[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVISITING THE 2024 ELECTION
WITH SECRETARIES OF STATE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 8, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
www.cha.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-062 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman
LAUREL LEE, Florida, Vice Chair JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia Ranking Member
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina NORMA TORRES, California
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
MARY MILLER, Illinois
MIKE CAREY, Ohio
Mike Platt, Staff Director
Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
LAUREL LEE, Florida, Chair
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama,
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina Ranking Member
MARY MILLER, Illinois JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statements
Chair Laurel Lee, Representative from the State of Florida....... 1
Prepared statement of Chair Laurel Lee....................... 3
Ranking Member Terri A. Sewell, Representative from the State of
Alabama........................................................ 4
Prepared statement of Ranking Member Terri A. Sewell......... 5
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on House Administration Joseph
Morelle, Representative from the State of New York............. 6
Witnesses
Hon. Wes Allen, Alabama Secretary of State....................... 9
Prepared statement of Wes Allen.............................. 10
Hon. Nancy Landry, Louisiana Secretary of State.................. 15
Prepared statement of Nancy Landry........................... 17
Hon. Frank LaRose, Ohio Secretary of State....................... 20
Prepared statement of Frank LaRose........................... 22
Hon. Phil McGrane, Idaho Secretary of State...................... 26
Prepared statement of Phil McGrane........................... 28
Hon. Stephanie Thomas, Connecticut Secretary of State............ 31
Prepared statement of Stephanie Thomas....................... 32
Submissions for the Record
Overseas and Military Voters Opposition to SAVE Act Letter....... 54
Brennan Center for Justice Alabama Racial Turnout Gap Analysis... 56
Civil Rights Groups Opposition to SAVE Act Letter................ 60
Attorney General Opposition to SAVE Act Letter................... 65
Southern Poverty Law Center Opposition to SAVE Act Letter........ 70
Brennan Center for Justice Opposition to SAVE Act Letter......... 82
ACLU Opposition to SAVE Act Letter............................... 83
LCV Opposition to SAVE Act Letter................................ 85
Vet Voice Foundation Opposition to SAVE Act Letter............... 86
General Allowance
Declaration for American Democracy Opposition to SAVE Act Letter. 90
Issue One Opposition to SAVE Act Letter.......................... 95
Secretaries of State SAVE Act Letter............................. 99
REVISITING THE 2024 ELECTION
WITH SECRETARIES OF STATE
----------
April 8, 2025
Subcommittee on Elections,
Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Laurel Lee
[chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Lee, Loudermilk, Murphy, Miller, Sewell, Morelle,
and Johnson.
Staff present: Mike Platt, Staff Director; Rachel Collins,
General Counsel, Abby Salter, Deputy General Counsel; Josh
Weber, Counsel; Kristen Monterroso, Director of Operations;
Marissa Mullen, Deputy Director of Member Services; Annemarie
Cake, Deputy Clerk and Professional Staff Member; Jamie Fleet,
Minority Staff Director; Kahlil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff
Director; Sean Wright, Minority Chief Counsel; Sarah Nasta,
Minority Senior Advisor; Nikolas Youngsmith, Minority Elections
Counsel; and Owen Reilly, Minority Professional Staff Member.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAUREL LEE, CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
ON ELECTIONS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA
Chair Lee. The Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee
on House Administration will come to order.
The title of today's hearing is, ``Revisiting the 2024
Election With Secretaries of State.''
I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the
chair may declare a recess at any time.
We will do opening statements here today and then recess
for the floor vote. We will quickly reconvene after the vote
and begin with witness testimony.
Also, without objection, the hearing record will remain
open for 5 legislative days so Members may submit any materials
they wish to be included therein.
Thank you, Ranking Member Sewell, Members of the Committee,
and our witnesses for participating in today's hearing.
Recent elections have produced record high turnout, and, in
turn, those elections become the most challenging for elections
officials to administrate and process. Presidential, primary,
general, and special elections occur around the clock, across
States, requiring efficient administration to provide Americans
with free and fair elections.
As a former Secretary of State, I am glad to welcome our
witnesses today for an important review of our Nation's most
recent Presidential election.
Voters across America went to the polls in record high
numbers in 2024 to exercise one of their most fundamental
rights. According to our Constitution, the States are
responsible for prescribing the times, places, and manner of
holding elections for Senators and Representatives.
The role of Congress in elections is to provide oversight
and to support States in those efforts.
The purpose of our hearing today is to revisit the 2024
election and hear from Secretaries of State who conducted their
States' elections this past November. Specifically, we will be
looking at what went well and what lessons we can learn from
each of the secretaries in administering free and fair
elections and how we can continue to protect and promote voter
confidence.
I thank all of our witnesses for coming before the
Committee today to share your knowledge and expertise on this
matter.
During the 2024 election cycle, over 155 million Americans
cast their ballots in races for the White House, the Senate,
the House of Representatives, Governors' mansions, State
legislatures, State supreme courts, and more.
Even with record high turnout, many States were able to
report their results on election night for the Presidency.
However, some States were significantly delayed in calling
races for the Senate and House of Representatives for days, and
in some cases, weeks.
Something I was very proud of, as Florida's former chief
election official, was how quickly our State was able to call
elections with confidence in our results. Undoubtedly, States
with laws on the books for pre-processing of mail-in ballots
regularly enforced deadlines for receipt on Election Day and
consistent post election audits of voter rolls are in the best
position to administer their elections without undue delay and
to report results on election night, which helps instill voter
confidence.
Many States across the country, including most of the
States the secretaries here today represent, have taken
initiative in enhancing their election security laws.
When Americans feel their vote will count, they are more
inclined to take the time to cast a ballot. Americans must know
that their vote will not be misplaced, damaged, or otherwise
interfered with, but instead, it will be uncounted in a timely
manner. Americans must also know that noncitizens' votes will
not cancel out a legal vote.
Strengthening our voting laws increases voter confidence
and leads to higher turnout in our elections. This most recent
election was proof of that.
In Alabama, Louisiana, Idaho, and Ohio, successful election
integrity measures have been implemented. Each of these States
are evidence of how enhancing election integrity and security
can help to manage high voter turnout, voter access, and the
rapid process of ballots to certify results on election night.
While States are the primary authority on how elections are
conducted, it is our role here in Congress to assist in any way
that we can. One way we will be able to help provide resources
to States is by passing the Safeguard American Voter
Eligibility, or the SAVE Act.
This bill would bring critical reform to the National Voter
Registration Act that will help prevent noncitizens from being
added to voter rolls. It would also provide States with free
access to the DHS save program and the Social Security death
data base, which will help States remove noncitizens or
deceased persons who should not be on their voter rolls.
In doing so, the SAVE Act would codify many of the measures
included in President Trump's recent executive order to
strengthen election integrity and security.
Running a successful and uneventful election is no easy
task. I am looking forward to learning from each of you about
how you successfully ran elections in each of your States in
2024, and how Congress can assist in future elections.
Thank you for being here today. I look forward to our
conversation.
With that, I yield to Ranking Member Sewell for an opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Chair Lee follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
LAUREL LEE
Recent elections have produced record high turnout, and in
turn, these elections become the most challenging for election
officials to administrate and process. Presidential, primary,
general, and special elections occur around the clock across
States, requiring efficient administration to provide Americans
with free and fair elections.
As a former Secretary of State, I am glad to welcome our
witnesses today for an important review of our Nation's most
recent Presidential election. Voters across America went to the
polls in record high numbers in 2024 to exercise one of their
most fundamental rights. According to our Constitution, the
States are responsible for prescribing the ``Times, Places and
Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives.''
The role of Congress in elections is to provide oversight and
to support States in their efforts.
The purpose of our hearing today is to revisit the 2024
election and hear from the Secretaries of State who conducted
their States' elections this past November. Specifically, we
will be looking at what went well, and what lessons we can
learn from each of the Secretaries in administering free and
fair elections, and how we can continue to protect and promote
voter confidence. I thank all of our witnesses for coming
before the Committee today to share your knowledge and
expertise on this matter.
