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

                           OVERSIGHT WITH SECRETARIES
                           OF STATE: LIST MAINTENANCE
                          AND ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 16, 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
    63-503                       WASHIINGTON : 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...................     3
    Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of
      New York.......................................................     4
        Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle..........     6

                                   Witnesses

    Honorable Scott Schwab, Kansas Secretary of State................     7
        Prepared statement of Scott Schwab...........................     9
    Honorable Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State..............    14
        Prepared statement of Steve Simon............................    16

                           Submissions for the Record

    Appropriations Committee statement for the record................    27
    Bipartisan Policy Center report..................................    29
    Institute for Responsive Government ``United in Security: How
      Every State Protects Your Vote in 2026'' report................    86
    States United Democracy Center report............................    89
    Institute for Responsive Government `` `State Citizenship Lists'
      in Trump's March 31, 2026 Elections Executive Order'' report...   147
    Secretary Schwab letter to Postmaster General DeJoy..............   155
    AP News article..................................................   159

                           OVERSIGHT WITH SECRETARIES
                           OF STATE: LIST MAINTENANCE
                          AND ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION

                                  ----------

                                 April 16, 2026

                     Committee on House Administration,
                                      House of Representatives,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m., in
    room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Steil, Lee, Loudermilk, Griffith,
    Bice, Miller, Morelle, Sewell, Torres, and Johnson.
        Staff present: Mike Platt, Staff Director; Abby Salter,
    Deputy General Counsel; Kristen Monterroso, Director of
    Operations; Josh Weber, Counsel; Libby Sippel, Deputy Director
    of Member Services; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Sarah
    Nasta, Minority Senior Advisor; Nikolas Youngsmith, Minority
    Policy Director; and Owen Reilly, Minority Professional Staff.

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

        Chairman Steil. The Committee on House Administration will
    come to order.
        The title of today's hearing is ``Oversight with
    Secretaries of State: List Maintenance and Eligibility
    Verification.'' 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 additional
    materials they wish to be included therein.
        Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle, Members of the
    Committee, and our witnesses, for participating at today's
    hearing. I will now recognize myself for the purpose of making
    an opening statement.
        Today, the Committee on House Administration continues our
    oversight of Federal elections. We will focus on State efforts
    to maintain accurate voter rolls, as well as our efforts to
    ensure only eligible voters are participating in our democratic
    process.
        In January, I sent letters to 10 secretaries of state
    addressing these issues. My questions focused on topics,
    including voter list maintenance, voter eligibility, including
    citizenship, and registering voters, how States identify and
    notify ineligible registrants of removal, and use of the SAVE
    data base which the Trump administration has made available
    free of charge.
        Two secretaries I wrote are here with us today: Kansas
    Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Minnesota Secretary of
    State Steve Simon.
        I thank each of you for your responses and for being with
    us today.
        The Committee has a responsibility for ensuring States
    follow Federal election law. It is also responsible for
    drafting necessary legislative reforms. With several recent
    reports of potential noncitizens appearing on State voter
    rolls, I believe it is time to act.
        In Ohio, 62 noncitizens were found on the State's voter
    rolls with the help of the SAVE data base. In Iowa, an illegal
    alien was working as the superintendent for one of the State's
    largest school systems. He was registered to vote in the State
    of Maryland and was mailed a ballot. In Kansas, the SAVE data
    base helped identify a noncitizen who has been charged with
    illegal voting in three elections. It actually also turns out
    that he was a mayor of a city in Kansas. Just 3 days ago, a
    noncitizen was charged in Minnesota for voting in the 2024
    election.
        These are real stories, and current Federal law is part of
    the problem. The National Voter Registration Act and the Help
    America Vote Act set baseline standards for voter registrations
    back in 1993 and 2002, respectively. However, we have
    identified serious flaws in these statutes that are actually
    weakening election integrity.
        For example, under the NVRA, each State must include a
    voter registration application with every driver's license
    application. This in particular creates a serious problem when
    States are allowing illegal aliens to receive driver's
    licenses.
        To get this clear, under current law, illegal aliens are
    required to receive voter registration materials when they get
    a driver's license. That is absolutely nuts. Congress caused
    this problem, and we need to fix it. Issues like this are only
    compounded when States fail to maintain accurate voter rolls.
        Consider the implications in States with universal vote-by-
    mail policies. In those States, a live ballot is automatically
    mailed to every person on the voter rolls for every election.
    When list maintenance is insufficient, ballots can be sent to
    people who have moved or to people who are deceased. What is to
    stop a current resident from--at an address from mailing back a
    ballot that is not theirs and sending it in?
        There are real flaws, and fixing is something we should all
    be able to get behind. It is common-sense reforms. This is
    exactly why I introduced the Make Elections Great Again Act,
    the MEGA Act. The MEGA Act updates, clarifies, and strengthens
    voterless maintenance standards, including a new requirement
    that States conduct general list maintenance at least every 30
    days. This baseline requirement would ensure that every State
    takes the proper steps to keep their voter lists accurate and
    up to date.
        Election integrity is not a complicated issue. Only
    eligible voters should be casting ballots in our elections. One
    illegal vote is too many. Congress has the ability to
    strengthen standards for Federal elections, and it is time that
    we act. Doing so will boost voter confidence and increase
    participation in our elections, and that is a good thing.
        I thank both of our secretaries for being with us today,
    and I look forward to our conversation.
        I will now 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

        Today, the Committee on House Administration continues our
    oversight of Federal elections. We will focus on State efforts
    to maintain accurate voter rolls, as well as our efforts to
    ensure only eligible voters are participating in our democratic
    process.
        In January, I sent letters to 10 secretaries of state
    addressing these issues. My questions focused on topics,
    including voter list maintenance, voter eligibility, including
    citizenship, and registering voters, how States identify and
    notify ineligible registrants of removal, and use of the SAVE
    database which the Trump administration has made available free
    of charge.
        Two secretaries I wrote are here with us today: Kansas
    Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Minnesota Secretary of
    State Steve Simon.
        I thank each of you for your responses and for being with
    us today.
        The Committee has a responsibility for ensuring States
    follow Federal election law. It is also responsible for
    drafting necessary legislative reforms. With several recent
    reports of potential noncitizens appearing on State voter
    rolls, I believe it is time to act.
        In Ohio, 62 noncitizens were found on the State's voter
    rolls with the help of the SAVE database. In Iowa, an illegal
    alien was working as the superintendent for one of the State's
    largest school systems. He was registered to vote in the State
    of Maryland and was mailed a ballot. In Kansas, the SAVE
    database helped identify a noncitizen who has been charged with
    illegal voting in three elections. It actually also turns out
    that he was a mayor of a city in Kansas. Just 3 days ago, a
    noncitizen was charged in Minnesota for voting in the 2024
    election.
        These are real stories, and current Federal law is part of
    the problem. The National Voter Registration Act and the Help
    America Vote Act set baseline standards for voter registrations
    back in 1993 and 2002, respectively. However, we have
    identified serious flaws in these statutes that are actually
    weakening election integrity.
        For example, under the NVRA, each State must include a
    voter registration application with every driver's license
    application. This in particular creates a serious problem when
    States are allowing illegal aliens to receive driver's
    licenses.
        To get this clear, under current law, illegal aliens are
    required to receive voter registration materials when they get
    a driver's license. That is absolutely nuts. Congress caused
    this problem, and we need to fix it. Issues like this are only
    compounded when States fail to maintain accurate voter rolls.
        Consider the implications in States with universal vote by
    mail policies. In those States, a live ballot is automatically
    mailed to every person on the voter rolls for every election.
    When list maintenance is insufficient, ballots can be sent to
    people who have moved or to people who are deceased. What is to
    stop a current resident from at an address from mailing back a
    ballot that is not theirs and sending it in?
        There are real flaws, and fixing is something we should all
    be able to get behind. It is common-sense reforms. This is
    exactly why I introduced the Make Elections Great Again Act,
    the MEGA Act. The MEGA Act updates, clarifies, and strengthens
    voterless maintenance standards, including a new requirement
    that States conduct general list maintenance at least every 30
    days. This baseline requirement would ensure that every State
    takes the proper steps to keep their voter lists accurate and
    up to date.
        Election integrity is not a complicated issue. Only
    eligible voters should be casting ballots in our elections. One
    illegal vote is too many. Congress has the ability to
    strengthen standards for Federal elections, and it is time that
    we act. Doing so will boost voter confidence and increase
    participation in our elections, and that is a good thing. I
    thank both of our secretaries for being with us today, and I
    look forward to our conversation.

