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

                    EXAMINING POTENTIAL UPDATES TO THE NVRA
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

                                     OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               DECEMBER 10, 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
    62-268                  WASHINGTON : 2026

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                        BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

    LAUREL LEE, Florida, Vice Chair      JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia                 Ranking Member
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
    GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          NORMA TORRES, California
    STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
    MARY MILLER, Illinois
    MIKE CAREY, Ohio

                           Mike Platt, Staff Director
                      Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director

                                     ------

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

                           LAUREL LEE, Florida, Chair

    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama,
    GREG MURPHY, North Carolina               Ranking Member
    MARY MILLER, Illinois                JULIE JOHNSON, Texas

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               Opening Statements

    Chair Laurel Lee, Representative from the State of Florida.......     1
        Prepared statement of Chair Laurel Lee.......................     3
    Ranking Member Terri A. Sewell, Representative from the State of
      Alabama........................................................     4
        Prepared statement of Ranking Member Terri A. Sewell.........     6
    Prepared statement of Ranking Member of the Committee on House
      Administration Joseph Morelle..................................    55

                                   Witnesses

    Mark Braden, of counsel, Baker Hostetler.........................     7
        Prepared statement of Mark Braden............................     9
    Michael Morley, faculty director of the Election Law Center,
      Sheila M. McDevitt Professor of Law............................    15
        Prepared statement of Michael Morley.........................    17
    Sophia Lin Lakin, director, Voting Rights Project, American Civil
      Liberties Union................................................    24
        Prepared statement of Sophia Lin Lakin.......................    26

                           Submissions for the Record

    League of Women Voters statement.................................    51
    Southern Poverty Law Center written statement....................    72

                              EXAMINING POTENTIAL
                              UPDATES TO THE NVRA

                                  ----------

                               December 10, 2025

                     Subcommittee on Elections,
                     Committee on House Administration,
                                      House of Representatives,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:38 p.m., in
    room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Laurel Lee
    [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Lee, Miller, Sewell, Morelle, 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;
    Nikolas Youngsmith, Minority Elections Counsel; Sarah Nasta,
    Minority Senior Advisor and Director of Outreach; and Owen
    Reilly, Minority Professional Staff.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAUREL LEE, CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
            ON ELECTIONS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

        Chair Lee. The Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee
    on House Administration will come to order.
        The title of today's hearing is ``Examining Potential
    Updates to the NVRA.''
        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 five
    legislative days so Members may submit any materials they wish
    to be included therein.
        Today the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee
    on Elections will continue its oversight of Federal election
    law.
        Thirty-two years ago, the National Voter Registration Act,
    or the NVRA, was passed with the goal of increasing voter
    registration, removing bureaucratic barriers, and ensuring
    States accurately maintain their voter rolls. Today we will
    discuss ways to strengthen those original goals of the NVRA.
        According to the Election Assistance Commission, today over
    86 percent of the eligible voting population are active
    registered voters. Contrast that to 1992, right before the
    law's passage, when registration was at 68 percent. That is a
    great thing for our democracy.
        As a former secretary of state, I believe it is incumbent
    on us as policymakers to continuously seek feedback from
    elections officials on the ground about what works, what can be
    improved, and how changes in technology and resources affect
    elections administration.
        Throughout my time as Florida's Secretary of State and as a
    Member of Congress, I have had many of those discussions,
    including with other secretaries of state and local elections
    officials.
        This hearing will examine opportunities to update the NVRA,
    to strengthen voter confidence in our election laws, and
    improve election administration.
        Thoughtful review and modernization of the NVRA will
    improve elections administration and remove barriers to
    efficiency.
        Currently, the NVRA requires that States conduct a general
    program that makes reasonable efforts to remove the names of
    ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters.
        This ambiguous language has left courts to issue broad
    rulings about what constitutes general and reasonable. This
    ultimately means States are not required and sometimes not even
    permitted to remove ineligible voters due to errors on their
    registration form, lack of U.S. citizenship, criminal
    conviction, mental incapacity, or other reasons consistent with
    their State laws for which a registration may be invalid.
        Election officials benefit from clear and unambiguous laws
    which will help them to carry out their duties and to ensure
    voter lists are accurate and up-to-date.
        We have had witnesses testify in this very room about how
    the NVRA's language actually prevents election officials from
    conducting robust list maintenance in the manner they think
    appropriate.
        Examples include the blackout period for list maintenance
    and delays in removing voters who have moved to a new
    jurisdiction. In some cases a voter who has moved must request
    removal, and an election official must wait two general
    election cycles to remove a now ineligible or relocated voter.
        We must also recognize that modern technology has made
    certain provisions of the NVRA obsolete. While 30 years have
    passed since the NVRA's enactment, many of the functions that
    still need to be performed can now be done more efficiently.
        As another example, the NVRA's language requires States to
    make voter rolls available for inspection by photocopying. As a
    result, a court of appeals has found that the State of Alabama
    can charge enormous amounts for printing copies of its voter
    rolls, as opposed to producing and delivering digital copies
    for a fraction of that cost.
        This is another example of how evolving technology has
    highlighted the need for updating the NVRA to better reflect
    the practical realities of today.
        Before concluding, I would also like to touch on the
    importance of reviewing and clarifying the NVRA when it comes
    to confirming a registrant's citizenship. The NVRA does not
    currently require an applicant to prove their citizenship
    beyond an attestation clause and a signature.
        One recent example of this which generated significant
    media headlines is the recent arrest of Ian Roberts, an illegal
    immigrant who successfully registered to vote in Maryland
    twice.
        Last week, Chairman Steil and I sent a letter to the
    Maryland State Board of elections seeking a detailed assessment
    of how a non-U.S. citizen was able to register to vote, and
    that letter was sent in furtherance of protecting the integrity
    of the franchise.
        The Committee will continue to review this case or any case
    happening across the country.
        Let me end with something I think we can all agree on:
    Improving the administration of our elections and ensuring
    voters' voices remain heard should be central to all of these
    discussions. Elections officials on the ground need access to
    the right tools and clear direction in order to do this.
        I look forward to further discussing ways to improve our
    system to bolster election integrity and efficiency across the
    country.
        I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look
    forward to our conversation.
        With that, I yield to Ranking Member Sewell for an opening
    statement.
        [The prepared statement of Chair Lee follows:]

     PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
                               LAUREL LEE

