    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                    CLEAN ROLLS, SECURE ELECTIONS: REVIEWING
                        VOTER LIST MAINTENANCE STANDARDS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 22, 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
    61-248                     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

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               Opening Statements

    Chairman Bryan Steil, Representative from the State of Wisconsin.     1
        Prepared statement of Chairman Bryan Steil...................     3
    Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of
      New York.......................................................     3
        Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle..........     5

                                   Witnesses

    J. Christian Adams, president and general counsel of the Public
      Interest Legal Foundation......................................     7
        Prepared statement of J. Christian Adams.....................     9
    Justin Riemer, president and CEO of Restoring Integrity and Trust
      in Elections...................................................    23
        Prepared statement of Justin Riemer..........................    25
    Mary Kay Heling, North Carolina voter............................    30
        Prepared statement of Mary Kay Heling........................    32

                           Submissions for the Record

    Testimony of Roald Hazelhoff.....................................    41
    NBC News article.................................................    48
    ABC News article.................................................    54
    Law & Crime article..............................................    60
    Representative Torres email submission...........................    66
    The Brennan Center for Justice article...........................    72
    Ashleigh Brown-Grier, Ph.D., letter..............................    87

                         CLEAN ROLLS, SECURE ELECTIONS:
                              REVIEWING VOTER LIST
                             MAINTENANCE STANDARDS

                                  ----------

                                 July 22, 2025

                     Committee on House Administration,
                                      House of Representatives,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:34 a.m., in
    room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Steil, Loudermilk, Murphy, Carey,
    Lee, Miller, Morelle, Sewell, Torres, and Johnson.
        Staff present: Mike Platt, Staff Director; Rachel Collins,
    General Counsel; Abby Salter, Deputy General Counsel; Jordan
    Wilson, Director of Member Services; Kristen Monterroso,
    Director of Operations; Josh Weber, Counsel; Annemarie Cake,
    Professional Staff and Deputy Clerk; Jamie Fleet, Minority
    Staff Director; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director;
    Sean Wright, Minority Chief Counsel; Nikolas Youngsmith,
    Minority Elections Counsel; and Owen Reilly, Minority
    Professional Staff.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE
     COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                               WISCONSIN

        Chairman Steil. The Committee on House Administration will
    come to order.
        The title of today's hearing is, ``Clean Voter Rolls,
    Secure Elections: Reviewing Voter List Maintenance Standards.''
        I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the
    chair may declare a recess at any time.
        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 Morelle, Members of the
    Committee, and our witnesses, for appearing at today's hearing.
        Today, the Committee on House Administration continues our
    oversight of Federal elections.
        Voter list maintenance is crucial to election integrity.
    List maintenance adds new voters to rolls. It also removes
    ineligible voters, such as deceased, relocated, or duplicate
    registrants. Inaccurate voter rolls can open the door to
    election fraud and can hinder public confidence in our
    elections.
        In the current world of mail-in voting, live ballots can be
    sent based on inaccurate or out-of-date information. That is a
    risk. How do you mitigate that risk?
        For example, California has universal vote by mail, meaning
    they send every single registered voter in the State a ballot
    regardless of whether or not it was requested, which shows the
    significance of making sure the voter rolls are accurate. It
    means that a live ballot can be sent to a resident's former
    address if the voter rolls were not properly updated. That
    would be a live ballot. It would be illegal for someone to vote
    that besides the eligible voter, but it would be difficult to
    determine that after that ballot would be illegally cast.
        The responsibility of maintaining voter lists is largely
    fulfilled by States.
        In addition to State-specific regulations, Federal laws,
    such as the National Voter Registration Act, or the NVRA,
    includes voter list maintenance requirements. As it is
    currently written, the NVRA arguably has a low standard for
    compliance--a standard we are going to discuss today. Because
    of this, if States choose, they can largely avoid properly
    maintaining their voter rolls.
        Litigation has shown that judges consider minimal
    maintenance compliance with Federal law. Lawsuits have alleged
    that States are failing to timely and effectively maintain
    their voter rolls.
        This year, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of
    Interest asserting the Federal Government's interest in
    effective enforcement of the NVRA against Illinois. The DOJ
    there alleged that 34 counties in the State failed to disclose
    any data that would show Illinois conducted--the State of
    Illinois failed to disclose any data that would show Illinois
    conducts voter list maintenance.
        Representative Mary Miller, I have a hunch, will have
    questions about that.
        The lack of transparency in voter list maintenance
    undermines both legal compliance and voter confidence.
        In addition to legal compliance, we will discuss today
    where States are obtaining data for proper voter list
    maintenance. States need access to accurate and timely data to
    effectively maintain their voter lists.
        Accurate data can be exchanged between States and the
    Federal Governments. Some States, such as Virginia, have
    entered into MOUs with neighboring States to exchange voter
    data. This type of information allows States to determine
    whether a voter is registered in another State and if they are
    removed upon registering in their new State.
        Also, as Chairman of the Committee on House Administration,
    I have worked to ensure that only U.S. citizens are voting in
    U.S. elections. It is critical that States are utilizing
    Federal citizenship verification resources that are available
    to them.
        The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recently
    announced enhancements to their citizenship verification
    system. The updated system allows States and local governments
    to access Federal data bases to verify voters' citizenship.
        In conclusion, list maintenance requires efficient,
    effective, and accurate access to data, as well as thorough and
    routine updates. Proper voter list maintenance protects the
    security of our elections.
        I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and I
    look forward to our discussion.
        I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5
    minutes for the purpose of giving his opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]

       PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                       ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL

        Today, the Committee on House Administration is continuing
    its oversight of Federal elections. Voter list maintenance is
    crucial to election integrity. List maintenance adds new voters
    to the rolls and removes ineligible ones, such as deceased,
    relocated, or duplicate registrants. Inaccurate voter rolls can
    open the door to election fraud and can hinder public
    confidence in our elections.
        In the current world of mail-in voting, live ballots can be
    sent based off inaccurate, out-of-date information. For
    example, California mails every single registered voter in the
    State a ballot, regardless of whether it was requested. This
    means live ballots can be sent to a resident's former address
    if the State has not updated its list. The responsibility of
    maintaining voter lists is largely fulfilled by the States.
        In addition to State-specific regulations, Federal law,
    such as the National Voter Registration Act, or NVRA, includes
    voter list maintenance requirements. As it is currently
    written, the NVRA arguably has a low standard for compliance.
    Because of this, States can largely avoid maintaining their
    voter rolls. Litigation has shown that judges consider minimal
    list maintenance compliant with Federal law. Lawsuits have
    alleged that States are failing to timely and effectively
    maintain their voter rolls.
        This year, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of
    Interest asserting the Federal Government's interest in
    effective enforcement of the NVRA against Illinois. The DOJ
    alleged that 34 counties in the State failed to disclose any
    data that would show Illinois conducts list maintenance. The
    lack of transparency in voter list maintenance undermines both
    legal compliance and voter confidence.
        In addition to legal compliance, we will discuss today
    where States are obtaining data for proper voter list
    maintenance. States need access to accurate and timely data to
    effectively maintain their voter lists.
        Accurate data can be exchanged between States and the
    Federal Government. Some States, such as Virginia, have entered
    into Memoranda of Understanding with neighboring States to
    exchange voter data. This type of information sharing allows
    States to determine whether a voter is registered in another
    State, and if they were removed upon registering in their new
    State.
        As Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, I
    have worked to ensure that only U.S. citizens are voting in
    U.S. elections. It is critical that States are utilizing
    Federal citizenship verification resources that are available
    to them. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
    recently announced enhancements to their citizenship
    verification system. The updated system allows State and local
    governments to access Federal databases to verify voters'
    citizenship.
        In conclusion, list maintenance requires efficient and
    accurate access to data, as well as thorough and routine
    updates. Proper voter list maintenance protects the security of
    our elections. I thank our witnesses for being here and I look
    forward to our discussion today.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
     COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                                NEW YORK