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

        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for convening us, and in
    just a moment I will thank our witnesses.
        I think the one thing we can all agree on today is to
    express our congratulations to Chairman Steil and his beautiful
    wife Kaley on their recent nuptials. I understood you used--
    well used the time we were away from Washington. I just want
    to--as someone who has been happily, blissfully married for 42
    years, I think I can certainly say that I am so incredibly
    happy for you and for your beautiful bride and want to wish you
    all the best.
        Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you again for the hearing, and thanks to
    our witnesses. By the way, I do not want my time to be used
    congratulating the Chair. I just want the record--thank you.
    Thank you for giving my time back.
        I also want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. We
    are grateful to you and to your fellow election officials
    around the country who work so hard to ensure fair, free, and
    secure elections.
        I am, and everyone should be, dismayed by the continuing
    baseless attacks on our democracy intended to sow false doubt
    in election administrators like the two public servants who are
    with us today. I say everywhere that I am incredibly grateful
    to local and State administrators who I think jealously guard
    the sacred obligation and right and duty they have to count
    elections. American citizens should know--I want to speak to
    them first. You should know your elections are secure. Your
    vote will count. Your vote is your power. It is your right.
    Please, please, please use it.
        The people lying about the security of our elections want
    to take your power away by discouraging you from voting at all.
    They want to take your power away by attacking local election
    administrators and making it harder for them to serve your
    communities. They are desperate to make voters distrust
    democracy because they are afraid of losing power.
        All the suggestions that they are making about changes are
    not about improving the process. It is about improving the
    process for political power. Should you begin to believe those
    lies, they have seized control from you, the American voter. Do
    not let them get away with it. In America, voters are in
    charge. Citizens are in charge. Use your power and use it by
    voting.
        Second, I want to speak to our witnesses and share with you
    how deeply I respect your work. Thank you for your public
    service. I am confident you both will run free, fair, and
    secure elections in your States. You both deserve our support,
    you both deserve Congress' gratitude and respect.
        No one who does the jobs you do deserve to have resources
    slashed by my friends here on the other side of the aisle who
    think it is fine to severely underfund HAVA grants. In fact,
    this morning in a budget bill that was released, the majority
    proposes $15 million nationally for election security grants.
    $15 million for the whole country. If I was good enough to do
    the math quickly, 150 million or so Americans who cast ballots
    and divide it by $15 million, it is not even pennies per voter.
    We need to do so much better. You do not deserve to have new
    unnecessary burdens from terrible bills like that.
        With all due respect, the MEGA Act and the SAVE America
    Act, which land on you right as you are in the middle of, in
    some States, running primaries already, some have already
    happened, and certainly as you are preparing for the midterm
    elections, you do not deserve to be falsely accused of failing
    to do your jobs by the same people who refuse to give you
    resources and support to do your jobs.
        You also do not deserve the unprecedented threats and risks
    the Trump administration is piling on top of these burdens that
    are being furthered by my friends on the other side of the
    aisle. You and your voters deserve a Department of Justice that
    will protect voting rights and support critical work that you
    do, not one that makes illegal demands to turn over private
    voting data so the Trump administration can decide who gets to
    vote.
        In your case, Secretary Schwab, Kansans do not deserve a
    DOJ that lies in court by claiming your State has violated
    voter privacy by giving DOJ sensitive data like Social Security
    numbers for Kansas voters.
        In your case, Secretary Simon, Minnesotans deserve a DOJ
    that upholds its mission to keep the American people safe, not
    a DOJ that tries to extort voter rolls at gunpoint like they
    did after the senseless shootings of Renee Good and Alex
    Pretti.
        You and your voters deserve a Department of Homeland
    Security that provides cybersecurity assistance, information
    sharing to identify and mitigate risks, disaster preparedness,
    and other essential support, not a CISA, or Cybersecurity and
    Infrastructure Security Agency, that has been hollowed out by
    malicious conspiracy theorists and enablers here in Congress.
        You and your voters deserve an intelligence community and
    Director of National Intelligence who will protect Americans
    and secure our election critical infrastructure against foreign
    threats, not weaponized intelligence authorities for political
    purposes.
        You deserve a President who respects the Constitution of
    the United States, not an illegal executive order purporting to
    take over your authorities and attacking the ability of
    American citizens to vote by mail. Of course, that is the same
    Donald Trump--I hesitate to point out, but it is important to--
    who voted by mail just last month, even though he was in
    Florida during early voting and could have gone to a polling
    place, but somehow found time over the weekend to go to a UFC
    championship fight in person. Donald Trump thinks he deserves
    special privileges while making things harder and more costly
    for Americans.
        You deserve a Federal Government you can trust, a Federal
    Government that has your back. I wish my colleagues on the
    other side of the aisle felt the same way, and I hope this
    political moment is over. We will get back to nonpartisan pro-
    democracy values. There is so much good work we can do together
    to support you, the things like sufficient HAVA funding and a
    functional CISA that provides cyber assistance and information
    sharing that we all need to do.
         While I have much more to say, in the interest of time, I
    will, again, thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr.
    Chairman, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]

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

        I am, and everyone should be, dismayed by the continuing
    baseless attacks on our democracy intended to sow false doubt
    in election administrators like the two public servants who are
    with us today. I say everywhere that I am incredibly grateful
    to local and State administrators who I think jealously guard
    the sacred obligation and right and duty they have to count
    elections. American citizens should know I want to speak to
    them first. You should know your elections are secure. Your
    vote will count. Your vote is your power. It is your right.
    Please, please, please use it.
        The people lying about the security of our elections want
    to take your power away by discouraging you from voting at all.
    They want to take your power away by attacking local election
    administrators and making it harder for them to serve your
    communities. They are desperate to make voters distrust
    democracy because they are afraid of losing power.
        All the suggestions that they are making about changes are
    not about improving the process. It is about improving the
    process for political power. Should you begin to believe those
    lies, they have seized control from you, the American voter. Do
    not let them get away with it. In America, voters are in
    charge. Citizens are in charge. Use your power and use it by
    voting.
        Second, I want to speak to our witnesses and share with you
    how deeply I respect your work. Thank you for your public
    service. I am confident you both will run free, fair, and
    secure elections in your States. You both deserve our support,
    you both deserve Congress' gratitude and respect.
        No one who does the jobs you do deserve to have resources
    slashed by my friends here on the other side of the aisle who
    think it is fine to severely underfund HAVA grants. In fact,
    this morning in a budget bill that was released, the majority
    proposes $15 million nationally for election security grants.
    $15 million for the whole country. If I was good enough to do
    the math quickly, 150 million or so Americans who cast ballots
    and divide it by $15 million, it is not even pennies per voter.
    We need to do so much better. You do not deserve to have new
    unnecessary burdens from terrible bills like that.
        With all due respect, the MEGA Act and the SAVE America
    Act, which land on you right as you are in the middle of, in
    some States, running primaries already, some have already
    happened, and certainly as you are preparing for the midterm
    elections, you do not deserve to be falsely accused of failing
    to do your jobs by the same people who refuse to give you
    resources and support to do your jobs.
        You also do not deserve the unprecedented threats and risks
    the Trump administration is piling on top of these burdens that
    are being furthered by my friends on the other side of the
    aisle. You and your voters deserve a Department of Justice that
    will protect voting rights and support critical work that you
    do, not one that makes illegal demands to turn over private
    voting data so the Trump administration can decide who gets to
    vote.
        In your case, Secretary Schwab, Kansans do not deserve a
    DOJ that lies in court by claiming your State has violated
    voter privacy by giving DOJ sensitive data like Social Security
    numbers for Kansas voters.
        In your case, Secretary Simon, Minnesotans deserve a DOJ
    that upholds its mission to keep the American people safe, not
    a DOJ that tries to extort voter rolls at gunpoint like they
    did after the senseless shootings of Renee Good and Alex
    Pretti.
        You and your voters deserve a Department of Homeland
    Security that provides cybersecurity assistance, information
    sharing to identify and mitigate risks, disaster preparedness,
    and other essential support, not a CISA, or Cybersecurity and
    Infrastructure Security Agency, that has been hollowed out by
    malicious conspiracy theorists and enablers here in Congress.
        You and your voters deserve an intelligence community and
    Director of National Intelligence who will protect Americans
    and secure our election critical infrastructure against foreign
    threats, not weaponized intelligence authorities for political
    purposes.
        You deserve a President who respects the Constitution of
    the United States, not an illegal executive order purporting to
    take over your authorities and attacking the ability of
    American citizens to vote by mail. Of course, that is the same
    Donald Trump I hesitate to point out, but it is important to
    who voted by mail just last month, even though he was in
    Florida during early voting and could have gone to a polling
    place, but somehow found time over the weekend to go to a UFC
    championship fight in person. Donald Trump thinks he deserves
    special privileges while making things harder and more costly
    for Americans.
        You deserve a Federal Government you can trust, a Federal
    Government that has your back. I wish my colleagues on the
    other side of the aisle felt the same way, and I hope this
    political moment is over. We will get back to nonpartisan pro
    democracy values. There is so much good work we can do together
    to support you, the things like sufficient HAVA funding and a
    functional CISA that provides cyber assistance and information
    sharing that we all need to do.

        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        Without objection, all 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 a one-panel witness. First we have Kansas
    Secretary of State Scott Schwab, next we have Minnesota
    Secretary of State Steve Simon. We appreciate both of you being
    with us here today and look forward to your testimony.
        I will now recognize Secretary Schwab for 5 minutes for his
    opening statement.

     STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE SCOTT SCHWAB, KANSAS SECRETARY OF
     STATE; AND THE HONORABLE STEVE SIMON, MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF
                                 STATE