        Today, the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee
    on Elections will continue its oversight of Federal election
    law. 32 years ago, the National Voter Registration Act, or the
    NVRA, was passed with the goal of increasing voter
    registration, removing bureaucratic barriers, and ensuring
    States accurately maintain their voter rolls. Today we will
    discuss ways to strengthen the original goals of the NVRA. Let
    me begin with the great news: According to the Election
    Assistance Commission, today, over 86 percent of the eligible
    voting population are active registered voters. Contrast that
    to 1992--right before the law's passage--when registration was
    at 68 percent. That is a great thing for our democracy.
        As a former secretary of state, it is incumbent on us as
    policymakers to continuously seek feedback from election
    officials on the ground about what works, what can be improved,
    and how changes in technology and resources affect elections
    administration. Throughout my time as Florida's Secretary of
    State and as a Member of Congress, I have had many of those
    discussions--including with other secretaries of state.
        My goal with this hearing is to examine ways we can update
    the NVRA to strengthen voter confidence in our election laws
    and improve election administration. It is my view, and I
    believe that of countless other State and local election
    officials, that thoughtful review and modernization of the NVRA
    will improve elections administration and remove barriers to
    efficiency. The NVRA requires that States conduct a ``general
    program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of
    ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters.''
    This ambiguous language has left courts to issue broad rulings
    about what constitutes general and reasonable. This ultimately
    means States are not required, and sometimes not even
    permitted, to remove ineligible voters due to errors on their
    registration form, lack of U.S. citizenship, criminal
    conviction, mental incapacity, or other reasons consistent with
    State law for which a registration may be invalid.
        Election officials benefit from clear and unambiguous laws,
    which both help them to carry out their duties and ensure voter
    lists are accurate and up to date. We have had witnesses
    testify in this very room about how the NVRA's language
    actually prevents election officials from conducting robust
    list maintenance in the manner they think appropriate. Examples
    include the blackout period for list maintenance, and delays in
    removing voters who have moved to a new jurisdiction. In some
    cases, a voter who has moved must (1) request removal and (2)
    an election official must wait two general election cycles to
    remove the now ineligible voter. We must also recognize that
    modern technology has made certain provisions of the NVRA
    obsolete. While 30 years have passed since the NVRA's
    enactment, many of the functions that still need to be
    performed can now be done more efficiently.
        As another example, the NVRA's language requires States to
    make voter rolls available for inspection by ``photocopying.''
    As a result, a Court of Appeals has found that the State of
    Alabama can charge enormous amounts for printing copies of its
    voter rolls, as opposed to producing and delivering digital
    copies for a fraction of the cost. This is one example of how
    evolving technology has highlighted the need for updating the
    NVRA to better reflect practical realities today.
        Before concluding, I would also like to touch on the
    importance of reviewing and the NVRA when it comes to
    confirming a registrant's citizenship. The NVRA does not
    currently require an applicant to prove their citizenship
    beyond an attestation clause and a signature. One eye-opening
    example of this--which generated significant media headlines--
    is the recent arrest of Ian Roberts, an illegal immigrant who
    successfully registered to vote in Maryland--twice. Last week,
    Chairman Steil and I sent a letter to the Maryland State Board
    of Elections seeking a detailed assessment of how non-U.S.
    citizens are able to register to vote, in furtherance of
    protecting the integrity of the franchise. The Committee will
    continue to investigate cases of this happening across the
    country. Let me end with something I think we all can agree on:
    improving the administration of our elections and ensuring
    voters' voices remain heard should be central to any of these
    discussions. Election officials on the ground need access to
    the right tools and clear direction to do this. I look forward
    to further discussing ways to improve our system to bolster
    election integrity and efficiency in our country.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TERRI A. SEWELL, RANKING MEMBER OF
       THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                                ALABAMA

        Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        As Ranking Member of the Elections Subcommittee and the
    Representative of Alabama's civil rights district, there is
    nothing more important to me than ensuring that every eligible
    voter can register to vote and cast their ballot without facing
    unnecessary barriers. Far too often Americans have to jump
    through unnecessary hurdles to try to make their voices heard.
        Ever since the 2020 election, the American people have been
    bombarded with misinformation and disinformation about the
    integrity of our elections, lied to about the rampant voter
    fraud, and misled by false claims that the 2020 election was
    stolen.
        To make matters worse, State legislatures have used every
    tool in their toolkit at their disposal to enact new barriers
    to the ballot box. Just this year, 47 State legislatures
    attempted to pass 469 restrictive bills to make it even harder
    to vote. Many of these new laws were created to fuel the false
    narrative that our elections are not secure.
        Today, we are here to talk about the potential updates to
    the National Voter Registration Act, a law passed in 1993 with
    the goal to increase voter participation.
        The NVRA is a critical component to our Federal voting
    legislation, and it provides vital access and protections to
    voters as well as guardrails for election officials to conduct
    voter maintenance.
        I believe that proper voter list maintenance is an integral
    part of an election administration, but too often we have seen
    anti-democratic purges of eligible voters conducted in the name
    of valid list maintenance.
        An extremist will stop at nothing to try to convince the
    American people that noncitizens and dead people are voting.
    For example, in my home State of Alabama, our Secretary of
    State proudly proclaimed one day, day one of his
    administration, that he was removing Alabama from the
    Electronic Voter Registration Information Center, or ERIC, a
    nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization of States that
    has proven to be one of the most effective tools for helping
    election officials maintain accurate rolls.
        Unfortunately, our Secretary of State gave into conspiracy
    theories and withdrew Alabama from that organization with no
    plans for how he was going to replace that level of voter list
    maintenance information.
        To make matters worse, Secretary Allen was sued in the fall
    of 2024 after he attempted to conduct an illegal voter purge
    program ahead of the 2024 election, one that threatened to deny
    thousands of qualified citizens in Alabama their right to vote.
        As we discuss any potential updates to the NVRA, we must
    ensure that they are balanced and that we ensure that we
    balance protecting access to the variety of voter registration
    opportunities and ensuring eligible voters are not purged from
    the rolls with proper voter list maintenance.
        We all want cleaner voter rolls, and that requires a
    thoughtful and deliberate approach.
        In July, this Committee held a hearing reviewing voter list
    maintenance standards, during which one of the Republican
    witnesses stated that, quote: ``It has never been easier in the
    United States to register to vote as it is today.''
        It is true that it is easier to register to vote today than
    it was in 1993 when the NVRA was passed. However, at the same
    time, in that hearing we heard from Mary Kay Helling of North
    Carolina about just how many barriers she faced in trying to
    remain on the voter rolls. Despite being a lawfully registered
    voter, Mary Kay told us the story of how long it took her to be
    counted to stay on the voter registration rolls.
        I say all this to say that while there are many ways in
    which we can update the NVRA, we must first acknowledge the
    fact that there is no widespread voter fraud and that the 2020
    election was secure and that too many voters still face
    barriers to the ballot box.
        In fact, instead of making sure every voter can register to
    vote and cast their ballot, the President and this
    administration continue to undermine voter confidence in our
    elections while attempting to circumvent the Constitution and
    erect barriers to voting.
        Voters in Alabama, like everywhere else, continue to face
    many barriers to the ballot box than voters in other States,
    and that is not democracy at work.
        No one benefits when eligible voters are unlawfully purged
    from the rolls. Every effort should be made to ensure before
    anyone is deprived of their right to vote that all laws are
    followed and that the person being removed is a person who
    should be removed.
        I look forward to the hearing today, and I do look forward
    to talking about some updates that we can have, like automatic
    voter registration and same-day registration in States like
    Alabama which will not have it unless we actually mandate it
    nationally.
        I want to commend the Chairwoman for having today's hearing
    and thank all the witnesses for being here. I welcome your
    testimony. Thanks.
        [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Sewell follows:]

      PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                       ELECTIONS TERRI A. SEWELL

        As Ranking Member of the Elections Subcommittee and the
    Representative of Alabama's civil rights district, there is
    nothing more important to me than ensuring that every eligible
    voter can register to vote and cast their ballot without facing
    unnecessary barriers. Far too often Americans have to jump
    through unnecessary hurdles to try to make their voices heard.
        Ever since the 2020 election, the American people have been
    bombarded with misinformation and disinformation about the
    integrity of our elections, lied to about the rampant voter
    fraud, and misled by false claims that the 2020 election was
    stolen. To make matters worse, State legislatures have used
    every tool in their toolkit at their disposal to enact new
    barriers to the ballot box. Just this year, 47 State
    legislatures attempted to pass 469 restrictive bills to make it
    even harder to vote. Many of these new laws were created to
    fuel the false narrative that our elections are not secure.
        Today, we are here to talk about the potential updates to
    the National Voter Registration Act, a law passed in 1993 with
    the goal to increase voter participation. The NVRA is a
    critical component to our Federal voting legislation, and it
    provides vital access and protections to voters as well as
    guardrails for election officials to conduct voter maintenance.
    I believe that proper voter list maintenance is an integral
    part of an election administration, but too often we have seen
    anti democratic purges of eligible voters conducted in the name
    of valid list maintenance.
        An extremist will stop at nothing to try to convince the
    American people that noncitizens and dead people are voting.
    For example, in my home State of Alabama, our Secretary of
    State proudly proclaimed one day, day one of his
    administration, that he was removing Alabama from the
    Electronic Voter Registration Information Center, or ERIC, a
    nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization of States that
    has proven to be one of the most effective tools for helping
    election officials maintain accurate rolls. Unfortunately, our
    Secretary of State gave into conspiracy theories and withdrew
    Alabama from that organization with no plans for how he was
    going to replace that level of voter list maintenance
    information. To make matters worse, Secretary Allen was sued in
    the fall of 2024 after he attempted to conduct an illegal voter
    purge program ahead of the 2024 election, one that threatened
    to deny thousands of qualified citizens in Alabama their right
    to vote.
        As we discuss any potential updates to the NVRA, we must
    ensure that they are balanced and that we ensure that we
    balance protecting access to the variety of voter registration
    opportunities and ensuring eligible voters are not purged from
    the rolls with proper voter list maintenance. We all want
    cleaner voter rolls, and that requires a thoughtful and
    deliberate approach. In July, this Committee held a hearing
    reviewing voter list maintenance standards, during which one of
    the Republican witnesses stated that, quote: ``It has never
    been easier in the United States to register to vote as it is
    today.''
        It is true that it is easier to register to vote today than
    it was in 1993 when the NVRA was passed. However, at the same
    time, in that hearing we heard from Mary Kay Helling of North
    Carolina about just how many barriers she faced in trying to
    remain on the voter rolls. Despite being a lawfully registered
    voter, Mary Kay told us the story of how long it took her to be
    counted to stay on the voter registration rolls. I say all this
    to say that while there are many ways in which we can update
    the NVRA, we must first acknowledge the fact that there is no
    widespread voter fraud and that the 2020 election was secure
    and that too many voters still face barriers to the ballot box.
    In fact, instead of making sure every voter can register to
    vote and cast their ballot, the President and this
    administration continue to undermine voter confidence in our
    elections while attempting to circumvent the Constitution and
    erect barriers to voting. Voters in Alabama, like everywhere
    else, continue to face many barriers to the ballot box than
    voters in other States, and that is not democracy at work.
        No one benefits when eligible voters are unlawfully purged
    from the rolls. Every effort should be made to ensure before
    anyone is deprived of their right to vote that all laws are
    followed and that the person being removed is a person who
    should be removed. I look forward to the hearing today, and I
    do look forward to talking about some updates that we can have,
    like automatic voter registration and same day registration in
    States like Alabama which will not have it unless we actually
    mandate it nationally.

        Chair Lee. Without objection, all other Members' opening
    statements will be made part of the hearing record if they are
    submitted to the Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today.
        Today we have one witness panel. I will now introduce our
    witnesses.
        First, we have Mark Braden, of counsel at Baker and
    Hostetler LLP. Then we have Professor Michael Morley, a
    professor of law and the faculty director of the Election Law
    Center at Florida State University College of Law. Finally, we
    have Sophia Lin Lakin, the director of the ACLU's Voting Rights
    Projects.
        Each witness will have 5 minutes to provide an opening
    statement.
        I now recognize Mr. Braden for the purpose of giving an
    opening statement.

