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

                          MAKE ELECTIONS GREAT AGAIN:
                            HOW TO RESTORE TRUST AND
                         INTEGRITY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 10, 2026

                                   __________

          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
    63-001                      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

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               Opening Statements

    Chairman Bryan Steil, Representative from the State of Wisconsin.     1
        Prepared statement of Chairman Bryan Steil...................    17
    Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of
      New York.......................................................    18
        Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle..........    20

                                   Witnesses

    Honorable Chuck Gray, Wyoming Secretary of State.................    21
        Prepared statement of Chuck Gray.............................    24
    Honorable Ann Bollin, Michigan State Representative..............    27
        Prepared statement of Ann Bollin.............................    30
    Mr. T. Russ Nobile, senior attorney, Judicial Watch..............    37
        Prepared statement of T. Russ Nobile.........................    39
    Ms. Karen Brinson Bell, former executive director, North Carolina
      State Board of Elections.......................................    69
        Prepared statement of Karen Brinson Bell.....................    71

                           Submissions for the Record

    Washington Post article..........................................     4
    Axios article....................................................     9
    Valdosta Today article...........................................    16
    League of Women Voters statement.................................    81
    FairVote Action statement........................................    86
    National Association of Counties letter..........................    91
    New York Times article...........................................    93
    Wyoming voter fraud report.......................................    98
    Heritage Foundation election fraud map...........................   100
    Dean C. Logan testimony..........................................   107
    J. Kenneth Blackwell testimony...................................   122

                          MAKE ELECTIONS GREAT AGAIN:
                            HOW TO RESTORE TRUST AND
                         INTEGRITY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS

                                  ----------

                               February 10, 2026

                     Committee on House Administration,
                                      House of Representatives,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in
    room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Steil, Loudermilk, Griffith, Bice,
    Carey, Lee, Miller, Morelle, Sewell, Torres, and Johnson.
        Staff present: Mike Platt, Staff Director; Rachel Collins,
    General Counsel; Abby Salter, Deputy General Counsel; Josh
    Weber, Counsel; Cole Hernandez, Counsel; Jordan Wilson,
    Director of Member Services; Kristen Monterroso, Director of
    Operations; Annemarie Cake, Professional Staff and Deputy
    Clerk; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Khalil Abboud,
    Minority Deputy Staff Director; Nikolas Youngsmith, Minority
    Policy Director; Sarah Nasta, Minority Senior Advisor and
    Director of Outreach; and Owen Reilly, Minority Senior Advisor.

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

        Chairman Steil. The Committee on House Administration will
    come to order.
        The title of today's hearing is ``Making Elections Great
    Again: How to Restore Trust and Integrity in Federal
    Elections.''
        I note that a quorum is present.
        Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
    time.
        Also, without objection, the hearing record will remain
    open for 5 legislative days so Members may submit any materials
    they wish to be included therein.
        Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle, Members of the
    Committee, and our witnesses for participating in our hearing
    today.
        I will now recognize myself for the purpose of making an
    opening statement.
        Article I, section 4 of the United States Constitution
    grants the power to regulate the ``time, place, and manner'' of
    Federal elections. However, the Constitution also gives
    Congress the power to make or alter those regulations at any
    time.
        Federal election law was last updated in 2009. In the years
    since, voter confidence has dropped. The Biden administration's
    failed immigration policies resulted in over 10 million illegal
    aliens pouring into our country during that time period. Some
    States send every registered voter a ballot. Fourteen States do
    not require photo identification.
        This is why Congress must implement common-sense election
    integrity reforms. This is why I have introduced the Make
    Elections Great Again Act, or the MEGA Act.
        Here is the top line. Elections should end on election day.
    You should need a photo identification to cast a ballot. You
    must be a citizen of the United States of America to vote in a
    Federal election. We need auditable paper ballots. We should
    not be sending ballots to people that do not request them.
        These reforms alone will improve voter confidence,
    strengthen election integrity, and continue to make it easy to
    vote and hard to cheat.
        This is a product of years of work and collaboration. We
    sought feedback from State and local election officials. We
    continue that dialogue here today.
        Delays in election results weaken voter confidence.
    Thousands of ballots cannot arrive days after election day,
    which is exactly what I witnessed when I was at Los Angeles
    County Central Count days after the November 2024 election.
        Noncitizens on voter rolls weaken voter confidence. We
    cannot allow someone to say that they are a citizen simply by
    registering to vote by simply checking a box--without
    verification.
        For example, that is exactly what Ian Roberts, an illegal
    alien, did when he registered to vote in the State of Maryland.
        Stories like this undermine America's trust in our
    elections. We are here to fix that.
        Today you may hear Democrats make outlandish claims about
    these common-sense policies. Former Senate Majority Leader
    Chuck Schumer recently called these proposals ``Jim crow 2.0.''
    Leader Jeffries repeatedly referred to these policies as
    ``voter suppression.''
        Those statements are false, and they insult the
    intelligence of the American people.
        They are also the exact same arguments that were made when
    Georgia passed their election integrity law in 2021. As you may
    recall, major corporations took out full-page ads in newspapers
    decrying the bill. Major League Baseball moved the All-Star
    Game out of Atlanta.
        President Biden called the Georgia law--you guessed it--
    ``Jim Crow 2.0.'' Stacey Abrams, the twice-failed Georgia
    gubernatorial candidate, never hesitated to call it voter
    ``suppression.''
        They were wrong then, as Democrats are wrong now.
        In Georgia, the law passed. Georgia has held two statewide
    elections since. What does this tell us? We can look at the
    empirical data, and the data tells a far different story than
    the Democrats would like it to do.
        Let us take a minute and review what has taken place in
    Georgia. Without objection, I would like to insert three news
    articles to the record:
        ``Voting is surging in Georgia despite controversial new
    election law'' from The Washington Post--yes, The Washington
    Post.
        Axios: ``Record-breaking early voting in Georgia Senate
    runoff.''
        And Valdosta Today: ``University of Georgia post-election
    poll dispels voter suppression myth.''
        All entered into the record. I encourage you to read them.
        [The articles referred to follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The independent Georgia survey referenced in the last
    article I think is really important to explore further.
        The University of Georgia did a large and substantive
    review of the Georgia 2022 general election after the election
    integrity legislation was passed.
        Ninety-five percent of voters reported ``excellent'' or
    ``good'' in their experience of the election, and that positive
    impression was across all key demographic groups. That is
    important, because, notably, zero percent of Black voters
    reported a ``poor'' or negative experience in the State of
    Georgia statistically. Additionally, 75 percent of voters
    waited less than 10 minutes in line to cast a ballot.
        What does all this mean?
        The common-sense reforms House Republicans are proposing
    today will ensure it remains easy to vote but hard to cheat.
        Elections should end on election day.
        You need a photo ID to cast a ballot.
        You need to be a citizen to vote.
        You need an auditable paper trail.
        You should not mail a ballot to people that do not request
    them.
        These are common sense. That is why they are popular. It is
    time we make them standard in American elections.
        Today we have an opportunity to have this conversation and
    to move forward on real and substantive election integrity in
    the United States.
        I thank our witnesses for being here today.
        I now will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5
    minutes for the purpose of providing his opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]

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

        Article I, section 4 of the United States Constitution
    grants the power to regulate the ``time, place, and manner'' of
    Federal elections. However, the Constitution also gives
    Congress the power to make or alter those regulations at any
    time. Federal election law was last updated in 2009. In the
    years since, voter confidence has dropped. The Biden
    administration's failed immigration policies resulted in over
    10 million illegal aliens pouring into our country during that
    time period. Some States send every registered voter a ballot.
    Fourteen States do not require photo identification.
        This is why Congress must implement common-sense election
    integrity reforms. This is why I have introduced the Make
    Elections Great Again Act, or the MEGA Act.
        Here is the top line. Elections should end on election day.
    You should need a photo identification to cast a ballot. You
    must be a citizen of the United States of America to vote in a
    Federal election. We need auditable paper ballots. We should
    not be sending ballots to people that do not request them.
        These reforms alone will improve voter confidence,
    strengthen election integrity, and continue to make it easy to
    vote and hard to cheat. This is a product of years of work and
    collaboration. We sought feedback from State and local election
    officials. We continue that dialogue here today. Delays in
    election results weaken voter confidence. Thousands of ballots
    cannot arrive days after election day, which is exactly what I
    witnessed when I was at Los Angeles County Central Count days
    after the November 2024 election.
        Noncitizens on voter rolls weaken voter confidence. We
    cannot allow someone to say that they are a citizen simply by
    registering to vote by simply checking a box--without
    verification.
        For example, that is exactly what Ian Roberts, an illegal
    alien, did when he registered to vote in the State of Maryland.
    Stories like this undermine America's trust in our elections.
    We are here to fix that. Today you may hear Democrats make
    outlandish claims about these common-sense policies. Former
    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recently called these
    proposals ``Jim crow 2.0.'' Leader Jeffries repeatedly referred
    to these policies as ``voter suppression.''
        Those statements are false, and they insult the
    intelligence of the American people. They are also the exact
    same arguments that were made when Georgia passed their
    election integrity law in 2021. As you may recall, major
    corporations took out full page ads in newspapers decrying the
    bill. Major League Baseball moved the All Star Game out of
    Atlanta. President Biden called the Georgia law--you guessed
    it--``Jim Crow 2.0.'' Stacey Abrams, the twice failed Georgia
    gubernatorial candidate, never hesitated to call it voter
    ``suppression.'' They were wrong then, as Democrats are wrong
    now. In Georgia, the law passed. Georgia has held two statewide
    elections since. What does this tell us? We can look at the
    empirical data, and the data tells a far different story than
    the Democrats would like it to do. Let us take a minute and
    review what has taken place in Georgia. Without objection, I
    would like to insert three news articles to the record:
    ``Voting is surging in Georgia despite controversial new
    election law'' from The Washington Post--yes, The Washington
    Post. Axios: ``Record breaking early voting in Georgia Senate
    runoff.'' And Valdosta Today: ``University of Georgia post
    election poll dispels voter suppression myth.'' All entered
    into the record. I encourage you to read them. The independent
    Georgia survey referenced in the last article I think is really
    important to explore further.
        The University of Georgia did a large and substantive
    review of the Georgia 2022 general election after the election
    integrity legislation was passed. Ninety-five percent of voters
    reported ``excellent'' or ``good'' in their experience of the
    election, and that positive impression was across all key
    demographic groups. That is important, because, notably, zero
    percent of Black voters reported a ``poor'' or negative
    experience in the State of Georgia statistically. Additionally,
    75 percent of voters waited less than 10 minutes in line to
    cast a ballot. What does all this mean?
        The common-sense reforms House Republicans are proposing
    today will ensure it remains easy to vote but hard to cheat.
    Elections should end on election day. You need a photo ID to
    cast a ballot. You need to be a citizen to vote. You need an
    auditable paper trail. You should not mail a ballot to people
    that do not request them. These are common sense. That is why
    they are popular. It is time we make them standard in American
    elections. Today we have an opportunity to have this
    conversation and to move forward on real and substantive
    election integrity in the United States.

