[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 27, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1223-S1232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EQUAL PROTECTION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2001
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 565, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 565) to establish the Commission on Voting
Rights and Procedures to study and make recommendations
regarding election technology, voting, and election
administration, to establish a grant program under which the
Office of Justice Programs and the Civil Rights Division of
the Department of Justice shall provide assistance to States
and localities in improving election technology and the
administration of Federal elections, to require States to
meet uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and
administration requirements for the 2004 Federal elections,
and for other purposes.
Pending:
Clinton amendment No. 2906, to establish a residual ballot
performance benchmark.
Dodd (for Schumer) Modified amendment No. 2914, to permit
the use of a signature or personal mark for the purpose of
verifying the identity of voters who register by mail.
Dodd (for Kennedy) amendment No. 2916, to clarify the
application of the safe harbor provisions.
Hatch amendment No. 2935, to establish the Advisory
Committee on Electronic Voting and the Electoral Process, and
to instruct the Attorney General to study the adequacy of
existing electoral fraud statutes and penalties.
Hatch amendment No. 2936, to make the provisions of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 permanent.
Schumer/Wyden amendment No. 2937, to permit the use of a
signature or personal mark for the purpose of verifying the
identity of voters who register by mail.
Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2933, to prohibit the
broadcast of certain false and untimely information on
Federal elections.
Amendment No. 2937
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 10 a.m. shall be equally divided in the usual form for debate
relevant to amendment No. 2937.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand that is 30 minutes equally
divided?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time until 10 a.m.
[[Page S1224]]
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 10:05 a.m.
so as to provide for 30 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the time of the proponents of
the amendment be equally divided between Senator Schumer and Senator
Wyden.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Who yields time? If neither side yields time, time will be charged
against both sides.
The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
This is a very important amendment. We have done a great deal in this
bill to make it easier for people to vote and at the same time prevent
voter fraud.
I very much thank our colleague from Missouri for leading the charge
on voting fraud. There are lots of provisions in this bill that we have
worked on that deal with that. However, in our efforts to prevent voter
fraud, we cannot go so far that we actually create barriers to the
polls for eligible voters. That would be the antithesis of what this
bill is about.
The intent of this legislation is to take people, particularly those
who live in the corners of America who do not fly airplanes and use
their credit cards all the time but rather people who may not have a
driver's license, who may not have a utility bill, and allow them to
vote, our most sacred right. This amendment does that. It does it in a
way that does not increase fraud at all. It does it in a way that rises
to the real purpose of this bill. It is a crucial amendment.
If one believes in extending the right to vote and believes we have
to allow people who need that right because that is all they have--
perhaps their vote is equal to ours but they may need it even more than
ours--then he or she should vote for the Schumer-Wyden amendment. I
will have a little more to say later.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Fourteen minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am glad we can begin this debate because
there is much to be said, but let me go to the heart of the matter.
This amendment simply guts the compromise, the key antifraud provision
that was carefully negotiated over 6 months as a part of the bipartisan
compromise. We asked for some protection against the widespread
practice of loading up voter rolls with phony names and then voting
those names. It is something that every voter can comply with. It has
been negotiated to make sure it did not have any unfavorable impact on
people we are trying to get to the polls.
After 6 months of negotiations, I feel like we are playing rope-a-
dope. The Senator from Oregon gets up and says, why, this is a photo ID
requirement. Everybody knows a photo ID requirement is discriminatory.
Then the Senator from New York gets up and says these antifraud
provisions really do not prevent fraud absolutely either way.
I said we devised a compromise that recognized the concerns that
their side had about making sure we did not impose any unreasonable
restrictions on voters who might not have a driver's license, for
example. That is why we said voters can use a bank statement, a
government check, utility bill, anything that has your name and address
on it, the first time you register.
No, it is not as strong as I would like, but that was part of the
compromise. No, it does not limit the identification that must be shown
to a driver's license photo ID--which my colleagues on the other side
and some of the groups that were supporting this compromise and are now
against it are saying would be unfair. So we compromised. And now the
people who worked on the compromise say the compromise is not a good
one.
I have seen that game before. But the people of America are tired of
having their votes diluted because someone in a drop house registers 8,
10 people. Yes, we have had dogs registered. We have had dead aldermen
registered, mothers of dead aldermen registered, and dead neighbors
registered. Under the current Federal motor-voter registration law it
is very difficult to stop the mail-in registration fraud.
We talked yesterday about 3,000 ballots being dropped off before the
mayoral primary in St. Louis in 2001. Because of the attention we have
brought to this problem, they were reviewed. It was found that most of
those 3,000 were in the same handwriting and were for new registrants
on one or two city blocks. St. Louis did not have time to check
thoroughly before the November 2000 election. There was a registration
of 200,000 people, with 30,000 post card registrations that were
dropped off in the final days, a more than 15 percent increase. Nobody
checked these, but initial suggestions are at least 15,000, half of
them, were phony.
One can conjure up all kinds of scenarios where maybe one person will
not have the kind of ID needed to vote under the provisions in the
underlying bill. We allow provisional voting; 39 States already provide
it. We will take care of those people. One thing we have seen for
sure--not just in Missouri, but across the country--is fraudulent
votes, by nonexistent people. They are diluting the votes of legitimate
voters.
I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, there is a reason the American Association
of Retired Persons so strongly supports this amendment. They and the
sponsors feel strongly that the photo ID provision in effect is making
it tougher for those who saved our democracy in World War II to
participate in our democracy today.
Nursing home residents in this country are not asking to be taken to
a copy center. The Senate should not be telling them they should have
to go to the copy center before they can vote by mail, which is clearly
one of the most popular ways to participate in our democracy today.
I am particularly troubled that the tough provisions to deter fraud
do not even kick in until 2004. I would like to work with colleagues to
address those issues. It seems to me various approaches that encourage
voting are not kicking in for quite some time.
Last night, the Senate voted wisely to call this the Martin Luther
King Voting Rights bill. If we put in place a photo ID for first time
voters, we step back, in my view, to the days when only the
enfranchised had the opportunity to vote. That would be a mistake. I
urge strongly this amendment be supported.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, one of the pitiful results of motor
voter registration systems in America is that we have countless dogs
registered to vote. That is why Senator Bond's provision makes so much
sense. There are countless examples of dead people voting, dogs voting,
and people voting multiple times. Nearly all these instances of voter
fraud have one thing in common: They were perpetrated through lax mail-
in registration requirements.