During the 2024 election cycle, over one hundred and fifty-
five (155) million Americans cast their ballots in races for
the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives,
governor's mansions, State legislatures, State Supreme Courts,
and more. Even with record high turnout, many States were able
to report their results on election night for the Presidency.
However, some States were significantly delayed in calling
races for the Senate and the House of Representatives for days,
and in some cases, weeks.
Something I was very proud of as Florida's former Chief
Elections Official was how quickly our State was able to call
elections with the utmost confidence in our results.
Undoubtedly, States with laws on the books for pre-processing
of mail-in ballots, regularly enforced receipt deadlines for
Election Day, and consistent post-election audits of voter
rolls are in the best position to administer their elections
without undue delay and to report results on election night,
which helps instill voter confidence.
Many States across the country, including most of the
States the Secretaries here today represent, have taken
initiative in enhancing their election security laws. When
Americans feel that their vote will count, they are more
inclined to take the time to cast a ballot. Americans must know
that their vote will not be misplaced, damaged, or otherwise
interfered with, but instead it will be counted in a timely
manner. Americans must also know that a noncitizens vote will
not cancel out their legal vote.
Strengthening our voting laws increases voter confidence
and leads to higher turnout in our elections. This most recent
election was proof of that. In Alabama, Louisiana, Idaho, and
Ohio, successful election integrity measures have been
implemented. Each of these States are evidence of how enhancing
election integrity and security can help to manage high voter
turnout, voter access, and the rapid process of ballots to
certify results on Election Night. While States are the primary
authority on how elections are conducted, it is our role here
in Congress to assist in any way we can. One way we will be
able to help provide resources to States is by passing the
Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or the SAVE Act.
This bill would bring critical reform to the National Voter
Registration Act that would help prevent noncitizens from being
added to voter rolls. It would also provide States with free
access to the DHS SAVE program and the Social Security Death
Database, which will help States to remove noncitizens who may
be on voter rolls. In doing so, the SAVE Act would codify many
of the measures included in President Trump's recent executive
order to strengthen election security and integrity. Running a
successful and uneventful election is no easy task. I am
looking forward to learning from each of you about how you
successfully ran elections in each of your States in 2024, and
how Congress can assist in future elections.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TERRI SEWELL, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALABAMA
Ms. Sewell. Good afternoon, everyone.
As a Ranking Member of the Election Subcommittee, and as a
representative of Alabama's civil rights district, there is
nothing more important to me than ensuring that every American
can cast their ballot.
It was in my hometown of Selma, Alabama, 60 years ago where
John Lewis and hundreds of foot soldiers were bludgeoned on the
Edmund Pettus Bridge for the equal right of all Americans to
vote. However, for the past decade, extremists have fought to
undo the hard-won progress that the foot soldiers sought to
achieve.
Just last year, lawmakers in 40 States introduced 317 bills
to eradicate new barriers to the ballot box. Since its defeat
in the 2020 election, Donald Trump and his Republican allies
have pushed the big lie of a stolen election. They have even
tried to convince the American people of the lie that
noncitizens are voting in large numbers and are threatening our
elections.
They are using the lie as an excuse to pass new laws like
the SAVE Act that would make it harder for millions of
Americans to vote.
Moreover, Donald Trump just signed an executive order that
would not only give him unilateral authority to regulate
Federal elections, but it would open the floodgates for mass
voter purges and give Elon Musk unfettered access to sensitive
voter files.
The executive order and the SAVE Act also create
unnecessary barriers for election workers by withholding funds
and threatening election administrators with a 5-year prison
sentence if they make a simple mistake while trying to register
new voters.
Even though the 2024 was fair and secure, it was marred
with threats of violence, like the bomb threats that targeted
polling stations, election offices, and tabulation centers on
election day.
However, today's hearing should present a great learning
opportunity because States like Connecticut are leading the
charge to expand access to the ballot box. In 2023, Connecticut
passed a State-level Voting Rights Act to expand voter access.
Sadly, last year, Alabama, my home State, cared more about
enacting laws to criminalize absentee ballot assistance and
purged thousands of eligible voters from the rolls. Alabama is
one of only three States in the Nation that does not allow any
form of early in-person voting.
But in Connecticut, voters were allowed to exercise their
right to vote 14 days before election day.
Before election day in Alabama, the courts had to prevent
Alabama from unfairly and unlawfully removing thousands of
eligible voters from the roll because they were wrongfully
flagged as noncitizens in direct violation of the National
Voter Registration Act.
Voters in Alabama and every other State should not have
fewer options to vote. What they deserve is to learn on
election day that their names were actually on the rolls
rightfully, not wrongfully, and purged unnecessarily.
As we examine the 2024 election, what we should be
addressing are issues such as chronic underfunding of our
elections, the safety and security of our election workers,
polling stations, and voters, and expanding access to the
ballot box for every eligible American.
We should be honoring the legacy by passing legislation
like the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, the
Freedom to Vote Act, and the Native American Voting Rights Act.
Trump has no regards for the U.S. Constitution, the rule of
law, or the fundamental principles that all Americans,
regardless of their race, creed, or color, has a right to have
their voice heard at the ballot box.
The American people's right to vote is sacred, as John
Lewis said, and I will never stop fighting to protect the
cornerstone of our democracy. We, as elected officials, should
be looking for ways to expand access to the ballot box, not to
curb it.
I want to thank our secretaries for being here today.
I also want to thank Chair Lee for holding this.
I look forward to hearing from all of you.
I would like to welcome my Secretary of State, Wes Allen.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Sewell follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ELECTIONS TERRI SEWELL
As a Ranking Member of the Election Subcommittee, and as a
representative of Alabama's civil rights district, there is
nothing more important to me than ensuring that every American
can cast their ballot. It was in my hometown of Selma, Alabama,
60 years ago where John Lewis and hundreds of foot soldiers
were bludgeoned on the Edmund Pettus Bridge for the equal right
of all Americans to vote. However, for the past decade,
extremists have fought to undo the hard won progress that the
foot soldiers sought to achieve.
Just last year, lawmakers in 40 States introduced 317 bills
to eradicate new barriers to the ballot box. Since its defeat
in the 2020 election, Donald Trump and his Republican allies
have pushed the big lie of a stolen election. They have even
tried to convince the American people of the lie that
noncitizens are voting in large numbers and are threatening our
elections. They are using the lie as an excuse to pass new laws
like the SAVE Act that would make it harder for millions of
Americans to vote.
Moreover, Donald Trump just signed an executive order that
would not only give him unilateral authority to regulate
Federal elections, but it would open the floodgates for mass
voter purges and give Elon Musk unfettered access to sensitive
voter files. The executive order and the SAVE Act also create
unnecessary barriers for election workers by withholding funds
and threatening election administrators with a 5 year prison
sentence if they make a simple mistake while trying to register
new voters.
Even though the 2024 was fair and secure, it was marred
with threats of violence, like the bomb threats that targeted
polling stations, election offices, and tabulation centers on
election day. However, today's hearing should present a great
learning opportunity because States like Connecticut are
leading the charge to expand access to the ballot box. In 2023,
Connecticut passed a State-level Voting Rights Act to expand
voter access.
Sadly, last year, Alabama, my home State, cared more about
enacting laws to criminalize absentee ballot assistance and
purged thousands of eligible voters from the rolls. Alabama is
one of only three States in the Nation that does not allow any
form of early in person voting. But in Connecticut, voters were
allowed to exercise their right to vote 14 days before election
day.
Before election day in Alabama, the courts had to prevent
Alabama from unfairly and unlawfully removing thousands of
eligible voters from the roll because they were wrongfully
flagged as noncitizens in direct violation of the National
Voter Registration Act. Voters in Alabama and every other State
should not have fewer options to vote. What they deserve is to
learn on election day that their names were actually on the
rolls rightfully, not wrongfully, and purged unnecessarily.