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

        Mr. Morelle. Good morning.
        Thank you, Chairman Steil.
        Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
        There is nothing to gain and everything to lose from hiding
    from the truth, because the truth is our last best line of
    defense--defense against an administration willing to abandon
    any pretense at honesty or integrity as they try desperately
    and corruptly to cling to power, an administration that long
    ago surrendered any imperative they felt to tell the truth.
        When Federal agents gunned down American citizens on the
    streets of Minneapolis, first a mother and then an ICU nurse
    that had veterans as his patients, this administration's first
    instinct was to try to deceive the public.
        Two, despite video evidence, spread false claims about the
    events leading up to the murders, to smear dead Americans,
    calling them domestic terrorists.
        In the face of this dishonesty, those of us who would
    defend this Republic have a moral obligation to say forcefully,
    loudly what we know to be true, and this is what we know:
    Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are terrified that
    they will lose the next election.
        The American people over and over again for the past year
    have rejected the President's policies at the ballot box;
    resounding defeats for Trump-aligned candidate across the
    country, from Virginia to Texas, and this weekend in the
    Speaker's home State of Louisiana.
        Because President Trump has done nothing to make the lives
    of the American people better, nothing to make things less
    expensive, nothing to make us safer.
        Because of these failures, Republicans know they have one
    hope at winning the next election:
        Change the rules of the game, destroy the rule of law, and
    desert any last remaining shred of allegiance to the United
    States Constitution.
        Redrawing congressional lines to make them better for
    Republicans, changing the rules of elections, brutalizing
    American citizens who exercise their rights under the U.S.
    Constitution.
        This scheme is not just how Republicans plan to take over
    our elections, it is how they plan to take over our country, to
    irrevocably destroy the American principles of peace,
    prosperity, equality that we all hold dear.
        I want the administration to know, and anyone who would
    align with them, people on this Committee, we see what you are
    doing. We will not let it happen.
        That is why Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member
    Bennie Thompson and I sent a letter to this Committee and the
    Chairman last week. We requested the Committee hear directly
    from Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary Noem about the
    Trump administration's attempt to extort an American State,
    holding Minnesotans hostage literally at the barrel of a gun in
    exchange for voter file information.
        If this majority cared about election integrity, why aren't
    we investigating this horrendous abuse of power? Why aren't we
    demanding answers from this DOJ, from this DHS, from the
    administration that, by the President's own admission, wants to
    nationalize elections to help Republicans win?
        He says the quiet part out loud: Help Republicans win.
        Today we are apparently discussing the Make Elections Great
    Again Act, or at least I think that is what it is about,
    because Republicans cannot seem to decide.
        Our House colleagues have been talking about the SAVE
    America Act. We are voting on that bill tomorrow. Senate
    Republicans are talking about the SAVE Act.
        Really, all these bills have the same outcome: They are the
    Trump elections takeover bills. We know this because the
    President has said so himself. He said we want to take over. We
    should take over the voting in at least 15 places. The
    Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.
        Where are the Republicans who once claimed they believed in
    the power of States to run elections? Because these bills will
    destroy that State power.
        This bill gives nine separate authorities to the Department
    of Homeland Security, the Department that has unleashed ICE and
    Border Patrol onto our streets, harassing and attacking
    American citizens to interfere in State and local elections.
        Even some congressional Republicans have called on
    Secretary Noem to resign. Why would we give her access to
    personal, private information of American voters?
        What is more, this bill gives Pam Bondi the power to
    unilaterally withhold all election funding to any State she
    chooses.
        I ask the American people this: Do you want Donald Trump
    running your elections? Do you want Pam Bondi or Kristi Noem
    running your elections?
        I want every American to know, this is not President
    Trump's election to take over. It is yours. He wants to take
    your power for himself.
        You, the American people, will determine the outcome of
    midterm elections, not Donald Trump, not Kristi Noem, not Pam
    Bondi.
        We see what the administration is planning, and we will
    stop them, even if congressional Republicans will not.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]

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

        There is nothing to gain and everything to lose from hiding
    from the truth, because the truth is our last best line of
    defense--defense against an administration willing to abandon
    any pretense at honesty or integrity as they try desperately
    and corruptly to cling to power, an administration that long
    ago surrendered any imperative they felt to tell the truth.
    When Federal agents gunned down American citizens on the
    streets of Minneapolis, first a mother and then an ICU nurse
    that had veterans as his patients, this administration's first
    instinct was to try to deceive the public.
        Two, despite video evidence, spread false claims about the
    events leading up to the murders, to smear dead Americans,
    calling them domestic terrorists. In the face of this
    dishonesty, those of us who would defend this Republic have a
    moral obligation to say forcefully, loudly what we know to be
    true, and this is what we know: Donald Trump and congressional
    Republicans are terrified that they will lose the next
    election.
        The American people over and over again for the past year
    have rejected the President's policies at the ballot box;
    resounding defeats for Trump aligned candidate across the
    country, from Virginia to Texas, and this weekend in the
    Speaker's home State of Louisiana. Because President Trump has
    done nothing to make the lives of the American people better,
    nothing to make things less expensive, nothing to make us
    safer. Because of these failures, Republicans know they have
    one hope at winning the next election: Change the rules of the
    game, destroy the rule of law, and desert any last remaining
    shred of allegiance to the United States Constitution.
    Redrawing congressional lines to make them better for
    Republicans, changing the rules of elections, brutalizing
    American citizens who exercise their rights under the U.S.
    Constitution.
        This scheme is not just how Republicans plan to take over
    our elections, it is how they plan to take over our country, to
    irrevocably destroy the American principles of peace,
    prosperity, equality that we all hold dear. I want the
    administration to know, and anyone who would align with them,
    people on this Committee, we see what you are doing. We will
    not let it happen. That is why Homeland Security Committee
    Ranking Member Bennie Thompson and I sent a letter to this
    Committee and the Chairman last week. We requested the
    Committee hear directly from Attorney General Pam Bondi and
    Secretary Noem about the Trump administration's attempt to
    extort an American State, holding Minnesotans hostage literally
    at the barrel of a gun in exchange for voter file information.
        If this majority cared about election integrity, why aren't
    we investigating this horrendous abuse of power? Why aren't we
    demanding answers from this DOJ, from this DHS, from the
    administration that, by the President's own admission, wants to
    nationalize elections to help Republicans win? He says the
    quiet part out loud: Help Republicans win.
        Today we are apparently discussing the Make Elections Great
    Again Act, or at least I think that is what it is about,
    because Republicans cannot seem to decide. Our House colleagues
    have been talking about the SAVE America Act. We are voting on
    that bill tomorrow. Senate Republicans are talking about the
    SAVE Act. Really, all these bills have the same outcome: They
    are the Trump elections takeover bills. We know this because
    the President has said so himself. He said we want to take
    over. We should take over the voting in at least 15 places. The
    Republicans ought to nationalize the voting. Where are the
    Republicans who once claimed they believed in the power of
    States to run elections? Because these bills will destroy that
    State power. This bill gives nine separate authorities to the
    Department of Homeland Security, the Department that has
    unleashed ICE and Border Patrol onto our streets, harassing and
    attacking American citizens to interfere in State and local
    elections.
        Even some congressional Republicans have called on
    Secretary Noem to resign. Why would we give her access to
    personal, private information of American voters? What is more,
    this bill gives Pam Bondi the power to unilaterally withhold
    all election funding to any State she chooses. I ask the
    American people this: Do you want Donald Trump running your
    elections? Do you want Pam Bondi or Kristi Noem running your
    elections? I want every American to know, this is not President
    Trump's election to take over. It is yours. He wants to take
    your power for himself. You, the American people, will
    determine the outcome of midterm elections, not Donald Trump,
    not Kristi Noem, not Pam Bondi. We see what the administration
    is planning, and we will stop them, even if congressional
    Republicans will not.

        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        Without objection, all other Members' opening statements
    will be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted
    to the Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today.
        Today we have one witness panel. First, we have Wyoming
    Secretary of State Chuck Gray. Next, we have Michigan State
    Representative Ann Bollin. Next, we have Mr. Russ Nobile,
    senior attorney at Judicial Watch. Finally, we have Karen
    Brinson Bell, principal and co-founder of Advance Elections.
        We appreciate all of you being with us today and look
    forward to your testimony.
        I will now recognize Secretary Gray for 5 minutes for the
    purpose of giving his 5-minute opening statement.

     STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE CHUCK GRAY, WYOMING SECRETARY OF
    STATE; THE HONORABLE ANN BOLLIN, MICHIGAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE;
     MR. T. RUSS NOBILE, SENIOR ATTORNEY, JUDICIAL WATCH; AND MS.
     KAREN BRINSON BELL, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH CAROLINA
                        STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