Many of our colleagues were obviously not around last night when we
debated this amendment. Let me take a moment to show a copy of a
photograph that appeared in the Washington Post last summer, which I
discussed last night. This is Mable Briscoe, 82, and Holly Briscoe, her
terrier, both long-time registered voters in America. Both Mable and
Holly have been registered to vote for quite some time in Maryland.
This is a photo of the long-time registered voters--as I said, Mable
and her terrier, Holly. According to the article accompanying this
photograph, Mable says she registered her dog to prove a point about
the lax registration process that opens the door to fraud. Mable's
crime was finally detected when her dog, Holly, was called for jury
duty. Holly got called for jury duty and then the game was up. Perhaps
Mable Briscoe said it best when she said: I just think the system is
broke and needs some fixing. Anybody can register. I can register a
dog.
The system is broken. It invites fraud. Senator Bond's modest
antifraud measure will do a great deal to help make voter fraud more
difficult. As he said, he wanted to go further. This underlying
provision that the Schumer amendment seeks to strike is quite modest.
The amendment of the Senator
[[Page S1225]]
from New York amounts to a fraud loophole. It actually undoes what
Senator Bond and all five of the original cosponsors worked so hard to
achieve, the underlying compromise. If this amendment is agreed to, it
is completely stripped out.
This amendment needs to be tabled if we are serious about this
legislation. We will have that vote shortly.
How much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Seven minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I retain the balance.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon has 5
minutes.
Mr. WYDEN. I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from
Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the
Schumer-Wyden amendment because I believe it is a critical issue that
we must solve before we can pass this bill. Millions of people in my
State, and I think across America, will be done a great disservice by
making voting harder. If we do not pass this amendment, the bill as
currently written forces States to rely on a photo identification as a
means of making sure that first-time voters are who they say they are.
While I believe we need to be vigilant about preventing fraud in our
elections, the provision as currently written goes too far in mandating
a particular response and has the real potential to result in fewer
legitimate voters having their votes counted.
This bill requires voters who registered by mail to show a photo
identification or utility bill when they go to the polls for the first
time. This will create a disincentive for seniors, disabled, and those
who have a tough time getting that information.
In our State, 64 percent of the voters in the most recent election
voted by absentee ballot or mail-in ballot. Requiring a photo
identification or utility bill to be enclosed with their ballots is an
incredible burden in order to prove they are who they say they are. In
fact, in those cases where those copies were not provided, their votes
would not be counted.
It is very important we look at the underlying system. The underlying
system, based on signature verification, makes sure that people who are
attesting under the penalty of perjury are who they say they are and
that they are properly registered to vote in that jurisdiction. When
the ballot is received, the signature is carefully checked against the
registration rolls to make sure they are a match. Only then is the
ballot counted.
Unlike the signature, the election official receiving the photocopy
has nothing to compare it against, and it is of no use in verifying the
authenticity of the vote.
Although the photocopy has little use to officials, if it is not
included, as I said, it disqualifies the ballot. That is correct--if
the voter fails to include a photocopy that is of no use to the
election official, the vote will still not be counted even though the
signature on the ballot matches the signature in the registration
rolls. This is simply unacceptable.
This amendment fixes this problem by allowing states the option of
relying on other methods to make certain that votes are valid,
including signature verification which is currently used in my state
and other states.
While I am very concerned about passing this amendment to fix the
problems that photo ID requirements create for voters who vote by mail,
I am also concerned that the requirements will lead to serious problems
for voters who go to the polls. The Secretary of State and other
election officials in my State are concerned that the requirements
place a huge burden on volunteer poll workers in the polling place, and
a Federal court has already ruled that this type of photo ID
requirement may present a disparate impact on minorities seeking to
have their votes counted. The right to vote is the most important right
that we have as citizens, and it is important that we do everything
that we can to make certain States can strike the proper balance
between facilitating voting and preventing fraud. This amendment helps
to do that.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I believe
that passage of this amendment is essential to making certain that our
electoral system is improved by this legislation.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time.
Mr. McCONNELL. How much time remains, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have just heard some inaccurate
statements about the underlying amendment. Nobody says you have to go
to a copy center. Any antifraud provisions do not hold off in this bill
until 2004. They are effective upon the signing of the bill. The
provisional voting provision in this bill that says it will not take
effect until 2004 was not something I wrote. I will be happy to take an
amendment to say it is effective right away as well, because 39 States
have provisional voting and we need to clean it up so it works for all
50 States.
It is important to note that, believe it or not, the current system
offers few protections to States that want to maintain clean rolls. The
Senator from Oregon said we need to make sure registrations are
accurate at the beginning. Believe it or not, motor voter actually
prohibits States from requiring verification of the cards. Registration
by mail makes it much easier to put fake names on voter lists and then
voting by mail makes it very easy to vote these names illegally.
The opponents of my anti-fraud provision claim the bill will
disenfranchise millions. At the same time, several States, including
West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, Michigan, Illinois, Nevada, and
Louisiana, have tougher standards--tougher than in this bill. I would
like to see them as tough as these States'. No one has come forward and
shown that these States actually deprive voters of the right to vote on
any level, much less on the level claimed here.
Furthermore, the way the amendment is drafted, the steps taken by
these States to protect themselves from fraud will be undercut. We will
be here, making it easier to cheat. This amendment makes it easier to
cheat, not just easier to vote.
There are those who said recently that this will create an
administrative problem. Nonsense. The States I just named already keep
track of first-time voters. The State of Michigan has offered to
provide its software to do this for free to any State that has a
problem. If free is not cheap enough, we provide funds in this bill to
buy the systems you want, to track the voters. This will not threaten
mail-in States. It will actually make it better for them.
As I pointed out last night, when we hear about Oregon, the great
State that has no problem with mail-in registration and balloting,
Portland State Professor Melody Rose studied the Oregon system and
determined that 5 percent of voters had someone else mark their ballot,
2.5 percent had someone else sign their ballot, 4 percent had someone
else either sign or mark their ballot. In States with 1.6 million cast,
close to 200,000 of them could have had some sort of irregularity.
Carter-Ford noted that signature verification does not work. This is
the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, page 31:
Signature verification puts an extra burden upon
administrators, especially on often ill-trained poll workers
practicing a very subjective, often impossible task.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3 minutes.
Mr. BOND. I rest my case. Signature verification does not work. I
urge people to support the motion I will offer.
Mr. McCONNELL. At the beginning of the debate we worked with the
Senators from Oregon and Washington to fix a provision their State
election officials thought threatened their system of voting. That has
already been accomplished. Obviously this provision threatens only one
thing the way it is now, fraud. It could mean increased work for those
who administer elections, but that is a very small price to pay for
fair and honest elections. Make no mistake about it, this amendment is
the poison pill of election reform.
