[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S1800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              OPPOSE EFFORTS TO ROLL BACK MOTOR-VOTER LAW

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the National Voter Registration Act of 
1993, often called the motor-voter bill, was one of the most important 
pieces of bipartisan legislation approved by the 103d Congress. 
Recently, several Senators have suggested they intend to try to delay 
final implementation of motor-voter, or to repeal it outright. Today a 
hearing was to be held on these issues in the Rules Committee. That 
hearing has now been postponed indefinitely, I hope as an indication of 
waning enthusiasm for this proposal. We must resist any efforts to 
weaken or to delay final implementation of this landmark measure, which 
is providing access for so many Americans to one of their most 
fundamental rights: the right to vote.
  Most States have moved forward quickly, responsibly, and effectively 
to implement the motor-voter bill at very low cost, with only a few 
States resisting. States which have recently implemented the motor-
voter provisions have seen tremendous increases in the number of people 
registering to vote. For example, since the first of the year Florida 
has been averaging over 3,000 new voter registrations per day from 
people getting driver's licenses. Approximately 3,700 voters were 
registered in Washington State in the first week of motor-voter 
operation through the combined use of motor-voter procedures, 
registration by mail, and agency-based registration. In Georgia, over 
18,000 people have been registered since the new procedures went into 
effect on January 1, 1995. In Kentucky, in the first 10 days of 
implementation of the act, over 10,000 new voters were registered, and 
over 15,000 changes of address for voters were completed through the 
motor-voter procedures. Since Minnesota implemented its own motor-voter 
process in 1987, our Secretary of State estimates that we have 
registered over 700,000 voters using those procedures. We must not 
reverse this extraordinary progress, which is allowing many more people 
to participate in our political system.
  In order to protect the fundamental right to vote of all U.S. 
citizens regardless of their State of residence, the U.S. Justice 
Department has filed suit against three States--California, Illinois, 
and Pennsylvania--which have so far refused to implement the motor-
voter procedures. As Attorney General Reno observed in the complaints 
against these three States,
 when Congress enacted the motor-voter bill we were exercising our 
constitutional right to regulate Federal elections under article I, 
section 4. States cannot simply ignore the direct statutory directives 
of Congress as the Attorney General said just after the law suits were 
filed:

       Congress has the authority to regulate Federal elections, 
     and it used that authority when it passed the law. We now 
     must use the authority that Congress gave us to enforce it.

  The motor-voter law enacted last year was designed to protect 
potential voters in all States, and not just in States where elected 
officials choose to obey properly enacted Federal laws. It is in our 
national interest to ensure access to the voting both for all, whether 
you live in Minnesota, California, or Alaska.
  In light of the importance of the Motor-Voter Act, and the support it 
is receiving from around the country, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following editorial appearing in the Washington Post on January 25, 
1995 be reprinted in the Congressional Record, along with the full text 
of my statement.
  The 1993 National Voter Registration Act was passed with bipartisan 
support because many of our colleagues understood how important the 
right to vote is in our society. The motor-voter law is part of a long 
line of landmark protections for the right to vote, starting with the 
adoption of the 15th amendment to the Constitution, through the 
enactment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and culminating with its 
passage. We must not return to the days when access to the voting 
booths in our country was limited by serious barriers to registration. 
We must stand up for the fundamental right to vote. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing any effort to undermine the motor-
voter law, or to delay its full implementation.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Why Resist the `Motor Voter' Law?

       On Monday the Justice Department filed suit against 
     California, Illinois and Pennsylvania for refusing to comply 
     with the National Voter Registration Act, popularly known as 
     the ``motor voter law.'' The 1993 law requires that states 
     allow people to register to vote when they get their driver's 
     licenses, when they apply for social service and other 
     government benefits, and by mail. The law was a good idea. 
     Its purpose was to streamline the U.S. voter registration 
     system, which is unusually cumbersome by the standards of 
     most other democracies.
       What are the arguments being made against the law? A group 
     of Republican governors that includes California's Pete 
     Wilson, who has already sued to have the law overturned, 
     objects on four principal counts: (1) that voter registration 
     is a state responsibility and the federal government has no 
     right to impose prescriptions as specific as those contained 
     in the new law; (2) that the law is another unfunded mandate 
     requiring states to spend their own money to achieve a 
     purpose dictated by Congress; (3) that it is also a ploy by 
     Democrats to strengthen the party's electoral chances, since 
     many of those whom easier registration might add to the voter 
     pool are groups inclined to vote against the GOP; and (4) 
     that the law could facilitate voter fraud.
       The issue of the power of the federal government on this 
     particular matter will now be settled by the courts, but 
     Attorney General Janet Reno made a plausible point when she 
     argued that ``Congress has the authority to regulate federal 
     elections, and it used that authority when it passed this 
     law.'' As for the mandates argument, it's true that the 
     Congressional Budget Office estimated the new law would have 
     a cost, though less than an average of $1 million in each 
     state annually. This has not bothered most states. On the 
     third point (that the GOP would be hurt and the Democrats 
     helped), the evidence is not so clear. Back in 1989, for 
     example, Newt Gingrich urged his party to support eased voter 
     registration ``not only because it's good policy but also 
     because it's good politics.'' Since young people are 
     disproportionately unregistered and since many in their ranks 
     lean Republican, he said, the party might actually gain from 
     an expanded electorate. Mr. Gingrich is not a fan of this 
     law, but that was a good point. As for fraud, registration at 
     motor vehicle offices and by mail already works fine in many 
     parts of the country, including in the District.
       Both political parties should want to take their chances 
     with the broadest possible electorate. The governors ought to 
     reconsider.
     

                          ____________________