As we examine the 2024 election, what we should be
addressing are issues such as chronic underfunding of our
elections, the safety and security of our election workers,
polling stations, and voters, and expanding access to the
ballot box for every eligible American. We should be honoring
the legacy by passing legislation like the John Robert Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act, the Freedom to Vote Act, and the
Native American Voting Rights Act.
Trump has no regards for the U.S. Constitution, the rule of
law, or the fundamental principles that all Americans,
regardless of their race, creed, or color, has a right to have
their voice heard at the ballot box. The American people's
right to vote is sacred, as John Lewis said, and I will never
stop fighting to protect the cornerstone of our democracy. We,
as elected officials, should be looking for ways to expand
access to the ballot box, not to curb it.
Chair Lee. With that, I yield to Ranking Member of the full
Committee, Representative Morelle, for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
NEW YORK
Mr. Morelle. Good afternoon.
Thank you, Chair Lee, for gathering this Subcommittee.
Thanks for giving me a few moments.
Certainly, thank you to the various Secretaries of State
for being here today.
As we gather this afternoon to revisit the 2024 election,
it is important to state up front that the 2024 election was
fair and secure, that Donald Trump was elected President. You
see, unlike many on the other side of the aisle, Democrats can
and will acknowledge that fact. Even when we do not personally
like or agree with the outcome of an election, we honor the
democratic process and accept the results.
In examining the last election and looking for ways to
improve our country's election administration, we must address
the rampant spread of mis- and disinformation and falsehoods
that continue to be spread about our electoral system. We must
protect election workers who face continued threats and
harassment.
We must address the rise of artificial intelligence,
generative AI, and continued foreign influence campaigns that
seek to affect and influence our elections.
We must fully fund our elections. Federal elections are on
the ballot in every State every 2 years, and yet Congress has
continued and consistently failed to sufficiently fund those
election efforts at the State and local level.
Congress must halt and reverse the administration's harmful
decisions to attack, undermine, and defund critical Federal
agencies and partnerships like the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, and the Elections
Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, or the
FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force.
These actions to cripple and undermine these agencies do
not strengthen our elections. In fact, they make us less
secure.
We need to fix our broken special interest big money
campaign finance system. Last year one donor, billionaire Elon
Musk, spent at least $291 million backing Donald Trump and
other Republican candidates. According to Open Secrets, the top
six donors in the United States gave over $100 million each
during the 2024 election, all supporting the President and
Republican candidates.
In last week's Wisconsin supreme court election, Elon Musk
and allied groups spent over $20 million.
We also need fair maps. Look at North Carolina where
Republicans gerrymandered their way into the House majority by
drawing three Democratic Members out of their seats.
The President's recent executive order on election
integrity is a further assault on our democracy. The order is
unlawful and unnecessary, attempting to impose documentary
proof of citizenship requirements to register to vote by
executive fiat, circumventing the U.S. Congress and our
constitutional authority.
It undermines the independence of the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission, and injects chaos and uncertainty into
our voting system certification process.
New York's attorney general and a coalition of 18 other
attorneys general are suing to stop President Trump's
unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections.
Voters and party committees have also sued to stop the White
House from doing that.
Alongside all of this is the so-called SAVE Act, a measure
that my colleagues on the other side claim is necessary to
prevent noncitizens from voting in U.S. elections. It is not.
Noncitizens registering to vote is already a crime. Noncitizens
voting is a crime and leads to immediate deportation. It rarely
happens and, when it does, noncitizens are held accountable, as
they should be. The SAVE Act and the President's order are two
sides of the same coin.
Now with the economic pain of the President's chaotic
tariffs just being felt, members of the majority are planning
to charge millions of Americans potentially billions of dollars
just to register to vote from 150 million Americans who do not
have passports.
Last week I testified before the Rules Committee that the
SAVE Act and the executive order would disenfranchise women,
rural voters, military voters, overseas voters, Native American
voters, seniors, students, survivors of domestic abuse, and
survivors of natural disasters. Millions of Americans.
There is, however, real work Congress can do to improve our
elections. Election officials take on essential, often
thankless tasks in running elections. They face increased
threats and too little and inconsistent funding from Congress.
That could stop.
As Ranking Member of this Committee and a Member of the
Appropriations Committee, I will continue to push for
additional funding and consistent elections funding.
We can work to combat mis- and disinformation to meet the
challenges posed by AI and to improve access to the ballot for
every single American. Providing both support and accurate
information will allow election workers to administer secure,
accessible elections, and give Americans the confidence in
elections that they need.
I was honored to join Ranking Member Sewell in her hometown
of Selma for the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday just last
month. We must honor the legacy and continue moving forward in
the fight for voting rights, not backward.
I am anxious to hear from each of the secretaries today.
Thank you for your work, for the work your staffs do, and all
the election workers in your respective States to carry out
these important, important elections.
With that, Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity. I
yield back.
Chair Lee. Without objection, all other Members' opening
statements will be made part of the hearing record if they are
submitted to the Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today.
At this time, votes for Members have been called. We will
take a brief recess to go vote and then return as quickly as
possible to the hearing room to hear the opening statements and
testimony from our witnesses.
At this time, this Committee stands in a temporary recess.
[Recess.]
Chair Lee. I will now call this hearing back to order and
reconvene our business.
Today we have one witness panel, and I will now introduce
our witnesses. First, we have Wes Allen, the Secretary of State
of Alabama. Next, we have Nancy Landry, the Secretary of State
of Louisiana, followed by Frank LaRose, the Secretary of State
of Ohio. Then we have Phil McGrane, the Secretary of State of
Idaho, and Stephanie Thomas, the Secretary of State of
Connecticut.
Each witness will have 3 minutes to provide an opening
statement. We thank you for your cooperation and your patience
with us in that regard. You have just witnessed what was not an
exercise in efficiency. We are so glad to have you all here and
to have this time with you.
With that, I now recognize Secretary Allen for the purpose
of giving an opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF HON. WES ALLEN, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF STATE; HON.
NANCY LANDRY, LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE; HON. FRANK LAROSE,
OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE; HON. PHIL MCGRANE, IDAHO SECRETARY OF
STATE; AND HON. STEPHANIE THOMAS, CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF
STATE
STATEMENT OF HON. WES ALLEN
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Good afternoon, Members of this Subcommittee. It is my
honor to be invited to represent the great State of Alabama as
its chief election official.
I bring a unique perspective of today's proceeding, as my
career in elections began more than a decade prior to my
election as Alabama's 54th Secretary of State when I served for
nearly 10 years as probate judge, the chief elections official,
in Pike County, Alabama.
The foundation of election integrity is voter file
maintenance. Moments after I was sworn in, I signed a letter
notifying the Electronic Registration Information Center, also
known as ERIC, that Alabama would no longer participate in
their program.
My team and I developed and implemented the Alabama Voter
Integrity Database, better known as AVID, which utilizes State-
to-State data sharing agreements, partners with the driver's
license division of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, the
national change of address data base, and the Social Security
Administration's national death master index to identify
individuals who should be placed on a path for removal from our
voter file.
Since taking office, more than half a million ineligible
voters have been removed from Alabama's voter file. Our voter
file, which was a bloated mess on the day I took office, is now
the most accurate record of eligible voters our State has ever
had.
However, two major hurdles remain. First, the immediate
removal of deceased voters from our voter file should be common
sense. However, obtaining access to the Social Security
Administration's national master death index was absurdly time
consuming and overly burdensome.
Unnecessary red tape makes it more difficult than it should
be. You, as Members of Congress, can cut through that red tape
and make this important data immediately available to all 50
States.
Second, my efforts to gain access to noncitizen data held
by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,
USCIS, were repeatedly denied by the previous administration.
Fortunately, President Trump's EO directed DHS to cooperate
with States to eliminate noncitizens from our voter file, will
allow batch comparisons of DHS noncitizen data to our State-
level voter files, allowing for the immediate removal of those
who are illegally registered to vote.