        Mr. Morelle. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Steil, and
    thank you, certainly, to our witnesses for being here this
    morning.
        For over 200 years, our Republic has marched toward a
    fuller, freer system of governance, expanding access to the
    ballot for more and more Americans. As we have seen time and
    time again--and the topic of today's hearing clearly
    indicates--House Republicans seem to want to retreat from that
    important promise.
        States controlled by Republicans have recently engaged in
    systematic, illegal voter purges. A Republican candidate in
    North Carolina sought to disenfranchise tens of thousands of
    voters because he did not like the outcome of the election.
        This hearing comes on the heels of last week's news that
    the Department of Justice, under Donald Trump, is seeking voter
    registration lists of several States, representing data on
    millions of Americans, ahead of the 2026 midterms.
        The Trump administration's dangerous, false rhetoric
    continues, going back to the 2020 election and continues, about
    non-citizen voting is eroding our democracy and threatens the
    voting rights of all Americans.
        Clear evidence shows that voter de-registration efforts in
    Republican-led States have stripped thousands of Americans of
    the right to vote without due process.
        Now, do not get me wrong. Voter list maintenance, when
    conducted properly and legally, ensures that our elections are
    secure and safe. Systematic voter purges, often illegally
    conducted in the run-up to Federal elections, pose a real
    threat to voters. Voter purges represent a coordinated effort
    by my friends on the other side of the aisle to manipulate
    elections--to, in effect, make American elections less
    American.
        For years, Republican officials across the country have
    purged hundreds of thousands of voters, including eligible U.S.
    citizens. In Texas, for example, Republican officials have
    repeatedly tried to do this, but, each time, local officials
    discovered that Texas purges had incorrectly targeted United
    States citizens.
        Republican cheating in Texas does not stop there. Recently,
    Donald Trump and his House Republican allies hatched a plan to
    gerrymander Texas's congressional map, letting Republican
    Representatives choose their voters rather than letting Texans
    choose their Representatives.
        This is happening across the country. In North Carolina,
    the State election board recently caved in to Trump
    administration demands and pressure to illegally purge at least
    200,000 voters.
        The weaponized Department of Justice resurrected debunked
    conspiracy theories from the State's recent Supreme Court
    election to disenfranchise North Carolina voters. This is no
    accident. The broken Trump Justice Department has made voter
    disenfranchisement a priority, firing all but three lawyers in
    the Voting Section.
        I think that leads us to ask: If Republicans are willing to
    kick American citizens off the rolls, if they are willing to
    manipulate congressional maps, if they are willing to gut the
    Department of Justice, what other illegal acts will President
    Trump and his allies take to enhance their own power or to
    enrich themselves?
        We need to call out these actions for what they are:
    corruption, pure and simple.
        I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the careful,
    legal process for maintaining accurate voter rolls and
    supporting the important work of local election officials. The
    Republican majority is more interested in promoting illegal and
    sloppy efforts to manipulate elections and deceive the American
    public.
        Today, we will hear from Mary Kay Heling, a retired teacher
    and fitness instructor from North Carolina. After voting in the
    2024 general election, Ms. Heling learned that her name was on
    a list of voters to be purged in response to a lawsuit by a
    losing Republican candidate for the State Supreme Court.
    Despite providing all necessary documentation, despite being an
    American citizen, North Carolina Republicans tried to strip Ms.
    Heling of her right to vote.
        This was not a simple mistake. It was not a clerical error.
    It was part of a concerted effort to consolidate partisan
    power, because Republicans know that if every American citizen
    can vote in 2026, they will lose.
        The American people are furious. They are furious that the
    ``big ugly bill'' by President Trump will steal health coverage
    from 17 million American citizens. They are furious at
    Republican deception about the Epstein files, all to protect
    the President, who either lied to the American people for years
    about the existence of the client list or is lying to them now.
    They are furious with rampant, partisan gerrymandering meant to
    decide the outcome of elections before a single vote is cast.
        The Republican majority, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and
    the White House are trying to silence the American people. If
    we follow their lead, thousands of people, like Ms. Heling,
    will lose their right to vote.
        If President Trump and Republicans have their way, we will
    retreat from our country's storied history of voting-rights
    expansion. We will no longer have, in the words of President
    Lincoln, a Government of the people, by the people, and for the
    people. We cannot sit idly by and let that happen.
        With that, I will yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]

    PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                     ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE

        For over 200 years, our Republic has marched towards a
    fuller, freer system of governance, expanding access to the
    ballot for more and more Americans. As we have seen time and
    time again and the topic of today's hearing clearly indicates
    House Republicans seem to want to retreat from that important
    promise.
        States controlled by Republicans have recently engaged in
    systematic, illegal voter purges. A Republican candidate in
    North Carolina sought to disenfranchise tens of thousands of
    voters because he did not like the outcome of the election.
    This hearing comes on the heels of last week's news that the
    Department of Justice, under Donald Trump, is seeking voter
    registration lists of several States, representing data on
    millions of Americans, ahead of the 2026 midterms.
        The Trump administration's dangerous, false rhetoric, which
    goes back to the 2020 election and continues, about non-citizen
    voting is eroding our democracy and threatens the voting rights
    of all Americans.
        Clear evidence shows that voter de-registration efforts in
    Republican-led States have stripped thousands of Americans of
    the right to vote without due process. Now, do not get me
    wrong. Voter list maintenance, when conducted properly and
    legally, ensures that our elections are secure and safe.
    Systematic voter purges, often illegally conducted in the run-
    up to Federal elections, pose a real threat to voters. Voter
    purges represent a coordinated effort by my friends on the
    other side of the aisle to manipulate elections to, in effect,
    make American elections less American.
        For years, Republican officials across the country have
    purged hundreds of thousands of voters, including eligible U.S.
    citizens. In Texas, for example, Republican officials have
    repeatedly tried to do this, but, each time, local officials
    discovered that Texas purges had incorrectly targeted United
    States citizens. Republican cheating in Texas does not stop
    there. Recently, Donald Trump and his House Republican allies
    hatched a plan to gerrymander Texas's congressional map,
    letting Republican Representatives choose their voters rather
    than letting Texans choose their Representatives.
        This is happening across the country. In North Carolina,
    the State election board recently caved in to Trump
    administration demands and pressure to illegally purge at least
    200,000 voters. The weaponized Department of Justice
    resurrected debunked conspiracy theories from the State's
    recent Supreme Court election to disenfranchise North Carolina
    voters. This is no accident. The broken Trump Justice
    Department has made voter disenfranchisement a priority, firing
    all but three lawyers in the Voting Section.
        I think that leads us to ask: If Republicans are willing to
    kick American citizens off the rolls, if they are willing to
    manipulate congressional maps, if they are willing to gut the
    Department of Justice, what other illegal acts will President
    Trump and his allies take to enhance their own power or to
    enrich themselves? We need to call out these actions for what
    they are: corruption, pure and simple.
        I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the careful,
    legal process for maintaining accurate voter rolls and
    supporting the important work of local election officials. The
    Republican majority is more interested in promoting illegal and
    sloppy efforts to manipulate elections and deceive the American
    public.
        Today, we will hear from Mary Kay Heling, a retired teacher
    and fitness instructor from North Carolina. After voting in the
    2024 general election, Ms. Heling learned that her name was on
    a list of voters to be purged in response to a lawsuit by a
    losing Republican candidate for the State Supreme Court.
    Despite providing all necessary documentation, despite being an
    American citizen, North Carolina Republicans tried to strip Ms.
    Heling of her right to vote.
        This was not a simple mistake. It was not a clerical error.
    It was part of a concerted effort to consolidate partisan
    power, because Republicans know that if every American citizen
    can vote in 2026, they will lose.
        The American people are furious. They are furious that the
    ``big ugly bill'' by President Trump will steal health coverage
    from 17 million American citizens. They are furious at
    Republican deception about the Epstein files, all to protect
    the President, who either lied to the American people for years
    about the existence of the client list or is lying to them now.
    They are furious with rampant, partisan gerrymandering meant to
    decide the outcome of elections before a single vote is cast.
    The Republican majority, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and the
    White House are trying to silence the American people. If we
    follow their lead, thousands of people, like Ms. Heling, will
    lose their right to vote.
        If President Trump and Republicans have their way, we will
    retreat from our country's storied history of voting rights
    expansion. We will no longer have, in the words of President
    Lincoln, a Government of the people, by the people, and for the
    people. We cannot sit idly by and let that happen.

        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        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.
        Today, we have one witness panel.
        First, we have Christian Adams, who is president and
    general counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation.
        Next, we have Justin Riemer, who is president and CEO of
    Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections and partner at First
    Street Law.
        Finally, we have Mary Kay Heling, a voter in the State of
    North Carolina.
        We appreciate all of you being here with us today, and we
    look forward to your testimony.
        I will now recognize you, Mr. Adams, for 5 minutes for the
    purpose of giving your opening statement.

        STATEMENTS OF J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL
       COUNSEL, PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION; JUSTIN RIEMER,
    PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RESTORING INTEGRITY AND
             TRUST IN ELECTIONS; AND MARY KAY HELING, VOTER