    STATEMENTS OF MR. MARK BRADEN, OF COUNSEL, BAKER HOSTETLER; MR.
     MICHAEL MORLEY, FACULTY DIRECTOR OF THE ELECTION LAW CENTER,
      SHEILA M. MCDEVITT PROFESSOR OF LAW; AND SOPHIA LIN LAKIN,
    DIRECTOR, VOTING RIGHTS PROJECT, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

                        STATEMENT OF MARK BRADEN

        Mr. Braden. I am looking at this room and I see a couple of
    people that I used to work for, Bill Thomas and our rocket
    scientist Vern Ehlers.
        I have spent 50 years working on election-related law
    questions, and it is certainly a pleasure to be invited to
    testify for this Committee on an interest in an area where I
    have basically spent my whole professional life on.
        I used to be counsel to the Ohio Elections Commission, the
    Secretary of State. I used to work for the RNC. Then I was in
    private practice for a long time as outside counsel to this
    Committee on election law matters and contests.
        This Committee has always been composed of very serious
    individuals. Some of the most prominent individuals in the
    history of the Congress have served on this Committee. Many
    former Speakers of the House. In fact, most recently, there was
    a Republican Speaker who used to be a staff director of this
    Committee, Kevin McCarthy.
        This is a very distinguished Committee, and I am very happy
    to have the opportunity to be here.
        There was a time when election laws were viewed as an area
    of cooperation between the two political parties. If you look
    back at history, the most important election changes in my
    lifetime was the 1964 Voting Rights Act, which was supported by
    a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats. It had
    Democrat and Republican sponsors.
        All the revisions to that Act received substantial
    bipartisan support. HAVA to a large degree had bipartisan
    support. We have even had campaign financing regulation, H.R.
    5010, that came out of this Committee, that was a bipartisan
    bill.
        Unfortunately, the Motor Voter bill was not. It ended up
    being passed on a partisan line.
        What I would suggest to you is the value of cooperation
    between the two political parties, because as a starting point
    that cooperation is vital to the confidence in the process.
        Two, as you have mentioned, there are really basically two
    things we are talking about here, which is increasing the level
    of voter registration and improving the quality of the
    registration lists. I have no dispute with the notion that the
    Motor Voter increased the number of people registered to vote.
    You have more people registering to vote post-Motor Voter.
        Of course, there is a balance there. What Motor Voter did
    was invite into the registration business a whole variety of
    locations where it was secondary to their principal purpose. By
    definition, by putting voter registration activities in
    locations other than county clerks, secretaries of state, and
    other election officers, you are going to have people who have
    other things to do. Then, when they get to voter registration,
    they will have to transmit that to the election authorities.
        Those two present problems. I would say that one can look
    at Motor Voter and be comfortable that it has increased the
    number of people registered to vote. I am not so sure you can
    be sure what its impact is on the actual voter turnout.
        Now, the quality of voter State lists is a mixed bag. Some
    States have very high-quality voter lists and some do not. This
    Committee needs to continue to be concerned about the quality
    of the voter lists because of the changes in our system.
        Our system is much more mail-centric than it used to be.
    The mail systems all arise from a central core. The spine of
    that process are voter lists. If you have bad voter lists, then
    you have bad voting processes. We need to be more concerned
    about the quality of voter lists than we might have been in the
    past.
        The additional big change has been in the number of people
    who live in the country who are resident aliens.
        Now, I personally have no knowledge of any significant
    number of nonresident aliens or illegal aliens, resident aliens
    or illegal aliens voting. I absolutely have knowledge that
    there are many people concerned about this issue. I have no
    doubt that it occasionally occurs.
        We need to be concerned about the lists. Whether it is
    simply a question of perception or reality, frankly, makes no
    difference.
        We need to have an election system with two prime
    directives: one, that the winner wins, the person with the most
    vote wins; and, two, that rational supporters of the loser
    believe the winner won.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Braden follows:]

                   PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK BRADEN
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Lee. Mr. Braden, with that you are out of time.
        Mr. Braden. OK.
        Chair Lee. We will go back to further discussion during
    questions.
        I now recognize Professor Morley for the purpose of giving
    an opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MORLEY

        Mr. Morley. Thank you very much. It is an honor to testify
    before this Committee, and I would be happy to assist the
    Committee's important work however I can.
        A sound electoral system is based on three principles.
        First, all eligible voters must have a reasonable
    opportunity to safely cast their ballots and have them counted
    without facing substantial burdens.
        Second, the system must ensure accurate results by
    minimizing the possibility of mistake, irregularity,
    illegality, or fraud.
        Third, the system should bolster public confidence in the
    integrity of the election's results.
        The NVRA and HAVA have promoted voter registration by
    requiring States to offer a range of convenient ways to
    register. They have also enhanced the system's accuracy and
    boosted public confidence by requiring election officials to
    ensure the accuracy of their voter rolls.
        Over the years, opportunities for further improvement have
    become apparent. There are three main types of issues this
    Committee could address.
        First, the NVRA allows States to seek only information
    which is, quote, ``necessary to determine a voter's eligibility
    and administer the election process.'' The NVRA also specifies
    registration forms shall require voters to attest under penalty
    of perjury that they satisfy the State's eligibility
    requirements, including U.S. citizenship.
        Several courts have held that because applicants swear they
    are citizens, it is presumptively unnecessary and therefore
    illegal for States to require them to submit additional
    information concerning their eligibility or citizenship status.
        To be sure, the extent to which noncitizen voting occurs
    has been exaggerated in many public debates. When States have
    identified potential cases of noncitizens being registered to
    vote, they invariably involve a fraction of 1 percent of all
    voter registration from the jurisdiction.
        In a Nation with approximately 28 million noncitizen
    residents, however, it is reasonable for the public to expect
    steps to be taken to ensure noncitizens are not inadvertently
    added to the voter registration rolls.
        A noncitizen might be registered, particularly through a
    lawful transaction at a motor vehicle agency or other
    Government office where voter registration is a potential part
    of the process, for a variety of reasons, such as scrivener's
    errors, language barriers, errors in automatic voter
    registration systems, erroneous assistance, and
    misunderstandings. HAVA allows a person to register even if
    they lack both a Social Security number and a driver's license.
        Even a few hundred or thousand votes can impact the outcome
    of the election, as we from Florida know well as a result of
    Bush v. Gore, to say nothing, of course, of State-level races.
        The NVRA's necessity standard seems unnecessarily
    stringent. The statute should be amended to instead allow
    States to request information reasonably related to confirming
    an applicant's eligibility.
        Second, relatedly, the NVRA and HAVA do not currently
    appear to contemplate the possibility that voter registration
    records will erroneously be added to the database.
        The NVRA currently allows records to be removed only when
    circumstances change. A person must ask for their registration
    to be canceled, be convicted of a crime or declared
    incompetent, move, or die.
        The NVRA does not expressly provide for the removal of
    records of people who were ineligible at the outset and should
    not have been registered in the first place.
        This Committee should amend the NVRA to allow election
    officials to remove ineligible voters, as well as people who
    have subsequently registered to vote in another State after
    affording them due process through notice and an opportunity to
    submit evidence.
        Likewise, when States conduct their NVRA-mandated list
    maintenance programs, they should be required to identify
    voters who are ineligible on any basis rather than only people
    who have died or moved as the NVRA currently requires.
        Finally, the NVRA and HAVA fail to define some key terms.
    For example, the NVRA prohibits election officials from
    implementing a program to, quote, ``systematically remove the
    names of ineligible voters'' during the 90-day so-called quiet
    period before a Federal election.
        This Committee could clarify that the term ``removal'' does
    not include shifting a voter to the inactive list. A voter who
    was recently moved to an inactive list may still vote in an
    impending election so long as they confirm their identity,
    address citizenship or eligibility, depending on what the
    concern is, including at the polling place.
        The Committee could likewise specify that
    ``systematically'' does not include measures that election
    officials take in response to information suggesting that
    particular voters might be ineligible.
        I see my time is drawing to an end, so I will simply say
    other terms in the statute, such as ``uniform and
    nondiscriminatory'' are also undefined, and courts have defined
    them in a variety of ways that this Committee could provide
    definitions for as well.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Morley follows:]