                        STATEMENT OF CHUCK GRAY

        Mr. Gray. Chairman Steil, Ranking Member Morelle, Members
    of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    before you today.
        As Wyoming's Secretary of State and Wyoming's chief
    election official, I am pleased to testify in complete support
    of the Make Elections Great Again Act.
        The MEGA Act creates baseline common-sense standards for
    integrity, security, and confidence in Federal elections across
    the United States.
        It is also key in fulfilling President Trump's executive
    order preserving and protecting the integrity of American
    elections, of which I also stand in complete support of.
        These are election integrity measures that Americans widely
    support, and I appreciate your work to get them to the finish
    line.
        As a Member of the Wyoming State Legislature and now as
    Wyoming's Secretary of State and chief election official, I
    work to advance and defend the protections to our elections set
    forth in the MEGA Act, many of which we have successfully
    instituted in Wyoming, including as the lead sponsor of State
    legislation requiring voter ID to cast a ballot in an election
    in 2021, requiring documentary proof of United States
    citizenship to register to vote in 2025, banning rank choice
    voting, instituting election day deadlines for receipt of
    ballots, and banning the private funding of election
    administration, otherwise known as ``Zuck Bucks.''
        These measures have withstood scrutiny and legal challenge
    and are being successfully implemented in Wyoming elections in
    accordance with Wyoming law. They are easy to implement, and
    they are right.
        I want to speak specifically in support of the MEGA Act's
    common-sense provision to require documentary proof of United
    States citizenship for registering to vote in Federal
    elections.
        Despite the worn-out cries we hear from the radical left,
    requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to vote is not
    overburdensome.
        On the contrary, it is essential to ensuring enforcement of
    Federal law, which unambiguously requires U.S. citizenship to
    vote.
        Requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to vote was the No. 1
    priority of our administration's Election Integrity Reform
    Agenda announced ahead of Wyoming's 2025 legislative session.
        In partnership with the Wyoming Legislature, we brought
    this landmark legislation into law, patterned off the
    requirements of both the MEGA Act and the SAVE Act to verify a
    person's citizenship when they register to vote through
    documentary proof of citizenship.
        On the eve of our proof of citizenship measure taking
    effect, Democrat Attorney Marc Elias filed a Federal lawsuit to
    block this voter integrity law. Immediately our administration
    went to work preparing a vigorous defense.
        The lawsuit over Wyoming's landmark proof of citizenship
    law drew national attention, attracting the support of
    President Trump's Department of Justice, the Republican
    National Committee, and Republican attorneys general, all who
    filed briefs in support of our position, and I thank them for
    their support.
        We prevailed in this lawsuit. On July 22, 2025, the United
    States District Court for the District of Wyoming granted our
    motion to dismiss this Federal lawsuit, finding that Marc Elias
    could find no one--again, no one--who was actually harmed or
    could be harmed by this new election integrity law.
        This is because in Wyoming, as in the rest of the country,
    it is easy for all eligible U.S. citizens to obtain acceptable
    identification proving their citizenship. The radical left's
    claims to the contrary are simply untrue and defy reality.
        It is so important that we pass the MEGA Act to require
    that documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in all Federal
    elections so that these protections can be in place across the
    United States.
        Now transitioning to voter ID. This widely supported
    election integrity reform is also simple to implement. Before
    we passed it, Wyomingites would show their license at the polls
    even though it was not required, and every election cycle I
    would get calls from Wyomingites who asked me why on Earth
    voter ID was not required.
        It became a mission to pass voter ID. After we got voter ID
    to the finish line in 2021, the response we have had at the
    polls from Wyomingites is, ``Thank you. Thank you for having
    this basic protection of our elections.''
        It is easy for the necessary identification to be attained.
    Citizen just goes to our motor vehicle services, completes the
    necessary application, and the Department of Transportation
    takes it from there.
        Now to Wyoming's deadline requiring all ballots to be
    received by the end of election day. When ballots are received
    after election day, it opens up the election process to fraud,
    confusion, and uncertainty.
        That is why the MEGA Act's provision stating that election
    day is the deadline for receipt of ballots so we have
    uniformity and rigor around this issue is so important.
        In Wyoming we are constantly striving to improve our
    elections and continue to work on bringing through the other
    reforms found in the MEGA Act. These include measures to ban
    ballot harvesting and institute a uniform auditable standard
    pen-and-paper ballot requirement.
        I applaud the Committee for spearheading this work at the
    Federal level that has widespread support from Americans, and I
    stand with President Trump and you in working to achieve these
    goals.
        Let me be clear: The MEGA Act standards are implementable,
    common sense, and essential to restoring the integrity and
    security of elections across the United States.
        Thank you, and happy to stand for questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gray follows:]

                    PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHUCK GRAY
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
        I now recognize Representative Bollin for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF ANN BOLLIN

        Ms. Bollin. Chairman Steil, Members of the Committee, thank
    you for the opportunity to testify.
        My name is Ann Bollin, and I currently serve as the chair
    of the Michigan House Appropriations Committee and previously
    chaired the House Elections and Ethics Committee working on
    election policy and oversight.
        Prior to that, I was a local clerk for 16 years responsible
    for administering elections, local, State, and Federal.
        My experience has both been practical and bipartisan.
        After the 2020 election as elections chair, I negotiated
    broad bipartisan improvements to Michigan election law,
    expanding options for polling locations, strengthening drop box
    security and chain of custody standards.
        My focus has always been simple: Make it easy to vote and
    hard to cheat.
        Today, many Americans hold real concerns about election
    security and fairness. This Act gives us a chance to set clear,
    reasonable baseline standards for Federal elections to help
    States deliver consistency, transparency, and trust.
        The Constitution grants primary responsibility to States
    for the time, place, and manner of elections, and the authority
    exists with Congress to establish baseline standards for
    Federal elections.
        This Act is not about Federalizing elections. It is an
    opportunity to approach election policy in a practical and
    apolitical manner.
        After the extremely close, controversial Presidential
    election in 2000, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act
    because it was revealed that the U.S. lacked consistent,
    reliable, and modern election administration practices.
    Congress also acted with UOCAVA and later the MOVE Act.
        These are all Federal baseline standards that supported
    State administration and strengthened Federal elections, and
    they made sense for the time.
        The 2020 election revealed similar variations in election
    practices and laws.
        Today is an opportunity for all of us to revive the trust
    of the American people in our elections and end this adolescent
    boys game of dodgeball, bringing common sense and widely
    supported safeguards to ensure we have fair and secure
    elections.
        This starts and stops with solid voter rolls for U.S.
    citizens only. The American public is resoundingly in support
    of this. Eighty-three percent support only U.S. citizens voting
    and using an ID for elections.
        Requiring photo ID to cast a ballot is a common-sense step
    that aligns with everyday life. Voter ID requirements can be
    implemented while ensuring access, with the goal of the
    requirement of clarity, security, and broad participation by
    those who are eligible to vote.
        When voters know that everyone is playing by the same
    rules, trust grows. That trust benefits everyone.
        Adopting photo ID protocols nationally should be an
    essential element of our elections. Photo IDs should be
    current, and current should be clearly defined. Photo ID
    protects the voter and the election administrator.
        Voter registration is the foundation of accurate voter
    rolls. The MEGA Act's emphasis on citizenship verification at
    the time of registration reflects a very basic principle:
    Federal elections are for United States citizens.
        Documentary proof of citizenship when registering would
    create a clear and consistent standard across States.
    Registration should not be considered complete without this
    proof. Suggesting this will harm certain demographics is both
    disingenuous and insulting.
        Nationally, we just completed the REAL ID process which
    showed nationwide identity verification efforts can be
    implemented thoughtfully and effectively.
        Registration list maintenance should include cross-check
    verification. Access to cross-checking data should remain with
    election administrators and never be transferred to third
    parties.
        Government data sources can assist in this effort as a
    clear and usable pathway for States to manage their voter
    rolls.
        Accurate voter rolls are the bedrock of secure elections.
    Federal baseline standards, including list maintenance, can
    support States in carrying this out consistently.
        Baseline standards can generate better protections and
    improve election administration, supporting quality control.
    Standardized post-election and performance audits can help
    improve administration by enabling early identification of
    procedural shortfalls before they become a problem.
        Key ballot standards are paramount. Paper ballots with
    numbered stubs should be used in all elections. They should be
    printed with safeguards, such as bar codes or watermarks, to
    prevent fraudulent ballots.
        Ballot and voter harvesting should be treated as harsh
    offenses with stiff penalties.
        In-person election day voting and early voting should be
    limited. All mail-in ballots should be considered absent voter
    ballots. They should require an application, stating a reason
    and a wet signature.
        Too many States have removed the application requirement
    creating opportunities for fraud. All application and ballot
    activities should be date and time stamped by an election
    official consistent with Federal regulations.
        A thorough chain of custody from start to finish ensures
    the greatest level of integrity for a recount, the canvass, the
    certification, or post-election audits.
        Efforts to reestablish Federal baseline standards will take
    commitment. As Michigan House appropriations chair, I am
    compelled to encourage adequate funding for our elections, not
    third-party funding.
        I generally do not welcome Big Brother, but I do think
    elections should be considered key infrastructure if we are to
    avoid systematic overhaul of our elections by States through
    ranked choice voting, QR code voting, ballots on demand and the
    like. Consideration of funding contingent upon compliance with
    the Act accelerates its implementation.
        Finally, the MEGA Act provides an opportunity to establish
    practical nationwide baseline standards for Federal elections
    while respecting the rules of States administering them.
        With thoughtful implementation, we can make elections work
    better for voters, election officials, candidates, and our
    country to ensure every eligible voter can vote freely,
    secretly, independently, and securely.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to share my
    perspective, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bollin follows:]

                    PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANN BOLLIN
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Nobile, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF T. RUSS NOBILE

        Mr. Nobile. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Committee. My name is Russell Nobile. I am an election
    integrity lawyer at Judicial Watch.
        The core point of my testimony is simple: Public confidence
    in the integrity of elections is declining. The decline is not
    driven by lack of ballot access, but rather inadequate and lax
    enforcement of basic election integrity safeguards.
        The data tells a clear story. Voter registration and
    turnout continue to go higher, and minority ballot access is at
    or near record levels. Historical racial disparities supporting
    the need to promote ballot access have largely been eliminated.
        At the same time, the public strongly supports common-sense
    election integrity measures. Large majorities support voter ID
    and uniform election deadlines. They support proof of
    citizenship requirements and clean registration lists.
        Yet, despite this consensus, many States have moved to
    undermine election integrity. One of the most troubling shifts
    has been the expansion of universal mail voting, which sends
    unsolicited ballots automatically to all voters regardless of
    eligibility.
        My written testimony describes how progressive politicians
    proposed this very system a hundred years ago. It was a bad
    idea then. It remains a bad idea.
        No mature democracy would adopt such an insecure voting
    system. Among other ills, it weakens chain of custody
    protections, it increases the risk of coercion, and brings that
    risk of coercion to people's houses, a real risk for vulnerable
    voters. It risks third-party interference and administrative
    error. It erodes public trust in elections.
        Universal mail voting is bad policy in any context, but it
    is particularly bad when combined with inaccurate voter
    registration lists.
        Not long ago, the Supreme Court found that 24 million
    registrations, about one in eight in the United States, are
    invalid or inaccurate, and 2.75 million people were registered
    in multiple States.
        Dirty lists have long been the gateway for other election
    mischief. Take California, who Judicial Watch is suing right
    now on behalf of the Libertarian Party. It has both universal
    mail voting and dirty registration lists. Our own internal
    analysis found that 21 counties, with approximately 6 million
    voters, removed a combined 11 voters over 2 years for change of
    address. That is 11 voters removed from a group of 6 million,
    11 over 2 years.
        The NVRA imposes modest list maintenance duties on States,
    and it guarantees organizations like Judicial Watch access to
    list maintenance records so we can verify compliance with
    Federal law.
        Many States fail under both Federal obligations. Many do
    not conduct meaningful list maintenance. When we simply ask
    them for the records to verify, as we are allowed to under
    Federal law, they refuse, delay, or claim the records do not
    exist.
        Now, they are not even giving the records to the Department
    of Justice, where I formerly worked, and would ordinarily ask
    for these records from 2004 to 2010.
        Those refusals are not just technical oversights. They
    defeat transparency, they prevent public oversight, and
    undermine public confidence in the election administration.
        Last year Judicial Watch reported that our enforcement
    efforts over the years have resulted in more than 5 million
    ineligible registrations being removed nationwide--5 million.
        Despite our success, we have barely moved the needle. Just
    last month, Oregon's new Secretary of State announced that they
    needed to remove 800,000 inactive voters in response to our
    lawsuit. The evidence shows that Oregon has not removed voters
    since 2017.
        While Oregon's announcement is progress, it illustrates
    just how pervasive State noncompliance has become. We have
    other suits pending.
        Finally, I address the recent trends where States are
    allowing ballots to arrive days and weeks after election day.
        For the last 5 years, my colleagues and I have sued several
    States challenging this practice, and last month the Supreme
    Court ruled in our favor in the first case in which we
    represent Congressman Michael Bost in his suit against
    Illinois. It took 4 years to get a Federal court to say that we
    could sue, and finally the Supreme Court agreed.
        The regressive practice of allowing ballots to roll in for
    days and weeks after election day is chiefly responsible for
    creating the banana republic-style confusion that follows
    American elections today.
        Judicial Watch's client, Libertarian Party in Mississippi,
    along with the RNC, successfully sued Mississippi in 2024 over
    this same practice. We won.
        Then yesterday we filed our brief with the Supreme Court to
    defend our win. The Supreme Court will hear that case on March
    23. Our brief is attached in the record. Seventy-six percent of
    the public support it.
        History explains why election integrity safeguards exist.
    They are not adopted by accident, and they are not racist.
        Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I look forward
    to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nobile follows:]