The bill is a carefully crafted compromise agreed to by all 5
cosponsors, including the Senator from New York. There has been a lot
of misinformation about this anti-fraud provision. It applies only to a
small number of voters
[[Page S1226]]
who register by mail and vote for the first time. As Senator Bond made
clear, this is the prime area of voter fraud.
When we negotiated this compromise in December, none of us thought
that it was too much to ask that voters be real, live people.
Senator Bond had a bill that would have required first-time mail
registrants to vote in person and show a photo ID. He agreed to
compromise on that requirement, to reach the agreement we have before
us today. Mail registrants who vote for the first time now have many
options to identify themselves. Photo ID is only one of them. A current
utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or any other
government document would serve the purpose. This very broad universe
of identification was advanced and advocated by Senator Schumer and was
even suggested by advocacy groups who now claim it must be changed.
The same groups who originally suggested it now want to change it.
The very language of this amendment was also suggested by the advocacy
groups, notably in a November 6 document sent to ``interested
parties.'' We spent well over a month discussing and debating the very
language of this amendment. We agreed on the language in our compromise
bill instead.
The bill language does not require every voter to show
identification, be they rich, poor, disabled, young, or elderly. Let me
tell you what the amendment of the Senator from New York would do.
First, not only does it not improve the current system, it could
actually make it worse in many States. It creates new and improved
opportunities for fraud in States with more restrictive requirements.
Second, this could become the most expensive mandate in this bill. Not
only will States have to buy new machines and data bases under this
bill, but the 34 States that do not have signature verification will
have to buy technology to verify signature and marks.
Third and most important, all of the 1.4 million poll workers
nationwide will have to become handwriting and personal mark experts.
What a great idea. All of the 1.4 million poll workers nationwide will
have to become handwriting and personal mark experts. The shortage of
poll workers is already a major problem, as reported by GAO. Now they
will have to be handwriting experts.
Finally, the poison pill amendment has already been discussed,
debated, and dismissed by the cosponsors of this bill. I urge the other
95 Members of this body to support our joint resolution on the issue
and vote against this amendment or vote to table it. Senator Bond will
make the tabling motion when all time has been yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the opposition has expired. Who
yields time?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Chair of the
committee, Senator Dodd.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank Members here who have argued
both in favor and in opposition to this amendment. It has been a very
worthwhile debate. Unfortunately, as my colleague from Kentucky pointed
out, we didn't have enough Members around last night to hear the full
debate, but it was very worthwhile. I repeat what I said a week or so
ago. This is one of those issues that has come down and is a clear,
almost equal division, I think, in the Chamber about what ought to be
done about this particular issue.
I had hoped we would find some compromise to it. That is what you do
in the legislative process. We did this on 35 amendments that have come
along here. I didn't like voting against Dick Durbin's amendment. I
happen to agree with it. I did not like having to accept amendments
from my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and other amendments
that we worked on to make this process reach the point it has today.
I am still hopeful. I don't know how this vote will come out. But my
plea would be, to those on either side of this question, to see if we
can't find some common ground. That is not going to happen, obviously,
in the next 5 minutes. So this vote will go forward. Then my hope is
that we can find some resolution here that will satisfy the concerns
that are raised--legitimately, in my view--by the proponents of the
amendment and the concerns raised by my friend from Missouri who has
raised from the very beginning his concerns about this.
My desire has been to try to find some common ground and compromise
on this proposal. That has not happened yet, but I am prepared to try
to work that out when the time arrives.
With that, I thank the Members for their time in debate. We still
have a few minutes left for the proponents of the amendment to make
some closing arguments, and then we will get to the vote.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to explain my vote in favor of
tabling the Senator Schumer/Wyden amendment to S. 565, election reform
legislation pending before the Senate.
For United States citizens, voting is a fundamental right guaranteed
by the United States Constitution. In no way am I attempting to deny
that right by not supporting the Schumer/Wyden amendment. In fact, I
believe that strong anti-fraud language strengthens the right to vote,
and the integrity of the election system in our nation.
The Schumer/Wyden amendment would dissolve the carefully crafted
bipartisan framework in this legislation--designed to ensure proper
voter identification methods exist to protect the validity of national
elections. This framework allows for a person to use a current and
valid photo identification to validate their registration and vote.
Those individuals who lack these forms of identification could also
present a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government
check, or other government document that shows the name and address of
the voter.
The Schumer/Wyden amendment would have gutted these protections by
allowing individuals to simply use a signature or a personal mark.
It is important to note that if an individual fails to meet the
required identification methods on election day they can still cast a
ballot. Provisional balloting protects an individuals' constitutional
right to cast a ballot in an election. The validity of provision
ballots is determined later, thus ensuring that no eligible voter is
turned away.
My fellow colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, recently spoke on
the floor of the Senate about some of the most egregious examples of
voter fraud in his home State. Senator Bond explained how the drop
house and other scams have been used in St. Louis to register dead
neighbors, deceased aldermen, ghosts, and dogs. Drop house scams occur
when one person submits multiple mail-in registration forms using one
address. Then, as election day approaches, that one person requests
absentee ballots for each of his phantom voters, and then votes them
all.
There are a number of other examples of voter fraud as well: Over
30,000 illegitimate voters were added to voter registrations in the
2000 presidential election in St. Louis, MO. Over 5,000 illegal ballots
were cast in the 2000 presidential election in Florida by individuals
who were not U.S. citizens and not permitted to vote. One individual in
Missouri actually voted 47 times--and was not even prosecuted!
In fact, voter fraud can be easily traced back over a hundred and
fifty years before the 2000 presidential election. In 1844, New York
City had 41,000 people in their voter pool. However, on election day,
55,000 people cast ballots!
Clearly, voter fraud is not a new issue in elections. Congress passed
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (``Motor Voter'') allowing
States to require that individuals vote in person if they registered by
mail and have never before voted in that jurisdiction.
The anti-fraud provisions of this legislation strengthen the
provisions from 1993. Under S. 565, any person who registers by mail
must, either when registering or voting in a Federal election, provide
some form of identification that connects the name on the registration
form to a real, live, qualified citizen of voting age. The requirement
is not onerous.
