[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 39 (Thursday, April 11, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2516-S2527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EQUAL PROTECTION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2001
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 565, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill 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:
Roberts/McConnell amendment No. 2907, to eliminate the
administrative procedures of requiring election officials to
notify voters by mail whether or not their individual vote
was counted.
Clinton amendment No. 3108, to establish a residual ballot
performance benchmark.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30
minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator from Connecticut,
Mr. Dodd, and the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, or their
designees.
Modification To Amendment No. 3107
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
3107, previously agreed to, be modified with the technical correction
that I now send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The modification to the amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert page 13, line
12 through page 14, line 7 of the amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this is a big day for the Senate. After
a year and a half of discussions, negotiations, introduction, and
reintroduction of legislation, we are finally prepared to pass a
comprehensive, truly bipartisan election reform bill.
I say ``finally,'' but the truth is, a year and a half is lightning
fast in the Senate. Senator Torricelli and I proposed a comprehensive
election reform bill before the dust had settled in Florida. Shortly
after, Senator Torricelli and I joined with Senator Schumer to put
together yet another bill which garnered the support of 71 Senators--
fairly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Senator Dodd,
meanwhile, introduced legislation that was supported by all Democratic
Senators.
Four months ago, Senators Dodd, Bond, Schumer, Torricelli, and I
reached a bipartisan compromise. That was brought before this body in
February. Through the passage of thoughtful amendments offered by my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we have substantially improved
the underlying bill. The final product is legislation which ensures
that all Americans who are eligible to vote, and who have the right to
vote, are able to do so, and to do so only once. This bill strengthens
the integrity of the process so that voters know that their right to
vote is not diluted through fraud committed by others. This legislation
will make American election systems more accurate, more accessible, and
more honest while respecting the primacy of States and localities in
the administration of elections.
I look forward to a House-Senate conference so that soon we may move
even closer toward enactment of a law that will improve America's
election systems.
I thank Senator Dodd for his steadfast and persistent leadership on
this issue. He truly has been the champion of promoting accessibility
in elections. My thanks to Senator Bond who gave us our rallying cry
behind this bill, ``making it easier to vote, and harder to cheat.''
This bill does just that and Senator Bond deserves the lion's share of
the credit for that accomplishment. I also thank Senator Schumer, who
joined with me nearly 1 year ago to advance a new approach to this
issue. Any my thanks to Senator Torricelli, who has been there from the
beginning with me in this exercise. I thank you all for your hard work
and perseverance which has brought us to this triumphant moment.
Before I yield the floor, I would like to reiterate my strong
opposition to the Clinton amendment which we will vote on shortly. The
amendment creates a federally mandated acceptable error rate that is a
one size fits all number. This approach is completely contrary to every
other provision of this legislation.
If adopted, this amendment would do three things:
No. 1, Deliver the Department of Justice into our home States to
prosecute our State and local election officials for choices made by or
errors committed by voters;
No. 2, Undermine the sanctity of the secret ballot and
No. 3, Force the elimination of many voting systems used across this
country.
On that last point, I urge my colleagues who hail from States which
use paper ballots, mail-in voting or absentee voting to take a close
look at this amendment. Your States will have a choice: change their
systems or recruit top notch legal talent to defend themselves in
court.
This choice will also be faced by States using lever machines, punch
cared systems, optical scans, and DRE machines.
If this amendment is agreed to, perhaps we should move to increase
the Justice Department appropriation so that it can ready a team of
lawyers for each State.
Finally, I thank my staff on the Rules Committee: Brian Lewis, Leon
Sequeira, Chris Moore, Hugh Farrish, and our staff director, Tam
Somerville--all of whom have been deeply involved in this issue from
the beginning--and, from Senator Dodd's staff, Shawn Maher, Kenny Gill,
Ronnie Gillespie, we have enjoyed working with them.
Also, on Senator Bond's staff, Julile Dammann and Jack Bartling have
been truly outstanding. It has been a pleasure to work with them.
On Senator Schumer's staff, Sharon Levin; and, on Senator
Torricelli's staff, Sarah Wills--we appreciate the opportunity to work
with all of these folks in developing this legislation.
I see my colleague from Missouri is here. I yield the floor.
[[Page S2517]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, how much time is available on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I will not require that much time, but
please advise me if I go over 5 minutes.
Mr. President, I come back again to congratulate and thank the
chairman and ranking member of this committee, Senator Dodd and Senator
McConnell, for their great work.
It has been 10 long, arduous months to do something that is vitally
important to the health and the vitality of our system of legislative
government. The 2000 election opened the eyes of many Americans to the
flaws and failures of our election machinery, our voting systems, and
even how we determine what a vote is. We learned of hanging chads,
inactive lists, and we discovered our military votes were mishandled
and lost. We learned that legal voters were turned away while dead
voters cast ballots. We discovered that many people voted twice while
too many were not even counted once.
That is why we are here today. The final compromise bill--and it is a
compromise in the true essence of the word--tries to address each of
these fundamental problems we have discovered and to meet the basic
test. That test, I trust all of my colleagues now understand, is that
we must make it easier to vote but tough to cheat.
In the 2000 elections, fraud was prevalent. Fraud was too frequently
found. Among the most bizarre and fraudulent efforts that occurred in
St. Louis was the filing of a lawsuit by a dead man to keep the polls
open beyond closing time because he feared the long lines would prevent
him from voting. That probably wasn't the only problem he had. His
identification was later switched to that of a partisan political
operative for a congressional candidate even though evidence showed
that man had already voted that day. Unfortunately, the practice of the
deceased voting was not limited to the lawsuit to keep the polls open.