                  PREPARED STATEMENT OF T. RUSS NOBILE
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Brinson Bell, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF KAREN BRINSON BELL

        Ms. Brinson Bell. Thank you, Chairman Steil, Ranking Member
    Morelle, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Karen Brinson Bell, and from June 1, 2019, until
    May 14, 2025, I had the honor of serving as North Carolina's
    chief election official and the executive director of the State
    Board of Elections.
        I oversaw the voting process for more than 7.5 million
    registered voters and led the 100 county boards of elections
    through hurricanes, a global pandemic, and record-setting
    turnout.
        Since 2006, I have served in various roles at the county,
    State, and national levels within the elections profession.
    Like my colleagues across the country, my work is always
    nonpartisan.
        As principal and co-founder of the firm Advance Elections,
    I now consult with election officials across our country on
    improving resilience in emergency situations and securing our
    elections.
        I was proud to testify last year before the Subcommittee on
    Elections, and I thank Chairwoman Lee and Ranking Member Sewell
    for the opportunity to bring to Congress the story of the
    people of western North Carolina who did heroic work to
    maintain voting access in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene.
        I know from firsthand experience that election officials at
    the State and local level historically have not and currently
    do not receive sufficient support from our Federal partners.
        All of the Members of this Committee were elected by
    ballots that were prepared and paid for almost entirely by
    State and local governments.
        Everything that ensured that your election was accessible
    to voters, that only eligible voters could vote, and that their
    ballots could be counted as cast, all of it was run by local
    and State officials. Nearly all of it, 96 percent--yes, 96
    percent--was paid for by State and local governments.
        Congress has appropriated some money through the critical
    Election Security Grants program, including $45 million in the
    latest round of appropriations.
        While welcome, $45 million is in no way sufficient for
    election officials grappling with rising costs and increasing
    threats.
        I have reviewed the MEGA Act and the SAVE America Act, both
    of which would impose substantial new Federal mandates. I did
    Control F for the dollar sign, and I did not see a single
    dollar, much less the hundreds of millions needed to implement
    these changes.
        The rigid photo ID mandates would sweep away current
    systems even in most States with voter ID law, placing
    additional ID requirements in many States. The bill would
    require equipping election offices with the means to verify IDs
    for every mail-in ballot, requiring an investment in new
    technology and additional staff.
        For context, the recent inclusion of photo ID documentation
    with the return of the ballot in North Carolina required a
    significant redesign of the mail ballot envelope.
        It led to increased postage costs and necessitated the
    development of administrative rules, including a public comment
    period, submission to the Rules Review Commission, extensive
    training, and voter outreach.
        The implementation of voter ID in North Carolina alone was
    a multi-million-dollar endeavor with a considerable runway and
    years of litigation.
        Next, the bill's nationwide documentary proof of
    citizenship mandates would require local election officials to
    act as document verifiers, an enormously expanded role for
    which they are not staffed or funded.
        Let us not forget the bigger picture. A nationwide proof of
    citizenship mandate that does not allow States to tailor
    policies to their own needs would disenfranchise eligible
    voters.
        When Kansas attempted to implement a proof of citizenship
    in 2014, even with a year-and-a-half of implementation time, 12
    percent of applicants were denied registration for failing to
    provide documentary proof of citizenship. Virtually all of
    those denied registration were, in fact, eligible.
        The bill's list maintenance procedures are also
    unnecessarily burdensome, costly, and do not provide
    flexibility to account for the differences among the more than
    10,000 election jurisdictions in the United States.
        Nearly every provision in this bill would sweep away
    current effective systems of election administration across the
    country without support or funding.
        As I bring my testimony to a close, elections are run by
    people in and of the communities where they are taking place.
    The needs of communities in Wyoming differ from those in
    Michigan and North Carolina.
        Decentralized election administration is a feature, not a
    bug, of our democratic system. In this regard, I agree with
    you, Chairman Steil, when you stated at a hearing in this very
    room in March 2023 that election administration looks different
    in every State and that it is our Federalist approach in
    action.
        I appreciate your longstanding opposition to un-American
    calls to nationalize our elections, Mr. Chairman, and I presume
    it continues.
        In closing, election officials have a simple request of
    Congress: That you help share their burdens, not add to them.
    The bill under discussion today does not meet that simple test.
        Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Brinson Bell follows:]

                PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN BRINSON BELL
    [[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of
    asking questions. We will alternate sides.
        I would like to start with you, Secretary Gray, if I can.
    We got a lot of information there from Ms. Brinson Bell, echoes
    a lot of the comments I hear from my Democrats. We have got a
    great empirical case study in the State of Wyoming, so maybe we
    can learn a little bit about exactly what took place.
        We heard that implementing photo ID requires extensive
    training. I went and bought a six-pack of beer in Wisconsin the
    other day. The clerk, I do not think he had extensive training,
    but, boy, he was able to look at my ID, confirm my birth date,
    confirm it was me, and then was able to sell me a six-pack of
    beer.
        Is it your experience in the State of Wyoming that folks in
    Wyoming need extensive training to implement photo
    identification?
        Mr. Gray. Chairman Steil, thank you for that question.
        My experience is that this is a common-sense requirement.
    In fact, as my testimony talked about, in the lead-up to us
    passing voter ID we would have a lot of Wyomingites that would
    show their ID and it was not required, and they were outraged.
        Chairman Steil. Sure. Because you need a photo ID when
    you----
        Mr. Gray. Yes.
        The Chairman [continuing]. board an airplane, open a bank
    account----
        Mr. Gray. Exactly.
        The Chairman [continuing]. buy a six-pack of beer. There is
    no extensive training that is required when you implemented
    photo ID in Wyoming, correct?
        Mr. Gray. No extensive training.
        Chairman Steil. Then we heard hundreds of millions of
    dollars. There are some people in this building that could not
    spend enough money of taxpayer dollars to do all sorts of
    stuff.
        I am thinking to myself, I would board an airplane, I would
    buy a six-pack of beer, I have to show my photo identification.
    For the 2024 DNC convention, you had to show your ID. There was
    a Senator just last week who held a town hall, required people
    to show their photo identification to come to his town hall.
        Massive costs associated with photo identification in your
    experience in Wyoming?
        Mr. Gray. No massive cost, Chairman Steil. In fact, we have
    a provision in our voter ID law that an individual can request
    an ID, have a hardship exemption if that is required.
        Under Wyoming law right now, the requirements in the MEGA
    Act would impose no further costs because we already allow for
    attaining that ID on a hardship exemption for purposes of
    voting. There is no further costs.
        Chairman Steil. Which makes total sense, right? If you
    truly have somebody that is indigent, does not have the funds
    to do it, the State should be able to provide that photo ID.
    Wisconsin does the same thing. There is no cost to administer
    the elections in this regard.
        Wyoming implemented, one of the handful of States not in
    the NVRA, so many States are restricted and prevented from
    providing citizenship verification. Wyoming is in a unique
    position where you could actually implement citizenship
    verification, very different than maybe the State of Arizona,
    for example, that has tried to work through that.
        Let us look at the experience that we have in the State of
    Wyoming. You implemented citizenship verification. We have
    heard from some of our colleagues that millions or thousands or
    hundreds of people would be disenfranchised.
        What was the experience in the State of Wyoming after you
    had your election after you have implemented citizenship
    verification?
        Mr. Gray. Well, thank you, Chairman Steil, for that
    question.
        We had a very clean bond election last year under the
    documentary proof of citizenship requirement. It was very
    clean, no issues, no complaints. It was just very well-run.
    People were excited that we implemented this common-sense
    measure.
        Chairman Steil. The fearmongering that we are hearing today
    did not materialize in the State of Wyoming from a cost
    standpoint, from a disenfranchisement standpoint. What you
    ended up with was a good, solid, clean election.
        Do you think people's confidence in elections increased in
    the State of Wyoming as these common-sense procedures were
    implemented?
        Mr. Gray. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Steil. Do you think they should be implemented in
    all 50 States?
        Mr. Gray. Absolutely. Yes. I believe it should be
    implemented in all 50 States.
        Chairman Steil. I want to finalize on one item. You noted
    that in the State of Wyoming ballots need to be in by the end
    of election day, by the time polls close.
        At the end of the 2024 election, I went to the State of
    California, was joined by a couple of my colleagues from
    California there. I went to Los Angeles County Central Count.
    You would see thousands of ballots coming in, literally by the
    truckload, after elections closed, because they allow ballots
    that are postmarked with a huge exception in that law to arrive
    after the election day. They are being counted.
        You do not know California results for House races that
    were competitive. If there was a competitive statewide race, we
    would not probably have known results for that either.
        When you delay those results, does that instill confidence,
    or does that hurt Americans' confidence in our elections?
        Mr. Gray. It damages confidence, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Steil. It 100 percent damages confidence.
        You can envision going and playing a card game. Imagine--I
    am not a card player--but if you went to a casino and played
    cards and you are playing with the dealer and the very end of
    the game with that dealer, the dealer says, ``You know what, I
    am not going to flip over my cards for three or four days.''
    You could be playing with the Pope, and you would not have a
    lot of confidence in exactly what is taking place.
        This is all about instilling confidence in our elections,
    that Americans have confidence. The Georgia election law, the
    laws and the reforms in the State of Wyoming prove that you can
    do this correctly, that you can increase confidence in our
    elections.
        What Georgia has shown us is when you increase confidence
    in our elections, people will participate. It is why the State
    of Georgia's election participation remained high and it is why
    Wyoming is doing a good job as well.
        I will yield back. I will now recognize the Ranking Member,
    Mr. Morelle, for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I do want to acknowledge I have complete faith in the Pope.
    If he told me something, I would believe it.
        Last week, referring to the State of Minnesota, President
    Trump said--and this is a direct quote--``I won the State of
    Minnesota three times, but I got no credit for it.''
        Congress three times certified Minnesota's electoral
    college votes, three times, including twice under House
    Republican majorities. Congress certified Donald Trump as the
    loser of the Presidential election in Minnesota.
        Reminding the witnesses you are under oath, just a simple
    question. We can start from right to left.
        Do you have evidence or reasonably if Congress incorrectly
    certified Minnesota's results due to widespread fraud in
    Minnesota?
        Ms. Brinson Bell?
        Ms. Brinson Bell. I have no reason to believe that Congress
    had--Congress rightfully certified the election.
        Mr. Morelle. Mr. Nobile?
        Mr. Nobile. I do not have any evidence.
        Mr. Morelle. Ms. Bollin?
        Ms. Bollin. I do not have any evidence either.
        Mr. Morelle. Mr. Secretary?
        Mr. Gray. I believe there were issues, I do.
        Mr. Morelle. What does that mean? I asked if you think
    there was widespread----
        Mr. Gray. I believe there were issues out there that need
    to be looked into. I think that from an election integrity
    perspective, to perceive that we are not going to even ask
    questions and the way that the modern day Democrat Party, when
    people ask questions, have mocked them, is very troubling to
    me.
        Mr. Morelle. Well, I would just say this, sir. You are
    under oath. You are here as an expert witness. If you have
    evidence that there was fraud in Minnesota, I think we should
    be--the Committee Members would very much welcome it.
        Otherwise, I assume--and, frankly, I think I do not
    appreciate your partisan remarks. I notice that you left out in
    your opening statement but it is in your written testimony, you
    referred to leftist goons when you are talking about people who
    bring cases in front of a court.
        Let me move on. I would love to ask--Ms. Brinson Bell, I
    appreciate you being here, and I appreciate your past testimony
    around the work that you did in North Carolina and your
    comments regarding State and local officials. You have,
    obviously, a tremendous amount of experience.
        This week Republicans are bringing the SAVE America Act to
    the floor, presumably--it is in committee, the Rules Committee
    later--a bill that imposes strict new documentary proof of
    citizenship requirements in order for American citizens to
    register to vote.
        Like the bill we are discussing here, the SAVE America Act
    would be effective immediately. Many States, including North
    Carolina, and have primary elections literally in just a few
    weeks. I wonder if you could just comment.
        Would States even have time to comply with such a massive
    change with Federal elections just around the corner?
        Ms. Brinson Bell. Thank you, sir.
        I would just propose to everyone that when we talk about
    immediate implementation of any type of change in election
    administration, that that is unworkable.
        I point that out because Representative Bollin, she pointed
    out some wonderful pieces of legislation that we have
    implemented across our country effectively, NVRA, UOCAVA, so
    forth and so on. They all had runways. They all had funding.
    They all had training in ways that we were able to support the
    implementation.
        That would be my note of caution. North Carolina is in the
    election. Ballots have already gone out. Early voting starts on
    Thursday.
        Mr. Morelle. Yes.
        Ms. Brinson Bell. The election is underway, and it will be
    for many other States very soon.
        Mr. Morelle. Very good.
        I keep hearing about American elections not being secure.
    You did this for a number of years. Are American elections
    secure? You talked about local and State. Just your opinion on
    whether American elections are secure.
        Ms. Brinson Bell. Yes, sir. I believe that is--the security
    of our elections has been proven. I believe that is why
    Congress has been able to certify the elections, and our
    legislatures and our State boards and our Secretaries of State.
        In North Carolina alone, we have conducted post-election
    audits since 2006, reconciliation practices that prove the
    security of our elections.
        We have also had record-breaking turnout, as the citizens
    have known about the additional efforts that we have put in
    place in North Carolina.
        I firmly believe that when someone believes that the system
    is secure, when they believe that a system works, that is when
    they participate.
        That is why North Carolinians turned out over 75 percent in
    2020.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
        Just one last question, as I am running out of time.
        The provision and the mail by voting elections alone would
    upend the way elections are conducted for nearly 70 million
    Americans.
        How much does it cost to run a statewide election in North
    Carolina? Do you know?
        Ms. Brinson Bell. A statewide election in North Carolina, a
    recent survey of the 2024 election, was $35 million.
        Mr. Morelle. Just in North Carolina?
        Ms. Brinson Bell. Just in North Carolina.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
        Before I yield back, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
    to enter into the record two pieces.
        First of all, a statement in opposition to the bill from
    the League of Women Voters, a second from FairVote Action, as
    well as a letter from the National Association of Counties
    sharing concerns with the bill; and into the record a column by
    former the Maricopa County recorder, a Republican from Arizona,
    which makes clear that Republican claims about voter fraud are
    bogus.
        Chairman Steil. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Morelle. With that, I yield back. Thank you.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentlewoman from Florida, the vice chair of the
    Committee, Ms. Lee, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this
    important hearing.
        Thank you to our witnesses for joining us here today.
        As Florida's former Secretary of State, promoting voter
    confidence and election security have been key priorities of
    mine since coming to Congress. The Committee's Make Elections
    Great Again Act includes a number of common-sense requirements,
    including photo ID and election day deadline for receiving
    ballots and list maintenance standards that a number of you
    have already touched upon.
        These measures are proven effective, they promote security,
    and they do promote public confidence, all endeavors we should
    be pursuing in Congress.
        Chairwoman Bollin, I would like to return to one of the
    concepts that you mentioned during your testimony, and it is
    this: The concept of critical infrastructure.
        The Department of Homeland Security designated elections
    infrastructure as critical infrastructure, and as a consequence
    for a number of years now has been providing cybersecurity
    support to State and local elected officials. You touch on this
    concept as important both to election systems and equipment and
    also how you view the federalism concerns related to elections.
        I would appreciate it if you would elaborate on those
    concepts.
        Ms. Bollin. Yes. Thank you very much for the question.
        I think it is extremely important. When we relegate these
    to the States, everybody wants confidence. I am really puzzled
    by the suggestion that there is not a lot of fraud. Why would
    we wait for fraud to occur to protect it?
        These issues of security, security in the ballots, security
    in the database system, security in the actual machines that
    are tabulating, this was a requirement under the Help America
    Vote Act, as was the electronic qualified voter files. This is
    a great opportunity to see.
        We know we have advanced so far. I mean, the good advances,
    as well as the cynical advances in the security issues, that it
    is time for a reset. We should be looking at it right now. The