In the 2000 presidential election our country contained wide-spread
voter fraud and abuses by individuals who were clearly casting
illegitimate ballots. This legislation works to prevent such fraud and
restore confidence in the election process. I will continue to work
towards strengthening voter
[[Page S1227]]
rights, but not the ability of individuals to cheat or manipulate the
system.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support the Schumer-Wyden amendment to the election reform bill.
This important amendment would fix what I believe is a very
problematic provision in the bill. That provision requires first-time
voters who registered by mail to provide either a photo identification
or a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, or other
government document establishing their identity.
I commend the sponsors of the bill for their focus on ensuring strong
anti-fraud protection; but I believe this provision goes too far and
could end up disenfranchising significant numbers of voters. In
particular, the elderly, students, low-income voters, minorities, and
the disabled are examples of people who could have a difficult time
meeting the requirements of the Election Reform bill, as written.
In addition, the bill would impose a significant burden on many
States, including my own, that currently allow the use of signature
verification and attestation to verify identity. If the bill is not
amended, my State would have to do away with that procedure altogether.
For these reasons, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Schumer-Wyden
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
This important amendment would add two alternative verifiers for
first time voters who vote in person: (1) it would allow voters to
attest to who they are by signing a sworn statement, falsification of
which is punishable as perjury; or (2) it would allow voters to have
their signatures verified by matching them to signatures on record with
State or local election officials. First time voters who vote by mail
also would be given an alternative to a photo ID or other government
document--they would be allowed to use signature matching to establish
their identity.
I believe this is a sensible and necessary measure. And I'm pleased
to report that it enjoys the support of the nation's leading civil
rights organizations, including: MALDEF, the NAACP, the National
Council of La Raza, LULAC, AARP, the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights, and the League of Women Voters.
The intent of the Election Reform bill is to ensure that every vote
counts, but if we do not act now by passing the Schumer-Wyden
amendment, I fear that many tens of thousands of voters will once again
face significant barriers to voting the next time they go to the polls.
I urge my colleagues to do the right thing today, vote yes on the
Schumer-Wyden amendment.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to express
my strong support for the amendment offered by Senators Schumer and
Wyden.
History has shown that requiring photo identification or certain
other documents most significantly impacts minority voters. It will be
difficult for some citizens to meet such requirements. For instance, a
rural voter may have difficulty even finding a copy machine to make a
copy of his or her driver's license. Individuals living below the
poverty level may not have drivers licenses or utility bills. Students
who live at home with their parents also may not have a utility bill
with their name on it.
Ironically, the current language in the bill puts an added burden on
some of the very people that we should be working to make it easier to
vote. This is contrary to the purpose behind this legislation. We are
not trying to lower voter participation with this Election Reform bill;
we are trying to raise it, and make the voting process better for the
American people. The photo ID requirement would without a doubt have a
chilling effect on voter participation. And while the provisional
voting system would address this problem to some extent, it will not be
in place in time for the 2002 elections. The language in this amendment
is a much fairer way of dealing with this problem, and that is why I
want to express my full support for the efforts of Senators Schumer and
Wyden.
I want to take one more minute just to go over briefly a couple of
initiatives that I proposed for this bill; amendments that I will no
longer be offering, but I want to mention nonetheless. My first
amendment would establish election day as a Federal holiday. Currently,
this bill contains provisions for the new Election Administration
Commission to study the possibility of designating Election Day as a
Federal holiday. And just yesterday Senator Hollings added language to
the bill calling for a six-month turnaround on this study.
I commend Senator Hollings for his amendment, as well as Senators
Dodd and McConnell for specifying the EAC study in the original bill. I
look forward to seeing the results of the study later this year, and I
hope Congress will act quickly on the recommendations of the report.
The second measure I proposed would change the Federal match in this
bill to be fair to all states regardless of economic circumstances.
This is an issue in which I have had a long-standing interest. While
Congress often passes bills that provide a Federal match for States in
various programs, it is rare that any effort is made to level the
playing field for states that have fewer resources. States like
Louisiana, with high poverty a generally lower standard of living,
receive the same matching rate as other States.
My concern is that in this bill, as well as others, the matching
rates for these States are the same. Despite the huge difference in
resources in these States, the Federal matching rate remains the same.
To me, this is unfair and counterproductive.
In closing, let me state again that I fully support the efforts of
Senators Dodd and McConnell, as well as my other colleagues who have
worked so hard on this bill, to bring about election reform. In fact,
because this bill is so important I have decided not to offer this
amendment today on this legislation, but will continue to press this
important issue in the future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 6 minutes.
Mr. SCHUMER. How is that divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four for the Senator from New York, two for
the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in Oregon, the penalty for registering dogs
that have become so famous, the monetary penalty is something like ten
times the amount in this bill. When fraud happens with the vote-by-mail
system, it is caught and it is stopped. Our penalties prove it. Any way
you slice it, making it harder to vote isn't the way to deter fraud.
I come back in closing to why the American Association of Retired
Persons and senior citizens groups feel so strongly about this
amendment. They like voting by mail. It is convenient for them. They
and millions of Americans are saying make it easier to vote. Congress
should do everything possible to make it easier to vote rather than to
make it harder. I don't think this body this morning should make it
tough for those who saved our democracy in World War II to participate
in our democracy in the days ahead.
I urge my colleagues to strongly support the amendment, and I yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman). The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as we come to the conclusion of this
debate, I ask why so many groups--the AARP, the AFL-CIO, American
Association of People With Disabilities, the Mexican-American Legal
Defense Fund, the NAACP, La Raza, the National Hispanic Leadership
Council, as well as the secretaries of State of so many States--are not
opposed to this provision if it is as terrible as the opponents say. I
will tell you why--because they know what this bill is all about.
Let us go over the history of this bill for a minute.
There was a national outcry after what occurred in Florida. We
realized that millions of people are deprived of their right to vote
because of the way we vote. I say to my friend from Kentucky that the
outcry after Florida was not because dogs were voting. That argument to
use the fact that one fraudulent person might have registered a dog, or
maybe five of them,
[[Page S1228]]
could deprive millions of people of their right to vote is sophistic,
at best. I don't like it. It is not fair.
What are we talking about? What happened in Florida and what moved us
to debate this issue is that thousands of people in every city in this
country who had the right to vote couldn't.
What the Schumer-Wyden amendment does is very simple. It says we are
allowing you to vote. We are not going to make you do things that in
your world are next to impossible. If you think of every voter as any
middle class person with a lot of credit cards in his pocket and a
couple of cars in the garage and several cell phones, sure, there is no
problem. But think of the new immigrant who waited five years and has
just became a voter, who doesn't have a car, who is just learning
English, and who is afraid of the government where that immigrant came
from. You say, You have to do this, this, this, and this. When you show
up at the polling place, you may not be allowed to vote. Yes. It is the
first-time voters.