We have had a number of ballot registrations made in the name of people
who have departed this earthly veil.
Albert ``Red'' Villa registered to vote on the 10th anniversary of
his death--truly a significant theological effort. The deceased mother
of a prosecuting attorney in St. Louis City was also registered to
vote.
This was the mayoral primary of 2001 which got people excited in St.
Louis because it wasn't a minor election where we just voted for the
President, the Governor, the Senators, and Congress. We were talking
about relevant votes there. We were talking about the race for the
mayor's office which controls votes and which controls jobs in the City
of St. Louis.
We also had our own outrageous system of provisional voting underway
in St. Louis City. People went to judges and said they didn't show up
on the registration list so they asked for court orders to be permitted
to vote. Some of the reasons given, which were accepted by our
judiciary, were that they should be allowed to vote because they were
legally registered. One of them said: I am him a Democrat. The other
said: I wanted to vote for Gore. The other said: I was suffering from a
mental illness. My favorite was: I am a convicted felon and didn't
realize I had to reregister. That person, and 1,300 others, were
allowed to vote even though it is against the law for a felon to vote
in Missouri.
Subsequent investigation by the secretary of state in Missouri found
that 97 percent of those who were ordered to vote by judges voted
illegally. They were not entitled to vote.
That is why the whole structure of this bill is so important.
Provisional voting will be permitted, but actually putting the ballot
in the ballot box will be delayed until there has been an opportunity
to ascertain that the person is a registered voter.
We have seen fraud. I think perhaps it was best described by the
Missouri Court of Appeals in shutting down the fraudulent effort to
keep the polls open. The argument in St. Louis City was that the
Democratically controlled City Election Board in the Democratic City of
St. Louis was conspiring to keep the Democratic voters in St. Louis
City from voting for Democratic candidates. That was the suit filed by
the dead man who said that the long lines kept him from voting. The
Missouri Court of Appeals said it best in its order shutting down the
polls when it said:
Commendable zeal to protect voting rights must be tempered
by the corresponding duty to protect the integrity of the
voting process. Equal vigilance is required to ensure that
only those entitled to vote are allowed to cast a ballot.
Otherwise, the rights of those lawfully entitled to vote are
inevitably diluted.
We have seen not only people who have rightfully been denied the
opportunity to vote. Unfortunately, the votes of those who have the
right to vote have been diluted and have been canceled because fraud
has been prevalent in St. Louis, and I believe in other areas of the
country.
This bill goes a long way towards achieving the goal of making it
easier to vote and harder to cheat.
I urge the support of my colleagues for this very important
bipartisan measure. I extend my thanks to the chairman and the ranking
member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and 2 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.
For the information of Members, at the conclusion of that, depending
on the time left of my friend from Kentucky, we will close debate, and
there will be a vote on the Roberts amendment, then a vote on the
Clinton amendment, and then a vote on final passage. That is how this
will play out over the next 45 minutes or an hour.
So with that, let me turn to my colleague from Oregon and thank him
and the Senator from New York for their tremendous support and tireless
effort on behalf of this piece of legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I begin by expressing my thanks to Senator
Dodd and Senator McConnell. Both of them worked tirelessly with me and
Senator Cantwell and others.
This legislation we will vote on will now protect an innovation, a
pioneering step forward that I think is going to make a huge difference
for the American people; that is, voting by mail.
What we saw earlier, as the debate went forward, was various
proposals that would have put new hurdles, new obstacles in front of
this legislation that has empowered thousands and thousands of
Americans. I am very proud that my State has led the way in this
innovative approach, but I think it is the wave of the future.
There is a reason why millions of older people and disabled people
and others enjoy and prefer voting by mail. They like the convenience,
and they understand that it meets the test that Senator Bond and others
have talked about, which would be a winning combination for the
American people.
Let's make it easier to vote but not easier to cheat. Voting by mail
has proven it is up to that challenge. We have shown in our State that
we will come down with a every aggressive effort against those who try
to abuse the system, try to exploit it. We have not seen any
significant problem with it.
It is a bipartisan effort. Senator Smith has joined with me in it.
Senator Cantwell has made the case for the State of Washington.
I close by saying that over many months Senator Dodd and Senator
McConnell, knowing that we were camped out with their staffs, could
have said, look, this is an issue that only a couple States care about,
but they did not. I think they have showed their commitment not just to
protecting people in Oregon or Washington who feel so passionately
about this subject, but I think they understand this truly is a
pioneering step forward. It is part of the wave of future. It is the
next step before we see people voting online.
From the beginning of this debate, I have said that this legislation
should be about deferring voter fraud and promoting voter
participation. Many weeks of negotiations finally have produced an
agreement that I believe will do both.
If first-time Oregon voter Mabel Barnes had mailed in her ballot
under the election reform bill that was on the Senate floor 6 weeks
ago, her vote probably would not have counted--even
[[Page S2518]]
if she were legally registered to vote. Her vote would have been tossed
away simply because she failed to include with it a photo ID or other
proof of identification.
Mabel Barnes would not have been alone. Under the bill that was on
the Senate floor then, millions of first-time voters would have been
disenfranchised just because they failed to bring a copy of their photo
ID to the polls.
But Mabel Barnes and millions of other first-time voters won't have
to worry about their votes counting now, and they won't have to worry
about stopping by a copy center before they vote. That's because over
the course of the last few weeks Senators Cantwell, Bond, McConnell,
Murray, and I have worked out an agreement that protects Oregon's vote-
by-mail system and the right to have every mail-in-vote by a legally
registered first-time voter count.
The agreement Senators Cantwell, Bond, McConnell, Murray, and I
worked out gives voters who register by mail more options to verify
their identity. Instead of a photo ID or proof of residence, first-time
voters in a state may put their driver's license number or the last
four digits of their social security card on their registration card.
