[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]