I say to my colleagues: I have seen the look on the faces of first-
time voters who waited in line with their eyes bright with the first
chance to exercise their franchise and then were turned away. And they
never come back again.
We do plenty in this bill about fraud, but the key in this bill is
balance because every time you make it easier for people to vote, you
may make it a little easier for a nasty person to commit fraud; if you
want to eliminate fraud totally, eliminate the right to vote.
That is not the argument. The argument is do we take people who are
elderly, who are new immigrants, who are poor, who are members of
minority groups, and say, Yes, we welcome you into the American family,
we welcome you into the franchise of voting.
If you go through the process that 40 States have used, we are not
going to create signature experts. We have them. Every bank teller is a
signature expert. In my State, we have used signatures for years with
no signs of fraud.
We are saying to them, We welcome you into the American family. We
are not going to put 17 laws in the way before you vote. Your right to
vote is a right. It is not an obstacle course, which is what this
amendment creates.
I urge my colleagues to support the Schumer-Wyden amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has 1 minute remaining
before the conclusion of the debate.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are out of time on this side. Is
that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WYDEN. Does the Senator from Kentucky desire time?
Mr. McCONNELL. No. We will make a motion to table when the time is
used up.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment undoes a carefully crafted
compromise and opens wide the door to fraud. Therefore, I move to table
the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, on this vote I have a pair with the Senator
from Nevada, Mr. Ensign. If he were present and voting, he would vote
``aye.'' If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``nay.'' I therefore
withdraw my vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and
the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 38 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--51
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR, AS PREVIOUSLY RECORDED--1
Reid, nay
NOT VOTING--2
Ensign
Hatch
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the amendment is still pending before
the Senate. We would like to continue discussing that matter. I know
the Senator from Missouri is going to talk on the subject. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before my colleague speaks--and I will be 30
seconds on this--I had hoped, and I say this to my two friends on the
other side with whom I have worked very closely to put this bill
together, I had hoped we could find compromise language on this last
provision. That is still my hope. We have worked very hard. We have
considered around 35 amendments. Both sides have added to the bill with
accepted amendments. We have modified some; some have been withdrawn.
We are very close to final consideration of this bill. We still have
to go to conference--the White House, obviously, will get involved--
with the House-passed bill. We will not have completed this process
when we vote this bill out of the Senate.
My hope is we can find some way to work on this amendment while we
are considering other amendments--the energy bill is waiting to be
considered--rather than have this now splintered off. Too much effort
has been made to get us to this point.
It is my fervent plea to my friends on the minority side to try and
work on some resolution of this issue. That is what we ought to be
doing as legislators. That is my plea to my colleague from Missouri and
my colleague from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the vote was not a good sign. It was
almost totally a partisan vote on a bill we had been advancing on a
bipartisan basis. We had long and difficult negotiations across party
lines to achieve the core agreement that was represented by the bill
that was brought up by the majority leader.
The vote that was just taken, should that amendment ultimately be
successful, strips out one of the core principles of the bill.
So I am not terribly optimistic, I must say, about the future of this
bill. Maybe something can be worked out, but this was certainly a
dramatic step in the wrong direction.
I know the Senator from Missouri seeks recognition. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Amendment No. 2940 to Amendment No. 2937
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second degree amendment
to the Schumer amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment
numbered 2940 to amendment No. 2937.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to see a copy of the amendment.
[[Page S1229]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, if I can see a copy of the
amendment so I can know what we are talking about. Maybe my colleague
would like to explain what we are doing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue to read the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk continued with the reading of the
amendment, as follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. . SIGNATURE VERIFICATION PROGRAMS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a State
may use a signature verification or affirmation program to
meet the requirements of section 103(b) relating to the
verification of the identity of individuals who register to
vote by mail only if the Attorney General certifies that less
than one-half of 1 percent of votes cast in the 2 most recent
elections for Federal office were cast by voters who were not
eligible to vote under the law of such State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as I think the Senator from Kentucky
indicated, we were very disappointed that after working 6 months to
establish a very modified, watered-down provision to help prevent
fraud, the other side chose, without objection, on a party line vote,
to refuse to table a motion to strike an amendment that really guts the
compromise.
When we began this debate, I said I thought every American understood
the importance of the vote. There are two aspects to that which are
involved in this bill. One is making it easier to vote for those who
may have had difficulty in the past. We worked on those items and many
of them went further than I and some of my colleagues would like.
Coming from Missouri where we have seen significant vote fraud, which
we believe may have affected close elections in our State, I said we
needed to change some of the provisions of the motor voter law which
permits mail-in registration and prevents the States from verifying the
bone fides of the registrant.
As a part of the compromise we reached over 6 months, we said one
does not have to show up with a photo ID with their address on it the
first time they vote after they have registered by mail; we will let
them bring in or send in either a photo ID or any of a number of
documents which would tend to show that they are a real person, such as
a utility bill, a government check, a paycheck, bank statements.
That would be supplanted under this amendment, if unamended, to say
you can sign your name. We have seen the wholesale fraud that signing
one's name can bring in Missouri: Drop houses, 3,000 almost assuredly
phony registrations before a mayoral primary in 2001 in St. Louis;
30,000 last-minute mail-in registrations prior to the November 2000
general election in St. Louis. The guess is at least 15,000 of them
were phony. That was followed by an effort by the Gore-Lieberman team
in St. Louis and Kansas City to continue fraudulent voting by getting
courts to keep open the ballot boxes in both cities on the theory--and
I have to say the laughable theory--that the Democratically-controlled
election boards in St. Louis City and Kansas City were conspiring to
keep the Democratic voters in Kansas City and St. Louis from casting
their votes in a general election for the Democratic candidates. Now
that does not compute.
So we are saying, number one, we stopped the effort to keep the polls
open in the Missouri Court of Appeals, pointing out that it is just as
much a denial of civil rights to have one's vote deluded by an illegal
vote as it is to be denied the opportunity to cast a vote yourself.
This amendment I proposed is the starting point to continue and
reopen the negotiations. As I said, it is important that we balance
this bill, make it easier to vote but make it tougher to cheat. This is
one minor suggestion I am offering to avoid wholesale fraud through
signature verification and affirmation. Frankly, I think we have seen
enough to know that signature verification and affirmation does not
work.