This means they won't have to stop by a copy center before they
register or before they vote. This will mean business as usual for the
petition drives and campus registration efforts in Oregon, where
thousands of first-time voters register by mail.
The agreement also guarantees that voters who cast their ballots by
mail have the same provisional or replacement ballot rights as voters
who go to the polls. Under the agreement if a first-time voter in a
state fails to supply a driver's license number or the last four digits
of their social security number when they register, their vote will
still count if state election officials determine they are eligible
under state law. In Oregon, this means that the vote of every legally
registered Oregonian will count if an election official verifies that
the signature on the ballot matches the signature on file with the
registration.
Under the agreement, Oregon's pioneering vote-by-mail system will
continue, unchanged.
I understand where the photo ID requirement sprang from: a concern
that mail-in voter registration and balloting engender fraud. But in
Oregon--the only all vote-by-mail state and the state that pioneered
motor voter--there is very little fraud. No one has come forward with
proof of widespread fraud in Oregon. In fact, I was elected to the
United States Senate in the first all vote-by-mail special election.
Senator Gordon Smith, my opponent in that race, never raised any
questions about fraud. Oregon's penalties for fraud are much tougher
than federal law--up to $100,000 in fines and or 5 years in jail.
Since Oregonians voted overwhelmingly to use a vote-by-mail system,
participation has gone up and fraud has gone down. In fact, in the last
federal election, 80 percent of the registered voters cast a ballot.
Since the May 1996 primary, 13 cases of fraud have been prosecuted;
convictions were won in five and eight are still pending. In the last
federal election, only 192 ballots were not counted because they failed
the signature verification test. This is a pretty good record.
This legislation should be about deterring voter fraud and not voter
participation. The agreement Senators Cantwell, Bond, McConnell,
Murray, and I have reached does this. The time to fight fraud is at the
beginning of the process--at the time of registration. That is what our
agreement does. At the same time, I have also said that legislation
should not make it harder for legally registered voters to cast a
ballot, or discourage people from voting. The agreement will do this as
well.
This has not been an easy task. I want to commend Senators Bond,
Cantwell, McConnell, and Murray for sticking with the negotiations, and
I especially want to thank Chairman Dodd for the support he and his
staff have given us in reaching the agreement and in including it in
the managers' package.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I reiterate what I said last night.
Senator Dodd was indefatigable on this bill. It would not have happened
without him. Senator McConnell was steadfast in terms of principle,
sticking to what he believed but making sure we had a bill done. I
thank them both for their leadership as well as my other colleagues who
worked so hard on this bill.
Mr. President, democracy works slowly--sometimes too slowly--but
inexorably. We had the great scandal in Florida where people could not
vote, where people's votes were not counted, where people voted for the
wrong person despite their intention.
Now, almost 2 years later, we are doing something very real about it.
I wish it had come sooner, but this bill has been worth waiting for.
And the problem is not just in Florida, as we learned. In my State of
New York, I voted, first, in 1969. I used the same exact type of
machine when I voted in 2001, despite all of our technological changes.
And the lines to vote in New York are legion. Just because we are the
world's oldest democracy does not mean we have to use the world's
oldest technology.
At the core of this bill is a view that that changes, that we will
help the States update.
Despite the strength of our democracy, if we do not do a good job
maintaining the actual mechanism that drives it--our voting systems--we
fail the voters and undermine the values for which our Founding Fathers
fought and died.
Voting should be accessible, accurate, and speedy in all places, all
of the time. This is not a someplace, some-of-the-time proposition. The
right to vote is too sacred. This bill provides both the funds and the
standards to make sure that exactly happens.
So I urge all my colleagues to have a rousing vote of support for
this bill. We often have an opportunity to support legislation that
makes our lives better. That is why we are here. But today we have an
opportunity to make a little history. And it is something we will never
forget.
provisional voting and vermont
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would first like to thank Senator Dodd
for all his hard work on this very important bill. This legislation
will help ensure that the problems that occurred during the 2000
elections will not happen again, and hopefully increase the number of
Americans that participate in the most sacred right of a democracy,
voting. I would like to take this opportunity though to discuss the
provisional voting section of the bill and its effect on the affidavit
voting system we have in Vermont.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Jeffords for his early
support of reform of the election system. I also appreciate his hard
work to ensure that the good qualities of Vermont's election system are
protected and replicated around the United States. I would be pleased
to take the time to answer any question he may have on the provisional
voting section of the bill.
Mr. JEFFORDS. In Vermont when a person arrives at the polling place
to vote and their name does not appear on the voter checklist, even
though they believe they have properly registered, we have a system
that would allow them to cast a ballot. The voter completes an
affidavit form swearing that they had properly applied but were not
added to the voter checklist. The form is reviewed by the Board of
Civil Authority at the polling place and unless the information appears
false the person is allowed to cast a ballot. If the information
appears to be false, the Board of Civil Authority will not allow the
person to cast a ballot and refers them to a local judge to get added
to the voter checklist for the election that day.
The ballots cast this way are counted exactly like the other ballots
and included in the final totals. The information from the approved
affidavits is immediately used to update the voter checklist. My
question to you Senator Dodd is that while this system is not called a
provisional balloting system it appears to me that the affidavit voting
system conforms to all the requirements in this legislation, and
therefore the State of Vermont would already have satisfied the
provisional balloting requirements of the bill?
Mr. DODD. I would agree with the Senator from Vermont. In mine and
[[Page S2519]]
my staff's review of different States' election procedures, Vermont's
system of affidavit voting would satisfy the provisional balloting
requirements of this legislation.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I appreciate Senator Dodd's clarification of this
issue, and look forward with working with him to ensure enactment of
this important legislation.
