buy a gun you have to have a valid ID. That is required, just 
like voters should have a valid ID.
    Talking about the state of Georgia and the 2020 election, 
my ex-husband showed up to vote for President Trump and myself 
and other candidates that he wanted to support. And, when he 
showed up to vote, he was told that he had already voted by 
absentee ballot.
    And he said: No, that is not true. I have not voted by 
absentee ballot. As a matter of fact, I did not even request an 
absentee ballot.
    And they said: Well, Mr. Greene, it shows right here on the 
Secretary of State website that you have already voted by 
absentee ballot.
    And he said: Well, that is not true. I have not voted. I 
would like to vote here in person. That is what I am doing.
    And so, they made him sign a form surrendering a ballot 
that he never requested and never voted on so that he could 
vote in person. And he was deeply troubled by this. He was 
upset by it. But what bothered him even more is there was a 
whole line of voters there that day that were doing the same 
thing.
    We carried on. And he had to go through quite a lengthy 
legal process to find out what happened. And he still has not 
found out why someone was able to vote with an absentee ballot 
in his name. He also never found out what happened to that 
absentee ballot, if it was thrown out, and who they voted for.
    You see, there are problems in our elections, and it is 
important to remember. We saw many of them in the 2020 
election. We saw suitcases pulled out from tables, suitcases of 
ballots. And then here we just saw in the news that a Postal 
Service released its final report, contract driver Jesse Morgan 
vindicated because he had been trying to say that he hauled a 
trailer of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania in late 
October 2020.
    These things matter. And Democrats know they matter too 
because, in 2019, Democrat Senators Klobuchar, Warner, Reed, 
and Peters had all wrote a letter of how concerned they were 
because intelligence agents were saying that elections were in 
danger of being hacked by foreign nationals or foreign 
countries because election machines could be hacked. Now, I 
think that is problematic, and I think everyone can agree that 
we do not want foreign countries or foreigners meddling in our 
elections.
    And so, my question would be, if this is such a deep 
concern, Ms. Weiser, Ms. Evans, Mr. Spies, Mr. Cuccinelli, one 
by one could you say yes or no if you agree that we do not want 
foreign actors meddling in our elections?
    Ms. Weiser, we will start with you.
    Ms. Weiser. That is correct, we do not want foreign actors 
meddling in our elections.
    Ms. Evans. As the director of D.C. Board of Elections, I 
make no opinion statements.
    Ms. Greene. That is a yes or no, Ms. Evans.
    Ms. Evans. I provide no opinions in my role as the 
Executive Director of the District of Columbia Board of 
Elections.
    Ms. Greene. So, you are unable to have--how do you do your 
job if you can not give an opinion or an answer? It seems like 
you would be unfit to serve in the job that you have if you are 
unable to provide a yes-or-no answer on foreign actors meddling 
in United States elections.
    Ms. Evans. My job is to administer the laws as they have 
been provided in the District of Columbia, and I perform my job 
with integrity, and I know my job well. And that is my 
responsibility.
    Ms. Greene. So, you are unable to say no, so we will take 
that as a yes, you agree with foreign actors meddling in United 
States elections.
    Mr. Spies?
    Mr. Spies. Strongly oppose it.
    Ms. Greene. Mr. Cuccinelli?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Also oppose it, including noncitizens 
voting.
    Ms. Greene. I agree. The House passed a resolution of 
disapproval, with 42 Democrats voting with Republicans about 
the D.C. law that was passed last year called Local Residents 
Voting Rights Amendment Act.
    Local, you would think that would be United States of 
America residents, not noncitizens. But that allows--this law 
passed that you obviously support foreigners meddling in our 
elections is foreign diplomats, people that work at embassies, 
illegals, and foreign nationals allowed to vote in the District 
of Columbia elections.
    You can tell that Democrats disagree with this because 42 
Dems voted against it. Democrat Senators, again, four of them 
wrote a letter very concerned about foreign countries, and our 
intelligence agencies are concerned about this. And you know 
what? Most Americans are.
    And that is a very serious, serious problem.
    With that, my time has expired, and I will yield back. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Steil. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Raskin. Point of order.
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for the point of 
order.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. If a witness declines to answer a 
question on the grounds that he or she cannot answer the 
question, is it appropriate to state for the record that the 
answer is yes?