I ask my colleagues from New York if they know how many of the New
York City voters, 14,000 of them who are registered in South Florida,
voted only in one place in the 2000 election? I think that is something
we need to find out.
There are real problems with the amendment that is now pending. I
urge my colleagues to consider my second degree amendment favorably. We
will look forward to continuing negotiations but, frankly, unless and
until this is resolved this bill is a significant step in the wrong
direction.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is the first time we have seen this
proposal, but certainly on its face it raises a number of very
troubling issues. To start with, it seems it goes after the wrong end.
Our view has been if the question of vote fraud is really going to be
tackled, we have to go after the registration kind of process. That is
what we have sought to do.
Once again, this goes to the process of signature verification, which
is basically trying to deal with the problem after it is all out of the
barn and off to the races.
I think what really troubles me is that this would make a presumption
that in scores of States, the State and local officials are not doing
their jobs. They are essentially bad guys. They would have to go
through a very cumbersome, almost incomprehensible process, to try to
prove they are good guys.
In our State, it has empowered thousands and thousands of people,
without instances of fraud. We are running a system that has not been a
sieve of fraud and abuse. To say they are now going to create a
presumption that people who are running effective, efficient vote-by-
mail systems are essentially bad guys and they should have to go
through a process from Washington, DC, to prove they are good guys does
not make a whole lot of sense to me. Hopefully, there will be further
discussion how this will work, how you would even go about determining
who these so-called abusers are in the two most recent elections.
I have great reservations about what I have seen at this point.
First, it seems to go at the wrong end of the process. We ought to be
trying to address voter fraud questions at the registration level
rather than essentially so late in the process. Second, I am very
troubled by the presumption that seems to underlie this amendment that
all these State and local people are bad guys, they are doing an
inefficient job, they are not up to the task of challenging fraud, so
what we ought to do is create a presumption, in effect, that they are
the problem and that somehow they ought to have this convoluted process
to convince the Federal Government they are not.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I inquire of my colleague from Kentucky, I
don't know know if we can resolve the amendment at this moment, but
there are other matters we might consider on the bill. I don't know if
there is the appetite to temporarily lay these aside to consider the
other matters, knowing nothing gets resolved until this issue gets
resolved. I Know there are colloquies, including Senator Thomas, and
Senator Smith had an amendment we can try and work on.
Mr. McCONNELL. I think we need to resolve the current pending matter.
It goes to the heart of the bill. I know even if I didn't object to
laying aside the amendment to go on to other matters, others would
object. We need to stay on the amendment, the second-degree amendment
and continue to discuss how we might unravel the knot which we find
ourselves.
There would be an objection to laying the amendment aside and going
on to other matters.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the authors, the direct opponents of the
amendment are not here. I will make the case again, as I tried a week
or so ago. I see where we are headed with this. We need to try and find
a compromise. Obviously, people feel strongly about this. The debate
went on for some time. When Members feel strongly, no matter how you
try and resolve
[[Page S1230]]
it, sometimes you have to go through the vote process to have some
clarity. Then a compromise can emerge. That is how this works from time
to time. We have all been in that situation at one time or another.
Certainly, that is where we find ourselves in this case. I have great
respect for how Senator Bond feels. We all bring a very strong local
experience to this national debate. He had a very strong, in his view,
local experience which provoked his interest in the matter. I respect
that.
I respect very much the point of view of others that feel there are
ways, particularly with statewide voter registration efforts, that we
can take major steps to reduce the dangers of fraud or the realities of
fraud. The establishment of our Election Commission in this bill will
allow on a continuing basis examining the election structures of the
country, rather than waiting for a crisis to occur, so we can continue
to address matters like this and others we have not considered in this
bill.
I had hoped that might occur. I think it will. We can find a way to
get together. There are only 6 or 7 other amendments that I know of to
consider on the bill. There could be more out there. We were down to
either amendments that could be accepted or modified to some degree and
become acceptable. I am still hopeful that can be the case.
I know where some of the Members are now on this issue. Perhaps we
will go into a quorum call for a while and see if we can find some
language that could satisfy both sides.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are happy to have discussions. I
assume there will be on this issue, sooner or later. Our view is sooner
rather than later, which is why we are going to stay on this subject.
Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bayh). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak in
opposition to the underlying amendment offered by the Senator from New
York, Senator Schumer, which would permit people to vote by mail with
only an authentication of a signature. The amendment modifies the
underlying bill, which would require that there be either a photo
identification or a government check which would establish that the
individual is, in fact, in existence, not a false person; or a
paycheck, again establishing the person is in existence; or a utility
bill or a bank statement or some other governmental document.
There is no doubt that it is in the interests of democracy to have as
many people register to vote as possible so that people can express
themselves in the electoral process. That is very fundamental. It is
also fundamental that we ought to do whatever is reasonably possible to
avoid vote fraud. This is an issue which I faced to a very substantial
extent when I was District Attorney of Philadelphia. Philadelphia is a
rough, tough, political town.
When I was DA in the 1960s and 1970s it was a rougher, tougher
political town. I had the responsibility to enforce the election laws.
In that capacity, on a bipartisan, nonpartisan basis, I prosecuted both
Republicans and Democrats alike for vote fraud, and there was a lot of
it in the city of Philadelphia. We could only detect a relatively small
amount of it, but that was a real problem in our city elections.
When motor voter came up, I supported it, to try to broaden the
availability of registration for the broadest number of people.
However, there have been very substantial problems with people
purporting to vote when those people are not in existence.
When I was DA of Philadelphia, we had a great many people purporting
to vote where there was no such person. It is a difficult matter to
police and to enforce. The underlying bill has a minimal check, to see
to it that there is, in fact, a person who is registered to vote. If
you have somebody who has a government check, that is a solid
indication. It is not absolute proof that the person is in existence,
but they wouldn't be getting a government check or paycheck or utility
bill or bank statement. The photo ID, of course, is the best, but the
underlying bill does not require that. It is a modest stand in seeing
to it that somebody actually is in existence.
If we are to continue motor voter and to have the broad sweep of
availability for people to register so you do not have to go down
specifically to the registration spot--which is the customary way, in
many, many jurisdictions--if we are to have these procedures which make
it very, very easy for people to register, and they are to be
maintained and continue in existence, then we are going to have to take
steps to stop fraud.
It seems to me the provisions of the underlying bill are minimal. So,
if you have an amendment which the Senator from New York has offered,
that says all you have to have is a signature, anybody can sign a
purported signature. Anybody can sign a name. Then, if securing the
right to vote simply requires putting that writing down again, it may
be the signature of someone other than the person which it purports to
represent. So, I believe the underlying Schumer amendment is unwise.