    EAC is looking at guidelines, security guidelines, for our
    equipment. There are concerns about transmission.
        We all want timely results. In order to get timely results,
    we also want them to be accurate. The systems in place that
    feed into that are extremely important--the accuracies test,
    the confidence, the transparency, and most importantly,
    accountability. If there is no accountability, then we will
    never have fair elections.
        Ms. Lee. Mr. Nobile, going back to that concept, we heard
    testimony earlier about--the Chairman had great questions about
    the connection between timely election results reporting and
    voter confidence.
        I would like to hear your perspective on that. Also, in
    your written testimony you go a step further and note that
    election ballot deadlines past election day, in your view, even
    violate Federal law. Tell us about that.
        Mr. Nobile. Yes. It is not just us. The Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit said that. We have been litigating this
    for 5 years.
        When Congress enacted the first election integrity
    provision in the history of Article II, it enacted election
    day. In all times election day ended on election day. In the
    last 15 years, there has been this activist effort to get State
    legislators to extend ballot receipt deadlines in a way that,
    frankly, makes elections disorderly and unreliable and
    suspicious, and it has radically reduced public trust in
    elections.
        For the last 15 years, we have been suffering through 2
    weeks of post-election uncertainty because people are not just
    getting their ballots in time--or returned in time.
        Frankly, the denominator of ballots outstanding continues
    to increase, which, when people go to bed at night, they need
    to know how many ballots are outstanding, they need to know how
    many ballots are left to be counted. They do not need to wake
    up 3 days later and find out there is an additional 150,000
    ballots coming in.
        It is just, frankly, radically undermining elections.
        Ms. Lee. It is. I can tell you in Florida, third-largest
    State in the country, we know how to do this. We get our
    ballots in on election day. We have results by 9 o'clock. It
    can be done, and it absolutely improves voter confidence.
        Let me also touch on this. There is a lot of discussion
    about citizenship in and around today's hearing. Would you
    elaborate on the other reasons--there are actually a multitude
    of reasons why somebody may need to be removed from voter
    registration rolls, everything from death to moving.
        Would you elaborate for us on many of the reasons why
    somebody might need to be removed from a voter roll?
        Mr. Nobile. Yes. You have got to have a clean and accurate
    voter registration list to keep fraud from happening, right?
    That is the whole reason why it was created in the 1800's.
        Frankly, States, including North Carolina, are not
    complying with their NVRA obligations. We sued them 4 years
    ago. We are currently suing California, Oregon, and Illinois.
        People need to know that the way you commit fraud and
    undermine an election is you have a dirty voter registration
    list. That is step one.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Nobile.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Ms. Sewell is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My questions are for you, Secretary Gray.
        Mr. Gray. Yes.
        Ms. Sewell. I have read with great interest about your
    Election Integrity Agenda, especially the proof of citizenship
    law that was passed by the Wyoming State Legislature. You must
    have had rampant voter fraud to make it necessary to pass such
    restrictive laws.
        My question to you is, what is the number of voter election
    fraud cases in your State of Wyoming over the, say, last 20
    years?
        Mr. Gray. Well, Congresswoman Sewell, it is sort of a
    circular question. I have seen this a lot from----
        Ms. Sewell. No, I am going to reclaim my time since I have
    very limited time.
        I am going to let you know that it is only one, only one
    case. This is not data from some far left think tank. This is
    data collected from the Heritage Foundation.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
    enter into the record this report by the Heritage Foundation
    that shows that the State of Wyoming has only had one case of
    voter fraud.
        Chairman Steil. Without objection.
        [The report referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Sewell. Secretary Gray, as I am sure you know,
    President Trump has recently called for the Federal Government
    to, quote, ``take over elections.''
        You are a State elected official. What branch of Government
    has the legal right to administer elections? Does the President
    of the United States have the authority to administer and
    nationalize elections?
        Mr. Gray. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman.
        First, I would like to State that I disagree with your
    previous assertion about only one example.
        Ms. Sewell. Well, the evidence----
        Mr. Gray. I would also----
        Ms. Sewell. Sir, with all due respect, this is my time.
        Mr. Gray. Thank you.
        Ms. Sewell. The evidence speaks for itself. The fact of the
    matter is, is that it seems to me that we are solving for a
    problem--we are offering a solution for a problem that does not
    exist, is what I am saying.
        I could answer the question also as to who is in charge of
    administering elections. Neither the President nor Congress has
    the right to run elections.
        Article I, section 4, clause 1 of the Constitution is very
    clear: The time, place, and manner of holding elections shall
    be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof.
        Now, Congress can alter the regulation of elections.
    However, the President has no legal authority to decide which
    ballots are counted, and he certainly cannot administer
    elections himself.
        Mr. Chairman, I must say, voting rights used to be wildly
    bipartisan, and lately it has been so partisan. This Committee
    should not be involved in the President's scheme to rig this
    year's midterm election and this disinformation campaign to
    legitimize lies and myths about rampant voter fraud by
    noncitizens where we already have laws on the books that say
    that noncitizens, it is illegal for them to vote.
        Mr. Gray, on January 22, 2026, Secretary Gray, just a
    couple weeks ago, you put out a press release in your official
    capacity as Wyoming Secretary of State that announced your top
    five election integrity priorities, which included eliminating
    Medicare, Medicaid, and student IDs as acceptable forms of
    identification for voting. This provision is also in the MEGA
    bill as well.
        What is the problem with using student IDs or IDs, like
    Federal IDs, like Medicare, Medicaid, and why do we find them
    so objectionable?
        Mr. Gray. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, the issue with many
    of these IDs is that they do not have photos on them. That is
    one of the issues. How do you have----
        Ms. Sewell. Sir, with all due respect----
        Mr. Gray [continuing]. how do you have----
        Ms. Sewell [continuing]. with all due respect, with all due
    respect, we have already established that voter fraud in your
    State is basically nonexistent. There cannot be any reason for
    restricting the types of IDs more frequently used by low-income
    and elderly Americans.
        The real reason suggests to me that you are picking the
    voters who can actually vote and eliminating students or making
    it harder for students who have reached the age of 18 to vote,
    to me sounds very discriminatory.
        Ms. Bollin, I ask you the same question I asked Secretary
    Gray. Do you know the number of reported cases of election
    fraud in the State of Michigan over the last 20 years? I can
    tell you, since my time is running out. It is 19 cases, 19 out
    of 64,520,000 ballots cast. That is a rate of 0.0002 percent of
    fraud.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record the Heritage Foundation's election fraud map that shows
    this point.
        Chairman Steil. Without objection.
        [The election fraud map follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Sewell. Nobody should be fooled by what is going on
    here today. The only thing mega about this bill is that it is
    mega voter suppression. The rate of voter fraud is almost
    nonexistent relative to the number of ballots cast in each
    election.
        The Republicans' voter suppression agenda is simply
    designed to appease Trump and to set the stage for a takeover
    and nationalization of elections.
        The Trump agenda is rooted in anti-immigrant conspiracy
    theories aimed to disenfranchising young people, women, the
    elderly, people of color.
        One in three eligible voters in America do not participate
    in our elections for a host of reasons, and 25 percent of
    eligible voters in America are not even registered.
        Instead of conducting this charade, I would prefer the time
    of this Committee to be used trying to make sure that all
    Americans--all Americans--have the right to access the ballot
    box and to vote.
        With that, sir, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am the longest-serving Member on this Committee, and I
    think it is rich that the other side of the dais up here is
    talking about a Federal takeover of elections when I sat in
    this Committee just a few years ago with a bill called H.R. 1
    that Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed forward.
        It was a 600-page bill that was a total Federal
    unconstitutional takeover of elections. It included provisions
    that were not just challenging to impose on the States, but
    impossible to impose on the States.
        When we are discussing a way of making our election systems
    with more integrity, I find it disingenuous to hear that this
    is a Federal takeover by those that have authored one of the
    greatest and most exclusive Federal takeover election bills
    ever.
        From the looks of folks at the table and in the audience, I
    think you all remember H.R. 1. It also included the Federal
    Government helping pay for campaigns.
        It was quite an interesting time that we are here. I just
    find it is even that much more interesting now that the folks
    who authored the greatest Federal takeover of elections are
    complaining about wanting somebody to prove their citizenship
    before they vote.
        With that, Secretary Gray, there have been a lot of critics
    of election security efforts in general who claim Congress is
    requiring States to engage in expensive changes to their
    election system.
        Have you experienced that it was very expensive for the
    State of Wyoming to implement its requirement for documenting
    proof of United States citizenship for registering to vote?
        Mr. Gray. Congressman, Mr. Chairman, it was seamless, low
    cost, no cost, and I have not seen any costs yet other than
    revising training materials. It has just been a seamless
    approach in implementing these Federal statutes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. What about the provisions within this bill?
    Do you anticipate that that would create a lot of expense, to
    implement what is in here in the State of Wyoming?
        Mr. Gray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--Congressman.
        Not anticipating really any expense.
        The Federal Government has a role to play in setting these
    baseline standards. I mean, countering a little bit the
    testimony from a Democratic Congresswoman previously, I mean,
    if you look at NVRA, HAVA, the Civil Rights Act, these are all
    bills that were supported by the Democrat Party that set
    baseline standards for elections. That is what the MEGA Act and
    the SAVE Act is doing.
        It is really incredible, some of these claims that are
    being--that are being made by the Democrat Party.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Well, I appreciate that.
        You know, it seems like we have entered into an era of
    politics to where it really does not matter what the core
    principles are as long as you can hang your political opponent
    with it. That is all that really matters these days.
        One last question for you. Would having a uniform procedure
    such as in this bill and security standards make it less
    expensive for States to run Federal elections?
        Mr. Gray. Mr. Chairman--Congressman, I think having a
    uniform standard really clarifies things. I think it is going
    to be very low cost or no cost. I mean, really, it is just
    revising training materials. That is the big--that is it. There
    is really no cost attached to that.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Well, thank you for that.
        Representative Bollin, real quickly in the remainder of my
    time, thank you for being here. When I was a State
    representative, I had the opportunity to come and speak before
    Congress, and so we appreciate your time.
        The Department of Justice recently asked for Michigan to
    turn over portions of their centralized voter list in order to
    verify whether or not Michigan is compliant with the voter list
    maintenance procedures required by the National Voter
    Registration Act.
        In response, Secretary Benson wrote, ``The law does not
    support this assertion. The collection, use, and dissemination
    of private information should be for a necessary and lawful
    purpose.''
        My question is, is protecting the integrity of voter rolls
    a necessary and lawful purpose, in your opinion?
        Ms. Bollin. Well, protecting the voter rolls--I would say,
    protecting elections and the voters is more important.
        We do know that our Secretary of State has a history of
    making up her own laws. While she is the Secretary of State,
    she is not a legislator, and I think that that is a reminder of
    that.
        I would say that we need to make sure that we are not
    making these dictates. There have been these interpretations by
    Benson, inclusive of Benson, over the years that really
    aggravated the situation, and, I would say, it led to a lot of
    the disruption in the 2020 election.
        Our Secretary of State has really--we had to subpoena her
    by our Oversight Committee--continues to refuse practical
    things--a manual for election administrators--under the guise
    that it is to protect the voters. No, I think we all need to
    know and understand the standards of training for our election
    workers.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you for your time.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The Representative from California, Mrs. Torres, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman.
        Welcome, to our witnesses.