                  PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MORLEY
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Lee. Thank you, Professor Morley.
        I now recognize Ms. Lakin for the purpose of giving an
    opening statement.

                     STATEMENT OF SOPHIA LIN LAKIN

        Ms. Lakin. Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Sewell, and
    Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. I am Sophia Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting
    Rights Project.
        The National Voter Registration Act is a landmark piece of
    bipartisan legislation. Since Congress enacted it over 30 years
    ago it has transformed voter registration in this country for
    the better.
        The NVRA makes registration easier for eligible Americans
    by requiring registration opportunities via the DMVs, public
    assistance agencies, and by mail.
        It has been an extraordinary success. Today more than 50
    million Americans register or update their registration through
    NVRA-established processes every year.
        As the NVRA expanded access, it also promoted more accurate
    voter rolls. In doing so, it struck a careful balance in
    creating processes for list maintenance while establishing
    critical safeguards to ensure that eligible voters are not
    wrongly removed.
        We all want secure, free, and fair elections. That means
    both maintaining accurate rolls and ensuring eligible voters
    can cast ballots that count.
        One of these central safeguards is requiring States to
    complete systematic list maintenance programs no later than 90
    days before Federal elections. This prevents last-minute purges
    that leave voters little time to discover they have been
    removed and get back on the rolls in time to cast a ballot that
    will count.
        States have ample tools to keep their rolls accurate, and
    they are using them. Elections officials removed more than 21
    million voters from the rolls in the last 2 years through
    routine, lawful maintenance. At the same time, almost 1 million
    voters have received NVRA confirmation notices asking if they
    have moved, responded that they hadn't, and were properly
    registered and kept on the rolls. The system works.
        Too often officials launch aggressive, sloppy, or poorly
    timed purges that sweep in large swaths of eligible voters.
    These programs often rely on outdated data, dubious
    methodologies, and inflammatory claims about rampant fraud that
    does not exist.
        For example, in 2024, just 84 days before the election,
    Alabama's Secretary of State announced a purge targeting
    alleged noncitizens using a process he admitted would sweep in
    naturalized citizens. A Federal court stopped it, and it was
    clear right off the bat that well over half of the targeted
    voters were eligible citizens. Most of these wrongly targeted
    were people of color.
        In Virginia, that same year, the Governor ordered a purge
    based on DMV data up to 20 years old, data that failed to
    reflect voters' subsequent naturalization. A Federal court
    found that many removed were eligible citizens who were never
    even informed that they had been purged.
        In Texas in 2019, State officials claimed nearly 100,000
    registered voters were noncitizens. Within a week that number
    collapsed. In Harris County alone, more than half the flagged
    voters were confirmed naturalized citizens, and an audit of the
    remaining names found no noncitizens at all.
        A Federal court found that Texas had, quote, ``created a
    mess'' meant to, quote, ``intimidate the least powerful among
    us.''
        Despite the NVRA's success, the same voices who foment
    disinformation and undermine voter confidence seek to undermine
    the careful balance the NVRA strikes, whether by erecting new
    registration barriers or weakening safeguards that protect
    voters from erroneous removal.
        One example is the so-called SAVE Act which would require
    every eligible American to show up in person with documents
    like a passport just to register to vote. This and any similar
    effort could disenfranchise tens of millions of eligible
    voters, Republicans and Democrats alike.
        Instead, I urge Congress to return to its bipartisan
    tradition of strengthening our voting system by advancing
    measures that expand access and improve accuracy, like online,
    same-day, and automatic voter registration, all of which have
    been proposed in the Freedom to Vote Act, and to provide
    election officials with the stable Federal funding they need to
    administer elections effectively.
        The integrity of our elections is not threatened by
    widespread noncitizen voting, a problem that simply does not
    exist. It is threatened by unnecessary aggressive purges that
    strike eligible voters from the rolls and by barriers that
    prevent eligible Americans from registering in the first place.
        Congress should reject measures that would weaken the
    NVRA's protections and instead strengthen the systems that make
    our democracy work.
        Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lakin follows:]