Granting States immediate access to this data is crucial.
Only United States citizens should participate in our
elections.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. It
has been my honor.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WES ALLEN
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Lee. Thank you.
I now recognize Secretary Landry for the purpose of her
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF NANCY LANDRY
Ms. Landry. Good afternoon, Chair Lee, Ranking Member
Sewell, and Members of this Committee. It is an honor to be
with you here today to discuss the successes Louisiana had and
the lessons we learned in the 2024 election.
As Louisiana's Secretary of State, the most important
function of my job is to reinforce voters' confidence in our
elections. I believe our work did just that and led to a banner
year in our State's election administration.
Just months after taking office in early 2024, I announced
a legislative package of 11 bills intended to strengthen our
State's election integrity posture. I am proud to say that all
11 bills passed, eight of those with bipartisan support, and
our Governor signed all of them into law.
Last August, I joined Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry and
our attorney general to announce new steps our State is taking
to ensure that only U.S. citizens can vote in Louisiana
elections. This included a directive from the Governor
requiring the Office of Motor Vehicles to share information on
noncitizens who hold a Louisiana driver's license or ID.
Additionally, in the weeks leading up to the Presidential
election, I embarked on a tour that took me to 21 of
Louisiana's 64 parishes. I met with civic groups, local
election officials and staff, and conducted countless radio and
TV interviews to reinforce what I call the four Ps of election
security.
Those are our people. That is my staff and our local
election officials, the only people that ever program our
equipment.
Our policies. The legislation that we have passed over the
years to ensure election integrity.
Our procedures. Such as our logic testing and sealing
procedures that we conduct before each and every election.
The last P is our physical security. Every machine is
stored under lock and key when not in use, and no machine is
ever connected to the internet.
While Louisiana has employed these for several years, I
felt it was important to meet voters where they are and to
empower our local partners with the knowledge that they need to
speak with authority on our election processes.
All of that hard work we put in last year resulted in a
record-breaking Presidential election. Among other records, we
saw the fastest reporting of results in any Presidential
election in Louisiana's history. Full, unofficial results were
posted within 3 hours of our polls closing.
These efforts led to a noticeable increase in voter
confidence in our elections. Over an 8-month period in 2024, a
poll found a nine-point jump in the number of voters who
believed that our elections are safe and secure.
Louisiana proved that States can make it easy to vote and
hard to cheat and that doing so will instill confidence in our
elections. I believe every State in the Nation can replicate
the strides we have made. In doing so, they can reassure voters
that their elections are safe and secure.
Thank you again for having me. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Landry follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY LANDRY
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Lee. I now recognize Secretary LaRose for the purpose
of giving an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF FRANK LAROSE
Mr. LaRose. Well, thank you so much, Chair Lee and Ranking
Member Sewell, all the Members and the staff for inviting us
here today.
We had a simple bit of wisdom that we used in the military.
That you sweat in training so you do not bleed in battle. It
maybe sounds a little bit dramatic. We summed it up a little
bit simpler when I was in the Boy Scouts with the slogan be
prepared.
The work of elections administration is all about being
prepared for that next election. It is a massive logistical
undertaking running an election. Sometimes we lose track of
that because for each of us individually it is a very
individualize experience. You show up at your voting location,
check your ballots. You walk out with your ``I voted'' sticker,
and then see the results at the bottom of your screen that
night. But it is a massive undertaking.
In Ohio, we created what we call the ready for November
task force that started well over a year before the election
with training seminars for each of our county boards of
elections, working through the after-action reports of previous
elections to make sure that those best practice had been put
into place, recruiting and training over 35,000 poll workers
that it takes to run Ohio's elections, our fifth security
directive that built on the four before them to make Ohio a
real leader in cybersecurity.
Of course, we run an election day operation center. Some
call it our war room where we can quickly work through those
issues that inevitably come up on Election Day and make sure
that none of them can become a showstopper for the voters of
Ohio.
Ohio has implemented a number of best practices that I
think are worth considering. Prompt reporting of our election
night results. That comes about as a result of pre-processing
those absentee ballots as they arrive and making sure that
those are ready to be the first ones reported. At 8:15, 8:30 on
election night, we are already reporting those early votes and
those absentee votes.
One of the other things that we have done in Ohio is
standardized our data. Now, to start, we have a bottom-up
system in Ohio with each county being run by two Democrats and
two Republicans, but we needed to create standardized
definitions. We did that through a bipartisan effort called the
DATA Act.
Simple things like what constitutes a voter registration
date or a ballot cast or a ballot counted. Standardizing all
that data, reporting it publicly has made Ohio among the most
transparent election systems in the country.
Of course, photo ID, which is widely accepted in Ohio. We
provide that for free, and it includes an indication of your
citizenship status.
There are things that the Federal Government needs to do.
The President took a good first step with the executive order
on citizenship data, but we need more access to that through
DHS and others, as well as the U.S. Postal Service.
There is a list of things that we as secretaries proposed
in September 2024. Many of those still require action.
In 2024, we ran a record-breaking election in Ohio. Voters
went to bed on election night, whether their favorite
candidates won or lost, knowing that it was an honest result.
Ultimately, that is our goal.
I look forward to the questions you all for us later.
Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. LaRose follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK LAROSE
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Lee. I now recognize Secretary McGrane for the
purpose of giving an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF PHIL MCGRANE
Mr. McGrane. Chair Lee, Ranking Member Sewell, and Members
of the Committee, it really is my privilege to be here before
you today.
My background in elections goes back to right when I got
out of college. I landed a job as an elections specialist
counting ballots when we were voting on punch cards and
training poll workers. I have had the unique opportunity to
work my way up in a variety of roles along the way.
I can say I have seen just about everything when it comes
to elections, and I stand proud to represent the State of Idaho
here to really highlight that the 2024 election was one of the
most successful in Idaho's history. We had a record 917,000
Idahoans head out to the polls and vote, which really stands
out.
I also think, you know, this Committee--I think I came to
your attention based on a local election. You mentioned that in
your opening statement, Chairwoman, regarding judicial review,
right, whenever there is an error. Errors can happen in any
election, but the ability to correct those errors, no matter
how granular.
We had an election that was determined. It was 47 votes
versus 48 votes, and we put that before a judge to make sure
that we could get the right result for that community. That is
the level of detail that we will use in Idaho to get it right.
Over the 2024 election, I think one of the biggest things
that stands out, though, is our use of the SAVE data base and
the SAVE tools.
Governor Little and I signed an executive order last
summer, the Only Citizens Can Vote Act, to ensure that only
American citizens were on our voter rolls headed into the
November election. We did a comparison with all the data and
had a close working relationship with DHS.
I think one of the telling things and something that you
can do about this is we talk about the SAVE data base, or the
SAVE program. It is not actually a program or a data base, it
is a patchwork of varying data bases that really was never
intended for election integrity work.
I think one of the things this Committee can do is invest
in the tools that we need as States to ensure that our voter
rolls are accurate. I think that is something that all parties
should be able to get behind is the accuracy in our voter
rolls.
Additionally, I think one other thing that this Committee
can take up, and it was already mentioned before, is voter ID.
Thirty-six States already have some standard of voter ID. When
you look at polling, whether it is Pew or any other resource,
it shows heavy bipartisan support.
Most notably, last November, Nevada, and just 2 weeks ago,
Wisconsin, the voters, when they get to choose, overwhelmingly
choose for identification.
We have the real ID taking effect. We all see this when we
travel. All of us experience it. This is something that we can
do.
I really look forward to the conversation today in terms of
our elections and what Congress can do to help support us as
States. Most importantly, I really stand proud of the work that
all of the county clerks, the election workers, poll workers,
did to make sure that 2024 really was a success, both in Idaho
and across our entire country.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGrane follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHIL MCGRANE
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Lee. I now recognize Secretary Thomas for the purpose
of giving an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE THOMAS
Ms. Thomas. Good afternoon to all the Members of the
Committee.