        It is shocking. What is happening in our country is not
    normal. This administration seems hell-bent on blocking certain
    voters from casting their ballot, changing the rules of
    elections so outrageously to purposely block millions of
    Americans who have been demonstrating against Republican
    policies.
        President Trump said he wants to Federalize elections, and
    we need to ask, what does that actually mean? Are we talking
    about military, with machine guns, at our local school election
    stations? Or masked, untrained, heavily armed ICE agents
    surrounding our community centers? What are we talking about
    here?
        The FBI just raided a local election office, with the
    Director of National Intelligence tagging along like an
    obedient dog, allegedly in pursuit of a fever-dream conspiracy
    theory about the 2020 elections that no sane person believes.
        Reportedly, the administration forced out the FBI special
    agent in charge when he questioned this investigation, and
    after his removal, the head of national intelligence put the
    local FBI field agents on a direct call with the President.
        I have been told that Fulton County now has no way--no
    way--to verify if the FBI or anyone else has altered any of
    those ballots.
        The Republican election bills being considered are a direct
    attack on dissent of current Republican policies on married
    women, women who build careers, led companies, serve in
    Congress, and, yes, women like me who got married and changed
    their names; on young voters and seniors who cannot afford to
    purchase a passport.
        Instead of focusing on affordable childcare and quality
    maternal health, these bills will make tens of thousands of
    American women struggle, needlessly, to vote.
        This is about control. It is about silencing people who do
    not agree with Republican policies and about blocking women
    from the ballot. We will not be silenced.
        Chairman Steil, I truly enjoyed touring my local election
    office with you just 2 years ago and was delighted with your
    statement that ``it was an amazing experience to walk through
    L.A. Central Count,'' which counted more ballots than 38 States
    in the 2024 general election.
        I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record
    testimony from my local L.A. County elections official.
        Chairman Steil. Without objection.
        Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
        [The election official testimony follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Torres. I had doubts about--you had doubts about
    California elections and went to the source, and I admired you
    for that.
        To address those very doubts, you brought Fox News, held a
    press briefing, but refused to allow Democrats to join. Why?
    Maybe because you found nothing out of order. You saw, instead,
    hardworking public servants working under the eye of streaming
    video cameras available for anyone in Los Angeles County or
    across the county----
        Chairman Steil. Will the gentlewoman yield?
        Mrs. Torres [continuing]. to view.
        We are looking for legislation to fix a problem you failed
    to find. Not a single Committee Republican or political
    observer contested the outcome of any House race in 2024 or
    provided any evidence that California suffered from fraud
    irregularities.
        Why is that? Because California's election infrastructure
    is sound. We invest in secure systems, rigorous training, and
    transparency at every level. California has worked hard to
    ensure that every eligible American voter can cast their
    ballot.
        Yes, election day ends at 8 p.m. on election day. As
    frustrating as it may be to make sure that every vote is
    counted, our fantastic State and local election workers make
    sure that it happens, in a secure and transparent way.
        Let us be honest: Actions taken to turn our entire election
    system upside-down have one goal. Instead, this is the effort
    that is similar like Pizzagate 2.0, where an ill-informed
    citizen drove across the country to find sexually abused
    children. ``Look other there!'' Meanwhile, we keep the Epstein
    files secret.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I agree with my colleagues; all American citizens should
    have the right to vote. I do, however, disagree that the desire
    to have all Americans being able to vote has been bipartisan in
    the past.
        Having been a child during the Jim Crow era, I can assure
    you that the Make Elections Great Again bill is not Jim Crow.
    Let us talk about Jim Crow in Virginia.
        In 1902, the Virginia Constitution was rewritten by
    Democrats. They did not take it to the people to vote on it;
    they just did it, assembled in Richmond. The concept was,
    everybody will recall, to disenfranchise African-Americans.
        What people do not recall is, it was also to disenfranchise
    poor, White, Republican voters in the western part of the
    State, the very part of the State that I now have the great
    pleasure and proud to represent. It was done to take them out
    of the voting rolls, too. Because the Republican populist
    coalition was challenging the dominant Democrats in the State,
    and the Democrat Party did that, led by E. Carter Glass of
    Lynchburg, Virginia.
        It would take some time to break that coalition up, and you
    know what it was, Mr. Chairman? It was the Federal Government
    interfering, according to all the Democrat politicians of the
    time, interfering in the States and telling them you cannot
    continue to run your elections with poll taxes; with complex,
    subjective registration processes; and having, quote/unquote,
    an ``understanding clause,'' making sure that people understood
    what was going on in the election, that broke that up in the
    mid-1960's.
        Guess what followed that? The election of the first
    Republican Governor since Reconstruction in 1969.
        I participated in that election, not as a voter but as
    somebody working out there in the hustings. Yes, I was a weird
    kid. I remember the debate between the Mountain Valley
    Republicans and the Democrats who controlled everything and who
    did not want Blacks and poor Whites from the western part of
    the State actively participating.
        I assure you, Mr. Chairman, your bill is not Jim Crow.
        I have to tell you, it was an interesting time to live in,
    and I am glad it has passed. What we want to do is to make sure
    American citizens can vote.
        Mr. Nobile, from your experience as an attorney, do you
    believe that our current penalties for election fraud
    sufficiently deter bad actors?
        Mr. Nobile. No.
        You know, fraud has been going on for 200 years in American
    elections. I submitted in my record two written books, one by
    the former Chairman of this Committee that documented countless
    frauds in the 19th century, another book that documented
    countless frauds in the 20th century.
        When you look at fraud, you cannot look at it in the terms
    of last week or last year or 2 years. I mean, it is a
    competition; people are cheating.
        Mr. Griffith. Yes. You are saying we should enhance the
    law?
        Mr. Nobile. Yes.
        Mr. Griffith. You think that the Make Elections Great Again
    will help us do that?
        Mr. Nobile. Yes.
        Mr. Griffith. I do too.
        Mr. Nobile, in your experience, what have been some of your
    concerns raised with the practice of allowing third-party
    operatives to collect and submit ballots to polling centers--
    i.e., ballot harvesting?
        Mr. Nobile. Well, that is why we invented the Australian
    ballot, so people would not be harassed and so they would not
    monitor people's votes. People could go in and vote privately
    in a secure location where they would not be harassed.
        This sort of advent of all-mail balloting and ballot-
    chasing programs or ballot-harvesting programs basically return
    us to the bad days of old, in the 19th century, where poor
    Whites and the few minorities that were allowed to vote were
    chased and harassed so they could watch their votes.
        We invented the Australian ballot so people would stop
    getting paid to vote, right? That brought a lot of the
    protections we enjoy right now----
        Mr. Griffith. In my district, that was not just paying them
    with cash. Sometimes it would be a bottle of whiskey.
        Mr. Nobile. Or a club against the head.
        Mr. Griffith. Yes. Yep.
        You believe the Make Elections Great Again Act will
    prohibit ballot harvesting nationwide?
        Mr. Nobile. Yes, it will be a great improvement.
        Mr. Griffith. Do you think that makes our system cleaner
    and more open for American citizens, including African-
    Americans and poor Whites in the mountains of Virginia?
        Mr. Nobile. Yes. People should be allowed to vote in secure
    locations away from all the harassment that they might get at
    home.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The Representative from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, our Constitution envisions a Nation united by the
    belief that every citizen has the right to participate in our
    democracy and elect the leaders who govern us, no matter our
    differences. We must respect the fundamental constitutional
    right of every citizen to cast a ballot.
        That is every citizen that may not have a birth
    certificate. That is every citizen that may not have a
    passport. That is every married woman that has changed their
    name. That is every citizen that lives in a large county where
    their election office is not open past 4 o'clock, and they work
    all day, to go register. That is every citizen.
        The problem with this bill is, you put all of these
    administrative hurdles in place to keep citizens from voting,
    to keep citizens from being able to register to vote.
        We have counties where you have one county office in a
    rural county of 300 miles. When you are working all day, how
    are you possibly going to go over there in person and provide
    all of this documentation?
        In Dallas, Texas, we have 4 million people--1 election
    office where you can go to register to vote in person between 9
    and 4. When you are a teacher, when you are working a shift,
    how the hell are you going to get there to do this in person?
        When you were born at home and you do not have access to
    your birth certificate and those records do not exist anymore,
    you are a United States citizen, and you are not going to be
    allowed to vote.
        When you do not have a $150 and you cannot wait 6 months to
    get a passport, then you do not get to vote. You are an
    American citizen, and your country and your Government is
    denying you the right to vote under this bill.
        It is un-American, it is unconstitutional, and it is dead-
    ass wrong.
        Because the problem is, there are a lot of things that we
    can do to ensure election integrity. If we really are concerned
    about people having the right to vote, why cannot we submit
    documents online? Why cannot you register online and submit a
    copy of whatever documentation you have? Why----
        Voice.
        [Off-mike.]
        Ms. Johnson. Not under this, you cannot, no, ma'am. You
    have to do this in person.
        If we are really committed to making sure that people have
    the right to vote, then we need to open this up; we need to
    have an online national registration to vote. Why not? No, you
    have to do this.
        Then the other thing is, I am really, really just
    personally very troubled, Mr. Chairman, over this notion of
    women having to submit an affidavit at the poll. Does this mean
    that we are going to have notary publics at every polling site?
    Does this mean--what does this mean? That if your married name
    does not match your birth certificate, then you have to sign an
    affidavit. Well, how does one do that?
        You know, as a lawyer, when you sign an affidavit, it is
    under oath, sworn to by a notary public. Does this mean now
    that we are going to make and require every election judge
    administrator and all of the millions of election sites across
    this country be notaries?
        Are we going to make people pay--most notaries charge. Are
    we going to make people pay $10 or $15 to go get their
    affidavit signed to bring to the poll? That is a poll tax. That
    is not OK. That is unconstitutional.
        Passports cost $150. Are we going to require people to pay
    $150 to get a passport now to be able to vote, or are we going
    to waive that fee if you want to get a passport to vote so that
    you do not have an unethical, illegal poll tax?
        There is a lot wrong with this bill, Mr. Chairman, because
    you are putting so many roadblocks, so many obstacles in place
    that do not protect security, but what it is is denying
    citizens their constitutional right to vote, which should be
    our number-one, paramount concern of this Committee, is, how do
    we make sure that we do not disenfranchise millions of voters
    in this country? This bill does just that.
        Ms. Bell, what would it be like if election judges across
    this country all of a sudden had to be arbitrators of whether
    or not a person is a U.S. citizen and that they have to, sort
    of, now interpret documents? What does that look like in the
    administration of our elections?
        Ms. Brinson Bell. Well, in implementing it in North
    Carolina--and I appreciate that it may not have been as much of
    a lift in Wyoming, but that is one of the things that I think
    is coming out from this hearing, is that there are differences
    in administering elections. We had to go through extensive
    training to train the 25,000 workers in North Carolina's
    polling places----
        Ms. Johnson. Right. That is 25,000 just in North Carolina.
    Imagine----
        Ms. Brinson Bell. Just in North Carolina.
        Ms. Johnson [continuing]. the State of Texas.
        Ms. Brinson Bell. Yes. That does not include the day-to-day
    workers in the 100 county offices.
        Ms. Johnson. Right.
        Ms. Brinson Bell. So----
        Ms. Johnson. Unfortunately, I am out of time. We really
    need more time on issues like this, because this is a
    significant bill.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The Representative from Oklahoma, Mrs. Bice, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for our witnesses being here today.
        First, I want to address Ms. Brinson Bell.
        In your testimony, you mentioned that there was no funding
    tied to this legislation. I think it is important to clarify
    that this Committee is an authorizing committee; we are not an
    appropriations committee.
        As someone that sits on both an authorizing committee and
    an appropriations committee, I am glad that there is no funding
    in here, because that should be an authorization--or, an
    Appropriations Committee jurisdiction. As someone who sits on
    that Committee, I am committed to finding ways to help continue