Maine's Same Day Registration
Ms. COLLINS. Maine has same day registration so a voter can register
at the polls or at a public office nearby and vote on the same day. If
someone challenges the voter's right on that day, the ballot is marked
as a challenged ballot. If a voter goes to the polls to vote and does
not have identification or does not appear on the voting rolls, the
presiding election official will challenge the voter, and his or her
ballot will be treated as a challenged vote. The presiding election
official keeps a list of voters challenged and the reason why they were
challenged. After the time for voting expires, the presiding election
official seals the list. The challenged votes are counted on election
day. In the event of a recount, and if the challenged ballots could
make a difference in the outcome of the election, the ballots and list
are examined by the appropriate authority. The distinguished chairman
of the Senate Committee on Rules has done excellent work crafting the
important bill before us. I would ask him whether, then, Maine's system
comply with this Election Reform Act?
Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Maine for her excellent question
and for her steadfast support for election reform efforts. Let me
assure her that Maine's system does comply with the Election Reform
Act.
Ms. COLLINS. I would like to thank the senior Senator from
Connecticut for his assistance and congratulate him on the impending
passage of this bill.
election day as national holiday colloquy
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my good friend from Connecticut and commend him
for his hard work on this bill; I agree with him when he refers to this
as ``landmark legislation.'' The Dodd-McConnell compromise makes many
necessary improvements in our current elections system and moves us
toward the ultimate goal that we all share of ensuring that our
elections are fair, accurate and accessible to all.
In addition to securing the fairness of elections, however, I believe
that it is in the best interest of our Nation, as with any
representative democracy, to see that as many people as possible
participate in the process. Would my friend from Connecticut agree with
me that ensuring high turnout at the voting booth is also an important
goal in terms of improving our electoral process?
Mr. DODD. I certainly agree with my good friend from California, and
hope that this bill will help achieve that goal by improving
accessibility, offering ballot materials in alternative languages and
by addressing some of the things that can make the voting process
intimidating or confusing.
Mrs. BOXER. One idea that has come up time and again in conversation
with my constituents and various organizations in my State of
California, is the possibility of creating a Federal holiday on
election day. I think that this would be one of the most effective ways
to ensure that as many people as possible have an opportunity to cast
their vote and exercise that most fundamental democratic right. Many of
the hard-working people in this country--people for whom election day
represents a unique opportunity to make their voices heard--find it
difficult to get to the polls. Many work long hours, or have children
that they have to get to school. Would the Senator from Connecticut
agree that we should make it easier for these people to cast their vote
as well?
Mr. DODD. I agree with the Senator from California, and I would tell
her that is the idea behind the entire legislation. We want to make
sure that all eligible voters have an opportunity to cast their ballot
and have it counted fairly and accurately.
Mrs. BOXER. I had considered offering an amendment to this bill that
would in fact create a federal holiday on election day to help give as
many people as possible the opportunity to vote. I would ask my friend
from Connecticut if such a proposal was ever considered when this bill
was being drafted?
Mr. DODD. I say to my friend from California that I did consider
including a provision to that effect in the bill. We looked into the
ramifications such a provision would have and, with time running short,
ultimately concluded that there were too many variables and that we
simply did not have enough information to include it as a requirement
in the bill. We did, however, instruct the Election Administration
Committee--the new election oversight body created by the bill--to
conduct a study on conducting elections on different days, at different
places, and during different hours, including the possibility of
creating an election day holiday.
Mrs. BOXER. I hope that such a study would be thorough in
investigating each of those possibilities and that it would be
conducted as soon as reasonably possible. If such a study were to
conclude that the creation of an election day holiday was possible and
would indeed further the goals of this bill, we would want to begin the
process of making it happen as soon as possible. Could my friend from
Connecticut assure me that this study will be thorough and will be
undertaken promptly upon enactment of this legislation?
Mr. DODD. I share the Senator from California's interest in moving
forward with such a study as soon as is possible.
Mrs. BOXER. I look forward to working with my good friend from
Connecticut in pushing the Commission to complete the study. In the
meantime, I am introducing legislation to establish election day in
Presidential election years as a legal public holiday.
Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from California.
electronic voting
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to commend
Senators Dodd, McConnell, Schumer, and Bond for their dedication and
diligence in addressing what I believe to be an issue of critical
importance to our country--protecting voting rights and ensuring the
integrity of the electoral system in our Nation. Especially given the
events in the world today, making certain that each citizen's vote is
counted and promoting public trust and confidence in our election
process is crucial.
The State of Washington has a long and trusted history as a leader in
election administration. Through great efforts and cooperation, the
state has pioneered such programs as Motor Voter, provisional
balloting, vote by mail, and absentee voting.
I would like to thank Senator Dodd, the chairman of the Rules
committee for his support for an amendment that I offered with Senator
Murray's support that has been adopted. The amendment guarantees that
states are able to continue using mail-in voting, while also providing
new safeguards to make mail-in voters aware of how to properly fill out
their ballots, and how, if needed to obtain a replacement.
Voters in my State are proud of our system that offers voters the
option of voting by mail or in the polling place, and they are
extremely committed to seeing it continue. The mail-in ballot, in my
opinion, offers voters several advantages. First, it allows voters to
cast their ballots on their own time and at their own convenience. It
also allows voters to make more informed choices, as they are able to
consult literature sent by the State and by the campaigns in making
their decisions. Because these votes are cast without the pressure of
other voters waiting in line, or without the time crunch of being late
to work or to pickup the kids, voters are also less likely to make
mistakes that will disqualify their ballots.
