[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]