                     STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT SCHWAB

        Secretary Schwab. Thank you, Chairman Steil and Ranking
    Member Morelle and Members of the Committee, for the
    opportunity to testify.
        As Kansas' Secretary of State, ensuring voter rolls are
    maintained in accordance with State and Federal laws is
    critical. Kansas has been a leader in election security and
    integrity efforts for many years. When I chaired the
    legislature's House Committee on Elections in Kansas, we
    enacted voter ID, which is government-issued and must have a
    name and a photo on it and a documented--we also had
    documentary proof of citizenship in 2011.
        As Secretary of State, we have strengthened post-election
    audits, added procedural audits, increased physical and
    cybersecurity requirements from county election offices, banned
    rank-choice voting, and the State eliminated a grace period to
    receive ballots after election day. These measures strengthened
    our election system without increasing burdens on voters.
        Maintaining accurate voter rolls for 2 million registered
    voters is constant. I have made it a priority to pursue every
    legal tool to identify voters whose registration should be
    updated. In Kansas, 105 election officials conduct voter roll
    maintenance daily. Approximately 5 percent of the registrations
    are updated every Federal election due to routine voter
    maintenance. On average, we add about 200,000 new registrants
    every Federal election cycle.
        The most common maintenance activity is updating our
    records for voters who move, but Kansas uses multiple tools,
    including de-duplication, the NCOA for address maintenance.
    Identifying voters who move out of State is a challenge. That
    is why we established MOUs with Secretaries of Texas and
    Missouri to compare voter lists. I intend to work with other
    States to establish more MOUs to identify duplicate registrants
    and prevent double voting across State lines.
        A tool we are barred from using is the interstate cross-
    check program. Kansas ran this effective program for 20 years
    to identify voters who moved out of State. At its height, the
    program compared the voter rolls of 35 States. It was compelled
    to be discontinued in 2018.
        Kansas removes about 28,000 registrants annually because of
    death. We have not identified any voters who cast a ballot
    after they were deceased. Verification of death occurs from
    three sources: weekly data from the State's vital statistics, a
    voter's obituary, and Social Security Administration's death
    master file.
        While Kansas law permits the use of this data, it only
    became available after President Trump's Executive Order 14248
    requiring SSA to share the data with the States. Kansas cross-
    indexed its voter rolls with SSA last fall. More than 5,500
    registrants were removed following independent verification of
    the SSA data to ensure the correct voter was removed. Again, no
    deceased voters voted.
        Kansas was on the forefront of enacting two election
    integrity measures in 2011: voter ID and documentary proof of
    citizenship. However, in 2018, the Federal courts banned Kansas
    from enforcing its citizenship laws. Unable to check
    citizenship at registration, we have focused on screening our
    rolls for potential noncitizens by reviewing temporary driver's
    license. My office introduced legislation that now requires the
    DMV to provide quarterly lists of individuals that have a TDL
    to verify only citizens are on our voter rolls, and reviewing
    judicial branch reports for any potential juror who claims they
    are not a citizen.
        At the beginning of 2025, my office was one of the first to
    utilize the SAVE system to review the entire State voter roll.
    SAVE is one of the most important tools States have to verify
    voter information. We are grateful for the President to
    prioritize this at no cost.
        After running the voter rolls through SAVE, the rolls are
    cross-checked for potential noncitizens for follow-up and
    possible criminal prosecution. The attorney general and I do
    have a close working relationship, and when there is suspicion
    of an election crime, including noncitizen voting, it is
    referred to him.
        To date, the attorney general has brought two criminal
    indictments, and my office has referred seven more suspected
    noncitizens to the attorney general. The importance of this
    collaboration is highlighted by the discovery of a noncitizen
    serving as mayor of Coldwater, Kansas. This person registered
    to vote prior to the Kansas proof of citizenship law, which
    grandfathered him in. However, having access to SAVE system
    prior to this administration would have identified this person
    and prevented additional alleged crimes from being committed.
        To further strengthen laws in this area, my office has
    successfully pursued legislation to take effect July 1 to
    mandate the use of SAVE twice a year and require State agencies
    to report noncitizens who apply for benefits on our voter roll
    comparison.
        Mr. Chairman, Kansas has strong checks in place to ensure
    eligible voters are on the rolls. I appreciate President
    Trump's actions to make SAVE available and Social Security data
    at no cost to the State. I also appreciate the diligence of
    county election officials--and I cannot say that enough--to
    ensure errors are not made in voter roll maintenance that would
    jeopardize public confidence in our system.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Schwab follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Secretary Schwab.
        Secretary Simon, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SIMON