It is a true honor to be here today to reflect on an
incredible year for the great State of Connecticut, home of the
UConn Huskies.
At a time when election mistrust was in the headlines,
Connecticut expanded our voting access while maintaining
voters' trust. We submitted more than 20 pages of written
testimony, extremely long, I know, but I hope others can learn
from us as we made voting more accessible while maintaining
security.
Like most States, we faced many challenges in 2024. The
introduction of early voting, skittish election workers, a
potential poll workers shortage, and a proliferation of false
claims about election integrity.
We have been at this a long time. Connecticut is known as
the Constitution State, because ours is the first written
Constitution in America dating back to 1639.
We are also known as the land of steady habits due to our
thoughtful approach. We have always used paper ballots, we have
never used equipment connected to the internet. We audit
regularly. We perform robust list maintenance. We require
certification and continuing education for our election
workers, and more.
Today, I want to focus on several of the elements that
helped our elections run smoothly, even as 40 percent of our
voters switched to early voting for the first time.
First, we took a very collaborative approach, hosting
monthly meetings beginning in 2023 with members of our election
workforce and our fusion center partners. This enabled us to
create trainings, as we needed to keep everyone in lockstep.
For example, police did not know what they should do at a
polling location. Election workers created a training for them.
Our election workers were not sure what to do in certain
emergencies. Law enforcement created scenario-planning drills
for them.
Second, we visited over 100 groups to teach them how early
voting would work, and we recruited over 250 businesses and
organizations to join our CEO program, which stands for
Civically Engaged Organizations.
Third, because we do not have a county form of government,
each town administers its own elections run by an elected
Republican and Democrat, which helped keep our elections fair
and transparent.
Last, we have an investigatory agency that any individual
can report any claims of election malfeasance. We have
volunteer attorneys who also are deployed on Election Day If
needed.
Our team felt great coming out of 2024, but my message to
Congress today is simple: We do not need complicated mandates
for what States are already doing well. I believe we need to
focus on continual funding, education, recruitment, and global
security.
Thank you so much for listening today. I know we had to
adjust our minutes downward by two. I hope I will receive some
questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thomas follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE THOMAS
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Lee. Thank you.
I will begin our questions today, followed by the Ranking
Member.
I now recognize myself for the purpose of questioning our
witnesses.
Secretary Allen, I will start with you and follow up on
your testimony that related to your efforts to have accurate
and contemporary voter rolls.
Under your leadership, the Alabama Voter Integrity Database
system entered into a memorandum of understanding with my home
State of Florida through 2027. Can you share with us what that
is and why it is so crucial to have States communicate with
each other about voter rolls?
Mr. Allen. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
It is vitally important that States talk to each other. We
have been so very, very proud of these memorandums of
understanding, not only with the State of Florida, but with
Georgia and Tennessee and Mississippi and Louisiana, Arkansas,
Kentucky, and most recently, Texas.
Those are vitally important to have a bilateral agreement
to where we can get our IT departments to talk to each other to
make sure that we do not have anyone that is double registered
in both States. We are very, very proud of this effort.
We have exchanged data with a number of States so far, and
we found over 40,000 individuals that were double-registered in
other States as well as Alabama.
Chair Lee. Tell us what sort of adjudication process occurs
when do you identify somebody who appears to be registered in
more than one location.
Mr. Allen. We get that information, and we send out to the
counties, to the different boards of registrars where that
person was last registered in Alabama. They send out
correspondence to this person to let them know that there may
be some question about their voter registration, and if they,
indeed, have moved to another State, to call them back or to
correspond with them and to remove themselves from the Alabama
voter file.
If they do not correspond with us, there is a time period
in conjunction with the NVRA that places them on a pathway to
removal. We do not remove them instantly. We put them on a
pathway in case they do not call the State of Alabama to remove
themselves.
Chair Lee. Secretary Landry, Louisiana recently enacted
safeguards for mail-in ballot returns via third-party
collection. Can you share with us how these safeguards reduce
fraud and third-party ballot collections?
Ms. Landry. Certainly.
We passed some legislation last year that closed loopholes
regarding ballot harvesting in addition to prohibiting
individuals from picking up multiple ballots. We also now
prohibit delivery by any method where one individual is
delivering multiple ballots.
If you are not a family member, you can only deliver one
ballot, whether it is to the registrar voters office or to a
post office box.
Chair Lee. Have these additional safeguards reduced voting
via absentee ballot?
Ms. Landry. They have not.
Chair Lee. In your opinion, did these measures unduly
burden absentee voters in Louisiana?
Ms. Landry. They do not. In fact, we had a lawsuit
regarding one of our new laws, and the plaintiffs, after the
most recent election, moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In the
motion, they mentioned that they were unable to find a single
plaintiff who was impacted by the legislation in spite of their
thinking that they would. They could not find anyone.
We think they are just common-sense measures, and they
protect our most vulnerable voters.
Chair Lee. Secretary LaRose, Ohio, much like my home State,
implemented pre-processing for mail-in ballots, which you
mentioned in your testimony. We attribute rapid processing of
absentee ballots as a crucial part of calling election results
in a timely manner.
Will you explain to us how early processing of ballots
increases confidence in elections in Ohio?
Mr. LaRose. Yes. Thank you, Chairwoman.
As soon as an absentee ballot arrives back at a county
board of elections, it can be opened by a bipartisan team, a
Democrat and Republican sitting there, slicing it open,
checking the name, date of birth, last four of the Social,
State driver's license, and verifying the signature against the
signature on file in the data base.
At that point, they can flatten it out. Let us not, you
know, trivialize that. They have to be flattened out to go
through the machine. Sometimes that takes some time to do. They
flatten those ballots out, and they are ready to scan so that
on election night, at 7:30 p.m. precisely, the very first
ballots counted are those early votes and absentee votes
because they are all processed and ready to go.
Chair Lee. Tell us, if you would, around what time was Ohio
able to call the race for the Presidency on election night?
Mr. LaRose. It was in the 10 p.m. hour, and we were at 90
percent reported by 11 p.m. However, that last 10 percent took
us until about 3 a.m. because we had a few counties that needed
some help. Before everybody went home for the night, we had
every vote counted, every Election Day vote counted and
reported.
Chair Lee. Thank you, Secretary LaRose.
I now recognize Ranking Member Sewell for 5 minutes for the
purpose of questioning our witnesses.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to welcome to the Nation's Capital my
Secretary of State, Wes Allen.
Sir, you mentioned in your testimony that the foundation of
election integrity is voter maintenance. I note that you
mentioned that you withdrew Alabama from the ERIC organization
and replaced it with AVID, a Alabama Voter Integrity Database,
to partner with State agencies to identify individuals who
purged from the rolls.
Last year, you, led an effort to clean the rolls in Alabama
by directing the Department--the board of registrar to remove
registered voters that were, quote, ``noncitizen identification
number,'' end quote, by the Department of Homeland Security.
Shortly after implementing this purge, a group of civil
rights organizations challenged, sir, your voter purging
program in court. Do you know, sir, what percentage of voters
that you purged were actually U.S. citizens and should be
eligible to vote versus not being eligible?
Mr. Allen. Well, we are extremely proud--I am extremely
proud of my staff who worked to implement this program, and I
will say that----
Ms. Sewell. Sir, it was 93 percent, 93.8 percent of the
3,251 voters that were purged from the rolls were actually U.S.
citizens and should have been eligible to vote.
Federal courts have acknowledged that relying solely on
data bases like the State Department of Homeland Security,
State DMV data bases, and the Federal Systematic Alien
Verification for Entitlement Data base can, quote, ``have a
very high rate of inaccuracy.''
How will you ensure, sir--first of all, is the voter purge
program still ongoing? How do you ensure that you are actually
capturing voters that should be ineligible?