                    STATEMENT OF J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS

        Mr. Adams. Thank you, Chairman Steil, Ranking Member
    Morelle, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the invitation
    to testify.
        Here is a question Congress might ponder: What does Section
    8 of the National Voter Registration Act mean when it requires
    that States must, quote, ``conduct a general program that makes
    a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters
    from the official lists of eligible voters,'' unquote?
        According to Federal courts, unfortunately, now it means
    next to nothing. That is not what Congress intended in 1993.
    Courts have unfortunately interpreted the language passed by
    this Congress to find the mere existence of a list maintenance
    program is what matters, not the program's effectiveness.
    Panels of the Sixth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit Court of
    Appeals reached these conclusions.
        In Florida, Broward County allowed non-citizens to vote and
    deferred the removal of ineligible registrants for years out of
    sheer incompetence.
        The list maintenance requirements in the NVRA are gutted,
    particularly now in the Sixth and Eleventh.
        It is ironic, since the NVRA owes its very existence to
    these same list maintenance obligations. Senator Bob Dole's
    compromise list maintenance amendment in 1993 broke a
    filibuster that would have otherwise doomed the bill, just as
    previous versions of NVRA died by filibuster before 1993. The
    Republicans made a deal to let the NVRA through in exchange for
    meaningful list maintenance standards.
        The Eleventh Circuit generally held that, if an election
    official makes an effort to clean voter rolls, no matter how
    shoddy, it is acceptable and that best practices are not
    required under the NVRA.
        The proof is decidedly not in the NVRA pudding.
        The Sixth Circuit has followed the Eleventh Circuit. There,
    Michigan's Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, had over 25,000
    dead registrants on the active rolls. A significant number of
    them had been registered decades after death--decades.
        In litigation, however, the Sixth Circuit interpreted the
    language that Congress passed requiring a ``reasonable effort''
    to mean this: quote, ``a program that makes a rational and
    sensible attempt to remove dead registrants. A State need not,
    however, go to extravagant or excessive lengths in creating and
    maintaining such a program,'' unquote.
        Notice the court never says ``successful'' or
    ``effective.'' Results do not matter. The proof is not in the
    pudding.
        I do not believe this is what Congress intended. I do not
    believe Republicans would have dropped their filibuster with
    this limp maintenance standard. A mere ``rational attempt''?
        Michigan's Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, gets an A
    for effort from the court, but she deserved an F for outcome:
    tens of thousands of dead registrants on active rolls.
        Never mind if someone is registered multiple times. Never
    mind if a registration record is missing the date of birth.
    None of this matters under these court rulings. Only whether a
    State makes a rational effort. Results do not matter. This
    standard is not what the Republicans dropped the filibuster for
    in 1993.
        Congress can fix this.
        Many of the problems with American voter rolls occur at the
    point of registration, often by third-party groups. The voter
    may never know their record is botched, because they can still
    vote. Then something changes--they move, they change their
    name, they get married--and the process creates a duplicate
    registration, because the original mistake impairs a record
    match.
        It can even be triplicate. I have seen duplications reach
    six active registrations for a single voter in Allegheny
    County, Pennsylvania--Rashawn Slade. You can see all of his
    simultaneous registrations in the appendix to my written
    testimony.
        Some news: In Maine, we just found roughly 18,000
    apparently deceased registrants, nearly 1,500 examples of
    intrastate duplicates, another 900 examples of interstate
    duplicates. The Public Interest Legal Foundation issued a
    detailed finding on this data this month.
        Ironically, Maine passed a statute to fine the Public
    Interest Legal Foundation if we spoke about what we found on
    the voter rolls, including to you in Congress. The First
    Circuit struck down these speech penalties in a case that we
    brought under the NVRA.
        Ranking Member Morelle, even in New York you find people
    that I describe in my written testimony registered multiple
    times, including one record we have right here. That means you
    are mailing extra campaign literature. You are wasting money on
    your campaign because of the state of the voter rolls.
        Finally, one way to improve list maintenance is for States
    to use commercial credit data to clean voter rolls.
        I am happy to answer your questions.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:]

                PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. Thank you.
        The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize Mr. Riemer for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF JUSTIN RIEMER

        Mr. Riemer. Thank you, Chairman and Committee Members.
        This is a critically important topic and one that I have
    worked on extensively as a Virginia election official and as a
    lawyer for groups like Restoring Integrity and Trust in
    Elections, who are dedicated to ensuring robust list
    maintenance practices.
        I will share three concerns: one, how the NVRA inhibits
    list maintenance; two, failures I have seen at the State level;
    and, finally, the erosion of a consensus on the need for clean
    voter rolls.
        The NVRA undermines its stated purpose of protecting
    election integrity and maintaining accurate and current voter
    rolls. It imposes too low a floor by setting a lax ``reasonable
    effort'' standard States must meet to remove ineligible voters
    and a ceiling on removals that is unduly restrictive.
        First, the floor. The NVRA merely requires States to use
    Postal Service National Change of Address, or NCOA, data to
    identify and cancel non-residents. Using NCOA data is necessary
    but insufficient, because it does not include some of the
    millions of Americans who move each year.
        The NVRA does not require identifying non-residents by
    using undeliverable election mail, such as registration cards
    and mail ballots, or for States to exchange voter registration
    data with one another.
        The NVRA also sets a restrictive ceiling on list
    maintenance by limiting cancellation of non-residents to two
    methods: when a voter requests removal, or after officials
    initiate a cumbersome confirmation mailing process and then
    wait through two Federal general elections.
        Relatively few voters request cancellation. Nearly 70
    percent of confirmation notices mailed to non-resident voters
    go unreturned, which means officials cancel most through the
    mail confirmation process.
        We should encourage more direct voter cancellations. For
    example, courts have blocked States from treating a new
    registration as a request to cancel a previous out-of-State
    registration, but Congress could fix that.
        Congress could also require registration forms to require a
    voter to list their prior registration address and a clear
    acknowledgment that the form will serve as a request to cancel
    the previous registration.
        The NVRA could also require States to transmit this
    information to officials in the voter's previous jurisdiction.
        These reforms could significantly lower duplicate
    interstate voter registrations, the time it takes to cancel
    them, and save States money by decreasing the number of
    confirmation mailings.
        The NVRA's 90-day list maintenance blackout period before
    any Federal election is also a problem. In Presidential years,
    Virginia and other States hold three separate Federal
    elections, so the blackout freezes list maintenance for up to
    270 days, especially when it comes to removing non-residents.
    Courts have also said that States cannot cancel the
    registration of non-citizens during the blackout period.
        Elections have changed significantly since the passage of
    the NVRA, particularly with same-day voter registration and
    provisional balloting, questioning the need for the blackout
    period. Congress should consider shortening or removing it,
    limiting it to general elections only, and exempting non-
    citizen removals.
        I will also share a few thoughts from my time at the
    Virginia State Board of Elections.
        First, processes on paper often do not match policy in
    practice. One memorable example: Comparing Virginia's voter
    registration list with the entire Social Security death file
    revealed 10,000 deceased registered voters--something that
    should have been caught by our predecessors had they been
    following agency procedures.
        These types of problems are too common. A recent audit in
    Maryland revealed the State Health Department's refusal to
    provide complete death records to State election officials,
    citing an unexplained agency policy. Neither side accepted
    blame. This mirrors my experience with agencies like the DMV,
    who are interested in doing little more than the minimum to
    assist State list maintenance efforts.
        Bureaucratic siloing and finger-pointing are all too
    common, and it is easy for officials with competing priorities
    to run list maintenance procedures on autopilot without
    realizing they are broken. These are just a few examples.
        Even though the NVRA requires it, States resist publicly
    disclosing list maintenance records, making it harder to
    uncover more problems, but we know they exist because counties
    across the country have implausibly high voter registration
    rates.
        Finally, it should be clear that only eligible voters
    belong on the voter rolls, but that consensus may be fading.
        Take a Montana law that RITE helped defend that prohibits
    registered voters from keeping an out-of-State registration.
    The law was imperfect, but its goal of preventing duplicate
    registrations was sound. Yet progressive groups sued, arguing
    that there are a myriad of reasons for keeping multiple
    registrations, such as convenience and flexibility.
        When we cannot agree on who should be voting and that only
    residents should be voting, it really calls into question
    whether we can find bipartisan consensus on list maintenance.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Riemer follows:]

                  PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUSTIN RIEMER
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Heling is recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF MARY KAY HELING

        Ms. Heling. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
    Ranking Member and the rest of the Committee, for giving me the
    opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Mary Kay Heling. I am a resident of Raleigh,
    North Carolina, a former teacher, a former Nash-Rocky Mount
    school board member in North Carolina, a retired fitness
    instructor, a U.S. citizen, and an unaffiliated registered
    voter in Wake County.
        I moved back to North Carolina in late January 2016 and
    promptly registered to vote on February 19, using my name and
    the last four digits of my Social Security number. I have voted
    regularly since then.
        In 2024, I voted in person in both the primary and general
    elections. My name was on the voter registration list. I showed
    my valid ID, my North Carolina driver's license with my photo
    and my current address. Never once did I doubt that my vote was
    valid.
        After the 2024 election, I received a postcard in the mail
    stating that I could be on an incomplete voter registration
    list. I scanned the QR code and spent well over an hour trying
    to find my name. The site was difficult to navigate, and I had
    no luck. I chalked it up to a mistake since my husband and I
    registered at the same time and he did not receive one.
        Weeks later, on a more searchable site, to my surprise, my
    name popped up. Needless to say, I was shocked and upset since
    I had voted regularly since 2016 with no issues by providing my
    valid ID and having it checked against the registration list.
        After that happened, I went to the Board of Elections to
    find out the problem, and evidently there was a problem with my
    name and the four digits of my Social Security number, even
    though I had filled out the form correctly. It was possibly a
    clerical error, I was told.
        No one had ever notified me that there was an issue with my
    registration.
        While there, I changed my registration, this time using my
    North Carolina driver's license. I double-and triple-checked
    it. This all took work and persistence. It was frustrating and
    time-consuming. Hopefully it is correct this time, but can I be
    sure? I thought it was the first time. How does anyone know
    their vote is safe?
        Once the Griffin case was settled, my vote was counted.
    Phew, this ordeal was over--or so I thought. I was then made
    aware of the U.S. v. North Carolina Board of Elections case.
    Here we go again--only, this time, over 200,000 registered
    voters in North Carolina are having their registrations
    challenged as incomplete, be it missing North Carolina driver's
    license numbers or the last four digits of their Social
    Security number. I understand that my name is on that list.
        I was born in Wisconsin in a family that discussed politics
    around the kitchen table. It was stressed, the importance of
    voting. Voting is not just a privilege or a right; it is a
    responsibility, your civic duty.
        My vote is important. It is my voice in how our city, our
    county, our State, and our Nation is governed. I am here to
    represent all those North Carolinians whose voter registrations
    are being challenged.
        Will all 200,000-plus voters be contacted, or will they
    find out next time they vote and can only receive a provisional
    ballot? How will you ever be able to contact that many people?
    How many will fall through the cracks?
        If contacted, will they be able to navigate a system that
    is not always easy? Some may not have computer access or savvy
    or transportation to the Board of Elections office. Others may
    get frustrated and give up, because, believe me, it has been a
    long and frustrating ordeal.
        When you go to vote and your name is on the registration
    list, you show your valid ID, which has your photo and your
    current address. You should feel confident that your civic duty
    has been completed and your voice has been heard.
        There are voters like me who followed the rules, provided
    all the information election officials asked for when they
    registered to vote. Is it fair to make them go through this
    frustration? I do not believe so.
        This process is threatening the voices of North Carolina
    voters and fracturing confidence in the Government. Please, do
    not remove the voices of registered North Carolina voters.
        I thank you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Heling follows:]