        Secretary Simon. Thank you, Chairman Steil, Ranking Member
    Morelle, and Members of the Committee. It is an honor to be
    with you. I am grateful for the invitation. I am glad to be
    here alongside my colleague and friend, Secretary Scott Schwab
    of Kansas. Also glad to be reunited with my former colleague as
    Secretary of State, now Representative Lee.
        Minnesota is proud of its accurate, fair, secure,
    accessible, and trusted election system, and I appreciate the
    opportunity to speak about it, specifically the work that is
    done to ensure that Minnesota's voter rolls are accurate and up
    to date.
        Now, as you know, voter roll list maintenance and
    eligibility verification are governed by extensive State and
    Federal laws. The robust procedures Minnesota follows to ensure
    compliance with these laws cannot be covered entirely in my 5
    minutes of remarks, but I will attempt to cover the most
    critical aspects of Minnesota's system here. I have included
    additional detailed information in my written remarks.
        Minnesota has a variety of rigorous election security
    measures in place before, on, and after election day to ensure
    that our voter rolls are accurate. In Minnesota, voters can
    register to vote either through a voter registration
    application or, if they are eligible, through the secure
    automatic voter registration process with the Minnesota Driver
    and Vehicle Services Division of the Department of Public
    Safety.
        Minnesota is one of about half the States in the Nation
    that adopted secure automatic voter registration, and it is
    important to know that individuals are only eligible to be
    included in that system if they provide citizenship affirming
    documentation, such as a birth certificate or a passport, at
    the time they apply for a driver's license or a State ID card.
        Regardless of the method of registration, every voter
    registration application is compared to our State's driver's
    license database or the Social Security Administration Help
    America Vote Verification database depending on the
    identification number provided by the voter at the time of
    their application. This initial comparison process is not
    unique to Minnesota and is governed by the Help America Vote
    Act.
        Once this initial comparison has been completed and the
    registration is added into the State database that we call
    SVRS, or Statewide Voter Registration System, every single
    voter is also mailed a nonforwardable postal verification card.
    If that card is returned as undeliverable, the voter's record
    is challenged. If a second postal verification card is returned
    as undeliverable, the record is inactivated.
        Once a record is entered into the Statewide Voter
    Registration System, it is continuously compared to multiple
    datasets, including monthly reports from the Minnesota
    Department of Corrections on individuals incarcerated for a
    felony sentence, daily reports from the Minnesota court system
    on those who have had their right to vote revoked, monthly
    reports from the Department of Public Safety on noncitizens
    with temporary status in the U.S., and monthly reports from not
    one but two death indices: the Minnesota Department of Health
    and data from the Social Security Administration.
        We also use data to ensure that duplicate voter records are
    identified and removed and that our voter records are as up to
    date as possible. This includes comparing voter records against
    court data to identify legal name changes, the U.S. Postal
    Service National Change of Address registry, and address data
    maintained in Minnesota's driver's licensing system.
        We also securely share information with 25 States and the
    District of Columbia to identify voters who have moved or
    registered in a different jurisdiction. In the rare cases where
    a potential voter registration violation is identified, State
    law requires referrals to the county attorney for investigation
    and prosecution.
        In addition, we also conduct annual list maintenance to
    inactivate any voter record that has not been updated by voting
    or other registration activity in over 4 years. This work to
    maintain accurate voter rolls is done by local election
    officials in Minnesota's 87 counties, and that work is
    supported on election day by hundreds of municipalities and by
    over 30,000 poll workers. These Minnesotans who work to
    administer our elections are committed to safe, secure, and
    accessible elections for all eligible voters in Minnesota, and
    I am proud to say that public trust in the system is
    exceedingly high, as evidenced both by public opinion polling
    in Minnesota and by the fact that Minnesota routinely leads the
    Nation in voter turnout.
        As Minnesota's chief election official, I am proud to
    oversee a system that provides broad access to eligible voters
    while maintaining the security necessary to preserve fair and
    accurate elections.
        Thank you so much for having me, again, and I look forward
    to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Simon follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Secretary Simon.
        Thank you both for being here.
        I will now recognize myself to begin questions. We will
    then follow with the Ranking Member and go back and forth.
        Let us start with basic principles. Do you both agree that
    noncitizens should not be voting in U.S. elections?
        Secretary Simon. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Steil. You agree with the principle. Let us dive
    in--I want to dive in with you, Mr. Simon--or Secretary Simon,
    if I can, on Minnesota's situation here.
        Does Minnesota issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens?
        Secretary Simon. Mr. Chair, to noncitizens broadly. Those
    who are documented and undocumented, yes.
        Chairman Steil. Noncitizens broadly, including illegal
    aliens. Does it distinguish on the driver's license whether or
    not the individual is a citizen or not?
        Secretary Simon. Mr. Chair, no, it does not.
        Chairman Steil. No, it does not. Some States do; Minnesota
    does not.
        If an individual comes to register day of in Minnesota, you
    allow same-day registration. Is that accurate?
        Secretary Simon. Correct.
        Chairman Steil. If an individual comes in and registers and
    was--there is no photo ID requirement on same-day registration
    in Minnesota. Accurate?
        Secretary Simon. Correct.
        Chairman Steil. An individual would not have to show their
    ID, and if they did not show their ID, it would not say whether
    or not they are a United States citizen?
        Secretary Simon. Mr. Chair, I am hesitating only because
    there are certain circumstances that might be different from
    that. I take the meaning of your question. Yes, it is not
    required.
        Chairman Steil. In Minnesota, you have a vouching
    opportunity as well.
        Secretary Simon. That is right.
        Chairman Steil. An individual who is registered to vote in
    Minnesota could show up with up to eight individuals and vouch
    for them. Is that accurate?
        Secretary Simon. Yes, but they are only vouching for where
    they live, not their citizenship or age. Only their residence.
        Chairman Steil. Because it is not--it is not asked, right?
    I mean, they would simply check a box that would say that they
    are a U.S. citizen. Is that accurate?
        Secretary Simon. As in almost every other State, yes.
        Chairman Steil. It is an attestation aspect. Where they
    live is what you could vouch for?
        Secretary Simon. Correct.
        Chairman Steil. An individual who is registered to vote in
    Minnesota could walk in with eight people from the Quality
    ``Learning' Center, vouch that they live in Minneapolis, and
    those individuals would then be registered to vote, would be
    capable of casting a ballot. Is that accurate?
        Secretary Simon. Not quite. Almost. I would say they have
    to live in the same precinct and they have to swear an oath,
    and that is all----
        Chairman Steil. Well, they would have to swear to that,
    right? I mean----
        Secretary Simon. Right.
        Chairman Steil [continuing]. the one person could vouch for
    up to eight individuals----
        Secretary Simon. Correct.
        Chairman Steil [continuing]. that that is the case?
        Secretary Simon. Just as to residence, that is true.
        Chairman Steil. Right. Then the concern is whether or not
    people are doing this inaccurately. Let us look at a case that
    just came to the forefront in your home State of Minnesota. An
    individual from Fillmore County has now been charged with
    voting illegally.
        Secretary Simon. That is right.
        Chairman Steil. The individual was sent--according to the
    reports--was sent voter registration material following
    obtaining a driver's license, which is required under Federal
    law that the State of Minnesota does that. Is that correct?
        Secretary Simon. Actually, no, Mr. Chair, because we are
    NVRA-exempt.
        Chairman Steil. You are NVRA-exempt. Good qualification.
    They are sent in the State of Minnesota. Not required under
    Federal law. Most States are. You are NVRA-exempt. You do send
    voter registra--the State of Minnesota sends voter registration
    material to every individual that registers, that obtains a
    driver's license?
        Secretary Simon. No, Mr. Chair. Actually, that is not how
    the system works. I would just say, as to the news report you
    are flagging, this individual said things that--is reported to
    have said things that just are not true, that he was sent some
    sort of, you know, application. That is not the state of the
    law, was not the state of the law when he registered--is
    alleged to have registered to vote in 2023. I think he got that
    wrong.
        But, no, we have a back-end AVR, automatic voter
    registration system, and the only folks who are eligible to
    even be in the pile to be considered to be registered to vote
    are those who produce citizenship-affirming documentation at
    the time they apply for that ID.
        Chairman Steil. What citizenship-affirming documentation
    would they provide?
        Secretary Simon. It could be naturalization papers, it
    could be a birth certificate, it could be a passport. Any
    person in Minnesota is entitled to do that. Again, they only
    get to the pile where they are even considered to be registered
    if they do that.
        Chairman Steil. Why would you not use the SAVE database in
    Minnesota?
        Secretary Simon. Well, in our----
        Chairman Steil. It is free, right?
        Secretary Simon. I think so.
        Chairman Steil. Now under--the Trump administration has
    made the SAVE database free.
        Secretary Simon. I think that is right. We have made the
    determination--every State has to make its own. I am not
    throwing shade on my colleague, Secretary Schwab. We have made
    the determination that it is not yet ready for use in
    Minnesota, and we would need a statutory change under Minnesota
    law to do so.
        Chairman Steil. You would need a statutory change under
    Minnesota law to allow you use the SAVE database.
        Mr. Schwab, do you find value in the SAVE database?
        Secretary Schwab. We do. Nobody wants a person who is
    deceased on their voter rolls. What happens is where you reside
    is not hard-and-fast where you can--you can live in--for
    example, I dealt with someone the other day that she lives in
    Oklahoma, but she is married to a soldier in Virginia,
    stationed in Virginia. She votes in Oklahoma. Well, if she were
    to die in Virginia, there is no way for us to know that she
    died there. They would stay on the voter roll.
        Chairman Steil. You find value in using the SAVE database?
        Secretary Schwab. Yes. That is why we end up with so many,
    because we have not done this for over 10 years and these
    people had died in other States. Then we send it to the county.
    The county reaches out to the family or does research to find
    an obit.
        Chairman Steil. Cognizant of the time because I want to
    make sure all my colleagues get their questions in.
        I think there is real value in the SAVE database, and I
    hope Minnesota makes the decision to utilize it.
        I will yield back.
        I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5
    minutes for questions.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
        Since we are here, I am going to skip ahead to a question I
    was going to ask later. Since we are on the topic, Secretary
    Simon, I understand Minnesota is a member of ERIC, which is a
    nonprofit organization that provides data matching. To the
    point that was just being made by Chairman Steil, I think it
    would probably be malpractice not to talk about Electronic
    Registration Information Center, known as ERIC, in these
    proceedings.
        Can you tell--Minnesota is still a participant in ERIC;
    about 25 States are. Could you explain to the Committee the
    value of ERIC, particularly in the context of this State to
    State?
        Secretary Simon. Yes. Thank you, Representative. I mean,
    good data is the coin of the realm here, right? I think we all
    agree on that. Whether it is--a particular source is good or
    not, we agree that good data matters. We get really good data
    from ERIC, because it enables us across State lines to do very
    confidential anonymized matching. In other words, personal
    information is not disclosed as such. It is coded, it is shared
    in an anonymized way.
        It enables us very consistently and effectively to find
    people who have moved to another State who are perhaps still
    registered in Minnesota. In rare cases, it enables us to find
    people who have double voted or attempted to double vote.
    Because of the scope and because of the routine data sharing,
    we find tremendous value in it.
        The more States that are in it, the better, of course, but
    it is just about half of the States. We find it invaluable.
        Mr. Morelle. The example that was used from Oklahoma to--I
    forgot where the other--Virginia, maybe you said, Secretary
    Schwab--would not that--would not ERIC be a tool that would
    allow you to trace where people are and whether they would be
    eligible in one State or another?
        Secretary Schwab. Representative, it would be a good tool.
    The problem is it is expensive, and we do not have the
    resources to join. The cost of ERIC is determined by member
    States.
        Mr. Morelle. Yes.
        Secretary Schwab. I used to tell the folks there, if you
    can get California to join, then we can probably afford it
    because of the population of California. Then after other
    States, like Florida and Texas, left ERIC, it would just be too
    expensive.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you. I appreciate your honesty in that.
        Frankly, I would say this to that. This is where I think
    the Federal Government does have a role to play to defer costs
    that would make it easier for States to share data, to come
    together in a way that makes sense for all citizens. If we want
    to instill confidence in people, we should be investing
    resources.
        $15 million for election security grants in this moment, to
    me, is--it is actually--I would almost have preferred zero, at
    least that is less embarrassing than $15 million, which would
    not pay for, frankly, anything. I am really disappointed in
    that number.
        If I can, with my remaining time, Secretary Simon, you
    mentioned--and I think Minnesota turnout is consistently high,
    about 10 percent higher than the national average, if I am
    getting that right. What do you think you are doing, frankly,
    that helps encourage that kind of turnout?
        Because, frankly, we should be looking at models that
    increase turnout across the country. Eighty million--pardon me
    for interrupting you before you even answer the question.
    Eighty million voting age-eligible Americans did not vote in
    the last Presidential election. That should be the national
    topic for conversation. How do we encourage those 80 million to
    join their fellow citizens in participating? Maybe you could
    give me a thought or two on what you think is particularly
    going well in Minnesota that would allow us to use it as an
    example.
        Secretary Simon. Sure. Thanks, Representative. I will never
    say no to an excuse to brag about our high voter turnout,
    which, by the way, goes back a long time. Decades. It does not
    matter whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge. We love
    to vote.
        You know, I think it boils down, in my judgment, to two
    main things: good laws and a good pro-voter culture in
    Minnesota. As to the laws, we are all looking for the same
    thing, which is the perfect balance, if such a thing exists,
    between access and security. Access, meaning let us not make it
    an obstacle course unnecessarily. Security, meaning let us make
    sure that only eligible voters and no one else is taking
    advantage of that accessibility.
        In terms of the culture, I think some of it is self-
    perpetuating. We are sort of a little bit competitive with
    other powerhouse States like, Mr. Chairman, Wisconsin, a
    perennial rival when it comes to sports and voter turnout. I
    think it is those two things, briefly, that explain our
    success.
        Mr. Morelle. I appreciate it.
        Let me just close again by thanking you both and
    secretaries all around this country and local election
    administrators who I think are doing an amazing job.
        Our job here should not be to tip the scales for a
    particular political party. Our job ought to make sure that the
    American voters have the opportunity to render their verdicts.
    Even when I do not particularly love the verdict they render, I
    have enormous respect for it, I have trust in the American
    people.
        Before I yield, if I might just ask unanimous consent to
    enter into the record a statement from the dean of the
    Minnesota congressional delegation, Representative McCollum.
        Chairman Steil. Without objection.
        [Appropriations Committee statement follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3503.012