In addition, the mail-in system is very secure. Each ballot that is
cast by mail requires, that the voter sign the outer envelope. This
signature is then checked against the voters signature that is kept on
file and only when there is agreement that the signatures match is the
ballot counted. Washington State has consistently increased the number
of voters choosing to vote by mail and through provisional voting
without any allegations that these types of voting have involved fraud
or other misconduct. In fact, the procedures in place have consistently
ensured the integrity and security of our elections and led to public
confidence in our system that is unparalleled anywhere in the country.
[[Page S2520]]
It has not always been this way. In the early 1990s, we had several
close elections that pointed out the vulnerabilities in our system.
These close elections led Washington to become one of the first States
to adopt statewide guidelines that ensured that each jurisdiction
followed the same rules in determining how ballots are verified and
counted. In addition, my State also adopted other requirements for
testing and procedural consistency. It is my hope that this legislation
will lead other states to follow our example and institute similar
guidelines and procedures that will result in more people voting and
making sure that all votes are properly cast and counted.
Our challenge, at the Federal level, is to ensure that in passing
legislation that reduces hurdles to civic participation across the
country, we respect the role of the States in selecting types of voting
that work well for their citizens and lead to maximum participation. I
believe that this bill as amended does that, and I would like to thank
the chairman of the Rules Committee for his commitment to this bill and
to ensuring that states have the flexibility to keep their systems in
place.
I would like to address one additional point. In drafting
legislation, it is often very difficult to look to the future and
anticipate the impact that legislation will have on new technologies.
To truly reform the Federal election process, this legislation must
remedy the infirmities of the present system. However, it also must be
forward-looking in its approach. It should welcome the implementation
of new election technologies. The flexibility of this legislation to
accommodate innovation will be the ultimate strength of federal
election reform.
I firmly believe that voting by computer, whether by internet or some
other remote electronic system, is likely to happen in many states in
the near future. In fact, Arizona has already held a party caucus in
which voters were permitted to vote over the internet. At the same
time, I believe that the security concerns are such that most States,
mine included, are not yet ready to provide this option to voters.
However, in the interests of looking to the future, I would like to
seek clarification from the chairman of the Rules Committee about how
this legislation would affect internet or other forms of remote
electronic voting.
Is it the Chairman's understanding that the bill as it is currently
written would not prevent States from offering voters the option of
voting on the internet, so long as the State could show that the
internet voting system complied with the security protocol standards
written by the new Election Administration Commission, and that the
voting system also complied with the requirements of the legislation on
accessibility for the disabled, providing an audit trail of ballots,
and by providing voters a means to make certain they had not made a
mistake?
Mr. DODD. I agree with Senator Cantwell that very serious concerns
remain about voting by internet. As she knows, this legislation
specifically requests that the new organization, the Election
Administration Commission, study internet voting. I am looking forward
to seeing what it learns. However, I hope very much that States will
think very carefully before moving to internet voting, and will make
sure that the security concerns are fully addressed.
That said, the Senator is correct that nothing in this bill prohibits
states from implementing voting on a remote electronic system like the
internet, as long as the system is certified by the new Election
Administration Commission, and complies with the other standards in the
legislation.
I agree with the Senator that it is important to welcome the
development of new election technologies and it was my intent, and my
cosponsors' intent to provide the states as much flexibility as
possible to accommodate innovation while still implementing necessary
minimum standards that will ensure that all our citizens' right to vote
is protected.
Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all your efforts
on this legislation, and I agree that this bill is drafted in a manner
that will not limit the development and implementation of new election
technologies so long as the new technologies satisfy security protocols
and meet the requirements of the minimum standards. I also hope that
this legislation will in fact spur the development of new election
technologies that are more voter friendly and more cost efficient.
Interactive Voter Registration and Funding Mechanism
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to commend the sponsors of the
election reform bill that is before the Senate today. I especially want
to recognize Senators Dodd and McConnell who have worked tirelessly to
overcome many obstacles in an effort to strengthen the fundamental
right of all citizens to participate in the democratic process. I
wholeheartedly support their overarching goal to make it easier for
every eligible American to vote and to have their voted counted and I
appreciate their willingness to work with me to address some specific
concerns about how the bill may impact my home State of Arkansas.
I wish to engage in a brief colloquy with Chairman Dodd to clarify
for the record his understanding of how two specific provisions in the
legislation will work in practice. The first point I want to raise
involves the requirement in the Senate bill that all States implement a
statewide interactive voter registration list. Is it the Senator's
understanding that States can meet this requirement by having an
interactive computer containing voter registration information at each
county clerk's office but not at each individual polling location?
Mr. DODD. As the lead sponsor of the Senate bill, I am pleased to
reassure the Senator from Arkansas that State and local election
officials would not have to place an interactive computer containing
voter registration information at each polling place to meet the
requirements of this legislation. As my colleague from Arkansas
indicated, States could met this particular requirement if they had an
interactive computer containing the States' voter registration list at
each county clerk's office. I and others who crafted this language were
aware that polling places in Arkansas and in many other States lack
phone service and therefore it would be impractical to set up a
computer network or the like at each polling location during every
Federal election.
Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my colleague for his comments. Another concern
that has been brought to my attention is the funding mechanism in the
Senate bill. I know my colleague from Connecticut is aware that the
method through which Federal funds are distributed to State and local
governments to meet the requirements in this bill is very different
than the House bill. The House bill distributes Federal funding based
on the proportion of eligible voters in each State. This is commonly
referred to as a formula.
Conversely, the Senate bill establishes three separate discretionary
grant programs to help States improve their voting systems and meet the
requirements that are in this bill. I certainly support the goal of
helping all States improve their voting systems. However, I also
support helping all states get their fair share of federal funding.