That is why I voted to table it.
Now we have a second-degree amendment, offered by the Senator from
Missouri, which would seek to limit the applicability of the underlying
Schumer amendment. I think that would at least take some steps to
safeguard against voter fraud.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for
a question?
Mr. SPECTER. I yield, Mr. President.
I am reluctant to do so, knowing the cross-examination expertise of
the Senator from Missouri, but I will take my chances.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am not here to cross-examine. I am just
here to ask some experience from a Senator who is distinguished by his
career as a prosecutor previously. Many people have said that if
anybody votes fraudulently, they will be prosecuted.
I have looked long, far, and wide to see any consistent pattern of
prosecution of vote fraud. I just do not know that there has been any
significant effort. I wonder if the Senator from Pennsylvania can
inform me to what extent vote fraud is even prosecuted and what are
some of the problems that are entailed in a prosecution for vote fraud?
Mr. SPECTER. Well, vote fraud is prosecuted. When I was District
Attorney of Philadelphia, I prosecuted Republicans and Democrats.
Customarily, vote fraud is illegal assistance when somebody goes into
the polling place, and this happens, and pulls the lever. There you can
have a witness. You can identify the individual, and you can prosecute
them. If you are seeking to prosecute someone who has sent in a
purported signature which matches the signature on record, and there is
registration by mail so that no one ever sees the person, you don't
have an identification of the voter in the first instance. If you do
not have an ongoing identification of that person's actual existence,
it is not virtually impossible. It is impossible. How are you going to
find the person who signed their name, even if you ascertain that there
is no such person as the purported signature? How are you going to find
them? It is not a needle in the haystack. It is a needle in a city of
more than a million people.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania pointed out
precisely the problem with motor voter making it impossible for States
to require a positive identification with the registration. As the
Senator from Oregon I think wisely said in his debate, we ought to be
making sure the registration is legitimate and that there is a real
person behind it. Right now you can't do that under motor voter. The
underlying bill, section 103(b) provides that.
But the Senator from Pennsylvania is saying that if somebody
registers the name of a dead person, a non-existent person, or even a
dog, sends in that registration, writes the name on a card, gets the
absentee ballot, and sends it back in, it is next to impossible from
the prosecutor's standpoint to prosecute the unknown person who has
done the registration and cast the vote.
[[Page S1231]]
Is that a fair assessment?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri articulates it
accurately. It is impossible to prosecute an unknown person. That is a
matter of the fundamental definition. If you do not know the person,
you can't swear out a warrant for an arrest. You also can't take the
unknown person into custody. Then you would have the problem of proving
that this unknown person committed the crime, and proving it beyond a
reasonable doubt. It can't be done.
I am concerned about changing motor voter. There is a lot of
criticism of motor voter generally. When I supported motor voter, I got
a lot of criticism from many people who thought that it went too far.
However, I was willing to support motor voter legislation with that
broad sweep to try to encourage people to be on the voter rolls to
express themselves. Motor voter works against my interest as a
candidate in a city like Philadelphia. That happens to be the fact of
life. It works against my electoral interests as a U.S. Senator running
in Pennsylvania. But notwithstanding that factor, I have supported it,
and I continue to support it.
If fraud becomes so widespread--and I think it is reaching that
point--that we really do not know the level of fraud, it is impossible
to determine. But, there is a lot of evidence that there are a lot of
people who are not in existence who are voting. We do know that,
because there is a check back. There is a signature of John Jones at a
given address, and you find out that there is no John Jones at that
address. Who signed the name? How can you tell? You cannot prove who
did it to have a criminal prosecution. It is about the easiest form of
voter fraud to perpetrate.
If you go into the polling booth in Philadelphia, as we had a lot of
people do, and walk behind the curtain with a registered voter and pull
the lever, or give illegal assistance--there are legal ways to do it,
if the person can't pull the lever--there the person is taking a
chance. You can identify them. You can get a witness. You can prosecute
them. You can convict them. But, that can't be done just on signature.
For the people who are urging the enactment of the Schumer amendment
to broaden the opportunities to vote, let me say to them head on that
they are going to be defeating their cause, because motor voter is
going to be in jeopardy unless we are able to work it out in a way so
there is not fraud in this manner. The underlying bill is a modest step
forward to eliminate that fraud.
I compliment the Senator from Missouri for his diligence in pursuing
it. I also compliment him for his diligence in pursuing it over the
weekend. It is pretty hard to find most of us over the weekend. But he
found me and talked to me about this matter. I told him that my
experience supported the stand that he was taking, and that I was
prepared to back him and come to the floor and make this argument.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleague from
Pennsylvania for giving us some very practical insights on the
difficulties a prosecutor faces in prosecuting a phony mail-in
registration. It seems to be an almost impossible task, unless you are
fortunate enough to get somebody's fingerprints or have some way-
beyond-the-normal way of identifying who sent it in.
Obviously, everybody laughs about dead people being registered and
Ritzy Mekler, the dog, being registered. We know they did not register,
but finding out who registered them is a problem. Ritzy Mekler's owner
claims he did not register her. Somebody else may have done so.
But there is a real problem with the phony registrations piled on to
our voter rolls in Missouri, for sure--I know in St. Louis, and I would
imagine in most parts of the country.
So since we have undone the compromise that we worked 6 months to
achieve, I express, again, my willingness to come to a bipartisan
compromise on how we make sure, A, that everybody who is entitled to
vote gets registered, and, B, gets to vote. But also how do we get
those phony people off of the rolls?
I mentioned, in my earlier debate on this amendment, we know that
3,000 registration cards dumped on the St. Louis City Election Board
prior to the mayoral primary in 2001 were mostly phony--most of them in
the same handwriting, most of them with addresses from one or two
blocks of the city. So we actually got on those, and those have been
turned over to the prosecuting authorities.
But there is a little matter of 30,000 voters who were added to the
rolls in St. Louis City, MO, just prior to the November 2000 general
election. Nobody knows for sure who they came from. But let me tell
you, I have some suspicions. I have some suspicions that we are seeing
people who might benefit from those registrations opposing efforts to
purge.
So I would like to see if we can't work out a way to change some of
the onerous provisions that the motor voter bill puts on States in
trying to ascertain whether the voters who have been registered by mail
are legitimate.
I voted against an amendment offered by my good friend and colleague
from Montana, Senator Burns. It was going to give some power to purge.
I told him at the time I thought it was a good idea. I think it is an
even better idea now.