                 PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY KAY HELING
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        I appreciate your testimony.
        I will now recognize myself for the purpose of questioning
    our witnesses.
        I want to start with you, Mr. Adams, if I can. I think one
    of the questions is, what is the Federal standard and what is
    the role of the Federal Government in making sure that States
    are maintaining their voter rolls?
        If we go back and look at Section 8 of the NVRA, States are
    required to, quote, ``conduct a general program with reasonable
    effort,'' end quote, for voter list maintenance. Then the
    question will be how the courts interpreted ``reasonable
    effort.''
        Can you give us a little color as to what is ``reasonable
    effort'' according to the judiciary?
        Mr. Adams. Well, that is a terrific question, because, as
    it stands right now, it just means make an effort. You get a
    participation trophy, right? If you do something, you succeed.
        Look what Congress passed after ``reasonable effort.'' In
    the language of the statute, it says to ``remove.'' There is
    actually an action verb, isn't there? It is not just make an
    effort; it is, you actually have to do something. I think that
    is what the courts have improperly focused on.
        Chairman Steil. Is it true, in a case that you were
    involved in litigating, the court came back and said that the
    ``reasonable effort'' is such a low standard that as long as
    one deceased voter is removed from the rolls they have met
    their Section 8 obligations?
        Mr. Adams. I think it is worse than that. As long as you
    have a program and you are doing anything, you have satisfied
    what Congress tried to do.
        Chairman Steil. What should the standard be, knowing that
    the courts have effectively gutted out what I view as a
    reasonable standard? Should it be something more specific? How
    do we redefine this to make it so that States actually have to
    do their job of maintaining proper voter rolls?
        Mr. Adams. Yes, the NVRA reads like a negligence statute,
    but in HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, there is strict
    liability. If you have any problems on the rolls, then you are
    violating Federal law. The problem is, only the Attorney
    General has the right to bring a lawsuit. There is no private
    right of action in the NVRA.
        Chairman Steil. I want to continue with you, Mr. Adams. In
    the NVRA, are there restrictions on who can be removed? If you
    have an individual, say, that is not a U.S. citizen--this has
    come up--what are the restrictions on States from removing
    someone that they deem to be ineligible, under the NVRA?
        Mr. Adams. There really is not a restriction on the State
    to remove a non-citizen. They have that freedom under our
    Federalist arrangement.
        The NVRA, however, does not reach non-citizens, meaning we
    cannot bring a case to remove non-citizens under the NVRA. We
    tried. We found out the hard way, it does not fit.
        Chairman Steil. So you do not have standing to go and do
    that. Who would have the standing to do that?
        Mr. Adams. The Justice Department would, potentially, under
    HAVA, but Congress could expand the NVRA to reach non-citizens.
    That is easy. It is hard to imagine anybody would vote against
    that.
        Chairman Steil. Let us, then, maybe look at the State of
    Illinois. We know that, according to the DOJ, 34 counties in
    Illinois provided no evidence of voter list maintenance.
        The DOJ can bring forward that claim, as they are in the
    Trump administration. If you did not have the Trump
    administration, it would simply be ignored, because no one else
    would have standing, knowing the State is unlikely to go after
    itself?
        Mr. Adams. Correct. You need somebody with the power to do
    something about it.
        Chairman Steil. If you have a completely Democratic State
    like Illinois, they are not going to move forward on this. If
    you have a Democratic administration, or the Biden
    administration, they look the other way.
        We could get into a gerrymandering discussion with my
    colleague that was referenced in the opening statement. If you
    want to look at a casebook study, I would recommend looking at
    the congressional lines of Illinois, led by a fully Democratic
    operation. That is not the point of the hearing today.
        If we look at that, is it really but for, thank goodness,
    the Trump administration coming in and a Pam Bondi-led
    Department of Justice that, otherwise, the State of Illinois
    would not be under any sort of review?
        Mr. Adams. Or make it the State of Michigan. That is the
    real-world example, where the Secretary of State there has done
    nothing for a long time.
        Chairman Steil. Well, we chatted with her in this exact
    hearing room not that long ago, specifically about the poor
    voter list maintenance in the State of Michigan, but you bring
    up a good point.
        In what scenario can a State remove a voter who has moved?
        Mr. Adams. Well, that is a tough one. Mr. Riemer talked
    about a bit, the NVRA has hurdles, statutory hurdles, that they
    have to go through, like waiting. It is all based on this
    technology from 1993, like the postman, right? The postman is
    given the power to keep our rolls clean or not. Really, there
    is technology out there that this Congress could address.
        Chairman Steil. Let me jump over to you, Mr. Riemer, if I
    can, in my time left. How about public access to voter rolls?
    In the State of Wisconsin, public access is available. Is
    public access available in Virginia or the other 49 States
    around the country?
        Mr. Riemer. Yes, Chairman, it is available in every State
    that is covered by the NVRA. I know Mr. Adams----
        Chairman Steil. Are there restrictions on people obtaining
    access to those voter rolls?
        Mr. Riemer. States impose restrictions that the NVRA
    prohibits.
        Chairman Steil. What would be an example of that?
        Mr. Riemer. Not disclosing records concerning their basic
    list maintenance activities. They put walls up, they delay,
    they try to charge you more--all of these things.
        The NVRA was designed to allow the public to audit State
    list maintenance activities. That was absolutely contemplated
    when the law was passed. States just put up barriers.
        Chairman Steil. I think what we see is, time and again,
    States failing to do their job as Congress directed in the
    NVRA. We see courts weakening the standards of the NVRA. I
    think it is absolutely imperative that we improve the process
    in which voter list maintenance is occurring.
        Cognizant of the time, I will yield back.
        I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5
    minutes for his questions.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I want to again thank the witnesses for being here.
        Ms. Heling, you traveled all the way from Raleigh to be
    here with us today, which I appreciate. I also appreciate the
    perspective you bring to this and want to thank you for your
    dedication to your commitment to voting--a lot of people would
    have simply walked away from this--and, I think, fighting as
    hard as you have for the right to vote and your perseverance.
        I know you said in your testimony, but how long have you
    been voting in North Carolina without any issues?
        Ms. Heling. Since we moved back to North Carolina. That was
    in 2016. Prior to that, we lived in North Carolina for 20 years
    and moved away in 2005, then moved back in 2016, which we--I
    was a voter during all those years.
        Mr. Morelle. Prior to 2024, when was the last year you
    voted? Do you know?
        Ms. Heling. I have voted in every election.
        Mr. Morelle. OK. Presumably 2023?
        Ms. Heling. Yes.
        Mr. Morelle. Without any challenges to----
        Ms. Heling. I was a regular voter since 2016--primaries,
    general--and I never had an issue. I just had to show my
    picture ID, my North Carolina license, against the registration
    on the form when I went in.
        Mr. Morelle. All right.
        I was a little unclear. You said you utilized the last four
    digits of your Social Security. And----
        Ms. Heling. Right.
        Mr. Morelle. You had done that originally and your voter
    ID? You used both?
        Ms. Heling. No. I used my Social Security number----
        Mr. Morelle. The first time.
        Ms. Heling [continuing]. the first time. And----
        Mr. Morelle. Which is one of the two acceptable ways, I
    assume, in North Carolina?
        Ms. Heling. Exactly.
        Mr. Morelle. Then the Board of Elections suggested that
    they did not have the four digits?
        Ms. Heling. They suggested that it might not match or--they
    did not know if it was a clerical error that put either my name
    or the last four digits in incorrectly. Never did I hear after
    that. I would think, if that was spitted out or whatever, I
    should have been notified that it was not correct.
        Mr. Morelle. You voted in 2024, just to be clear. You----
        Ms. Heling. I sure did.
        Mr. Morelle [continuing]. went to the polling place, voted
    as you traditionally would.
        Ms. Heling. I did.
        Mr. Morelle. You were notified after the fact that you were
    now being----
        Ms. Heling. Yes.
        Mr. Morelle [continuing]. questioned about whether you
    were----
        Ms. Heling. That was after Griffin contesting it, and I got
    a postcard in the mail.
        Mr. Morelle. Then you actually said in your testimony that
    you physically visited the Wake County Board of Elections?
        Ms. Heling. I did.
        Mr. Morelle. This was after you had been determined that--
    this was to rectify the problem?
        Ms. Heling. Yes.
        Mr. Morelle. Then you--so you thought everything was fine.
    Then you learned again now----
        Ms. Heling. No. I do not know.
        Mr. Morelle. Oh.
        Ms. Heling. I will check before the next election. I will
    verify it again. You should be able to register and not worry
    about this.
        Mr. Morelle. Right.
        Ms. Heling. I will not be assured until I see it. I will
    visit the Board of Elections.
        Mr. Morelle. You said, ``The relief didn't last long. I was
    made aware''--oh, I see. You are simply aware that there is a
    list of over 200,000 allegedly incomplete--you do not know that
    you are necessarily on it.