Based on my knowledge of competitive grants in other Federal programs,
I am concerned about this program turning into a competition among
professional grant writers. I do not think such a system helps my State
nor do I believe it is good public policy when you are applying new
mandates on thousands of jurisdictions in all 50 States. So I would
appreciate knowing my colleague's view on how he and others who drafted
this legislation envision the discretionary grant process working in
practice. What if Congress only appropriates half of the funding that
is authorized in this bill? Will there still be enough for all states
to meet their needs, or is it first come first served?
Mr. DODD. I am certainly aware of the concerns raised by my
colleague from Arkansas. I can assure my good friend and other Senators
who have raised similar concerns that we have not designed a funding
distribution system where only the best applications will be funded. In
fact, we have carefully calculated the amount of funding we feel will
be needed for all states and local jurisdictions to meet the minimum
standards we have included in this legislation. Therefore, I appreciate
the opportunity today to clear up any confusion surrounding
[[Page S2521]]
this issue by saying that I and others who crafted this bill fully
intend for the Justice Department to distribute funding to all states
and local governments based on the need for improvement they identify
in their application.
Our intent certainly is not to enact a jobs program for professional
grant writers no do we expect states or local governments to hire grant
writers in order to receive Federal funding under this bill. As
chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, I certainly intend to closely
monitor the implementation of this legislation to ensure it is applied
in practice as Congress intended. You have my word that I will be the
first to object if I think the federal agency charged with distributing
funding is not distributing resources to eligible recipients in a fair
and equitable manner.
Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my friend from Connecticut for his
clarification on these two issues. Based on his assurance I look
forward to supporting this bill.
full-time recreational vehicle owners
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to engage the chairman of the
Committee on Rules and Administration, Senator Dodd, in a colloquy
concerning the voting rights of thousands of American citizens, many of
whom are members of the Good Sam Club, which is based in California.
The citizens to whom I am referring own recreation vehicles, RVs, and
live in them year round. The number of full-time ``RVers'' grows larger
each year. These individuals, most of whom are retirees, have sold
their conventional homes and travel around the country year round in
their RVs and mobile homes. Ostensibly, they do not have a permanent
address.
While nobody can question these individuals' right to travel, the
fact is that this lifestyle does create a series of logistical
problems, particularly as it relates to their ability to establish a
domicile. While they may not remain at any one location, full-time
RVers must still register their vehicles, maintain a current driver's
license, obtain insurance, have some kind of legal address, and pay
taxes. They also have, or should have, the right to register to vote if
they so choose.
Two years ago, the voting rights of over 9,000 full-time RVers who
were registered to vote in Polk County, TX, was challenged in court.
The plaintiffs in this case argued that since these individuals did not
reside in Polk County on a permanent basis, they constituted a
significant voting block of ``nonresidents'' that was likely to have an
effect on the outcome of the election, and that their votes should be
disallowed. Ultimately, the full-time RVers' constitutional right to
vote was upheld in court, but future challenges are likely.
The legislation that we are considering today would establish an
Election Administration Commission, EAC. Among other responsibilities,
this Commission is mandated to conduct a number of studies on various
election issues, and report its findings to the President and Congress.
Does the Senator from Connecticut agree that, at the very least, the
issue of full-time RVers voting rights would be a suitable topic for
the Commission to study?
Mr. DODD. Yes, I certainly agree with the Senator from California. We
do not want to disenfranchise anyone, accidentally or otherwise, who is
eligible to vote, and we need to address the unique set of
circumstances surrounding our fellow citizens who have chosen not to
live in one particular location, but rather to travel year round across
our great nation. The right to vote of all full-time RVers needs to be
safeguarded. Certainly this is an issue the Commission could study.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for his remarks and for his
leadership on this bill. I am pleased that he shares my strongly-held
view that we need to ensure that the voting rights of all American
citizens, regardless of where they reside, needs to be safeguarded.
path of travel
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the Senator from
Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, on the intent of the grants to be awarded to
states for the purpose of constructing ``polling places, including the
path of travel.'' Is ``path of travel'' intended to cover the
construction of paved, asphalted, or similarly surfaced disabled or
handicapped parking spaces, as well as sidewalks, ramps, and similar
disabled access ways to the buildings which house the voting system?
Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his question. The
grants to be awarded to states under this act would include
construction of these types of infrastructure improvements, and are
intended to include things like disabled parking spaces, sidewalks,
ramps, and similar access ways.
Mr. ENZI. As the chairman is aware, these grants are very important
to small, rural states like Wyoming, which have polling places in some
very remote or rural locations. In Wyoming, we actually have some
polling places in trailers on gravel roads. Because the Act requires a
special voting system for the disabled to be installed in each polling
place, Wyoming needs to be sure it can accommodate the disabled by
making certain the state can pay for these special systems and ensure
the disabled can get into the building to vote. These types of grants
will ensure that the buildings which house the special voting equipment
for the disabled are ADA accessible.
I am also aware the chairman has included the Collins amendment in
the manager's amendment to the act. I understand this amendment is
intended to assure a minimum amount of grant money is available to each
state to improve their voting systems and infrastructure. This is
important to the State of Wyoming so it can afford to install these
special systems and construct the infrastructure necessary to give the
disabled the same opportunity to enter a voting booth and exercise
their right to vote.
Mr. DODD. As the Senator has indicated, the managers' amendment
includes a provision to ensure that each state will be guaranteed a
minimum of one half of one percent of the grant money available under
the act, which is approximately $17.5 million dollars over five years.