        Mr. Morelle. I would also ask unanimous consent to enter
    into the record the following four items: a report by the
    Bipartisan Policy Center entitled ``Modernizing Voter List
    Maintenance,'' which lays out evidence-based bipartisan
    approaches to addressing these concerns. Second, a report by
    the Institute for Responsive Government, Bipartisan Policy
    Center, and R Street Institute entitled, ``United in Security:
    How Every State Protects Your Vote in 2026,'' which details the
    critical steps States take to secure voting systems and
    registration. A report by the States United Democracy Center
    entitled, ``Report on the `Election Oversight Group',
    Allegations About the 2020 Election in Fulton County,
    Georgia,'' which details the conspiracy theories that the
    administration is regrettably believing about election systems.
    Finally, a report by the Institute for Responsive Government,
    `` `State Citizenship Lists' in Trump's March 31, 2026
    Elections Executive Order,'' which details the absolute--pardon
    me--insanity of the citizenship list that the President's
    recent executive order attempts to impose on our States.
        Chairman Steil. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentlewoman from Florida, the former
    Secretary of State of the State of Florida, Representative Lee.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    Secretary Schwab and Secretary Simon for being here today.
        As a former Secretary of State, I had the privilege of
    serving with both of today's witnesses as my colleagues, and we
    are very grateful to you both for bringing your expertise to
    our Committee hearing today.
        I have also seen firsthand how critical it is to maintain
    the accuracy of voter rolls and how much that process relies on
    good and up-to-date information. Today's discussion is
    particularly important because it helps us understand what more
    we can be doing to keep pace with modern capabilities, modern
    technology, and how we can be supporting our State and local
    election officials in their efforts to keep accurate, current
    voter rolls.
        I would like to start by going back to you, Secretary
    Schwab. You mentioned a number of different data sources that
    you are using related to voter list maintenance. You discussed
    the SAVE database, you discussed the Social Security death
    information. You also noted that some of those are now
    accessible to you at no cost.
        My first question to you is this: Is it accurate that,
    previous to this administration, some of those services
    actually were only available to States if there was a fee
    associated with them?
        Secretary Schwab. Yes, that is my understanding. There was
    a fee charge before. The program ceased, I believe, during
    President--then-President Barack Obama's second term, and that
    was the end of the SAVE program till just last fall.
        Ms. Lee. Are those tools an assistance to you? Are they
    helping you in drawing down data to work on your list
    maintenance?
        Secretary Schwab. Absolutely. Absolutely. The more--the
    more datasets you can compare with, the better the system
    works.
        Ms. Lee. Now, one thing that I am interested in is actually
    something that the Ranking Member Morelle touched on, and that
    is the notion of Federal grants and Federal support at the
    State and local level. Are there particular things that, in
    your view, we could be doing to assist with the voter list
    maintenance process, whether that is data or technology? Are
    there things that Congress could be doing more to support you?
        Secretary Schwab. There is a couple things. One--and this
    is where I will disagree with the ranking minority leader--I
    always come from the school of thought that elections are best
    run locally and funded locally. I get in trouble when I accept
    HAVA funds, but I am expected to accept them, but then there is
    a match, but my legislature is not in session, so now I am
    spending money without legislative approval on the match. This
    last session they did not approve the match. We are trying to,
    hopefully, not have to send the money back to the Federal
    Government because of the match. I would rather just, because
    of the strings attached, just do not give me anymore money. If
    we need more money, we can handle it locally.
        Some other things like, in the NVRA there is a 90-day
    shutout period. It would be nice if that was a little bit
    shorter and also if there were some exemptions. If we have a
    confirmed death, then I would like to be able to pull that
    person off the voter rolls at that time and not have to wait
    till after the election to do that.
        There is other things that we would--you know, simple
    things. Just make it narrow. Do not--there is this image that,
    by some folks, that think I am just at the--a computer at my
    desk and I can delete voter registrations. I cannot. It starts
    at the county level.
        I appreciate the ranking minority's comments on local
    election officials, because they are the ones who do it. These
    are the people that you go to church with, your kids play
    sports with each other, and they are making sure that
    everything is done fairly.
        Ms. Lee. Now, you just touched on something that I think is
    very important that I want to be sure we highlight, and it is
    this: Because of the existing blackout periods, even if you
    have a verified death of a voter in your community that is on
    your voter rolls, it is correct to say that there is this time
    period where you cannot remove them from the rolls regardless
    of the fact that you have verified that information, correct?
        Secretary Schwab. Yes. That is 90 days of list maintenance
    that is just lost.
        Ms. Lee. Would it be helpful to you if that time period was
    shortened or changed or eliminated? What do you think would be
    the best approach to that blackout concept?
        Secretary Schwab. I would like--I am sorry, I did not mean
    to interrupt you, Representative.
        I would like it shortened, and then certain exemptions,
    like death. If we have a confirmed death--for example, God
    forbid, I was assassinated within the 90-day--it would be very
    public, it would be known, but yet it is against Federal law to
    remove me from the voter rolls. I think it should be OK to
    remove me in that situation or anybody else that you have a
    confirmed death. Again, it has got to be confirmed. It cannot
    be just by rumor.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Secretary.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Representative Sewell is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Schwab, I want to discuss voting by mail. I
    consider voting by mail a safe and accessible way to vote. In
    fact, 48 million Americans or about one in three voters used
    vote by mail in the 2024 election.
        Now, mail voting is under attack both by the President--who
    himself votes by mail, I may add--and by administrative issues
    in the Postal Service that we can all agree must be addressed.
        Mr. Secretary, you shared your concerns about delivery
    services, time and postmarking issues, with--in a letter that
    you sent to then-Postmaster General DeJoy. I think that was in
    September 2024. In this letter, you wrote, quote, ``The Postal
    Service failure to deliver as promised has disenfranchised
    approximately 1,000 voters in Kansas,'' correct?
        Secretary Schwab. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Sewell. You also describe that disenfranchisement as,
    quote, ``a failure to provide service that enables Kansans to
    exercise their constitutional right to vote,'' correct?
        Secretary Schwab.
        [Nonverbal response.]
        Ms. Sewell. Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to
    enter into the record Secretary Schwab's letter to then-
    Postmaster General DeJoy.
        Chairman Steil. Without objection.
        [The letter referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3503.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3503.137