        Ms. Heling. I have been--I understand I am on that list.
        Mr. Morelle. Oh, you do?
        Ms. Heling. Yes.
        Mr. Morelle. How do you--why do you feel that? Why do you--
    --
        Ms. Heling. Because I am in part of a lawsuit.
        Mr. Morelle. Is your--and how do you know that?
        Ms. Heling. I have been told it.
        Mr. Morelle. Oh, you have been?
        Ms. Heling. Yes. I have been told that----
        Mr. Morelle. By the Board of Elections or by----
        Ms. Heling [continuing]. I am on that list.
        Mr. Morelle. Who shared that with you?
        Ms. Heling. I am not sure at this point.
        Mr. Morelle. OK. So----
        Ms. Heling. I just know that I understand I am on that
    list.
        Mr. Morelle. Got it. Got it, got it.
        Well, I would be curious, just from the other witnesses, is
    there any reason that you think that you could share with Ms.
    Heling why she should not be allowed to vote?
        Mr. Adams. Yes. Well, I do not think she should not be
    allowed, but I can explain all of this. She got railroaded by
    the county officials, is what happened, Ranking Member Morelle.
        When you passed HAVA in 2002, HAVA requires all registrants
    have a unique identifying number. That is congressional
    statute. It is not complicated.
        What happened was, North Carolina screwed up. When she
    registered in 2016, I think she said, in North Carolina, she
    gave them her number, as required by HAVA, and they did not put
    it into her record. That is what happened here. It is a typical
    incompetence.
        Mr. Morelle. She has now gone through and rectified it, and
    now she is still on a list of 200,000 voters that are being
    challenged.
        Mr. Adams. Well, that litigation is over with. She is no
    longer being challenged. What has happened now is the United
    States has filed a lawsuit to get North Carolina in compliance
    with HAVA by going and harvesting those numbers for future
    elections.
        It is a classic example of a screw-up by an election
    official hurting a voter. That is what happened here.
        Mr. Morelle. Yet your testimony is that you feel you are
    part of the 200,000 folks?
        Ms. Heling. That is right.
        Mr. Morelle. You are still concerned that your vote may not
    count. You are clearly a U.S. citizen----
        Ms. Heling. Not only that I am part of it, but there are
    200,000-plus more that are going to have to go through what I
    did.
        Mr. Morelle. Yes.
        I would just, as I yield back, Mr. Chair--I think there are
    a number of things we could do, including providing resources,
    which I do not think is anticipated here. I do not know how we
    do this important work without providing resources to local
    State boards of election.
        With that, I will yield back, Chairwoman.
        Ms. Lee.
        [Presiding.] Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle.
        Thank you to our witnesses for appearing here today.
        When I served as the Secretary of State of Florida, one of
    my core responsibilities was to work with local election
    officials to ensure voter rolls were accurate and up to date.
        Voter list maintenance is a critical part of ensuring
    election accuracy and building public confidence in our
    elections process. This is not and should never be a partisan
    issue. Maintaining accurate and reliable voter rolls is
    fundamental to election security and public trust.
        That work is not suppression. That work is not a purge. It
    is an essential part of sound administration and public
    accountability and should be required both by clear laws and by
    any reasonable standard of public integrity.
        As Members of this Committee, we have a responsibility to
    ensure that every State is using clear, consistent standards to
    maintain their rolls, and we should be promoting transparency,
    supporting data-sharing tools, and removing barriers that
    prevent States from performing these essential duties.
        I was so pleased to see that President Trump's executive
    order on ``Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American
    Elections'' supports these goals, including expanding access to
    tools like the SAVE data base, which helps identify voters who
    may no longer or may not be eligible.
        I thank you all for bringing with you today ideas and
    testimony that relate to how we can support election officials
    in doing that better.
        Mr. Riemer, I would like to return to your testimony about
    the NVRA and the 90-day blackout periods. I think that is an
    important thing for us to understand as we consider the way
    that law is written today and how it might be better.
        You mentioned the blackout periods. Now, there are
    different types of removals, are there not? Some of which are
    affected by blackout periods; some are not. Would you please
    elaborate for us on what the law is now and how it could be
    improved?
        Mr. Riemer. Absolutely.
        The blackout period applies to systemic list maintenance
    that takes place within 90 days of any Federal election as it
    relates to voters who have moved, and some courts have
    interpreted it to apply to removing non-citizens and other
    ineligible voters as well. It does not apply to removing
    deceased, and it does not apply to removing some other types of
    ineligible voters.
        Individualized removals are permitted within the 90-day
    period, but anytime a State tries to do individualized
    removals, they get sued, saying that it is a prohibited
    systemic removal process.
        Ms. Lee. As a former board of elections official, you
    helped Virginia establish data-sharing agreements with
    neighboring States. Would you tell us how effective--were those
    useful? Is it something that you recommend other States deploy
    to help ensure their roll accuracy?
        Mr. Riemer. Absolutely. It is absolutely essential, because
    the NCOA data does not have enough--it is missing--it is
    missing information. The best way is for States to talk to each
    other and to share that information and to, you know, get these
    voters off the rolls.
        I think one thing that I was emphasizing is, what we really
    need to do is skip this confirmation process--that you have to
    wait two Federal general elections--as much as possible,
    because it just does not work. It is too clunky.
        Ms. Lee. Mr. Adams, I would like to return to you. One of
    the things you mentioned in your testimony was the third-party
    voter registration groups and the effect that they have on
    contributing in some places to inaccuracy or duplicate
    registrations.
        Would you elaborate on what those groups are, how they
    work, and how they affect this problem?
        Mr. Adams. Right. These are the people with clipboards at
    community events or at the grocery store. What we have found
    over and over and over again, the problems on the voter rolls
    are often traced back to third-party registrations, whether it
    is Rashawn Slade--which I would urge you to look in my written
    testimony in the appendix. He was getting registered to vote
    six times by third-party groups. Same with non-citizens in
    North Carolina. We traced those back, in those reports, to
    third-party registration groups.
        Look, there is a different incentive structure. They want
    to get as many people registered as possible, so they do not do
    a lot of quality control.
        Ms. Lee. I would also like for you to touch on, in your
    experience, some of the efforts and some of the lengths that
    elections officials go to in their communities to help ensure
    that voters are able to register and that registering to vote
    is an accessible and easy process for them.
        Mr. Adams. Yes. It has never been easier in the United
    States to register to vote than it is right now today, and it
    has never been easier to vote than it is today.
        That is in large measure because of the diligence of a lot
    of election officials, who pour a lot of time and money into
    making it easy to register and vote. That is why the
    registration and participation rates were so high in this last
    Federal election.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Elections
    Subcommittee, the gentlelady from Alabama, Ms. Sewell.
        Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I want to welcome all of our visitors here today and our
    witnesses.
        As a daughter of Selma and the Ranking Member on the
    Subcommittee on Elections, there is nothing more important to
    me than making sure that every eligible American has access to
    the ballot box. Our vote is our voice, and everyone's voice
    should be heard in elections.
        Voting is the most important way Americans participate in
    the political process, but far too often illegal voter purging
    occurs, removing eligible voters from the rolls and preventing
    them from exercising their right to vote.
        A few months before the November election, in my home State
    of Alabama, Secretary of State Wes Allen, who actually appeared
    before this Committee a few months ago, directed the Alabama
    Board of Registrars to remove individuals from the voter rolls
    that were issued as, quote, ``non-citizen identification
    numbers,'' end quote, by the Department of Homeland Security.
        Secretary Allen shared a list of 3,251 voters with the
    Alabama Attorney General, Steve Marshall, for potential
    prosecution. However, his office failed to implement the proper
    safeguards to ensure that eligible voters did not fall through
    the cracks. As a result, Secretary Allen's purging initiatives
    removed more than 2,000 eligible Alabama voters, illegally,
    from the rolls.
        One of these legally registered voters was my constituent
    Roald Ha--his name is Mr. Hazelhoff. He was a resident of
    Birmingham. He moved from the Netherlands to Alabama in 1988,
    and he gained his citizenship in a U.S. citizenship,
    immigration, and naturalization process in Montgomery on July
    18, 2022.
        In 2023, he obtained his STAR ID, which requires
    individuals, as we all know, to show up to show proof of
    citizenship. Eighty-four days before the election, he received
    a letter from the Board of Registrars informing him that he was
    removed from the voter rolls.
        I would like to submit his testimony, his story, into the
    record. May I ask unanimous consent to do so?
        Ms. Lee. With no objection, so ordered.
        [The testimony of Roald Hazelhoff referred to follows:]