Mr. Allen. Well, I will say that our staff is working
extremely hard to make sure the voter file maintenance is top
of mind each and every day when we come into the office, and we
will continue to make sure that only United States citizens are
on Alabama voter files.
Ms. Sewell. Yes. You know, that is the law that only
American citizens can vote.
How much did it cost to defend that program in court? Do
you know? How much money did you spend?
Mr. Allen. I do not have that number.
Ms. Sewell. All I can say is that Alabama taxpayers should
not be paying for a program that has shown such a high rate of
inaccuracy. While I totally understand the importance of making
sure that every person who is on the voter roll is eligible, I
think that there are better ways to do that than voter purging.
Mr. Allen, Secretary Allen, you also mentioned in your
written testimony that the State banned ballot harvesting last
year. The State legislature passed an initiative that will
criminalize people for assisting others with their absentee
ballots.
For example, if someone pays their family member to
actually take their ballot, to deliver their ballot, that
person would be--that assistance would be criminally charged. I
am not sure if that was the intent, but I can tell you that
several of my constituents called me in fear of voting absentee
because they were afraid of it being rejected for simple
reasons like, you know, not being able to provide the ballot
themselves but, actually, having a family member deliver it.
Can you give us assurances that we, in Alabama, can
actually, you know, make it easier for voters to access the
ballot box. I mean, we are one of three States that do not have
early voting. I think it is really important that we get it
right.
Mr. Allen. Yes, ma'am. The right to vote is sacred, and
what that bill did was protect absentee voting. Paid political
activists should not be involved in manipulating the absentee
process, and that is what it is.
Ms. Sewell. I hear what you are saying, but these are
family members who are trying to help their elderly parents
actually vote, and they should not be in fear of, you know,
actually turning in a ballot if they have to borrow money from
their mother to actually get to the post office, or to get to
the agency, to the voting registration office.
Mr. Allen. There is no need to fear. You know, we mimic
Federal law. If anybody is disabled, they can have anybody that
they choose to help them with the application. It does not
pertain to the ballots themselves. It is already legal in
Alabama for anyone to return a ballot for anyone else.
SB1 specifically talked about the application portion of
the absentee ballot process, and it did that. It protected the
absentee process.
Ms. Sewell. Well, sir, I think that both of us, given the
great history, the amazing history that occurred in our State,
we really owe it to every Alabamian to make sure that not only
are they eligible to vote, but they have access to the ballot
box.
Mr. Allen. They do.
Ms. Sewell. Having said that, Secretary Thomas, I note that
you all passed a State-level Voting Rights Act in 2023.
I know I am about to run out of time. I wanted to ask if
she could just answer one question with respect to that.
Chair Lee. Go right ahead.
Ms. Sewell. Sure.
Can you talk just a little bit about this initiative and
how it will make it easier for folks to vote, your new law?
Ms. Thomas. Sure.
The Connecticut Voting Rights Act passed last session to
codify some of the elements of the National Voter Rights Act,
such as preclearance, making sure that materials related to
voting were provided in languages and communities that were
majority in certain languages.
It also provides a great transparency for members of the
public. They can access statistics and data about voting in
their communities via a GIS system. In Connecticut anyway, it
passed handedly and many----
Ms. Sewell. Implemented in the 2024 election?
Ms. Thomas. Not the Voting Rights Act. Other than the
language access. We did implement early voting in 2024.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Madam Chair, for indulging me.
I also would ask unanimous consent to submit several
articles into the record.
Chair Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Lee. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Loudermilk for 5 minutes for the purpose of questioning our
witnesses.
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here. I appreciate the job, the
work that you all do. It is so very important for our free
republic to have integrity in our elections, and that has been
something that has risen in the interest of the American people
in the past several years.
I have been the longest-serving Member of this Committee,
and this used to be an obscure Committee when all our
jurisdiction was security of the Capitol and Federal elections.
Then in 2020, that became important to a lot of people for
various reasons. I thank you for being here.
Secretary McGrane, I would like to ask you a couple of
questions. I understand that the Idaho State law requires
voters to be documented U.S. citizens.
Mr. McGrane. Correct.
Mr. Loudermilk. Has this requirement unduly denied the vote
to any lawful citizens?
Mr. McGrane. Not that I am aware.
Mr. Loudermilk. OK.
I also understand that Idaho recently removed a number of
noncitizens from the voter rolls. How was your office able to
accurately identify and remove noncitizen voters in a timely
manner?
Mr. McGrane. I appreciate the question.
As I mentioned, last summer, we signed the Only Citizens
Can Vote Act. Working through a process using our Idaho
transportation department, Idaho State police, and then, most
notably, Department of Homeland Security, we ran the entire 1.1
million registered voters in Idaho through those systems to
verify citizenship. I mean, easily determining citizenship for
the overwhelming majority, but then really dialing it into a
case-by-case basis to narrow it down to 34 individuals who were
noncitizens on Idaho's voter rolls. I think using that
precision and scrutiny really helped.
As I identified in my remarks, there are still tools that
are needed to help really bolster this for all of us.
Mr. Loudermilk. Had you done that in the past, or was this
the first time that you really started drilling down looking
for noncitizens?
Mr. McGrane. This was the first time that we had actually
had that, and I think this will be continued work, as you see
from the President's executive order and other efforts.
Mr. Loudermilk. OK. I appreciate that.
Some of our colleagues continue to maintain that noncitizen
voting is a non-issue. Is that true? Or do you have a different
opinion on that?
Mr. McGrane. I think every American wants to make sure that
their vote can count and that their vote counts the same as
everybody else, and that there is no one who is ineligible
participating in our elections because, as we know, any time
that happens, especially that razor thin election like I
mentioned earlier, it can cancel out somebody else's vote.
I do think this is an issue for determining accuracy.
Mr. Loudermilk. Also, Idaho recently adopted the Only
Citizens Can Vote Act, as you have mentioned. Can you share
with us about how you and the Governor were able to
successfully collaborate with State law enforcement and verify
citizens' status, which you have a little bit.
Is there anything specific in there that we can learn from
how you work with law enforcement and other agencies?
Mr. McGrane. I think specifically it really does tie in
both to voter ID, right. Identification that identifies
citizenship. I think that is an ongoing conversation and
something that you can continue to do work on.
Then the other part really is investing in USCIS. Earlier
today, I met with USCIS officials to talk about how can we
bolster these efforts. I think they are eager to do the work.
One of the things they reiterated to me was they are going to
remove whatever barriers.
You heard from Secretary Allen some of the challenges other
States had, to remove those barriers but to make sure we have
the accurate data we need to do this voter verification.
Idaho competes with many of the States you guys represent
for one of the fastest growing States in the Nation. That means
people are moving. People are coming in. This is an ongoing
effort to keep our voter rolls up-to-date and accurate.
Mr. Loudermilk. What can we do as Congress to assist you
going forward with this? You know, what would you like to see
Congress do to make that more efficient and more accurate?
Mr. McGrane. I think first and foremost is invest in this
data base. There needs to be a data base built with this
purpose in mind. Then also to review some of the policies.
I will say there are some really unique incidents we
identify in Idaho that is a concern to make sure both
noncitizens are not participating, but also citizens are not
interfered with.
There is the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. There are what
I would classify as undocumented citizens. These are people who
have become citizens through their parents' naturalization, but
it is actually not recorded because we have not built the tools
in place to do the verification we are doing.
I think the efforts of this Committee, though, whether it
is the SAVE Act or the President's executive order, are aimed
toward that. If you can continue to invest in those resources
and these agencies, that will really make a difference.
Mr. Loudermilk. OK. Thank you.
Secretary Landry, I have one question for you. I have a
very good friend that used to serve in this Chamber who is now
the Governor. Is there any relation?
Ms. Landry. We are not related. Governor Landry and I are
from the same area of the State. Landry is a very common Cajun
name. In Louisiana, it is the second most common Cajun name. It
is sort of like Smith in south Louisiana.
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, I assumed you were not because I
understood everything that you said while you were here.