                 PREPARED STATEMENT OF SOPHIA LIN LAKIN
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Lee. Thank you, Ms. Lakin.
        I will begin our questions today, followed by the Ranking
    Member. I now recognize myself for the purpose of questioning
    our witnesses.
        Professor Morley, I would like to begin by going back to
    you. You touched on something there at the end of your
    testimony that related to other terms in the NVRA that you have
    observed to be interpreted differently or inconsistently by the
    courts. Would you elaborate, please?
        Mr. Morley. Yes. Thank you very much, Chairwoman.
        The NVRA and HAVA in various places require uniform and
    nondiscriminatory treatment of voters but have left those two
    key terms, ``uniform and nondiscriminatory,'' undefined.
        There have been cases in which election officials have
    received information about particular voters suggesting either
    they were ineligible or there was some other concern with
    regard to a particular group of voters and subjected them to
    additional information requests, attempting to confirm their
    eligibility, and this was held to violate the ``uniform and
    nondiscriminatory'' requirements in HAVA and the NVRA because
    certain voters were being asked for information, or certain
    voters were being subjected to additional procedures to confirm
    their eligibility, rather than all voters, and so they were
    enjoined.
        In part, I suggest that the term ``uniform'' specify that
    similarly situated voters need to be treated similarly, but
    nothing in the statute is meant to preclude election officials
    from confirming the eligibility of a particular voter or
    particular voters if there is reason to believe that there
    might be a concern about their status.
        Likewise, the term ``nondiscriminatory,'' in order to be
    given an independent definition, an independent meaning, not
    just being redundant, should be defined in terms of the
    Constitution's prohibitions on discrimination against various
    groups of voters, the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, et
    cetera.
        Thank you very much.
        Chair Lee. Thank you, Professor Morley.
        Mr. Braden, I would like to go back to something you
    touched on during your testimony as well, and it was the notion
    that as mail voting, voting by mail, becomes more and more
    common, that the quality and accuracy of lists is all the more
    important.
        Would you please elaborate on the points you were making
    during that part of your testimony and why in today's date that
    the accuracy of those lists is so important?
        Mr. Braden. Well, mail voting is pieces of mail go out to
    lists. If the list is not any good, the people being asked to
    vote or trying to vote by mail will be bad. It is not more
    complicated than that.
        Mail voting is definitely a more dangerous process for the
    security of the ballot process than in-person voting, there is
    just no question about that, because you do not have the
    secrecy of the ballot, you do not have a polling place where
    you can be sure there is not undue influence or there is not
    coercion. By voting from mail we get rid of those safeguards.
        Then we are dependent upon the U.S. mail. The State of
    California sends out million of ballots. What percentage of
    first-class mail does not get delivered or does not get
    delivered timely?
        I have had a difficult time figuring out what that number
    is. I have seen everything from half a percent to 4 percent.
        What does that mean? That means tens of thousands of
    ballots in California sent--hopefully to registered voters who
    are qualified to vote--will not make an appearance and will not
    get counted. That is a big problem.
        There is a reason why almost all the other Western-style
    democracies do not use mail voting. They only use mail voting
    for absentee. A mail voting system has problems.
        Now, the President of the United States issued an executive
    order attempting to ban mail voting. It did not appear to me
    why he had authority to do that. I do not believe I can figure
    out where that authority is.
        I do think that authority resides here with the Congress
    and/or with the State. I am realistic. I do not think you can
    politically make that happen, as much as I would like.
        Chair Lee. Thank you, Mr. Braden.
        Professor Morley, back to you. If you would tell us--you
    touched on the concept of the blackout period and ways in which
    you believe the blackout period could be improved. Would you
    specify what you think we could do as Congress to improve the
    clarity or process or timing of the blackout period?
        Mr. Morley. Thank you very much.
        One of the issues which I had already raised is clarifying
    what does removal mean, right? Congress' original goal was to
    prevent a voter from being removed from the list at the very
    last minute. They had no notice, they no opportunity to prove
    their eligibility to vote.
        One potential issue is, is the current blackout period too
    long? Currently, because it is based on each Federal election,
    primary elections is treated separate from the general
    elections. In every even-numbered year, 180 days of that year
    is a blackout period. It is literally illegal for election
    officials for half of the year, every Federal election year, to
    engage in a program to confirm that their rolls are----
        Chair Lee. Thank you, Professor Morley. I asked you a
    question at the end of my 5 minutes. We are out of time.
        At this point, I now recognize Ranking Member Sewell for 5
    minutes for the purpose of questioning our witnesses.
        Ms. Sewell. Ms. Lakin, I know that Section 8 of the NVRA
    basically gives States a certain number of days to finalize
    their voter list maintenance before the primaries and before a
    general election. I think it is 90 days.
        You mentioned in your testimony that far too often that
    States take advantage of this voter protection by conducting
    aggressive voter purges to remove certain groups of citizens
    from voting.
        Can you talk to us about the ways in which the NVRA's
    protections have been used to stop improper voter purges?
        Ms. Lakin. Yes, absolutely.
        We have, unfortunately, seen overzealous list maintenance
    efforts often framed as simple enforcement of existing voter--
    of requirements. In practice they rely on outdated data, fraud
    methodologies, and bad proxies for eligibility.
        For example, States often use Government databases
    indicating that someone is not a citizen, but that data can be
    decades old, and critically can fail to reflect someone's
    naturalization.
        We have seen this time and time again. Unfortunately, we
    have needed to have concrete protections for this. For example,
    the 90-day quiet period that you were mentioning ensures that
    this type of database systemic list maintenance is not
    occurring so close to the election such that voters are not
    able to get notice of a problem, that they have been removed,
    and then subsequently fix the problem and therefore be able to
    vote.
        Ms. Sewell. You know, you have mentioned my State--I did in
    my opening remarks as well--the fact that my Secretary of State
    conducted a voter purge of lists. It turns out that half of the
    voters that were on there were actually eligible voters.
        Can you talk to us a little bit about how the National
    Voter Registration Act has protections against that kind of
    illegal purging?
        Ms. Lakin. Well, exactly it is the case. You gave the
    example of Alabama. I mentioned a similar situation in
    Virginia, a similar situation in many other States in my
    written testimony.
        Because of this quiet period that is in place, individuals,
    organizations, civil rights organizations, the United States
    Department of Justice at the time actually went into court to
    sue and say, actually, you cannot engage in this kind of
    systematic list maintenance during this period of time and it
    needs to be halted.
        That was good for voters because, as I mentioned, these
    particular flawed, aggressive purges inevitably flagged
    eligible voters, sometimes a very substantial number.