I am glad this act will help address the concerns of small, rural
States like Wyoming, and I look forward to working with the Senator
form Wyoming to address any further concerns or questions he may have
on to how this act will impact rural states.
Deterring Voter Fraud and Promoting Voter Participation
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleague Senator
Bond for his hard work in making sure that the identification
requirements for first time voters in this bill did not have the
unintended consequences for people who vote by mail. I think that we
all agree that any election reform passed by the U.S. Senate should be
about two things: deterring voter fraud and promoting voter
participation. Many weeks of negotiations finally have produced an
agreement that I believe will do both. Thanks to hard work by Senator
Wyden and Senator Bond, together with the managers of the bill, Senator
Dodd and Senator McConnell, and Senator Murray and Senator Smith, we
have come up with a solution. The compromise addresses Senator Bond's
concerns about making certain first time voters are who they say they
are, but that doesn't have an unfair and burdensome impact on
progressive states like Washington and Oregon where many--and in the
case of Oregon all--voters vote by mail. This compromise will not
simply benefit voters who vote by mail in Washington in Oregon, but
will benefit all States that allow voters to vote by mail.
This compromise does two things. First, it creates a mechanism for
election officials to verify the identity of first time voters who
register by mail before they get to the polls. And second, it makes
clear that voters who vote by mail, just like voters who go to the
polls, can still cast a provisional or replacement ballot even if they
fail to provide identification in their ballot when they cast their
vote by mail. The provisional or replacement ballot will be counted as
long as elections officials determine the voter's eligibility under the
laws of their State.
With regard to the first part of the compromise, election officials
in States like Oregon and Washington will be able to satisfy themselves
about the identity of a first time voter before they arrive at the
pools or cast their ballot by mail for the first time. If the election
official is able to compare the information that the voter provides on
his or her voter registration card with
[[Page S2522]]
information contained in an existing state database such as the
Department of Motor Vehicles, and the information matches, the voter
will not be asked to produce independent identification when they vote.
In fact, even if a voter fails to provide the identification
information at the time they vote, the vote may still be cast as a
provisional or replacement ballot and will be counted as long as State
elections officials verify the voter's eligibility under the laws of
the voter's State. Is that the Senator's understanding?
Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is correct. Under the agreement you and I have
worked out with Senators Bond, McConnell, Dodd, and Murray, voters who
register by mail are given more options to verify their identity. Our
agreement protects Oregon's vote-by-mail system, as well as the
majority of voters who vote by mail in Washington, and provides
protections to make sure that every mail-in vote by a legally
registered first-time voter can be counted.
Instead of a identification or proof to resident, first-time voters
in a state may put their driver's license number or the last four
digits of their Social Security card on their registration card.
If that number, along with the name and date of birth of the voter
matches another State record, like the Department of Motor Vehicle's,
the voter won't be required to provide any further identification. This
means they won't have to stop by a copy center before they register or
before they vote. This will mean business as usual for the petition
drives, the campus registrations and every get-out-the-vote effort in
Oregon, where thousands of first-time voters register by mail. Without
this compromise, every one of these initiatives to get more citizens
voting would have been stymied.
The agreement also guarantees that voters who cast their ballots by
mail have the same provisional or replacement ballot rights as voters
who go to the polls. Under the agreement if a first-time voter in a
state fails to supply a driver's license number or the last four digits
of their Social Security number when they register, their vote can
still be counted even if their ballot is received without a photocopy
of identification, if the state election officials determines that the
voter is in fact legally registered under state law. These provisions
will also not take effect until January of 2003 ensuring that this
year's election will not be disrupted by new requirements.
Under the agreement, Oregon's pioneering and successful vote-by-mail
system will continue, unchanged.
I understand the concerns that sparked the identification
requirement: a concern that mail-in voter registration and balloting
engender fraud. But in Oregon--the only all vote-by-mail state and the
state that pioneered Motor Voter--there is very little fraud. No one
has come forward with proof of widespread fraud in Oregon. In fact, I
was elected to the Senate in the first all vote-by-mail special
election. Senator Gordon Smith, my opponent in that race, never raised
any questions about fraud. Oregon's penalties for fraud are much
tougher than federal law--up to $100,000 in fines and/or 5 years in
jail.
Since Oregonians voted overwhelmingly in 1998 to use a vote-by-mail
system, participation has gone up and fraud has gone down. In fact, in
the last Federal election, 80 percent of the registered voters cast a
ballot. Since the May 1996 primary, 13 cases of fraud have been
prosecuted; convictions were won in five and eight are still pending.
In the last federal election, only 192 ballots were not counted because
they failed the signature verification test. This is a pretty good
record. Has the Senator had similar results in her State?
Ms. CANTWELL. I agree completely with my colleague from Oregon. The
mail in voting system in my State has allowed voters to have
flexibility in deciding whether to go to the polls or vote from home.
In our last election, over 65 percent opted to vote by mail.
Our system has increased participation, and has resulted in no
serious allegation of fraud. Like the mail in system in Oregon, I was
elected in a very close election where the majority of ballots were
cast by mail, but no allegations of fraud were raised.
In addition, voting by mail allows voters to be significantly more
informed. By sitting at home with their ballot and their sample voting
materials, voters are able to make more informed choices without the
pressures of a busy schedule or a line at the booth.
I am very pleased that this agreement provides protections that will
make sure that all legally registered first time voters who vote by
mail, will still have their votes counted. Their votes will be counted
if State election officials determine the voter is properly registered
according to Washington State law. In Washington, if a first-time voter
forgets to include a photocopy in their ballot, the election official
will verify whether or not the voter is in fact legally registered by
following the Washington state law, and performing a careful
verification of the signature on the ballot.