With that, I yield back.
Ms. Landry. I will not tell him you said that.
Mr. Loudermilk. Please do.
Chair Lee. Thank you.
I now recognize Ranking Member Morelle of our full
Committee for 5 minutes of questioning our witnesses.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, thanks to the secretaries for being here.
I want to start, Secretary Thomas, with you. As I
understand it, you allowed for the first time in-person early
voting in the State of Connecticut. As you look back on the
election, what tools and techniques did you use?
Particularly, I am sort of interested, too, as it relates
to misinformation and disinformation, but did you have any
challenges with information as it related to early voting for
the first time? Are there any challenges that you think you
will face moving forward that you have to adjust to?
Ms. Thomas. Thank you for the question.
Yes, we definitely, I think, like States around the
country, were struggling to explain how elections worked. There
is this narrative that they are not safe, et cetera.
We did many things. We proactively, as I said, reached out
to many communities, over 100 grassroots organizations. We also
held regular media activities for the press, answering commonly
misunderstood aspects about election administration.
With our department of emergency services and public
protection, we got together and put together a social media
campaign in all communities to make sure that people understood
where to go for trusted information.
As you say, I still think no matter what safeguards have
been put in place, there is still this narrative. Most
Connecticut residents think our elections are great, but
feeding into the national news media, like, I get emails all
the time saying disconnect our election machines from the
internet, although they never have been.
I think we have this conflation of fear and mistrust that
is often not well-placed.
Mr. Morelle. Got you. Thank you.
Secretary Allen, I noted in your testimony you said we do
not, in Alabama, we do not accept any ballot received after
Election Day with the exception of UOCAVA ballots, which must
be postmarked no later than the date of the election.
What is wrong, in your mind, with the idea of taking
ballots that have been postmarked before the end of in-person
voting on Election Day?
Mr. Allen. Because I believe in Election Day. Election Day
is Election Day. We set it out in State law. We set it out in
Federal law. The further we deviate from that I think it can
lead--it is a very slippery slope.
Mr. Morelle. Is it that you do not trust the U.S. Postal
Service?
Mr. Allen. We have had problems with the U.S. Postal
Service in the past.
Mr. Morelle. Really?
When you file taxes with the IRS on April 15th, which is
the filing deadline, if it is postmarked, should you be fined
or should you in some way pay a penalty for filing your taxes
late?
Mr. Allen. Well, fortunately, I filed my taxes early this
year.
Mr. Morelle. Yes, but April 15th is the deadline. I mean,
we accept--honestly, I do not mean to be argumentative. I just
find this sort of a strange argument that voters in America
could vote on or before Election Day but vote in mail, but if
it is received after Election Day, you could have--to your
point, you could have sent it in early. You could send it in 3
days before Election Day.
The post office--and you can send it by absentee ballots in
most States postmarked days before Election Day. If it does not
get to the post office by Election Day, I do not understand the
theory that--I do not understand why that is an issue?
Mr. Allen. Again, representative, I just believe that we
have rules for a reason. The further we deviate from that is a
very, very slippery slope. If we start accepting--I mean, the
date is the date.
Mr. Morelle. The date is the date. If you did it 2 days
before Election Day, you have done it. You have complied with
the date. There is no way that you are changing the outcome of
the election after the end of the election period.
I mean, unless you do not--you believe somehow the United
States Postal Service is doing something to the ballots, I
think we generally, accept for all kinds of business things,
tax purposes, I mean, postmarks actually mean something in
America.
Does anybody disagree with me?
I hate to belabor the point in my last minute, but
Secretary Landry, do you subscribe to the same view?
Ms. Landry. I think the ballots should be in by Election
Day and that, you know, manipulation can occur. Once you start
reporting results, that people can go out and gather more
ballots and----
Mr. Morelle. No, not if it is postmarked. I mean, you could
not--I mean, I hate to--this is like a physical impossibility.
You cannot affect the election after Election Day if you
submitted the ballot prior to the deadline. It is just
physically impossible, unless you go back in time or something
like that.
Ms. Landry. I think we should have an end date to the
election, and the end date to the election should be Election
Day.
Mr. Morelle. Do you feel the same way about taxes also? The
IRS should not accept anything that is postmarked before----
Ms. Landry. I do not think the IRS is the same thing
because they are not waiting to report a result of income tax
collections. Whereas the whole State is waiting for us to
report the results of an election, and we need to give them the
timely results to secure the confidence in our elections.
Mr. Morelle. I yield back.
Chair Lee. I now recognize the gentleman from North
Carolina, Dr. Murphy, for 5 minutes for the purpose of
questioning our witnesses.
Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you all for coming today.
I think everybody in this room wants pre-fair, safe
elections. I think that is uniform. I think there is very much
consensus about that. How that happens I think there may be a
little bit of disagreement.
This is why, you know, I think our House passed the SAVE
Act. That requires States to prove citizenship before
registering an individual to vote and to remove noncitizens
from existing voter rolls.
You know, the question is why do people fear that? Because
here in Washington, D.C., they passed a law which had to be
reversed or passed a rule, or whatever they call it here in the
county or the city, that would have allowed people from the
Chinese Embassy to come and vote.
In New York, they wanted noncitizens to be able to vote.
There is precedent in this country that is justified fear for
being able to say they--am I not coming on? Do I need to speak
louder? OK. Good.
Anyway, long and short, there is, I think, justified fear
for people saying, Hey, we want noncitizens not to vote in our
elections.
Secretary LaRose, in your testimony you mentioned that Ohio
requires voters to present a Government-issued photo ID to
vote, and your State requires driver's licenses and State IDs.
Can you tell us how this has safeguarded the elections in Ohio?
Mr. LaRose. Thank you, sir.
By just proving that people are who they say they are when
they come to vote. By the way, the vast majority of Democrats
and Republicans support this. Ohio provides a free ID if you do
not have one. We even have a religious exemption for that very
small minority that does not allow them to be photographed.
They may not have a State ID. We cover all the bases.
Our State ID has an indication on it that says whether you
are a citizens or not. Shockingly, I actually had to go to
court last year and defend that because there was a group
saying that we should give people a ballot, even if they give
us an ID that says noncitizen.
Dr. Murphy. Amazing.
Ballot harvesting requires a lot of attention and for good
reason--receives a lot of attention and for good reason.
Fraudulent actions committed by third-parties are a threat.
Can you tell me what election security initiatives do you
find to be the most effective in reducing fraud in these third-
party collection of mail-in ballots?
Mr. LaRose. Well, Ohio recently outlawed the prepopulating
of these forms by some of these third-party organizations
because in many cases, they were sending out prepopulated forms
with inaccurate information on them. Now you have to fill the
form out yourself.
We also have strict rules around the use of so-called drop
boxes or secure receptacles. Whereas only the voter may return
their ballot. If you are returning somebody else's ballot,
which Ohio law allows you to do for a family member or a
disabled person, in those cases, you just have to come inside
and present it to the election official.
Dr. Murphy. You have to present an ID if you bring in
somebody else's ballot, a family member?
Mr. LaRose. No, but you do have to sign an affidavit that
says that you have been designated by a disabled Ohioan to
return their ballot. That has, obviously, the power of law
behind it.
Dr. Murphy. All right. Thank you.
Secretary Landry, in your testimony you shared that your
Governor issued a directive requiring the Office of Motor
Vehicles to share information on noncitizens who hold Louisiana
driver's license or ID.
How can illegal immigrants take advantage of automatic
voter registration, particularly when they come in contact with
the State DMV?
Ms. Landry. In Louisiana, illegal immigrants are not
allowed to get a driver's license. Only those here legally can
get a driver's license. We previously did not have access to
that information. Governor Landry, our Governor now, ordered
the DMV to provide that information to us, and it allows us to
now audit our voter rolls to see if there are noncitizens on
the voter rolls.
It is not enough. There is still information that we need,
and getting access to the SAVE data base will allow us to find
even more people who may be on our rolls who are not citizens.