        Ms. Sewell. Like in Alabama.
        Ms. Lakin. Absolutely.
        Ms. Sewell. Now, this hearing is about how we can update
    the National Voter Registration Act. Can you suggest--I think
    that access to the ballot box is critically important. Frankly,
    all examples you gave also suggest that what we really should
    be focusing on is to make sure that people have access to the
    ballot box and not barriers and voter suppression.
        Can you talk a little bit about what kinds of updates you
    would do if you were sitting where we are sitting.
        Ms. Lakin. Absolutely. I completely agree. We should be
    focused on ensuring that voters are able--eligible voters,
    every single one is able to cast a ballot that is counted.
        Instead of focusing on policies that potentially could
    disenfranchise millions of voters, we should be focused on
    making it easier for Americans to vote with measures like same-
    day registration, online voter registration, automatic voter
    registration.
        I would also add that Congress should be prioritizing
    providing funding for election officials to be able to
    administer their elections.
        Ms. Sewell. I could not agree more. We need to definitely
    give more funding for election procedures and administration.
        I think that there are eight States that actually have vote
    by mail. From what I can tell, Oregon is one of them. They have
    84 percent returns of their voting. I know that in this hearing
    there has been an indictment against vote by mail, but I was
    wondering if you could add your take on this.
        Ms. Lakin. Yes, absolutely. Mail voting has been a critical
    form of voting for many, many voters who otherwise it is very,
    very difficult for them to be able to cast a ballot, including
    voters with disabilities, voters who live in rural areas, and
    have been used increasingly by voters of color and the like to
    be able to exercise their right to vote.
        We have not seen problems with this in great numbers and
    certainly nothing to justify a mass removal of this really
    critical tool to vote.
        Ms. Sewell. Absolutely.
        I just think that at the end of the day there are updates
    that we can make. Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to working
    with you on trying to make sure that we have a balance between
    making sure that we are providing access and at the same time
    making sure that no one who is ineligible cannot vote.
        Before I yield back, I want to ask for unanimous consent to
    enter into the record a statement from the League of Women
    Voters, which highlights that the NVRA must maintain its power
    to protect voters and facilitate voter registration.
        Chair Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The League of Women Voters statement referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Lee. I now recognize the Representative from
    Illinois, Mrs. Miller, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee and Chairman Steil,
    for convening this hearing on the NVRA, also known as the Motor
    Vehicle Act.
        As a Member of Congress from a State that has a long
    history of election fraud and irregularities--that would be
    Illinois--I am deeply concerned about the integrity of our
    elections, both in my State and nationally.
        As we discussed in a previous hearing, States like Illinois
    systematically refuse to establish standards to maintain clean
    voter rolls and prevent noncitizens from voting.
        As States give driver's licenses and CDLs to noncitizens
    and illegal aliens at record rates, I believe that NVRA's
    safeguards against these noncitizens being registered to vote
    are inadequate and need significant reforms.
        Congress must act to update the NVRA to account for States
    that refuse to follow the law, and I appreciate the opportunity
    to speak with our witnesses about this critical issue.
        First, Professor Morley, this past July our full Committee
    held a hearing on how the NVRA can restrict best practices for
    clean voter rolls. In today's hearing, we want to look at which
    parts of the NVRA should be amended to bring greater confidence
    to our elections. The case of Ian Roberts makes this all the
    more pressing.
        In your opinion, what should be our highest priority in
    fixing Motor Voter?
        Mr. Morley. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
        Specifically with regard to list maintenance, as I
    mentioned before, one of the main reforms that the Committee
    could consider making to the NVRA would be expanding the list
    of criteria that election officials are required to use when
    conducting the federally mandated list maintenance. As of right
    now, they are only required to identify voters who have died
    or, I believe, who have moved.
        There are a variety of circumstances under which a person
    could be ineligible to vote; particularly they have registered
    somewhere else; they are not a citizen, so should not have been
    put on the list to begin with.
        The NVRA could be amended in order to require election
    officials during this already mandated list maintenance to
    identify voters who are ineligible for any reason rather than
    just two particular reasons, as the statute is currently
    drafted.
        One other thing is to improve the quality of information.
    This Committee could consider expanding the databases to which
    election officials are required to interact. This was something
    more on the HAVA end than on the NVRA end. Currently, HAVA
    requires election officials to enter into agreements with their
    State motor vehicle agency in order to exchange data. They also
    require agreements with the Social Security Administration to
    exchange data.
        There is at least one major source of information, the
    Federal SAVE database, which has citizenship information. The
    State of Florida was actually recently in litigation with the
    Federal Government to try to expand access to that.
        This Committee could look at the possibility of either
    requiring States to enter into agreements to receive
    information from the SAVE database, or potentially even other
    databases to the extent that there are other agencies that have
    information concerning citizenship that could be shared with
    States.
        Alternatively, cross-checking against such databases could
    be part of the mandatory list maintenance process that States
    are required to engage in on an ongoing basis.
        When election officials are updating their databases, they
    are not looking to throw eligible voters off the rolls. To the
    extent this Committee can make better quality information
    available to them, to the extent this Committee could require
    the Government to share citizenship-related data with them,
    that will both help officials remove ineligible voters while
    protecting vulnerable voters, while protecting people from
    erroneously being flagged as potentially ineligible.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Those are very helpful suggestions.
        Mr. Braden, when first considered, Motor Voter was written
    to remove barriers and facilitate voter registration. This,
    unfortunately, led some States to remove verification
    requirements for the answers that applicants provided.
        Just this year, the Maryland State Board of Elections found
    that an illegal immigrant named Ian Roberts successfully
    registered to vote and requested absentee ballots in three
    different elections.
        Would verification requirements such as documentary proof
    of citizenship have prevented Ian Roberts from illegally
    voting?
        Mr. Braden. The answer to that is probably yes. It depends
    on the details. We have a variety of technologies available to
    us that we are not using which this Committee could statutorily
    encourage or require.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
        Chair Lee. Thank you.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee,
    Mr. Morelle, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank the witnesses for being here and for your interest in
    this important subject. It is an important subject.
        I had an opening statement. I apologize for being delayed
    with other matters. I will just submit that to the record, if I
    might.

     PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF
     THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
                             FROM NEW YORK
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Morelle. I do want to just start. Fundamentally, this
    voting rights legislation which we are talking about, when it
    was signed into law, President Clinton said: ``The principle
    behind the legislation is clear: Voting should be about
    discerning the will of the majority''--and, presumably, of the
    people--``not about testing the administrative capacity of a
    citizen.''
        It is sort of interesting that the whole notion of this is
    about making sure we make it as easy as possible for citizens
    to be able to discharge their rights to be able to vote. It is
    fundamental to what we do as Americans, fundamental to our
    democracy.
        I want to continue to send the message that American
    elections are secure. State election officials, local election
    officials, I have not found one Democrat or Republican who is
    not so devoted to the work that they do and recognize the
    serious role that they play in making sure that the democracy
    functions.
        There is no one who wants people voting fraudulently. I
    will say, the degree to which we look behind every tree and
    behind everything and make assumptions that fraud occurs I find
    somewhat astonishing. I mean, I feel like there is a boogeyman
    everywhere, and the obsession with it, the fascination with
    it--or, if you are more cynical, the darkness behind it--is
    really about limiting access that people might have to vote.
        I note, for instance, I was recently with a number of
    Members from Oregon where voting by mail has been the case for
    decades. There are no widespread accusations that in Oregon
    elections are not fair. Almost everyone votes by mail. I think
    that is true in the State of Washington. It is true in the
    State of Colorado. It is largely true in the State of Arizona.
    It is all of a sudden they say, oh, we have to be careful, all
    these people are voting fraudulently.
        No one can ever identify anyone who is. Even when it comes
    to the notion that undocumented folks are voting in massive
    numbers to corrupt elections, it is extraordinary, because you
    cannot find any evidence that it happens.
        I remember as a kid, say, have you ever seen a pink
    elephant? Say, well, there is no such thing as pink elephants.
    I do not know. Have you ever seen one? Somehow that proves that
    there are pink elephants, the fact that no one has ever seen
    one. It is kind of the same thing.
        We should just remember that the point of this is to make
    it easy for people to use technology, use the mail.
        Frankly, we file taxes by mail, that is one of the most
    important things we do, and people verify it. There are a
    hundred things we do by mail where no one has ever suggested we
    should go--could you imagine if we made every single American
    file their taxes in person at a registrar somewhere in our
    local county? No one would even consider it. It would be
    absurd.
        Having said that, mail is safe. Frankly, some of the
    arguments for doing some of the things that we have talked
    about sound awfully reminiscent of the 1930's and 1940's and
    1950's where people were given simple literacy tests before
    they could vote. It turned out it was like reciting word for
    word the United States Constitution or guessing the number of
    jelly beans in a jar, because it was really certain people we
    did not want to vote. I would certainly hope that is not what
    we are doing.
        I would always join with my colleagues in efforts to make
    sure that we make clear that there is no double voting, that we
    know who is voting, but to the greatest extent possible make
    sure that every single American uses not only their right, but
    their God-given inalienable right to be able to cast a vote.
        I do have a question. I am sorry I am down to my last
    minute, but I wanted to get that off my chest.
        I appreciate what you said, Mr. Braden, about your belief
    that there is no Presidential authority to use an executive
    order. I do not want to misquote you. I think that is what you
    said, that you thought it was Congress as well.
        Mr. Braden. That is correct. I do not believe there is.
        Mr. Morelle. Yes. Thank you all for your testimony, for
    being here.
        Ms. Lakin, would you agree with that as well, that it is
    the States and the Congress have the authority, but not the
    President?
        Ms. Lakin. Yes, absolutely. The Constitution is clear on
    that score. Only Congress and the States can set the rules for
    elections. The President has no role in that.
        Mr. Morelle. Mr. Morley, would you concur, or do you have a
    different opinion?
        Mr. Morley. I agree.
        Mr. Morelle. Yes, thank you.
        Let me--well, I am running out of time. Five minutes goes
    by so quickly, does not it, Madam Chair? I will follow up with
    our witnesses.
        Again, very much appreciate you being here and appreciate
    the hearing and all the good work. Thanks so much.
        I yield back.
        Chair Lee. Thank you.
        I now recognize the Representative from Texas, Ms. Johnson,
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
        I am so happy that we are having this hearing today. Voting
    is a fundamental and most important right that we have in this
    country.
        I come from--I hail from the State of Texas and we have had
    our own fair share of challenges in voting. I can see by the
    expressions on your face that you all agree that voting and the
    access to the ballot is particularly difficult in Texas.
        I want to acknowledge none of us want voter fraud. I do not
    think any Republican or Democrat or anyone in this country
    supports voter fraud. Only those who are eligible to vote
    should be able to vote.
        Just like my colleague was just saying, there is no
    evidence that there is widespread voter fraud, and that
    certainly has been the case in Texas.
        I want to reframe this notion of election integrity.
    Election integrity should be about making sure, ensuring that
    every eligible voter has the right to vote, not focusing on
    making sure that people who do not have access to vote vote.
        It is the reverse of thought. It is the reverse of
    priority. It is making sure that those in rural Texas can get
    access to a ballot box; making sure that those that do not have
    access to transportation can get to the ballot box; making sure
    that those who have disabilities or who are just working can
    get to the ballot box; making sure that young people can get
    registered to vote; that they are not disenfranchised from
    that.
        Our rules and our system of laws seem to focus more on how
    can we exclude people from participating in the process more so
    than how can we encourage people from participating in the
    process.
        I was part of the Texas Legislature, and I broke quorum
    over an elections bill. We had a big old fight over election
    integrity. One of the big issues was that Republicans put in
    this bill a provision to make it a felony, equal to kidnapping,
    rape, murder, a felony for driving more than three people to
    the polls. How is that even remotely appropriate?
        Now, we ultimately got that bill, that provision struck,
    because we had to leave the State for 6 weeks and make a big
    old thing about it.
        That should have never been in a voting integrity bill. In
    fact, we should have had provisions of how can we make it for
    coworkers to get to the polls? How can we have voting hours?
    How can we have an online national registration? Because we had
    a hearing in this very Committee over voter registration
    purges, roll purges, when people move State to State. There was
    not any meaningful solution to how to address that.
        I think we should have a national voting registration act,
    where you can register to vote, and that is just good. If you
    are an American citizen you can register to vote in this
    country and you should be able to do it online.
        If we have the ability to pay our taxes online, if the
    Government can accept--if it is safe enough to accept our
    money, it should be safe enough to accept our vote.
        I digress. Again, you are right, Mr. Chairman--Mr. Ranking
    Member--time goes by way too fast.
        I guess my question is to you, Ms. Lakin. I mean, you were
    part of the voter purge case in Texas where our Governor tried
    to kick hundreds of thousands of people wrongfully off the
    poll.
        What would online voter registration do to enable greater
    participation? Because one of the things I am most concerned
    about is we do not have enough percentage of our country that
    actually votes, because we make it too hard for young people to
    go. If you cannot do it on your phone, and if you are under 25,
    you are incompetent to function outside of that.
        I mean, what can we do? What is your sense on voter
    registration online? How could that improve our process?
        Ms. Lakin. Thank you for the question.
        Online voter registration would expand the opportunity for
    voters to both register to vote in the first instance and
    update their registration. I think that is also critical, just
    giving people more and more opportunities, more touch points to
    be able to get registered.
        By allowing voters to have that opportunity to also provide
    their updated information and the like, it has the benefit of,
    like the NVRA asks for, also improving list--accurate list
    maintenance, accurate voter rolls, and the like. You get both
    in this type of reform.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much.
        Unfortunately, I am out of time. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chair Lee. Thank you.
        I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before us
    today. Members of the Committee may have additional questions
    for you, and we ask that you please respond to those questions
    in writing.
        Without objection, each Member will have five legislative
    days to insert additional material into the record or to revise
    and extend their remarks.
        [The written statement of the Southern Poverty Law Center
    referred to follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Lee. If there is no further business, I thank the
    Members for their participation.
        Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                               [all]