        Ms. Sewell. Secretary Schwab, do you agree that voting by
    mail is a critical tool that eligible voters and that people,
    just like the President, should be able to cast their ballots
    by mail?
        Secretary Schwab. I do, with a caveat. By the way,
    Representative, we have met.
        Ms. Sewell. Have we?
        Secretary Schwab. In your home district.
        Ms. Sewell. Oh, right.
        Secretary Schwab. Then-Secretary Merrill did a joint
    venture----
        Ms. Sewell. Oh, yes. Absolutely.
        Secretary Schwab [continuing]. and we have met. Thank you
    for taking the time with us.
        Ms. Sewell. Secretary Merrill was then the secretary of----
        Secretary Schwab. Alabama.
        Ms. Sewell [continuing]. State for the State of Alabama.
    Yes.
        Secretary Schwab. Thank you so much for taking the time
    with us. It was an impactful trip, to say the least.
        Ms. Sewell. Absolutely. Now, tell me about vote by mail. Do
    you----
        Secretary Schwab. Vote by mail. I stand by my comments. We
    have ballots from the 2020 election show up at county election
    offices 3 years later, which is why I always----
        Ms. Sewell. Well, I mean, I think that you were--you were
    concise, which is why I put in your letter into the record. I
    get it, and I do believe that it is a critical tool. It needs a
    lot of work with the Postmaster General to get there on time,
    and I will admit that.
        Secretary Schwab, in 2011, when you were in Kansas State
    Legislature, you supported a bill that required documentary
    proof of citizenship to vote. That law blocked the registration
    of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were eligible to vote,
    and the law was eventually blocked in the court.
        When asked by the Associated Press in 2024 about a similar
    provision contained in the SAVE Act, you said, quote, ``Kansas
    did that 10 years ago, and it did not work out so well,'' end
    quote.
        Mr. Secretary, do you still stand by those words, that
    requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote
    does not really work that well?
        Secretary Schwab. Well, it did not work. It was because
    back then we were supposed to have REAL ID, but the Brownback
    administration stalled it. That would have made the process
    simpler, because then no illegal immigrant would get a driver's
    license or a REAL ID. That was stalled, and that is what
    created the problems with registrants you talked of.
        Ms. Sewell. Well, I have to say that I believe that
    restrictions proposed in the so-called SAVE Act are just as
    dangerous, and I think that it lends itself to the same kind of
    processing that may eventually stop people who are legitimately
    American citizens from voting.
        My next question actually goes to you, Secretary Simon. As
    a chief--as the chief election officer of your State, is it
    your opinion that this executive order is an unconstitutional
    violation of State authority? In particular I am talking about
    the President's executive order that attempts to interfere with
    States and the Postal Service from delivering mail ballots. I
    know that Minnesota, along with 23 other States, is suing to
    block this order. Can you talk a little bit about that?
        Secretary Simon. Yes. I agree with that statement. This is
    similar to the executive order last year. Putting on the shelf
    just for a minute the merits, whether you think it is a good
    idea or bad idea, we are persuaded, as are other States, that
    it is just not constitutional. The President may want to do
    these things. The proper way to do it is through an Act of
    Congress, not through executive order.
        Ms. Sewell. Can you describe briefly the impact that both
    the SAVE Act--SAVE America Act and the executive order would
    have if they were to go into effect?
        Secretary Simon. Yes. I would just say based on--I will
    concentrate a little bit on vote by mail since that is your
    chief interest.
        Ms. Sewell. Yes.
        Secretary Simon. You know, I am concerned with the
    executive order on the merits that it is putting the Postal
    Service in a position that I do not think it has ever been in,
    which is being the eligibility cops when it comes to elections.
    I do not know how they would stand up that sort of
    infrastructure. I just do not know how that would go down. I am
    not an expert on the Postal Service. That is a real concern.
        The SAVE Act, likewise, would make voting by mail very
    difficult in the sense of providing the proper proofs.
        Ms. Sewell. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to enter into
    the record an article entitled, ``Kansas once required voters
    to prove citizenship. That just did not work so well,'' end
    quote.
        Chairman Steil. Without objection.
        [The AP News article referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The gentleman from Georgia, Representative Loudermilk, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank both of
    you for being here today.
        Very important topic because, unlike any other law in our
    country, election integrity is something that has to be
    proactive. It does not work if it is reactive, right? Because
    when you look at, let us say, a general election for Congress,
    that happens the beginning of November, the presumed winner is
    going to take office within a matter of days, a couple of
    months after.
        If you find out that someone was ineligible to vote and
    they voted, you cannot undo it, right? It is something that you
    must be proactive if you are going to have an election system
    that has integrity. That is one of the reasons Georgia did what
    they did in 2021, a very proactive system to ensure the
    eligibility of the voter prior to them voting.
        Secretary Schwab, if a voter is registered to vote in your
    State but a resident in another State, are they considered an
    eligible voter?
        Secretary Schwab. Not necessarily, because we do not have a
    residency definition. It is very loose.
        You could live in another State 80 percent of the time, but
    you also live in Kansas 10 percent of the time and you are on
    the register to vote there. That is completely legal.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I am talking about the residency. They are
    a citizen of another State, they are a resident. In other
    words, they are registered to vote in two States.
        Secretary Schwab. There is not a way for me to do it
    without ERIC. Again, there is burdens and costs that come with
    that. There is not a document that says I am a resident here,
    you are registered to vote there. That does not necessarily
    mean--that is where these residency rules are just so fluid.
    What defines a resident is different between each jurisdiction.
        Mr. Loudermilk. If somebody lives in Kansas, they
    permanently move, let us say, to Florida, they keep their voter
    registration in Kansas. You still consider them a registered
    voter--an eligible voter, I should say?
        Secretary Schwab. Well, if they are registered in Florida,
    no. What we do is we do the National Change of Address.
        Mr. Loudermilk. That is what I am getting to, right.
        Secretary Schwab. Yes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. What about in Minnesota? Somebody lives in
    Minnesota, moves to Florida, they register to vote there. They
    are still registered to vote.
        Do you know that they are still--that they have registered
    to vote in Florida? Do you have a way of determining this?
        Secretary Simon. Yes, Representative, yes. We would hope
    so, right? I mean, if they are a member State of ERIC, we
    absolutely would. Even if they are not, given the databases
    that we run all this information through, including change of
    address, there is a good chance we would discover it.
        Mr. Loudermilk. OK. You guys do your voter roll
    maintenance. OK. That is one thing that has been a huge issue.
        I am concerned a little bit about the vouching process. You
    mentioned that only eligible voters can register when someone
    vouches for them. Is there a way of you qualifying their
    eligibility at that point?
        Secretary Simon. Just to clarify, Representative, are you
    talking about the person doing the vouching or the person who
    is vouched for?
        Mr. Loudermilk. Both. OK. I assume that the person vouching
    already has to be an eligible registered voter, right?
        Secretary Simon. That is right.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Do you have a process to ensure that the
    ones that are voting--they are vouching for are eligible?
        Secretary Simon. Yes, Representative. Yes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. What is that?
        Secretary Simon. That is all at the local level logged,
    basically. The person signs an oath, there is a log in place
    for the person or people that they vouch for, and then after
    the election, that enables the folks at the county level, at
    the local level to do that spot-checking to make sure that they
    are eligible.
        Mr. Loudermilk. How much time passes between being
    verified?
        Secretary Simon. You know, days, maybe a couple of weeks.
    It depends. It depends on the county.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Are they--the ballot that the voters that
    were vouched for, are they provisional ballots?
        Secretary Simon. No. Because we are NVRA-exempt, we do not
    do provisional ballots in Minnesota.
        Mr. Loudermilk. If you find out that they were not
    registered voters, their vote still counts?
        Secretary Simon. Theoretically, that would be the case.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Do you not see that that is a potential
    problem?
        Secretary Simon. Well, I think it is a balance in that
    vouching is only for residency. As to the two things you need
    to show to prove--to register to vote in Minnesota. You are who
    you say you are and you live where you say you live. It is
    still on the voter to prove that they are who they say they are
    through ID, through all sorts of things. There is a long list
    that we allow. It is only the live where you say you live part.
        For example, it might be possible that someone is an
    eligible voter; they are a citizen, they are 18, all the rest,
    but they do not live where they say they live. They voted in
    the wrong place. That is certainly possible.
        Vouching only pertains to residency. No one is vouching for
    someone's citizenship, age, or anything else.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Even if they may be a felon?
        Secretary Simon. They are not vouching for that either.
        Mr. Loudermilk. OK. I am out of time. I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        Representative Torres is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman. Congratulations to you
    and your bride. I too have been married 40 years, so we are
    happy to give you some inside information as to how to keep the
    marriage strong.
        I want to say thank you to you, Mr. Schwab, thank you also
    to you, Mr. Simon, for being here today. Most of all, I want to
    say thank you so much to all of the people that work with you
    to hold free and fair elections in your States. It is, in the
    best of times, a thankless job, but these are not the best of
    times.
        This week, ProPublica published a horrifying investigation
    detailing how President Trump is openly working to, in his
    words, take over the 2026 midterms with loyalists placed
    throughout the Government to do it. Those are not my words;
    those are the President's words.
        What does this look like in real life? Trump already fired
    every election security expert at CISA, the very people whose
    job it was to protect our elections from foreign interference.
    At a time of war, instead of focusing on terrorism and
    defending the homeland, Trump is having our intelligence
    agencies, the FBI, running around raiding election offices and
    chasing crazy conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.
        Georgia's Fulton County, who the FBI raided, is now unable
    to verify if Trump's cleanup crew has altered any of the
    ballots that they stole. The Department of Justice has been
    demanding States turn over their sensitive voter information
    for almost a year now.
        I just cannot get over what happened in Minnesota. Border
    Patrol and ICE agents murdered Renee Good, and after killing
    Alex Pretti on the streets of Minneapolis, former Attorney
    General Bondi used his death as leverage to gain demand over
    Minnesota's voter rolls. Thank you for standing tall on that.
        The court stopped them, but this administration attempted
    to use a murder of an American citizen to bully you into
    handing over voter data.
        On March 31, Trump signed an executive order that attempts
    to bypass the Constitution to nationalize our elections. Trump
    is ordering the Department of Homeland Security to create
    Federal-approved voter lists and turning our local post office
    into partisan hack filters for mail-in ballots.
        The hypocrisy in this Committee, the hypocrisy waged in
    front of us is staggering. The President has already voted by
    mail twice this year. He knows it is safe. He just does not
    want you to use your vote in dissent.
        My question to both of you is, are you preparing for
    possible Federal executive overreach? I do not need you to go
    into detail. Just yes or no.
        Secretary Simon. Yes.
        Secretary Schwab. I am focused more on making sure our list
    maintenance is right. I mean----
        Mrs. Torres. It is a reality, though. Federal overreach is
    a reality. I hope that you will focus some time, on top of
    everything that you are dealing with, because it is a real
    threat that the President has already executed an executive
    order, that this Committee Chairman has been leading also bills
    to cancel people's votes who do not support their policies.
        We need every American to go to the polls and use their
    voice and vote to decide the next chapter of our country. The
    American people need both of you, need all of our registered
    voters, Secretaries of State, we need you in the front lines of
    this fight.
        They need--our voters need to know that when they walk into
    their polling place, their school gyms, their community
    centers, their neighbors, their neighborhood library, that