    Because I would like to correct the record, because I think 
that cuts against everything we understand about the dynamics 
of hearings.
    Mr. Steil. The Ranking Member's comments are noted.
    The gentlewoman's comments stand on the record.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. And the witness' comments will stand on 
their own.
    Mr. Steil. The witness is more than welcome to provide 
additional commentary in writing following the conclusion of 
the hearing.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Steil. No further parliamentary inquiries.
    The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes, Mr. Timmons.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, one of the bedrock principles of a functioning 
democracy is confidence in the outcome of our elections. And, 
obviously, with COVID came a number of changes to state 
election laws that were done so in violation of the 
Constitution.
    So, I guess I want to start by asking Ms. Evans, were 
changes made to the manner in which D.C. conducted its 
elections because of COVID?
    Ms. Evans. Yes.
    Mr. Timmons. And how were those--was it a Council vote? Who 
approved and who authorized those changes?
    Ms. Evans. There were different changes made. I can not say 
there is a wholesale answer.no
    Mr. Timmons. Did City Council vote on those changes?
    Ms. Evans. There were changes that were made with the 
authority that the D.C. Board of Elections currently has.
    Mr. Timmons. The D.C. Board of Elections do not have 
authority to change the election.
    Ms. Evans. Not change the election. I said decisions were 
made regarding the election. The D.C. Council did pass 
emergency legislation during the height of the pandemic, yes.
    Mr. Timmons. Did any judge change your election laws?
    Ms. Evans. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. Well, you know, we have had a lot of 
issues with confidence in the outcome of the 2020 elections, 
because many unelected bureaucrats, some elected officials, and 
Federal judges and state judges and a wide variety of people 
made changes to election laws that are not allowed under the 
Constitution.
    So, South Carolina--and, you know, I guess people do not 
realize this. People always say the Supreme Court turned down 
every argument, every case that was challenging the outcome of 
any election. That is actually not true. That is not true. One 
case was heard on the merits, and it was unanimously voted on 
by the Supreme Court as it relates to South Carolina's 
unconstitutional changes that were done by a Federal judge.
    So, what happened is the General Assembly appropriately got 
together and said: We have a pandemic, and we want to keep 
people safe.
    And they made changes to the state of South Carolina's 
election laws in accordance with the Constitution. And a group 
of people that did this across the country got together and 
tried to change our election laws in South Carolina.
    And the Federal judge--I can guess--you can guess who 
appointed her--overturned the state's recently adopted COVID-
friendly election laws. And it was kind of chaotic. Fourth 
Circuit originally overturned her, then overturned the initial 
ruling. And then the Supreme Court, nine to zero, said that the 
Federal judge was not entitled to make changes to South 
Carolina's election laws because that is just not how the 
system works.
    So, the same thing happened in Arizona, in Georgia and 
Pennsylvania, and states all over the country. And that is why 
people did not trust the outcome of the election. Who knows 
whether those changes would have made a difference, but, you 
know, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the dissenting 
opinion said: We know for a fact that 15-plus thousand people 
voted that were not legally entitled to vote because a judge 
changed when the registration deadline was, and that was not 
within their purview to do.
    So, you know, we have all these challenges across this 
country. And I hope that we can learn from them. I hope that we 
can learn from the mistakes that were made. I realize that the 
pandemic has justified so many decisions, so many decisions. 
And I think reasonable minds can differ at the time whether 
those were appropriate, but I think, in retrospect, many of the 
decisions made during the pandemic were not in the best 
interest of our citizenry and did, in fact, not help to push 
this country forward to overcome it.
    So, you know, whether D.C. legally or unconstitutionally 
allowed everybody to vote that--I mean, you all had 50,000 
ballots that were returned as undeliverable, is that right? 
48,018, is that correct, Ms. Evans?
    Ms. Evans. Which election are you referencing?
    Mr. Timmons. The 2020 election. The stat I am looking at 
here says that you sent out----
    Ms. Evans. Yes.
    Mr. Timmons [continuing]. Four-hundred-twenty-one ballots, 
that universal mail-in voting does not work. It does not 
facilitate confidence. I would argue that the fact that 11.4 
percent were returned as undeliverable is exactly why universal 
mail-in voting is ridiculous. But I guess reasonable minds can 
differ.
    One last thing. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record a 2016 report from the D.C. auditor showing that D.C. 
did, in fact, fail its own audit.