                      TESTIMONY OF ROALD HAZELHOFF
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Sewell. My constituent Mr. Hazelhoff, who actually is
    an American naturalized citizen, was denied the opportunity to
    vote. He had to prove, even though he had already submitted his
    STAR ID, that he was actually a citizen. He showed that proof.
        I know, like you, Ms. Heling, that so many people do not
    have the opportunity or the time or the patience to actually go
    to the Board of Registrars to prove, like you did, that you
    actually were illegally purged.
        There are lots and lots of folks that go about doing that,
    and I wanted you to talk a little bit about how long it took
    you to actually get your name back on the rolls.
        The second part of that question is, are you assured that
    in future elections that you will actually not be on such an
    illegal purged roll?
        Ms. Heling. Well, when I received that postcard, I scanned
    the QR code. It was very difficult to follow, because you could
    only do it on your phone. I spent well over an hour trying to
    find my name. There was no easy way. You could not pull up your
    name and look for it. You just had to look.
        After all that time, I said, ``Oh, heck. My husband and I
    registered together. This has to be a mistake.''
        Ms. Sewell. Was your husband's roll--he was not purged from
    the roll, but you were, even though you all registered----
        Ms. Heling. I was the one challenged----
        Ms. Sewell. Yes.
        Ms. Heling [continuing]. yes, even though we registered at
    the same time.
        Ms. Sewell. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Heling. It took that time. Then I kind of did not worry
    about it until I saw another search engine and, all of a
    sudden, there was my name. Whoa, what happened?
        I had to think about it, and I thought, ``No, I have to go
    fix this''----
        Ms. Sewell. Yes.
        Ms. Heling [continuing]. which is a drive. The Board of
    Elections used to be right downtown. It is now further out of
    the city. I did get there----
        Ms. Sewell. The point is that you took more than reasonable
    efforts to go about getting your name back on the rolls.
        Ms. Heling. That is how I grew up.
        Ms. Sewell. Madam Chair, I agree with you that election
    integrity is a bipartisan issue. I think no one benefits when
    people are illegally purged from the voter rolls. One must
    maintain a voter list, and every effort should be made to make
    sure that the people on that voter list are legitimately not
    supposed to be. Therein lies the rub.
        Ms. Heling, could you talk a little bit about what you
    think your advice would be to us to make sure that there is a
    balance, that we have a proper balance between maintaining
    rolls and making sure that we are not using it as a weapon to
    purge and to cause voter suppression?
        Ms. Heling. I understand the importance of voters being
    registered. When we were registered and we gave all the
    information that was asked of us and we provided that, with our
    photo ID, with our current address, should we not be able to
    continue to vote?
        Why would we take 200,000-plus people----
        Ms. Sewell. That is just in North Carolina.
        Ms. Heling [continuing]. and expect them to go through
    this?
        Ms. Sewell. Yes.
        Thank you so much for allowing her to complete her
    sentence.
        I want to thank you for actually coming to our Committee
    today to provide your own testimony, personal testimony, as to
    how so often these voter maintenance programs are used for
    voter suppression and actually do purge legitimate American
    citizens.
        Thank you so much.
        Ms. Heling. Thank you for having me.
        Ms. Lee. I now recognize Mr. Loudermilk of Georgia for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        One week ago today, something absolutely incredible
    happened in my district: Major League Baseball played the All-
    Star Game at Truist Park in Atlanta. Why is that incredible?
    Because, in 2021, Major League Baseball pulled the All-Star
    Game from Atlanta based on false information and fear tactics
    spread about Georgia's election integrity bill.
        Why did it come back? Georgia's election integrity bill is
    still the law today, as it was in 2021. Why? Because all the
    fear-mongering turned out to be inaccurate. In fact, in the
    2024 election, a record number of minorities voted early. Why?
    Because exactly what we said that bill would do would make it
    easier to vote and harder to cheat.
        This is an illustration of how misinformation and fear
    tactics hurt the majority of people who should be able to vote.
    Every time someone is--and part of the election integrity bill
    was to clean up voter rolls.
        I remember, growing up in Georgia, there was a joke about a
    politician who would go into the local cemetery to practice his
    campaign stump speeches. He would go to one side of the
    cemetery and practice, and then he would go to another side.
    Somebody asked him, said, ``Why do you walk all around the
    cemetery speaking?'' He said, ``Because the people on that side
    of the graveyard have just enough right to vote for me as the
    people on this side of the graveyard.'' I mean, that was a
    running joke, but it was based on reality.
        That disenfranchises people who should be able to vote and
    should have influence in elections.
        Mr. Riemer, what is the role of an election official in
    removing voters who have died? What steps did you take in
    Virginia to ensure that the deceased voters were no longer on
    the rolls?
        Mr. Riemer. Absolutely.
        The role is really going to depend on whether you are at
    the State or local level. At the State level, you are really
    responsible for making sure that the local election officials
    have access to the death data, whether that is from Social
    Security Administration, whether it is from State vital
    statistics.
        At the local level, they are the ones, typically, removing
    these deceased voters. In Virginia, the local registrars would
    actually go through obituaries--like, the good ones would
    actually go through local obituaries or similar sources and
    remove voters that way.
        It is really an all-of-the-above approach. You are not
    going to find every deceased person and remove them, but I
    think most States can certainly do better than they have. It
    just takes an all-of-the-above approach.
        Mr. Loudermilk. What about States like Virginia and Georgia
    that have voter ID laws? How does that equate--you know, what
    is the link, what is the importance of cleaning the voter rolls
    there?
        Mr. Riemer. Sure. Well, if you do not have voter ID and you
    have somebody that is on the rolls that is no longer in the
    State or is no longer alive, obviously there is the chance that
    someone could go and vote on behalf of that person.
        Or if someone has not been removed and they live in another
    State, they can vote in both States. We know that happens. It
    is a relatively common occurrence.
        If you are not verifying the identity of that person, then
    someone could vote fictitiously in their name.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Why is it important to clean the rolls
    within 90 days of an election?
        Mr. Riemer. Well, I think it is important to relax the
    blackout period, because oftentimes a lot of these issues do
    not even come--do not really emerge until closer and before the
    election.
        Because the blackout period also applies to a primary, I
    mean, really, you are looking at, the entire Federal election
    year, you are stopped from doing anything to remove voters, at
    least those who are non-residents, at this point.
        It is just--you have to sit on your hands and just, you
    know, be approaching an election and know there are ineligible
    voters on your voter file and not be able to do anything about
    it.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Right.
        You mentioned at the beginning of your response to my
    question some of the resources that can be used to verify voter
    identity. What are the most useful or the most effective that
    you have seen?
        Mr. Riemer. As far as list maintenance tools?
        Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
        Mr. Riemer. I certainly think data from other States is
    huge. Obviously, Americans are moving between States
    constantly, and it is really important that States are sharing
    data with one another.
        I think Mr. Adams brought up toward the end of his
    presentation the use of commercial data. I think that is very
    important.
        You know, we have always relied on the Postal Service, and
    let us face it, the Postal Service is not what it used to be.
    The NCOA data base is not what it used to be. You have to go
    outside those traditional sources of data and get creative. I
    think their use of commercial data is one that has a lot of
    promise.
        Mr. Loudermilk. All right. Thank you.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Lee. I now recognize Mrs. Torres from California for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
        I know that, some of you, it is not your first time here.
    Just like last year, it is important to put on the record, yet
    again, the concerning actions taken by a witness testifying
    before us today, Mr. Adams.
        Chairwoman, I ask for unanimous consent to submit to the
    record two articles: an NBC News article titled, ``Vote Fraud
    Crusader J. Christian Adams Sparks Outrage''; and an ABC News
    article titled, ``Americans accused of noncitizen voter fraud
    face doxxing and intimidation.''
        Ms. Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The articles referred to follow:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Torres. In 2016 and 2017, the Public Interest Legal
    Foundation, a right-wing group known for suing States to delete
    voters off of their election rolls and making false claims of
    voter fraud, of which Mr. Adams is the president, published a
    two-part report titled ``Alien Invasion'' that, among other
    things, falsely accused American citizens of felony voting
    fraud.
        Additionally, Mr. Adams's organization shamefully--
    shamefully--published the names, addresses, phone numbers, and,
    in some cases, Social Security numbers of those he falsely
    accused, doxxing law-abiding American citizens and threatening
    their privacy and security for the simple act of choosing their
    representatives.
        As a result, a group of Virginia voters sued the
    organization, forcing Mr. Adams and his organization to
    apologize in the settlement.
        Chairwoman, I ask unanimous consent to submit an article
    from Law and Crime titled ``Fmr Trump Voting Commission
    Official Forced to Apologize for Falsely Accusing People of
    Voter Fraud (UPDATED).''
        Ms. Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The Law & Crime article referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Torres. Court documents also show that Mr. Adams's
    organization had emails where election officials raised
    concerns about how the records misrepresent information, yet
    the organization led by Mr. Adams still went ahead and
    published the report that falsely accused Americans of
    committing voter fraud and listed out names, addresses, and
    Social Security numbers.