    to provide funding, and I have legislation I am currently
    working on to do that very thing.
        You know, we have heard my Democrat colleagues talk about
    the--that Republicans want to Federalize elections. I think it
    is important to remind my colleagues of a bill that was put
    forward in 2021, the For the People Act.
        I want to read a couple of things that the For the People
    Act did that I think would be interesting to those that are
    listening to this hearing today: Automatic voter registration,
    same-day registration, a ban on voter purges in rolls. It
    sounds to me like this is Federal regulation of elections.
        My colleagues, including the Ranking Member and the two
    Members sitting next to him, voted ``aye'' on this legislation.
    I think it is disingenuous to say that Republicans are looking
    at Federalizing elections when my colleagues on the other side
    of the aisle were very much in favor of doing something on
    election integrity back in 2021.
        Ms. Bollin, I want to start with you.
        The Department of Justice asked for Michigan to turn over
    portions of their centralized voter list in order to verify
    whether or not Michigan was compliant with voter list
    maintenance rules.
        In response, Secretary Jocelyn Benson, who has testified in
    front of this Committee, wrote, ``The law does not support this
    assertion. The collection, use, and dissemination of private
    information should be for necessary and lawful purposes.''
        Ms. Bollin, is protecting the integrity of voter rolls a
    necessary and lawful purpose?
        Ms. Bollin. Protecting the voter rolls--I think protecting
    the voters is. Protecting the voter rolls under the definition
    by Benson is absolutely not protecting it at all.
        Mrs. Bice. In a recent----
        Ms. Bollin. It should be turned over.
        Mrs. Bice. In a recent video, Secretary Benson says,
    ``States can and must hold the line,'' in defiance of the DOJ's
    attempt to enforce Federal election law.
        Do you believe Michigan should defy the Department's
    efforts to instill integrity in Michigan's voter laws?
        Ms. Bollin. Absolutely not.
        Mrs. Bice. Mr. Nobile, I would like to throw this over to
    you. Can you talk a little bit about what is happening in
    Michigan and why you think it is so important for to us make
    sure that these voter integrity laws are held.
        Mr. Nobile. Yes. I mean, the Department of Justice's
    ability to get those records for, frankly, 30 years has been
    unquestioned, right? I mean, when we enforce it at DOJ, the DOJ
    gets it. It is Section 8(i) of the NVRA.
        You know, Michigan has, you know, inaccurate voter
    registration lists. There are certain quirks about Michigan
    that makes it difficult to enforce it there that I cannot go
    through here, but they have very outdated lists. It is one of
    several States that do all over the country.
        I mean, you know, I talked in my testimony about California
    and other places, so I will not go through that here. I mean,
    you know, 21 counties in California removed 11 voters for
    change of address. I mean, that is not even--it is tough to
    even take that seriously.
        You can extrapolate from that onto Michigan, which is even
    more defiant than California sometimes. You know, its rolls are
    very inaccurate, I suspect.
        Mrs. Bice. I think, on that note, when I first got to
    Congress--I come from the State of Oklahoma, where we have very
    stringent voter ID laws which were passed by the citizens of
    Oklahoma back in the 1990's. We also have very district mail-in
    ballot laws. We are required to have it notarized.
        In my State in 2020, a lawsuit was filed to actually throw
    out that notary requirement. Fortunately, as a former
    legislator, I was part of the process by which we were actually
    able to confirm that you had to have some sort of photo ID
    along with the ballot.
        This universal mail-in ballot sort of initiative that we
    have seen in some States is rife with fraud.
        When I got to Congress, I had no idea what ``curing a
    ballot'' meant. I had never seen a ballot box until I got to
    Washington, D.C. These are ways that we are using the system
    for fraud, and I hope that we will address some of these
    concerns in this legislation and legislation moving forward.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The Representative from Ohio, Mr. Carey, is recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Carey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I might be biased, but, under the leadership of Secretary
    LaRose, Ohio runs its elections better than any other State in
    the country. Our State's comprehensive approach prevents fraud,
    minimizes costs, and upholds the legitimacy of our elections.
        By embracing new technologies, rigorous oversight, and
    common-sense policies, Ohio, in fact, has set itself apart. For
    example, in our State, we have implemented basic requirements
    to prove you are a U.S. citizen, a resident of the State, of
    legal voting age, and more.
        We have shown we can have transparent and trustworthy
    elections and deliver those results quickly. I think our
    process, honestly, can be the model nationwide, and I invite my
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle to embrace our approach
    in the Buckeye State.
        While I could go on and on about Ohio--and if you come to
    my office, I probably will--I want to highlight some of the
    winning policies.
        I am going to go to you quickly, Mr. Gray. You have
    championed the Wyoming voter ID requirements, as highlighted
    before. I am going to ask you--and I understand your
    legislative process is a lot different--what were some of the
    hurdles that you faced while you were trying to implement that
    law?
        Say it rather quickly, because I have a bunch of questions.
        Mr. Gray. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman--Congressman.
        I think one of the challenges is debunking a lot of the
    sort of straw-man arguments that get put out there. We are
    seeing that on proof of citizenship for registering to vote and
    these other election integrity reforms. It took us 4 years to
    get that through, but eventually I think people saw the light.
        I think the 2020 election brought out a lot of these
    deficiencies that States have in their codes. One of them was
    that we did not have a voter ID law. We needed to get that
    done, and we got it done in 2021.
        Mr. Carey. Your legislative process, what, does it meet
    once every 2 years? Or how does that work in Wyoming?
        Mr. Gray. Yes, it is once every year. General session in
    the odd years, budget session in the even years.
        Mr. Carey. I did learn something from your testimony, as an
    Ohioan. I did not realized you were referred to as
    ``Wyomingites''----
        Mr. Gray. Yes.
        Mr. Carey [continuing]. so that is one thing I did learn.
        Mr. Nobile, Judicial Watch has filed lawsuits to compel
    voter list maintenance, including the removal of eligible
    voters.
        Under our bill, the Make Elections Great Again, or H.R.
    7300--which I am an original co-sponsor--updates voter list
    maintenance requirements nationwide, including by allowing
    removal if a registrant is discovered to be a non-citizen.
        How does this change-of-address issue--have you seen or
    argued about in court?
        Mr. Nobile. Thank you for the question.
        The current NVRA has very limited removal options. We can
    do it for change of address, death, and a few others, but those
    are the two big ones. There have been restrictions on the
    ability to remove people directly for citizenship. If you
    recall, in 2024, before the election, there was a big debate
    that the Supreme Court resolved in Virginia right before
    election day.
        You know, the MEGA Act takes list maintenance from a
    periodic, you know, reasonable-effort requirement to a more
    specific requirement. It is, frankly, not all that different
    than what the Congress did in response to the UOCAVA Act in
    2009, if you recall. 2008, military votes needed to go out
    within a reasonable time, and there were a lot of problems that
    happened in the 2008 election. Then in 2009, in response to
    those problems, Congress set a hard deadline for UOCAVA ballots
    to go out in the MOVE Act.
        With this amendment that is being proposed for the MEGA
    Act, you make those changes.
        Mr. Carey. Well, then, I have more questions, but, bottom
    line, it is beneficial to have a uniform, baseline standard for
    voter list maintenance requirements.
        I would like to point out a couple things, because with all
    the pomp and circumstance and all of the things my dear
    colleagues have said, I went ahead and--I do read The New York
    Times. Some on our side do. I just wanted to read a quote from
    there.
        As we, as legislators, discuss, Article 1, section 4--this
    is coming from The New York Times, so it is, you know, pretty
    factual, according to my colleagues. Article 1, section 4 of
    the Constitution states that States set the time and places and
    manner of elections. It also grants Congress the power to make
    laws about elections.
        That is what we are talking about today, folks. That is all
    we are talking about.
        To my dear colleagues, some of the other things that I
    have--and give me just one more second. Some of the letters
    that have been put in for the record against this legislation--
    all I ask, the old phrase, ``Judge them not by their words but
    by their deeds.'' Look at the funding of a lot of the groups
    that are saying to not support this legislation.
        With that, I am happy to be an original co-sponsor, and,
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The Representative from Illinois, Mrs. Miller, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing
    today.
        Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
        House Republicans are leading the charge to restore faith
    and trust in our elections. Election integrity should be a
    nonpartisan issue, but, sadly, House Democrats have made it
    clear they have no interest in restoring confidence and
    ensuring security in our elections.
        As ABC noted this past weekend, 83 percent of adults
    support requiring a photo ID to vote, as do 73 percent of
    Democrat voters. Yet Democrat-elected officials oppose voter ID
    at every turn, and 14 blue-leaning States, including Illinois,
    have refused to implement this common-sense measure.
        The House will be voting on an expanded version of the SAVE
    Act this week, and House Administration Republicans, led by
    Chairman Steil, have introduced the MEGA Act, which builds on
    the SAVE Act, with additional critical reforms.
        Mr. Nobile, first, I want to acknowledge and thank you and
    my Illinois colleague, Congressman Mike Bost, for fighting to
    secure the right of candidates to challenge State election laws
    in Federal Government. As you know, Illinois insists on the
    controversial practice of counting ballots received after
    election day, and I am glad that Congressman Bost's challenge
    to that policy is moving forward on its merits.
        In regards to a related case, how does Watson v. RNC,
    currently before the Supreme Court, affect congressional
    efforts to ensure that ballots are received no later than
    election day?
        Mr. Nobile. You know, there has been some, I guess--the
    Supreme Court will settle the issue under current law if we
    prevail. Congress can obviously make new law and be more
    explicit in what it requires if it acts now.
        This question, which arose in Bost first and now is in
    Watson, is, what is the original public meaning of the 1845
    statutes as to, what is election day?
        Mrs. Miller. Well, we are going to look forward to that.
        When it comes to voter roll maintenance, how do we ensure
    that States comply with the requirements set by the MEGA Act
    when many are already non-compliant with the current NVRA
    statutes?
        Mr. Nobile. Well, I think forced disclosures, which we try
    to do at Judicial Watch, and then, frankly, just follow up with
    suits. I mean, we are--there is fertile ground and opportunity
    for us to sue over. Frankly, we should not have to come to
    that, but obviously lawsuits help.
        You know, when we find a jurisdiction in violation, it is
    usually not a close case. I mean, they are not sending out
    confirmation notices, they are not removing people.
        Mrs. Miller. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Nobile. It is pretty slam-dunk. You know, the
    partisanship nature of the question makes it very difficult to
    get anyone to just settle and resolve the questions.
        Mrs. Miller. Representative Bollin, what steps would you
    like Congress to take to ensure that States like Michigan and
    Illinois are fulfilling their responsibilities under Federal
    law to maintain clean and accurate voter rolls?
        Ms. Bollin. One is, I do we need to establish--kind of
    reset these universal base standards, No. 1.
        No. 2 is, I do think that the post-election audits would
    help in this regard, the list maintenance. I think that we
    should be working in concert with the Michigan legislature, at
    the Federal level as well, to make sure that these records are
    turned over.
        The responsibility--you know, in Michigan, we have very
    decentralized elections, and while the Secretary of State wants
    to take over much of this, we do need partners in this. I do
    think that that is what this Act can do, is, again, relegate
    the authority back to our locals and have the assurance.
        If there is funding, I think the funding should be tied to
    compliance.
        Mrs. Miller. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Bollin. Unfortunately--I mean, I know we do not want to
    tie fundings, but, as the Chair of Appropriations, especially
    in split Government, these are common-sense reforms; these are
    not partisan reforms. We should all be on board trying to allow
    people to vote. How does that happen? That is accurate voter
    rolls and verification.
        Mrs. Miller. Well, that is what the American people want.
        I want to thank you all for the great and courageous work
    that you are doing. Keep it up.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        This concludes our questions for today's hearing.
        I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing today
    and your willingness to testify.
        Members of the Committee may have some additional questions
    for you, and we ask that you respond to those in writing.
        Without objection, each Member will have 5 legislative days
    to insert additional material into the record or to revise and
    extend their remarks.
        [J. Kenneth Blackwell testimony follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                              [all]