    their vote will be cast freely, counted honestly, and that no
    Federal anti-voting extremist decided in advance whether they
    were allowed to participate. That is the promise of this
    democracy, and we need you to keep it.
        With that, I am going to yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just say first
    off, I have read all the bills that you are sponsoring, and I
    know that if you read the bills, there is no attempt to
    invalidate any legitimate votes by American citizens in this
    country. I have supported those bills because they do not do
    that.
        If they were trying to take away the votes of people who
    did not agree with my policies, I would be absolutely opposed
    to that because that is a violation of the principles of a
    democratically run republic. I appreciate your efforts. Thank
    you.
        Now, moving on, let me just talk about vote by mail for a
    minute. I have never voted by mail. I will never vote by mail.
    I think there are all kinds of problems with vote by mail, and
    I know that I have heard people saying this, that, and the
    other, but here is the concern I have.
        Sometimes you are going to have people who do bad things.
    Sometimes you have people who may think they are doing the
    right thing and violate the law. Vote by mail, you cannot
    figure that out sometimes. I am going to give you the example
    on vote by mail, and then we will talk about another one.
        God rest her soul, my mother lived to be 92. For the last
    30, 40 years of her life, she lived with my sister. I trust my
    sister. My mother had her competency till the day she--well,
    about 3 days before she passed away, she went comatose. Until--
    when she was casting a vote, it was her casting it, whether it
    was in person or otherwise.
        In a lot of households, you have an elderly family member,
    they receive a ballot in the mail, son or daughter or caretaker
    is very likely, even if they think, well, I know that mom was
    of this political party or another, they are not supposed to be
    voting if she is not competent and cannot cast that vote
    herself.
        Yet can either one of you tell me that you are not at least
    aware that is a possibility with mail-in votes? Mr. Simon?
        Secretary Simon. Representative, anything is possible.
        Mr. Griffith. I understand. Mr. Schwab?
        Secretary Schwab. I would say the way Kansas has signature
    verification and voter ID ahead of that mail ballot, it really
    limits that from happening in our States. I think signature
    verification is key to preventing exactly what you are saying.
        Mr. Griffith. Let me just say this. I get what you are
    saying, but my wife copies my signature every day because I am
    not there. Now, I have given her a power of attorney so she can
    do it, and she has my permission. My sister can do an exact
    replica to this day of my mother's signature.
        How are you going to do signature verification? You do not
    have--she is not--she is not doing pen lifts or any of the
    things you would normally look for in a fraudulent document.
    How are you going to verify that?
        Secretary Schwab. Cheaters are going to cheat. Mistakes are
    going to happen. I do not know of any way you can a thousand
    percent----
        Mr. Griffith. Our job is to try to keep the cheaters from
    being able to cheat. In the case of my family member, our job
    is to make it clear, you are not supposed to be doing that as a
    favor to mom, and that creates a problem.
        Then I have got this other problem. Mr. Simon, it deals
    with your situation and the gentleman who voted illegally. You
    said, well, he made some statements that were not accurate
    because he got a statement that said in it that, you know, you
    are not supposed to vote unless you are a U.S. citizen.
        We are sending these statements out to people, we are
    having people look at these things--because when you do motor
    voter and you sign up for a driver's license and you get the
    application or you do it right there, we have a lot of people
    coming into this country--God bless them--the ones who are
    coming in legally still do not necessarily have a full command
    of the English language.
        If you have that document being checked off in the English
    language, they--I submit to you, they, quite frankly, in many
    cases may not realize what they have checked or what they have
    signed. Then they get a voter registration card in the mail,
    and they are told on--I mean, look, I have run lots of ads--and
    they are told to go vote.
        I think when you do not do citizenship verification, you
    are causing people to perhaps be inadvertent or accidental
    felons. As a recovering criminal defense attorney, I hate it
    when the law sets people up to make felonious mistakes. I think
    that is what the laws that do not have citizenship checked do.
    They set it up for people who cannot read or write English well
    to commit felonies without actually creating the mens rea to do
    so.
        That is why I support a lot of the legislation that is
    intended to make sure only U.S. citizens get to vote.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The Representative from Texas, Representative Johnson, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, thank you so much for being here.
        Secretary Schwab, as a person who was born in Kansas, it is
    a pleasure to have you here.
        I would like to just use my time to address a little bit of
    a different topic, which is voter notification of poll changes
    in poll place locations. I would like to highlight for this
    Committee a situation that happened in Dallas in our recent
    primary, because I think it is very important that we pay
    attention to this. I would love to--and I welcome you all to
    join on my bill, the VOTE Act.
        Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can give this--this Committee
    can give it consideration.
        What the bill does is it requires, when poll locations are
    going to be changed, that voters be notified, that they be
    notified where to vote. Because what happened in Dallas is we
    have gone in from precinct-only location to countywide vote
    centers. We have gone back and forth. The problem is, when I
    first ran for office in 2018, we were at precinct-only
    locations on election day. Then we went to vote centers, which
    has been great. Everybody could vote anywhere in Dallas County.
    We have been doing that for some time.
        Then, right before the primary, we switched for precinct-
    only locations. What will happen is, if you are a voter, let us
    say from Grand Prairie, which is a city in Dallas County, you
    had an election on January 31 where you voted in vote centers.
    Then our primary started, and then for 2 weeks of the primary,
    you could vote in a vote center. Then on election day, you
    could only vote in a precinct and at different times. No
    notifications were provided to the voters of where to vote.
        As a result we had mass chaos. Mass numbers of voters being
    turned away and unable to vote. These are citizens, these are
    eligible voters who should have a right to cast their ballot.
    Over 30,000 voters in Dallas County were turned away to vote
    from--when they presented to vote because they were not
    notified of the right vote center.
        Then the Secretary of State had a platform for voters, if
    you check in to vote, to say this is not your location, you go
    to this location, but none of those were correct. They would
    send voters to multiple locations to vote, and they still were
    not able to cast their vote.
        We had a field hearing--Ranking Member Morelle came to
    Dallas this past week, and we had a hearing on this very issue.
    We heard stories of a woman, for example, was on crutches, and
    she was told to go to three different polling locations and was
    ultimately denied her right to vote because she got to the last
    one after the polls closed at 7 p.m.
        To me, that is unacceptable in this country. That is
    making--this is where eligible voters--we should have a system
    where they should be able to--if you are going to change the
    rules and change where people vote, we should tell them where
    they should be able to go vote. Our bill is very simple and
    would have clearly addressed this.
        You know, the other problem that was happening, because
    there was so much confusion, the courts got involved and
    extended the voting hours because there was just all these
    people in line, and people cast a provisional ballot. Over
    2,000 people's ballots were ultimately thrown out, and their
    ballots did not count. That should be something--should be a
    paramount concern to this Committee.
        When you are an eligible voter and you cast your ballot
    pursuant to the rules that were provided to you at the time,
    and then they changed those rules such that your ballot was
    thrown out, that is unacceptable, and that is alarming to me.
        My question to you gentlemen is, do you think it would be
    helpful for us to have a Federal rule that says, you know what,
    you as Secretaries of State, you should require notice to the
    voters of where they should be able to vote?
        Secretary Simon. Representative, I would agree with that in
    principal. I will just note, in Minnesota, fortunately, we have
    a law in place that says all polling places must be fixed and
    determined by December 31 in the prior year. To anyone who
    today might approach me in Minnesota saying, well, I would
    really love the polling place in our community be changed, I
    would say you have missed the deadline. It was last December
    31. That is our law.
        Secretary Schwab. I would say do not make the secretaries
    do it. It is the county, because they are closest to the
    people. We have not had that issue. Personally, I get nervous
    if there is one State with an issue that every State now has a
    new Federal law. You might want to tie that to the HAVA grants.
    If they want HAVA money, then you must do X, Y, or Z. Because
    the States that are already doing it and doing it well, I do
    not want you to change what we do, putting it on us, and right
    now it is our counties that do it.
        I would just continue to work with election officials to
    see what works where they are at. I think if it is tied to the
    HAVA grant that they want, then just say, well, then you are
    now compelled to do this.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much. I am out of time.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The Representative from Oklahoma, Representative Bice, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
    Thank you to the witnesses for being with us this morning.
        Let me start by just sharing, I served in the Oklahoma
    State Senate for 6 years and had the pleasure of overseeing
    Oklahoma's Election Board. You probably know Mr. Ziriax. I
    think Oklahoma does elections right for a lot of reasons. We
    are not a State that takes days or weeks to determine
    elections. We are actually--typically, that night elections are
    decided. I feel very confident in the process.
        Can you talk a little bit about your mail-in ballot or
    absentee ballot process in each of your States? I will start,
    Mr. Schwab, with you.
        Secretary Schwab. Yes. We have no-excuse mail ballots, but
    you do have to apply still. When I was--in 2022 when I was up
    for reelection--and this may sound long, but this is the
    process--is can you print up your own ballot to be mailed in?
    No, because you do not know the paper weight, you do not know
    the bar code or whether there is watermarks. If you put it in a
    drop box, it ain't going to get counted. Well, what if you
    found an envelope and could steal a ballot and do it? Well,
    then it is not in the envelope. Well, now you got to steal the
    envelopes. Well, now put the envelope in this account. No,
    because it does not have a voter's name on it. Oh, yes, well,
    what if I put a voter's name on it? No, it does not count
    because they never asked for that ballot. OK. Now I get through
    all those things and finally put it in the drop box, does it
    count? No, because you did not use your driver's license
    number. I do not even know my driver's license number.
        Those are all the processes we put in to make sure mail
    ballots are secured. I will say I hate calling them mail
    ballots because people actually mail them. In most rural
    communities--I am sure you experience this in Oklahoma--the
    county courthouse is right across the street from the post
    office. Do not put it in the blue box, put it in the red white
    and blue box, that way it stays in the State.
        Mrs. Bice. Got it. Do you require voter identification to
    come in with your absentee ballot or signature verification?
        Secretary Schwab. We do signature verification on the
    ballot, voter ID on the application.
        Mrs. Bice. OK. Mr. Simon, your process?
        Secretary Simon. Thank you, Representative. I am glad that
    Secretary Schwab said what he did about mailing in. Not
    everyone mails it in. Just because you received it by mail does
    not mean you have to return it by mail.
        Mrs. Bice. Sorry for the incorrect moniker of absentee
    ballot. I suppose this is more accurate.
        Secretary Simon. In Minnesota, in short, when someone
    orders the ballot, they do not just order the ballot. They have
    to provide one or both of a driver's license number and a
    partial Social Security number. We are increasingly
    recommending for a lot of reasons that people do both. Then
    when they get the ballot, after voting, they have to----
        Mrs. Bice. Wait, can I ask you--can I pause for a second.
        Secretary Simon. Sure.
        Mrs. Bice. You said a driver's license number and a Social
    Security number. You can obtain a driver's license being a
    noncitizen. Is that accurate.
        Secretary Simon. True.
        Mrs. Bice. OK. Keep going.
        Secretary Simon. Then, once the voter votes the ballot,
    they have to sign. There is that signature verification piece.
    We have a witness requirement in Minnesota. Someone who is
    eligible to vote in Minnesota also has to sign that ballot.
        When it goes back--there is really three layers of
    protection: It is the personal identifying information, it is
    the signature of the voter, and it is the signature of a
    witness. We are a little bit unique in that way.