        [The email follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Torres. These reckless actions and the ones before
    make it clear to me that Mr. Adams and some of the Republican
    witnesses here today are not here to ensure that our elections
    run fairly but, rather, to make sure that elections favor one
    party--the Republican Party.
        Time and time again, we see this play out from President
    Trump and my colleagues across the aisle pushing misinformation
    when it comes to election results and voter fraud. These
    actions have one goal: to sow distrust in our elections system,
    to suppress the vote, and to make it harder for Americans to
    have their voices heard.
        Non-citizen voting is extremely rare, and it is already
    outlawed. Do you know what makes people question our elections?
    It is not how the voter rolls are administered; it is President
    Trump, organizations run by those like Mr. Adams, and the
    Republican Party pushing lies after lies after lies about voter
    fraud and election results.
        We saw that in the 2020 election and the violent January
    6th insurrection which happened because the President denied
    the results of an election. We are seeing it this year again,
    where Republicans tried to throw out 60,000 votes to overturn
    the North Carolina Supreme Court race they lost. It took nearly
    half a year for the Republican candidate to concede.
        They forced many eligible American voters, like Ms. Heling,
    who is testifying here today, to jump through hoop after hoop
    to make sure her vote was counted. After the results did not go
    their way, the Trump-weaponized DOJ sued North Carolina, and
    now Ms. Heling and 200,000 people in her State are at risk of
    not being able to vote.
        Last month, they sued Orange County, California, over voter
    records.
        It is not a surprise that these are all areas that had
    competitive elections. This is happening while Trump is forcing
    Texas Republicans to redraw congressional maps so that he can
    try to maintain power and steal another election.
        At the same time, Trump's illegal voting plan and the
    Republicans' SAVE Act will create huge burdens for every
    American, including nearly 70 million women who, like me, chose
    to take their husband's last name. It makes it harder for
    servicemembers who are trying to vote overseas.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Lee. I now recognize Dr. Murphy of North Carolina for 5
    minutes.
        Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        You know, I have been in Congress a little over 5 years
    now, and I feel like it is kind of like a basketball game where
    the guy who does the wrong thing first and then the other
    person--maybe he fouls one player first, and the second player
    who responded--everybody puts the attention to the response
    rather than the primary problem to begin with. That is what it
    seems to be. We always scream at what the reaction is rather
    than the real problem itself.
        Nobody is saying that our election system is perfect.
    Nobody is saying that. We live in a human society; we have
    human frailty. We are not saying that. Mistakes happen. That is
    why we have reform.
        You know, it is very interesting, we are talking about the
    North Carolina Board of Elections and how Ms. Heling, you know,
    really got screwed by them, absolutely. I think I just want to
    point out that the North Carolina Board of Elections has been
    run by Democrats for many, many years.
        I am happy to say that now the legislature has taken
    control of the North Carolina Board of Elections and turned it
    over to Republican control, and now the Republicans have begun
    the Registration Repair Project to ensure that all eligible
    voters have accurate, complete information on file.
        Imagine that. We are actually running a system that works.
    The State Board of Elections has publicly announced that the
    project will not result in the removal of any eligible voters.
        We had a horribly run Democratic system that Ms. Heling had
    the terrible experience of having to deal with, and now the
    adults have come into the room and said, we are actually going
    to run something right. That is great.
        You know, look, we sat right here--you all sat at that
    table when the Michigan Secretary of State sat there and she
    would not allow the removal of over 22,000 dead people. How are
    we supposed to respond to that, Republican or Democrat? How you
    do respond to that? That is fraud, period, pointblank. And that
    is our job to ensure that those people are taken off the rolls.
        We do not want any eligible voter removed. The experience
    that you went through, ma'am, was horrible. I am sorry for
    that, on the part of North Carolina. You know, damn, if we want
    our elections to be secure, it is OK that we look at this
    stuff. It is much worse if we have somebody voting who should
    not than somebody who, sadly enough, had to go through what you
    did.
        I apologize for that. There is a new sheriff in town in
    North Carolina, and hopefully they will run it in a system that
    actually works, rather than having 200,000 people put on a roll
    where their voting rights are questioned.
        I will turn back--Mr. Riemer, just a couple questions.
        The Federal requirements for notifying voters before
    removing them from voter rolls, can you expand on those a
    little bit?
        Mr. Riemer. Absolutely.
        Once an election official has reason to believe that a
    voter may have moved, for example, they are required to mail
    what is known as a confirmation mailing. That is sent to the
    address where the voter is registered, forwardable. If the
    voter has moved somewhere else, in theory, that piece of mail
    is supposed to go to their new address. That is how the process
    works.
        When that mail does not come back to the election official
    or the voter does not return it, saying, ``I have moved; cancel
    me from the voter rolls''--which is what happens only 30
    percent of the time. The voters only request cancellation about
    30 percent of the time, or notify the election official that
    they are still there and not to remove them. What happens is,
    those election officials, unless they hear from the voter, they
    have to wait for up to 4 years until they can remove that
    individual from the voter rolls.
        Dr. Murphy. Yes.
        I mean, it just--you know, I had a former colleague,
    anesthesiologist, who--we were in the operating room talking
    one day, and he was livid because he went to vote and someone
    had voted in his place. To say this stuff does not occur is
    absolutely wrong.
        Then I have had patients who said, yes, I got mailed five
    ballots--five ballots--to my house.
        To want to clean up this system is not wrong. It is not
    wrong. It is absolutely the right thing to do. I just--I am
    baffled that people want to fight that.
        One other question.
        Actually, Mr. Adams, thanks for being here today.
        What is the best practice for States to share voter
    identification rolls with each other?
        I will say this real quickly. Maybe my time might run out;
    I apologize. You know, Social Security has a great pension. If
    somebody dies, you get a notice pretty damn quick that you are
    not getting your benefits. Why can't we tie that to voter
    rolls? Wouldn't that be an interesting concept?
        Anyway, I will let you answer your question.
        Mr. Adams. The best is commercial data. Commissioner Don
    Palmer at the EAC has advocated for this. I am on the Board of
    Advisors of the Election Assistance Commission. We have
    advocated at Public Interest Legal Foundation, use Experian.
        Commercial data is the most accurate. There is a cost, but
    we can figure this out.
        Dr. Murphy. Yes. All right.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
        Ms. Lee. I now recognize the Representative from Texas, Ms.
    Johnson, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am going to respond to Dr. Murphy.
        You know, the thing is that election integrity is
    critically important. Democrats do not want people who are not
    eligible to vote to be able to vote, period, full stop. What we
    do want is that every eligible voter gets the chance to vote
    and that their constitutional rights are not infringed upon.
        That seems to be a huge distinction. Dr. Murphy just said
    he was OK with a citizen not being allowed to vote if it
    prevented somebody who was not eligible to vote from voting.
        The reality of it is, the Constitution of the United States
    is pretty clear on the matter. I have my little, pocket, handy-
    dandy Constitution. ``The right of citizens of the United
    States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
    States or by any State,'' period.
        Ms. Heling, your constitutional rights to vote were
    abridged by the State of North Carolina, weren't they?
        Ms. Heling. They were.
        Ms. Johnson. That is unacceptable in this country.
        I do not want dead people voting. I do not want people who
    are non-citizens or not eligible to vote to be able to vote any
    more than anybody else does. I damn sure want eligible citizens
    to be able to cast their ballot.
        The problem is, Madam Chair, in this hearing, we are not
    talking about the ways to improve the system to make sure that
    we have inviolate guardrails in place to keep citizens from
    being prevented to vote.
        In Texas, you know, Republicans have controlled Texas now
    for almost 30 years, and, you know, Greg Abbott, our Governor,
    tried to kick 95,000 people off the rolls in 2019, saying they
    were non-citizens, and it turned out--you know what? They were
    actually citizens. They were people who had been naturalized,
    who had gotten permission to swear their oath to the
    Constitution, pay their taxes, were United States citizens.
    They tried to deny them the right to vote. It took a lawsuit to
    reinstate them.
        That is not acceptable in this country. That is not
    preserving election integrity.
        Greg Abbott also tried to kick 1.1 million voters off the
    voter rolls in Texas, saying there was all kinds of fraud. Now,
    granted, he administers the Secretary of State's Office to
    allow these unauthorized people to vote that he supposedly now
    is saying, oh, we should not have voting. Again, that was
    proven, that it was full of legal U.S. citizens to cast their
    right to vote.
        You know, there are all sorts of things we could talk
    about. Online registration. If every State had online
    registration, you could go in, update your registration, and it
    would update it. You would not have all these duplicate
    entries. You know what? Texas does not let online voter
    registration. To your point, Mr. Adams--human error--they do
    not allow the computer to work for you. Everything has to be
    done manually in our State, because they make it hard to vote.
        Texas is the hardest State to vote in. I believe somebody
    said that--I think one of you said the United States is the
    easiest country to vote. I beg to differ, at least in my State.
    You cannot register online. You cannot register the same day.
    You have to print a ballot. Do you know how many young people
    do not even have access to a printer? Then you have to mail it
    and stamp it. They cannot even figure out their way to get to a
    post office. It is no wonder why young people are not voting.
        We make it hard for people to register to vote. If we