Dr. Murphy. You know, I have worked in some other countries
during election periods, just playing doctor, like I do
sometimes, and I think it is a good look for this country, that
we want voters to be citizens, and we want our elections to
have integrity.
Secretary McGrane, your office has been sued for removing
college student identification cards from the approval list of
voter IDs for voter registration. How did that happen? What
happened there?
Mr. McGrane. We--Idaho, 2 years ago, updated its voter ID
requirements to register to vote, and I think to the core how
did it happen, I am not sure. Like was mentioned earlier----
Dr. Murphy. Did it affect turnout?
Mr. McGrane. It did not affect turnout. Actually, in this
last election, overwhelmingly, so 98.1 percent of Idaho voters
showed an Idaho driver's license or ID card when they voted. It
does not affect--students as well use driver's licenses.
Dr. Murphy. Yes, they drive.
Mr. McGrane. Yes.
Dr. Murphy. Thank you.
Chair Lee. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Johnson, for 5 minutes for the purpose of questioning our
witnesses.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
opportunity to participate in this hearing. You know, Texas is
the hardest State in the union to vote, and some would say we
have been assaulting the right to vote in our State for quite
some time. I have seen firsthand how troublesome it is to make
voting difficult.
I want to address the previous question on student ID. You
go through the university process, right, Ms. Thomas, when you
go to admit to a university, you have to submit birth
certificates, you have to submit all things about who you are
to get that student ID. Why in the world would we not want
students--the whole point of ID is here is a picture, here is
who you are. Are you who you say you are to go vote? What in
the hell is wrong with using a student ID to vote?
Ms. Thomas. Nothing.
Ms. Johnson. I agree with you. Absolutely nothing. Most of
our State universities paid for by the taxpayers to make sure
that they know who their students are. When they issue a
student ID, the problem without using student ID is a lot of
young people, for what reasons are beyond me, they do not get a
driver's license.
I mean, I remember my son, my oldest son, when he turned
16, he decided he did not need a driver's license because I
could drive him. I thought, Well, that is a huge problem. I am
not your chauffeur, sir. I can get you a bus pass, or you can
decide to get your driver's license. He miraculously decided to
get a driver's license.
I am constantly amazed at how many young people do not get
a driver's license right now. I do not understand why in the
world we would not want to use student IDs. That is an argument
of why I think what makes this whole voter integrity discussion
somewhat disingenuous because, yes, we want to make sure
American citizens vote. Absolutely. There is no disagreement
amongst party lines that we want citizens to vote. The
disagreement comes in how easy are we going to make it for
those citizens to vote.
What it seems like right now with the SAVE Act and the
legislation that comes through, we are more interested in
making it harder for people to vote in the name of rooting out
32 people who may have improperly voted, as opposed to making
it possible for 20 million people to vote.
You know, my question is, you know, when we have--the other
problem is we have a lot of people born in rural Texas. We have
a lot of people born in places where they do not necessarily
have access to their documents. They do not have this, but they
are citizens. What are we doing to make it easier for these
people to vote? What about people with disabilities? You know,
how are we making it possible for people to go in person and
vote? Ms. Thomas, does Connecticut have online voter
registration?
Ms. Thomas. We certainly do, and that is how 33 percent of
our voters register.
Ms. Johnson. That makes it easier for people who are
seniors, people who may be homebound for whatever reason. Maybe
you are part of the sandwich generation where you are caring
for young kids, you are working, you are caring for senior
families to be able to participate in our democracy.
It seems to me that States like Texas that do not allow
online voter registration, which is insane to me, are more
concerned about people who may not vote Republican to keep them
from voting because it disproportionately affects young people
who trend more progressive on average, and it
disproportionately affects poor people, and it
disproportionately affects people of color to not be able to
exercise their constitutional right to vote.
What is very frustrating to me in this building with this
whole election integrity discussion is it seems that people on
the other side of this aisle are not committed to ensuring that
people have the right to vote in this country. We were making
it so hard. You want to say something.
Ms. Thomas. I was just going to say, it also helps election
workers. I would love for this Congress to actually spend its
time fighting for American citizens. We know for a fact that
there are more women who have changed their last name, more
young people, more people living in nursing homes, more people
serving in our military overseas than there are noncitizens
voting. When are we going to prioritize American citizens
instead of making them jump through hoops.
Ms. Johnson. I completely agree. We should be doing
everything we can to make sure every American citizen can cast
their constitutional right to vote.
Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record four letters in opposition to the SAVE Act. The first
one is the Brennan Center for Justice; the second from the
American Civil Liberties Union; the third from that voice; and
the fourth from the legal conservation voters, all in
opposition to the SAVE Act and the barriers and burdens it will
place on millions of Americans' ability to register to vote and
participate in our democracy. With that, I yield back.
[The letters referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Lee. Without objection, so ordered. I now recognize
the gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Miller, for the purpose of
questioning our witnesses for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller. OK. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here. I do want to address my colleague,
Ms. Johnson.
You just insulted the young, the poor, the rural, and
people of color by insinuating that they do not have enough
wherewithal to go get a photo ID or a driver's license.
Ridiculous. Voting is a privilege. Being an American citizen is
a privilege. We want to make sure that American citizens are--
that their votes are not being canceled out by people that are
not U.S. citizens.
Ms. Johnson. I would like to respond anyway----
Mrs. Miller. Anyway, I have a question for Secretary
Landry.
Chair Lee. Order. Direct remarks to the witnesses. Carry
on.
Mrs. Miller. I have a question for Secretary Landry. In
2024, Louisiana enacted House bill 476 which requires that an
absentee ballot delivered by a third party be accompanied by a
signed statement of the voter prepared by the Secretary of
State, which attests the voter authorized the postal service or
commercial carrier to deliver the ballot.
Secretary Landry, why is signature verification so crucial
to ballot integrity?
Ms. Landry. We believe that the custody of your ballot is
very important; the chain of custody and keeping track of that.
When you hand your ballot to somebody, you need to know who has
your ballot and what they have done with it. If they are unable
to deliver it themselves having--or they need assistance, we
ask them to put their name and signature on there as well so
that we know who has delivered the ballot, and we know that
they have permission to do that.
Mrs. Miller. What kind of consequences are there if someone
does not get the voters' authorization, or they turn in
something that is fraudulent?
Ms. Landry. There is no consequence for the voter actually.
The vote is still counted. If someone is--there is a
prohibition on witnessing more than one or delivering more than
one. The prohibition--the penalty is on that person who did not
put their name or who delivered more than one. We still count
the vote, I think, in those situations where the ballot is
delivered. If it is missing a witness signature, it is not
counted.
Mrs. Miller. In the last election, were you able to
identify anybody that turned in some kind of fraudulent
whatever attestation----
Ms. Landry. In the last election, though, we had a lot of
complaints in election before that of people who were
harvesting ballots and going into apartment complexes and
offering to assist vulnerable voters, and family members had
contacted our office and asked that we investigate because they
felt like there was some manipulation going on with assisting
with the ballots. That is what prompted that legislation.
Mrs. Miller. Well, I think until we have severe
consequences for people that are engaged in activities, you
know, like what you just described, I do not think we are going
to have free and fair elections. I would like to see.
Ms. Landry. Right. Just to clarify, if they are missing any
signatures, the ballot is not counted. If it is just something
untoward or against the law that the ballot harvester is doing,
that person is punished, and the vote is still counted.
Mrs. Miller. Right. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Chair Lee. I would like to thank our witnesses for
appearing before the Committee today and for the work that you
do for your communities and voters across America.
Members of the Committee may have some additional questions
for you, and we ask that you please respond to those questions,
if any, in writing.
Without objection, each Member will have 5 legislative days
to insert additional material into the record or to revise and
extend their remarks.
If there is no further business, I thank the Members for
their participation. Without objection, the Committee stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:24 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
GENERAL ALLOWANCE
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]