        Mrs. Bice. How do you verify the signature of a witness?
        Secretary Simon. Well, it depends on the county, it depends
    on the signatures on file, and the like. That is used as a
    backup and that counties are--feel free to pursue, and
    sometimes they do. It just depends on the circumstance.
        Mrs. Bice. Do they have to include additional information
    on that ballot as to who they are, any sort of verification of
    the witness?
        Secretary Simon. The signature is the primary means.
        Mrs. Bice. There is no other identifying information on
    that?
        Secretary Simon. No. They do not have to put a Social
    Security number or a driver's license, no.
        Mrs. Bice. Mr. Simon, do you sign your signature the same
    way today that you did 10 years ago?
        Secretary Simon. I would like to think so. Others are a
    better judge, but I am not sure. I mean, I hope mostly, yes. I
    see where you are going with it.
        Mrs. Bice. Mine has got----
        Secretary Simon. Signatures can change.
        Mrs. Bice. Mine has got significantly worse the longer I
    have been in Congress.
        I think the point being that, in Oklahoma, we actually
    have--we had an issue in 2020 where the way that our absentee
    ballot process was laid out was challenged in court. We--the
    reason that the process exists--and in Oklahoma it is a notary
    requirement--was because there was fraud in the sixties. We
    wanted to make sure that that was never an issue. Well, it was
    challenged in court in 2020 because of COVID, and so we decided
    that, you know what, if there is a health emergency, a national
    health emergency and a declaration by the Governor, you can
    include a photocopy of your valid driver's license--which by
    the way has your signature on it--as proof of identification
    for an absentee ballot, which is why I think that this is such
    an important piece of the process.
        I have concerns with signature verification. I know States
    use it. I really think that voter ID is the way to go. I hope
    that we would look at opportunities to do that, not only for
    in-person, but also for absentee ballot.
        Mr. Chairman, with that I yield.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The Representative from Ohio, Mr. Carey, is recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Carey. I want to thank the Chairman. I want to thank
    the Ranking Member.
        As we approach this year's State primaries in the upcoming
    general elections, ensuring the security and integrity of our
    voting process remains an issue of critical importance, not
    just to me, but I think everybody on this Committee. This
    Committee has consistently prioritized election security
    focusing on the measures such as voter ID requirements and the
    maintenance that occur for those records.
        I am particularly--and particularly, I am an original co-
    sponsor of H.R. 7300, which directly addresses these concerns.
    The bill proposes sensible reforms to the Federal elections,
    including mandatory photo identification, citizenship
    verification, use of paper ballots, and the regular voter list
    updates to ensure our eligible voters participate.
        In Ohio, which is my home State--and I want to also thank
    Secretary Frank LaRose--I think you both know him--also want to
    welcome him back. He was on deployment. They did not say where
    he was going, nor did they say where he was, but I have seen
    the pictures on social media, and it is great to have him back
    in our home State. He has set a strong example in the election
    integrity efforts, along with States likes Kansas, thanks to
    leaders such as you, Mr. Schwab.
        Ohio elections' administration approach includes both a
    photo ID requirement, a routine list maintenance to safeguard
    voter eligibility and election security, which is incredibly
    similar to the efforts in Kansas.
        Secretary Schwab, Kansas enacted ID voter requirements in
    2012. I am going to ask you a few questions--and I apologize, I
    was on the second most important Committee just a few minutes
    ago, which would be the Ways and Means Committee, and we had
    RFK testifying, which is the reason I am eating my wholesome
    snacks--because that is what it says anyway.
        Secretary, as far as you are aware, has the voter ID
    requirement been a barrier at all to voting?
        Secretary Schwab. No. The only barrier there was--we had to
    provide a free ID. We had someone sign an affidavit saying I
    cannot afford an ID, and the county will issue them. That is
    how it became a bipartisan bill. Even my current Democrat
    Governor was a State senator there and supported it.
        Mr. Carey. Let us talk about it. How much would one of
    these voter IDs cost an individual?
        Secretary Schwab. It is pretty inexpensive. It does not----
        Mr. Carey. You are----
        Secretary Schwab. We have never had a county complain that
    they have had to provide----
        Mr. Carey. The individual does not pay anything?
        Secretary Schwab. If they sign an affidavit saying they
    cannot afford it.
        Mr. Carey. They get it free.
        Secretary Schwab. They get it free.
        Mr. Carey. They do not have to pay anything?
        Secretary Schwab. Correct. Our ID just says it has to be
    government-issued, have your name, your picture.
        Mr. Carey. This really seems difficult. All you got to do
    is sign and say they cannot afford it, and they get a free ID.
        Secretary Schwab. Correct.
        Mr. Carey. OK. I just want to make sure of that, because
    there is a lot of confusion on that issue, as I am sure you are
    well aware.
        Have election administrations in Kansas been faced with any
    burdens implementing the new voter ID requirement? Any problems
    with it?
        Secretary Schwab. It just changes what we have been doing
    since 2011. I like the idea that it is government-issued and it
    does not have to have an expiration date on it, it has their
    face and it has their name. By putting more restrictions on it,
    then that could increase the cost of some of those.
        Mr. Carey. Does it have their signature on it as well.
        Secretary Schwab. No, does not.
        Mr. Carey. It is just their face.
        Secretary Schwab. It is just their face. When you go to
    the--99.9 percent of the time it is a driver's license.
        Mr. Carey. Anecdotally, I mean, would you say that this
    voter ID requirement has kind of bolstered what is the
    confidence in the election process?
        Secretary Schwab. Can I share a story with you?
        Mr. Carey. You have got 1 minute and 17 seconds.
        Secretary Schwab. OK.
        Mr. Carey. Make it a lot less than that.
        Secretary Schwab. Right. Again, when I was in committee,
    when we are doing this--I was the chair of the committee at the
    time--we had a gentleman come and say, I only vote in
    Presidential election years, but my sister is running for
    school board, so I have been asked to vote in the election.
    After work I went to vote and found out I had already voted.
    Asked if they ever showed their ID. They said, no, it is
    against the law to ask for an ID at the time in Kansas. He
    said, so I talked to my State representative, and he went
    back--because our voting records are public--he found out he
    had been voting in school board elections for 10 years.
        That is really what tipped the scale that we had the
    minority party support voter ID, because it was just--it was
    too important.
        Mr. Carey. Let me just ask you this--and I am running out
    of time here--but simply yes or no answer. Should we enact a
    voter ID requirement for Federal elections?
        Secretary Schwab. I am going to say yes.
        Mr. Carey. You are going to say yes.
        If more States had voter ID laws, would that boost public
    confidence in our elections? Thirteen seconds, yes or no?
        Secretary Schwab. I would say it has already for our State.
    I think most people are concerned about their State than they
    are not concerned--Kansans are not worried about Minnesota,
    they are not there. They are worried about Kansas.
        Mr. Carey. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
        The Representative from Illinois, Representative Miller, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    important hearing, and to the witnesses that are here.
        Secretary Simon, what steps has Minnesota taken to minimize
    opportunities for illegal voting by noncitizens?
        Secretary Simon. Thank you, Representative. We are very
    proud of the process that we have in place for filtering and
    screening and vetting noncitizens and anyone who is eligible to
    vote. I think we all share that goal.
        As I said in my introductory remarks, this is a perpetual
    process. This is not something that we just do once a year or
    even once a month. Depending on the dataset, it is sometimes
    daily that we are vetting and screening for exactly those kind
    of things. We are proud of that system, and I think it has
    withstood the test of time.
        Mrs. Miller. Can you be more specific on what you are
    doing?
        Secretary Simon. Sure. Well, as I mentioned--I will give
    you some of the specific databases. We screen every single one
    of our millions of voters regularly against things likes court
    records, driver's license records, public safety information,
    conviction information, and the like. Those are the data----
        Mrs. Miller. OK. Has your office recommended any cases of
    noncitizen voting to the Minnesota Attorney General or local
    prosecutors for investigation and prosecution?
        Secretary Simon. Yes.
        Mrs. Miller. How many?
        Secretary Simon. I--we can get you that information. I do
    not know, but we are bound by law to do that. So--and we do.
        Mrs. Miller. OK. Minnesota's Drivers and Vehicle Services,
    quote, ``does not ask if or track whether a person is
    undocumented when they apply for a standard license or ID
    card,'' which is very similar in my home State of Illinois.
        If they do not ask for or verify citizenship status, then
    how do you know whether or not a noncitizen has cast a ballot?
        Secretary Simon. Well, I would just--to zoom out just a
    little bit, it is not new in Minnesota, and I gather elsewhere,
    to provide driver's licenses for noncitizens. That has been
    going on for a hundred years. My own mother was driving around
    for decades and was not a citizen----
        Mrs. Miller. When your mom got it, was there anything on
    that ID that would differentiate her as being a noncitizen.
        Secretary Simon. I do not know. Because it would have been
    in the sixties, I just do not know.
        Mrs. Miller. Today that driver's license, there is nothing
    on it that would identify the person as a noncitizen.
        Secretary Simon. That is true.
        Mrs. Miller. It is a moot point, using a driver's license.
        Secretary Simon. Yes. That point, right. There is no
    distinguishing. That is true.
        Mrs. Miller. Then how do you know whether a noncitizen has
    cast a ballot using that?
        Secretary Simon. Well, a driver's license in Minnesota, and
    I gather everywhere else, is not proof of citizenship. It is
    not a document anyway that someone would use to show
    citizenship one way or another. As in almost every other State,
    the person attests that they are a U.S. citizen a couple
    different times, when they register and when they vote.
        Mrs. Miller. Right, which is why on a Federal level--and
    President Trump is trying to, you know, give us a database
    which--during the October 14, 2025, hearing before the
    Minnesota House of Representatives, Committee on Fraud
    Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy, your elections
    director, Paul Linnell, testified, quote, ``There is not a
    State level or Federal level database to run against for
    citizenship purposes.''
        July 28, 2025, the White House invited all State chief
    election officials to a briefing on a systemic alien
    verification for entitlements, the SAVE program, which checks
    against multiple Federal databases for citizenship verification
    of registered voters. Over a dozen Secretaries of State,
    Republican and Democrat, attended this briefing hosted by the
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, were in attendance.
    Were you in attendance?
        Secretary Simon. I do not know if that is the one I was or
    not. I was at a White--I do not know whether it was July. It
    was hot out, I remember that. I was at--I was at a bipartisan
    meeting of Secretaries invited by the White House. I cannot
    recall whether it was that one or it was in May or June or--I
    cannot recall, but I did attend one, yes.
        Mrs. Miller. Are you accessing this fantastic database?
        Secretary Simon. Representative, we are not. We have come
    to the judgment that it is not yet ready for use in Minnesota
    and would require our legislator to change our law.
        Mrs. Miller. OK. That is really too bad, because it would
    be helpful.
        I do want to remind everybody that, under Joe Biden, the
    border was open. We allowed unvetted people to come over the
    border--you know, people that would not be eligible to have
    come over, pour over our border up to possibly 20 million
    people. Why? Why would Joe Biden, Mayorkas, and the Democrats
    have allowed this? It is about votes.
        The American people, Republicans and Democrats, support the
    SAVE America Act. The MEGA Act is a great piece of legislation
    to ensure that only eligible voters are voting in our elections
    and that noncitizens are not voting. We need to access--I think
    it would be extremely helpful and give people confidence to
    know that you are accessing everything available, including
    this database that President Trump has made available, to
    ensure that noncitizens are not voting.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
        That concludes our questions for the witnesses. I want to
    thank our witnesses for appearing before us today.
        Members of this Committee may have some additional
    questions. We would please ask that you respond to those
    questions in writing.
        Without objection, each Member will have 5 legislative days
    to insert additional materials into the record or revise and
    extend their remarks.
        There being no further business, I thank the Members for
    their participation.
        Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                [all]