    And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. Without objection.
    Mr. Steil. And the gentleman yields back.
    In consultation with the Ranking Member, we would like to 
give each of our witnesses 2 minutes for closing remarks. Then 
the Ranking Member and I will each take 4 minutes for closing 
remarks. We will then gavel the Committee hearing closed.
    We will start with you, Ms. Weiser, if you would like to 
say anything in conclusion in the hearing up to 2 minutes.
    Ms. Weiser. Thank you very much for this hearing. I wanted 
to close where I started, by underscoring what I believe are 
serious risks to our elections heading into--going forward from 
disinformation that is sowing distrust about the elections, 
fueling vote suppression efforts, causing people to try to 
tamper with election equipment and meddle in election results 
and fueling a climate of harassment and even violence.
    I think these are really serious risks. These are things 
that I really do hope Congress will take seriously and address 
nationally, not just focused on D.C. And I strongly urge this 
Congress to revisit and pass the Freedom to Vote, John R. Lewis 
Act, which actually would address each and every one of these 
problems.
    And, as well, I want to make sure that Congress also 
ensures the local self-determination for D.C.'s residents and 
grant them full citizenship and statehood in this country. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields.
    Ms. Evans, you are recognized for up to 2 minutes.
    Ms. Evans. Thank you. First of all, I would just like to 
say that in D.C. we take elections very seriously, and I take 
my job very seriously.
    I have heard allegations that we have no desire to find 
fraud in the District of Columbia. That is untrue. We do have 
measures in place to address list maintenance. We not only have 
measures to be transparent, but we are increasing those 
efforts, including with the recently passed Elections 
Modernization Amendment Act, where we are developing a 
visualization data board that will be accessible and available 
to the public.
    There has been testimony regarding what the citizens in the 
District of Columbia want. To my knowledge, I do not know that 
the residents of the District of Columbia have been asked, 
polled, or voted on the testimony items that have been provided 
today.
    And, finally, I would just like to say again that, as far 
as my role as the Executive Director, D.C. Board of Elections, 
I do not introduce, pass, nor do I opine on legislation.
    Thank you so much for the time.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Spies, you are recognized for up to 2 minutes.
    Mr. Spies. I was pleased to hear Mr. Frost reference the 
Florida election reforms, and I think those are important to 
circle back to because those would have become effective in 
mid-2021 for the 2022 elections.
    When those reforms were passed, the Brennan Center 
criticized them and used a lot of this rhetoric we are hearing 
about disenfranchising people. But the interesting thing about 
Florida is we have now seen the results. And we have seen that 
the results of those reforms was not to disenfranchise people 
but, in fact, to have record turnout across all demographics in 
Florida in a smoothly run election.
    This is important because those reforms that were passed 
are largely the basis of what we are seeing with the ACE Act. 
And, if we can get that passed in D.C., that can then be a 
model for the rest of the country.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Cuccinelli is recognized for 2 minutes.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I would just dovetail Mr. Spies' comment 
and note that we have heard presumptions here today that your 
vote is almost determined by the tone of your skin color. And, 
in the Florida election of 2022, Ron DeSantis won 60 percent of 
the Hispanic vote after passing those election reforms and with 
the turnout that Mr. Spies referenced.
    So, while Democrats may assume that skin color determines 
thought, I do not and nor do many others who believe in 
election integrity.
    I would note Mrs. Torres raised a question challenging my 
integrity, whether explicitly or implicitly, and has sent a 
letter to me asking me about my prior testimony. I stand by all 
of my prior sworn testimony in response to her letter.
    Congresswoman Bice referenced, and as did the witness to my 
right, Mr. Spies, the popularity of voter identification in 
polling. I would note that, in the Michigan ballot measure this 
year, that the side running the ballot measure, which gutted, 
it eliminated the ID requirement, they passed that ballot 
measure, and they did it by telling voters, with millions of 
dollars, that it protected voter ID. That is how they passed 
it. They lied through their teeth. And, in doing so, they 
adopted the position that is included in the ACE Act. They 
suggested that the ballot measure would accomplish the same as 
the ACE Act in terms of voter identification.
    And, last but not least, the whole talk of D.C. Statehood 
is a power play by the Democrat Party, with a 90 percent voter 
advantage in D.C. That is two more Senators. If they are true 
to history, they will just give the property back and the 
people will go back to Maryland, where they will have two 
Senators and they will have a Congressman and not a Delegate, 
as I keep hearing is desired.