    wanted it to be easy, everything would be able to be done
    online. We pay our taxes online; we do everything else online.
        If we had a national voter registration system, then maybe
    all this interstate moving could be addressed.
        There are things that we should be debating to improve the
    system, and I am here for that all day long. What I am not
    going to tolerate is this notion that we should deny citizens
    the right to vote, like you had, like what we are seeing in
    Texas, like what we saw in Georgia, like what we are seeing in
    States throughout this country under the name of cleaning a
    list. Because we are not ensuring the inviolate protection of
    citizens to cast their right to vote, as the Constitution
    requires.
        Ugh. I wish--you know, the frustration--I am sick and tired
    of this insinuation that Democrats do not care about election
    integrity. That is false. What we do care about is making sure
    that people are not disproportionately targeted because of the
    color of their skin, their naturalized citizenship status, or
    anything of the matter.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record an article from the Brennan Center for Justice titled,
    ``Homeland Security's `SAVE' Program Exacerbates Risks to
    Voters.''
        Chairman Steil.
        [Presiding.] Without objection.
        [The Brennan Center for Justice article referred to
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Carey, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Carey. I want to thank the Chairman. I want to thank
    the Ranking Member.
        I do have some questions, but I want to use a little point
    of personal privilege.
        In Ohio, we have two Democrats and we have two Republicans
    that serve on our board of elections. We lost one of the great
    ones. She was on the opposing side of me. Seventy-two years
    old, found out she had a brain cancer, and just passed away.
        Kimberly was somebody that I got to know when I first got
    elected, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to read the
    comments that our Republican board chairman said about Kim. He
    told The Columbus Dispatch that he was very saddened and that
    she was a very decent person. For many years, he said, he
    served with Kim. ``While she was always a loyal Democrat, she
    was first and foremost a loyal public servant.''
        I just wanted to say that in memory of her today.
        You know, the maintenance for voter lists is critical for
    ensuring secure, fair elections across our Nation. I read with
    interest all your testimony. Accurate voter rolls drive down
    administrative cost, prevent fraud, and reassure the general
    public that the voting process is trustworthy.
        To safeguard these vital processes, the Federal Government
    previously took action by enacting the National Voter
    Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.
        I want to highlight some of the things that our Secretary,
    Frank LaRose, from Ohio has done. In Columbus, the Secretary
    and his team annually audit the statewide voter registration
    data base, frequently monitoring for voter inactivity, and
    reviews voting history from other States to identify double
    voters.
        Additionally, efforts by county boards of elections include
    regularly updating rolls to check for changes in addresses,
    possibly deceased voters, and the removal of duplicate
    registration.
        To ensure the transparency for Ohioans, the statewide voter
    registration data base is actually posted weekly on the
    Secretary of State's website, and the public can view the daily
    voter registration snapshots to see which registrations were
    added, updated, or removed.
        Mr. Adams, I know there is a lot of information here, but
    why is transparency when conducting voter list maintenance
    important?
        Mr. Adams. Well, that is what Congress put into the NVRA so
    we could look. We brought cases--we won a case in the First
    Circuit Court of Appeals for transparency. We just have a case
    in the Fourth Circuit on appeal where we beat South Carolina,
    because they actually do not let anyone look at the rolls
    unless you are a registered voter, which totally violates the
    NVRA.
        Without transparency, you cannot know what is going on, and
    that is why it is so important.
        Mr. Carey. Let me ask you, do the jurisdictional
    differences in list maintenance practices ever become
    troublesome when looking at efforts from a legal standpoint?
        Mr. Adams. Oh, my gosh. There is a huge gulf between what
    States are doing. Some very innovative Secretaries of State--
    for example, yours--are using data sets that they will not even
    think of in other States. There are wide differences across the
    country in what they do.
        Mr. Carey. Now, I know what our Secretary of State would
    say if I asked him this question, but I am going to ask you.
    Should more States adopt Ohio's method of voter roll
    maintenance?
        Mr. Adams. Well, I can name, Michigan ought to start. There
    is the top list.
        Mr. Carey. Yes.
        Mr. Adams. There are other States that desperately should
    get up to Ohio's standards that are not even close.
        New York. Look, New York has enormous numbers of people
    without Social Security numbers or the HAVA-mandated number in
    their data base. That is why I said the Ranking Member is going
    to have to mail campaign material, wasting money, because the
    voter rolls are messed up over a simple error.
        Mr. Carey. Well, I want to thank you.
        I want to thank all the witnesses for traveling here.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing today on the critical issue of maintaining the
    integrity of our voter rolls or, in the case of Illinois,
    restoring the integrity of our voter rolls.
        Ensuring that voter rolls are accurate and contain only
    eligible voters is essential to the public's confidence in our
    elections. For far too long, States like Illinois have failed
    to uphold the law and carry out their responsibilities under
    the National Voter Registration Act.
        I was pleased to see that the Department of Justice
    recently filed a Statement of Interest in Judicial Watch's
    lawsuit against the Illinois State Board of Elections. As noted
    in Judicial Watch's lawsuit, Illinois has refused to develop a
    statewide program for voter roll maintenance.
        In fact, the DOJ intervention in Illinois found, according
    to the 2022 Election Administration Voting Survey conducted by
    the Election Assistance Commission, unbelievably, 34
    jurisdictions in Illinois simply failed to report any data
    regarding list maintenance removals under the National Voter
    Registration Act.
        Nineteen of these 34 counties failed to report any data
    regarding registrants removed due to death. Meaning, no one
    died in 19 counties? Do we believe that? Then, obviously, we
    are keeping these people on the voter rolls.
        In 23 Illinois counties, fewer than 100 registrations were
    canceled during a 2-year period out of almost 1 million
    registrations, which Judicial Watch notes is an absurdly small
    number and demonstrates Illinois's lack of commitment to
    maintain clean voter rolls under the NVRA.
        As this Committee is well aware, Illinois has a history of
    voting irregularities, and I appreciate the opportunity to
    highlight this important issue today.
        Mr. Adams, what is required under the ``reasonable effort''
    standard for voter list maintenance?
        Mr. Adams. Well, almost nothing. That is what--in my
    written testimony, you will find the Sixth Circuit Court of
    Appeals ruled, if you have a program, it is good enough. It
    does not matter if the proof is in the pudding; it does not
    matter if it is effective.
        One thing Congress might do on the data that you just
    talked----
        Mrs. Miller. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Adams [continuing]. about, Congresswoman Miller, is--
    when I was at the Justice Department, I brought the case of
    United States v. Alabama and I brought the case of United
    States v. Vermont. Those two States were not reporting the data
    that you were just talking about, but it was only for UOCAVA
    voters, for military voters.
        There is no obligation in the statute to report those data
    for regular voters. Congress just left out regular voters when
    they did the NVRA for the EAV survey. That is what you are
    referring to. It is the EAV, the Election Assistance
    Commission.
        You might extend that to the entire survey, that States
    have to do that. It is optional. They do not have to report any
    data unless it is a military voter.
        Mrs. Miller. Well, that is why we are having this hearing,
    to highlight this and to make changes.
        Mr. Riemer, as a former Virginia State Board of Elections
    official, how do election officials traditionally prescribe
    regulations to conduct voter list maintenance?
        Mr. Riemer. Absolutely. It is a combination of statutory
    obligations that the General Assembly in Virginia set which
    complement the NVRA.
        While I was in Virginia, Governor McDonnell was very
    aggressive about beefing up the statutory provisions that we
    had to follow. We had to do annual reports to the General
    Assembly outlining in detail our list maintenance activities.
    There were more frequent checks that we had to make as well.
        The issue I brought up about finding the 10,000 dead voters
    on our voter rolls that had been there for so long, you know,
    that is something that should have been caught, but no one had
    ever gone back and said, let us take a look at the entire death
    file----
        Mrs. Miller. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Riemer [continuing]. and compare it against the voter
    registration list. Everyone just assumed that these periodic
    comparisons were catching all the dead voters, but they were
    not, and for some reason we had this large pile of them on
    there.
        These were all things that were enshrined in the law that
    we had to follow.
        Mrs. Miller. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Riemer. I think a lot of States could use more statutes
    and more regulations, just being more prescriptive in what they
    need to do.
        Mrs. Miller. How often did the State direct appropriate
    departments or officials to remove ineligible voter
    registrants?
        Mr. Riemer. As frequently as possible. As frequently as
    possible. We made a major cancellation leading up to the 2013
    general election, promptly got sued. We got sued several times
    on list maintenance issues because of how aggressive we were in
    the State.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you for your work.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman's time has expired. She
    yields back.
        That concludes our questioning.
        I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before us
    today.
        Members of the Committee may have some additional questions
    for you, and we ask that you please respond to those questions
    in writing.
        Without objection, each Member will have 5 legislative days
    to insert additional material into the record or revise and
    extend their remarks.
        [Ashleigh Brown-Grier, Ph.D., letter follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. There being no further business, I thank
    the Members for their participation.
        Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]