So we would like to work on finding a way to make sure we can make it
easier to vote but tougher to cheat. As I said, if the Schumer-Biden
amendment goes through as is, it makes it easier to cheat, not tougher
to cheat.
I started, in my remarks prior to the vote on the tabling motion, to
share with some of my colleagues the wisdom from the National
Commission on Federal Election Reform. They were talking about
accountability. And they said: The question is whether to require
voters to display some proof of identification at the polls.
This is on page 31:
All states hope that precinct officials and poll watchers
will have at least some familiarity with the residents of
their precincts. Seven states, all but one of them rural, do
nothing more. In the rest, the most common practice now is to
require voters to sign their names in an official registry or
on a ballot application. About a third of the states require
poll workers to check signatures against those provided at
registration. Fourteen states insist that voters produce some
form of identification.
Most states that have histories of strong party rivalry or
election fraud require signature verification or voter
identification at the polls.
This is the key part:
Signature verification puts an extra burden upon
administrators, and especially on often ill-trained poll
workers practicing a very subjective, often impossible, task
while voter lines lengthen. Also, many polling places lack
the means to provide poll workers with accurate copies of the
voter's actual signature (the one the voter used in order to
register) and a signature may change over time.
One alternative, favored by several Commissioners, is to
require those who are registering to vote and those who are
casting their ballot to provide some form of official
identification, such as a photo ID issued by a government
agency, (e.g., a driver's license). A photo ID is already
required in many other transactions, such as check-cashing
and using airline tickets. These Commissioners point out that
those who register and vote should expect to identify
themselves. If they do not have photo identification, then
they should be issued such cards from the government or have
available alternative forms of official ID. They believe this
burden is reasonable, that voters will understand it, and
that most democratic nations recognize this act as a valid
means of protecting the sanctity of the franchise.
They then go on to talk about striking the right balance, and they
conclude talking about whether a photo ID is too much. They talk about
alternative forms. But they said on page 32:
We do believe, however, that States should be able to
verify a voter's identity.
That goes to the sum and substance of the Schumer amendment. The
Schumer amendment is flatly contradicted by the National Commission on
Federal Election Reform. That is why I have offered a modest amendment
to say that verification and affirmation will only go into effect when
and if the Attorney General of the United States certifies that a State
has had less than half a percent of illegal ballots cast in the last
two Federal elections.
Frankly, I don't believe that signature affirmation or verification
works as well as my colleagues claim. There are not hundreds of
thousands of people denied an opportunity to register because they
don't have any kind of photo ID or government check or bank
[[Page S1232]]
statement or utility bill or any other kind of paycheck stubs with
their name and address on it. Any of those people who do exist can vote
provisionally, and they should be able to vote provisionally. I think
there is a handful at most, and we will accommodate them through
provisional voting. But I am most worried, for future elections, that
there were 30,000 names that came in out of the blue, mail-in
registrations that had not been checked in the city of St. Louis. I
would like to believe they are all legitimate voters who all of a
sudden got the real view that they ought to register in one two-day
period. But 15 percent of the electorate? I don't think so.
Mr. President, I am not willing to give up on this process. But I am
not willing to see a bill go through that makes it easier to vote and
easier to cheat. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my colleague from
Missouri for his expression of trying to find some common ground. We
know each other pretty well, and I would never question the motivations
of my friend from Missouri. He brings a lot of passion to matters he
cares about. I like people who do that.
As he knows, there has been a tireless effort to cobble together a
proposal here that would enjoy the broad-based support of this
institution. We are dealing with 98 other colleagues, and when you deal
with a matter like elections, everybody is an expert. We have all been
through them and everybody has a point of view--unlike in other matters
where members can defer to other colleagues. Here everybody has
something to contribute to the discussion and debate. I accept his
words here to try to find some resolution of the situation we are in.
That is what I have tried to do for a couple of weeks. Sometimes you
need to have the votes, because then you know where; you are. Votes
will let you know.
This place is pretty equally divided on this issue. We have to try to
find something here where a center can gather and move the bill
forward. We are hoping to do that.
On the second-degree amendment--and I appreciate him offering an
amendment that is substantive and that goes to the heart of this. It is
not a frivolous amendment. It is one not the least of which is--I
presume the amendment refers to the U.S. Attorney General. My colleague
indicates that is the case. The concern, I suppose, we hear from all
States is that in this bill they want to avoid to have the Justice
Department all of a sudden be reaching into States. We are already
trying to become a better partner in the election process, and that
attorneys general, regardless of party, can all of a sudden, under this
amendment, be engaged in some ``fishing expeditions'' on some of these
matters--I think we would all be concerned about that.
There may be something we can work on that may provide a means by
which we can come to an agreement on the issue of signatures and
attestations. Let me say to my friend as well--and he and I went
through this a great deal, back an forth, on how we can resolve these
issues. As I understand it--and it gets hard trying to identify exactly
what each State does--there are 28 or 29 States that do an attestation
or signature. I may be off by a State or 2. As I went down the list and
tried to determine how many States do that, many of these States
believe that is a very viable means by which to deal with the fraud
issue.
I know my colleague from Missouri has had different experience in his
State. I don't argue with that, except to say that around the country
there are different views on how best to achieve these results. There
is nothing in here, obviously, that precludes the photo ID from being a
part of that means of identification. The issue is whether or not we
are going to, in some way, restrict these other means of verification
that a majority of States have been comfortable with over the years,
and then if there is something else we might add to that to address the
concerns the Senator from Missouri raised.
Aside from these particular amendments that are pending, I will point
out that, historically, the efforts of enforcement have to be in the
States; that is, where there is a problem of fraud, the States have to
pursue it. The Presiding Officer brings to this issue more than a
casual acquaintance with these issues having been--the Secretary of
State in his State worked directly in these areas. I presume he could
bring to this discussion some additional thoughts and ideas, and I am
grateful to him for that.
As I said, the attestation and signature have been used, and many
States are comfortable with that. I am hopeful we can find some
mechanism which will allow us to get beyond this particular issue in
such a way that while it would not do everything, as my colleague from
Missouri might want, it certainly will do more than the present
situation.
What I suggest, because we have to resolve this one way or the other,
is that we take some time and get our respective staffs together and
sit down and skull on this and see if we can hammer out some ideas and
come back with some proposals on how we might deal with this.
My friend from Missouri is nodding in the affirmative. Rather than
talking, it seems to me we would be advised to sit down and see, over
the next half hour or hour, if we can come back with some ideas for
consideration. That is the path we will follow.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________