    Mr. Steil. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit 
a statement into the record from the League of Women Voters of 
the United States and the League of Women Voters of the 
District of Columbia. Thank you.
    Mr. Steil. Without objection.
    Mr. Steil. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Raskin, 
for 4 minutes for closing remarks.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman.
    I also want to just cleanup a little bit of the debris, the 
flotsam and jetsam left over from this hearing, which you have 
presided over in admirable fashion, Mr. Chairman. So, thank you 
for that.
    The first thing is Mr. Griffith, who I am afraid is not 
with us now, made the bizarre point that he thinks that we all 
agree that there was no Russian interference in our election in 
2016. I think anybody who is paying attention, who has studied 
the historical record, determines the issue in exactly the 
opposite fashion.
    More than a dozen different national security agencies, 
including the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Director of National 
Intelligence, the Department of Justice, the Department of 
Homeland Security, the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, all determined that Vladimir Putin had 
a plan.
    He had a whole operation in place, the Internet Research 
Agency, which they put hundreds of millions of dollars in, 
precisely to interfere in the American Presidential election 
and destabilize it.
    Now, there is obviously dispute about to what extent Donald 
Trump coordinated with them. Some people think Donald Trump had 
nothing to do with it and when he said, ``Russia, if you are 
listening, find me those 30,000 email,'' or when they met with 
Russian operatives at Trump Tower, that all of that was just 
accidental or whatever.
    But, in any event, put that to the side. Nobody serious is 
doubting that there was a Russian campaign to interfere in 
election in 2016. So, I was alarmed that he was engaged in that 
degree of Orwellian whitewashing of our actual history. Here is 
Marco Rubio, the Republican Senator from Florida who was then 
acting Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who said: 
We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 
election.
    So, I wanted to clear that up, because these things have a 
way of changing people's minds for no reason.
    Second, on the matter of noncitizen voting, which has 
become kind of a big deal in this hearing, I would just 
encourage everybody to study the history of it. I have no dog 
in the hunt. This is up to the people of D.C. whether they want 
noncitizens to join the overwhelmingly citizen population of 
D.C. and vote in school board and ANC and City Council 
elections. That is up to them, just like it is up to the people 
of Little Rock or Juneau, Alaska, or Dallas, Texas. So, I have 
got no horse in that race.
    But I will tell you that some people in this hearing were 
vehemently denouncing the practice as un-American, 
unconstitutional, and so on, without understanding remotely the 
history of this practice, which was pervasive throughout the 
18th and 19th centuries precisely because the states wanted to 
welcome immigrants to their population and give them the right 
to vote as a way to get them interested in local affairs.
    And I think Mr. Cuccinelli properly quoted me when someone 
said, well, what about, you know, Russian agents at the Russian 
Embassy? And I said, if I had a vote in D.C., which I do not, I 
would certainly vote to exclude them from participating, 
because it has been proven that they are up to no good and are 
trying to subvert our democracy. But it is up to the people of 
D.C. how they want to deal with the issue of their local 
elections.
    Finally, about the matter at hand, the people of 
Washington, D.C., are the residents of the only national 
capital on planet Earth who are not represented in their own 
national legislature. These are tax-paying, draftable, law-
abiding U.S. citizens, 700,000 of them, a population larger 
than that of two states, and yet they are completely excluded 
from voting representation in the Congress that makes decisions 
essential to their lives, about judicial nominations, about war 
and peace, about Federal budget and so on.
    That is the critical voting rights issue. Everything else 
is a sideshow and a distraction from that. Let us get back to 
what we were doing the last Congress. Let us pass D.C. 
Statehood, and let us keep the march of democracy and freedom 
going in America.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    I appreciate all of our witnesses being here today. I think 
what we heard is the need to pass the ACE Act. Time and again 
we heard the challenges we face in Washington, DC, and across 
the country for lax voter integrity laws, and an opportunity to 
strengthen voter integrity.
    We had testimony from our witnesses about the implications 
that strong voter integrity provisions have. We highlighted 
Florida. We highlighted Georgia. We reviewed the rhetoric from 
last year from the left, from President Biden and others, who 
called the Georgia voter integrity law Jim Crow 2.0, a whole 
host of flawed arguments.
    And then the empirical data came forward, and it actually 
showed that by putting in place strong voter integrity 
provisions, what we actually got was higher participation and 
more people appreciating the process.
    It is my firm belief that, when you have strong voter 
integrity provisions, what you actually do is enhance people's 
confidence in their elections. And when confidence is enhanced, 
more people are likely to vote.
    And I think there is some real commonsense provisions that 
we put in this, in particular as it relates to Washington, DC. 
We talked about how you need a photo ID to buy a six-pack of 
beer if you are a resident of D.C., to board an airplane. We 
heard people talk about their Second Amendment rights and the 
need for a photo ID there. So, it is completely rational to 
think that putting forward photo ID for the right to vote 
actually enhances confidence in our elections.
    It was brought up again by my colleague about the impact of 
noncitizens voting. Mr. Ranking Member, you noted that you 
would be happy to make sure that Russian and Chinese agents 
that are hostile to the United States' interests are not able 
to vote.
    I would ask you to take a hard look at the ACE Act and 
consider supporting it, because what it does is it prevents 
Chinese and Russian agents from being able to vote in 
Washington, DC. I think that is a pretty commonsense thing.
    I think it is absolutely ridiculous to think that somebody 
who works on the embassy staff of a foreign country is going to 
pull out a foreign passport and walk up and vote at a 
Washington, DC, election because they have been in the Nation's 
capital for 30 days.
    There is an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 individuals who are 
18 years of age who have been in D.C. for 30 days who are 
citizens of another country, a healthy chunk of them working 
for foreign countries while being here in the Nation's capital. 
I think it is pretty reasonable to make sure that those 
individuals are not voting.
    We know that, in Washington, DC, in the 2022 election, 500 
ballots were sent out that were incorrect. Well, it sure gives 
you a lot of pause when you realize that, in addition to that, 
we have voter rolls in Washington, DC, that are not as up to 
date as they could be. So, it is rational to think that, if you 
have noncitizens voting, that all sorts of things could go on 
and individuals who are on the voter rolls could find 
themselves able to vote in a Federal election, which is 
ridiculous.
    The ACE Act provides the tools for Washington, DC, to be 
able to prevent that. We stop the sending of unsolicited 
ballots. We talked about the implications that that has had in 
Washington, D.C., where multiple ballots were sent in previous 
elections unsolicited by people on an unmaintained voter list. 
Those types of things do not enhance people's confidence in our 
elections. The ACE Act resolves that.
    And our hearing opened with a comment from one of my 
colleagues that was disappointed we were even here having this 
conversation in the first place. If the cameras were flipped 
around and saw the attendance in this room, I would suggest it 
is a great idea to be having this conversation. We have got a 
lot of people here who are interested in this.
    Instead of H.R. 1, which was shoved through with no 
amendments, two quick hearings, a Federal takeover of our 
election law, what we have done, starting before the 2020 
election, began building this legislation so that we are in a 
position to discuss it, to amend it, to make it as strong as we 
can and ultimately to pass it, to have the most substantive and 
strongest election integrity bill pass the House of 
Representatives in over 20 years.
    With that, I will yield to myself and say--and thank all of 
our witnesses for being here today. Appreciate your testimony. 
Appreciate the Ranking Member for working with me in this.
    And each Member of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for our witnesses. We ask that you please respond in 
writing to those questions.
    Without objection, each Member will have 5 legislative days 
to insert additional material into the record or to revise and 
extend their remarks.
    Now, pursuant to paragraph (c) of House rule XIV--of rule 
14 of the Committee on House Administration, I hereby appoint 
William Johnson Assistant Clerk of the Committee. And I will 
request unanimous consent that the letter appointing the 
Assistant Clerk be entered into the official record. A copy of 
the letter will be made available to all Members of the 
Committee.
    And if there is no further business, I thank----
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask unanimous 
consent to enter two document into the record?
    Mr. Steil. The documents are?
    Mr. Raskin. A study by Professor Charles Stewart in the MIT 
Election Data and Science Lab on how we voted in 2022, 
discussing confidence going up in our elections; and a letter 
from Common Cause about how more secret dark money would be 
allowed in our elections under the legislation.
    Mr. Steil. Without objection.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Steil. With no further business, I thank the Members 
for their participation.
    Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.

                                 [all]