This compromise makes sense because it allows each state to best
determine how to count provisional ballots, and because it provides the
same protection to mail in voters that are already provided to voters
who vote at the polls in the original election reform bill.
I ask the Senator if he agrees that this is how the compromise will
work?
Mr. BOND. I agree with my colleagues Senator Wyden and Senator
Cantwell, as to how the compromise works, and I would like to thank
them for working diligently on this compromise. I am pleased we were
able to make a change to the identification provision that all states
can comply with.
I have said repeatedly that requiring first time voters to verify
their identity is a reasonable means of preventing fraud, and in fact
many States already have this requirement.
But I agree completely with the Senators from Washington and Oregon
that voters who vote by mail, but fail to include a copy of their photo
identification, should be able to cast a provisional ballot, just like
voters who go to the polls without their identification.
By ensuring that it is a state or local election official that is
making the determination about whether a provisional vote is valid, I
believe we have built in significant safeguards that will prevent
fraud.
I also agree that allowing election officials to verify the identity
of a first time voter by matching specific information about the voter
on the registration card to an existing state record with information
on the voter, is a reasonable means to prevent fraud.
I am happy to support this compromise and look forward to passing the
final legislation later today.
Mr. WYDEN. This agreement follows the right priorities by fighting
fraud at the beginning of the process--at the time of registration.
That is what our agreement does. At the same time, I have also said
that legislation should not make it harder for legally registered
voters to cast a ballot, or discourage people from voting. The
agreement will do this as well.
This has not been an easy task. I want to commend Senators Bond,
Cantwell, McConnell, and Murray for sticking with the negotiations, and
I especially want to thank Chairman Dodd for the support he and his
staff have given us in reaching the agreement and in including it in
the managers' package.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, amendment No. 2926 will ensure that the
Election Administration Commission studies State recount and contest
procedures, so that we lessen the chance that what happened in Florida
during the November 2000 election will occur elsewhere.
That election revealed many problems in our Nation's voting
procedures, the bulk of which are being addressed in this historic
legislation. When states fully implement the provisions of S. 565, I am
confident that Americans will have good reason to have greater
confidence that their Federal elections are fair, efficient, and
accurate down to the last vote.
But, we also have to be concerned about what occurs after those
ballots have been cast, especially in cases when an election is
excruciatingly close. In November 2000, we all found out what can
happen in our electoral democracy when recounts are required or when
elections are contested to determine who won and who lost. In broad
terms, the system that was designed by our Founders and has evolved
[[Page S2523]]
over the years is a brilliant one. But given the sheer size of this
country, the complexity of many State regulations, and the various ways
and means of voting, we must ensure that the system we cherish is
brought fully up to speed with the times in which we live.
Even after we say good riddance to chads and butterflies, we will
certainly continue to have close Federal elections, and elections in
which the first count has to be verified for one reason or another.
Therefore I believe we will not have completed the job of election
reform until we make sure that we--governments at all levels, as well
as the public--better understand how States determine when votes should
be recounted, how votes should be recounted, and who should do the
recounting. We must not allow this window of reform to close without
first enduring that we know whether or not State recount and contest
procedures are adequate, so that in the future it is voters, without
the intervention of the courts, who determine the winners of our
elections.
In 2000, of course, it was Florida--surrounded on three sides by
water and on all sides by media scrutiny--that became the poster state
for recount procedures gone awry. But in frames, we must acknowledge
that if other States had been placed under the same microscope as
Florida, the same problems would have been revealed. Florida was not
the only state that was totally unprepared to deal with a neck-and-neck
election.
The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired so ably
by Presidents Carter and Ford, made several observations about this
issue that were evident to the whole world watching events in Florida,
but which could apply to many other States as well. The commission
found that recount and contest laws are not designed for statewide
challenges. They noted that state deadlines did not mesh well with the
federal schedule. Each county in Florida made its own decisions about
what, when, or whether to recount. And, perhaps most surprising to all
of us involved, in performing recounts, the definition of a vote varied
from county to county, and from official to official within the
counties.
I do not want to recount, relieve, or rehash all of the painful
debates from that election. There is no point to be served now re-
enacting the legal battle that transfixed our country and the world.
But in our ongoing quest to form a more perfect union, we have to ask
ourselves whether we can improve the procedures for future recounts,
and how we can put in place procedures that are clear to voters, and I
might add candidates, well before the election. If on the first Monday
in November we are all on the same page as to what constitutes a vote
on each type of voting equipment and for every kind of voting method,
what recount and contest procedures are, and other critical questions,
things will be much less confusion and frustrating to all Americans
come the first Tuesday in November. In perfect hindsight, I think we
would all agree that it is not one's benefit for us to rely on the
courts or others to tell us the rules as we go along.
The amendment would simply require the new Election Administration
Commission being created by this legislation to systematically examine
the State laws and procedures governing recounts and contests in
Federal elections, determine the best practices, and, report to the
President and Congress whether or not state procedures are adequate.
The commission would also study whether or not states have adopted
uniform definitions for what constitutes a vote on each kind of voting
machinery they use, and whether or not there is a need for more
consistency in State recount and contest procedures.
This amendment recognizes that, as is appropriate under our system of
government, administration of Federal elections will still remain
primarily the purview of the States. However, be directing the Election
Administration Commission to study State recount and contest laws and
procedures and promote best practices, I hope we can help to ensure
that the events in Florida following the November 2000 election are
never repeated.
I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for working with us
and accepting this amendment, and I urge its adoption by the Senate.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, stand on the threshold of passing
perhaps the most important bill of the 107th Congress. S. 565 makes a
long-overdue Federal investment in the most vital infrastructure our
nation has: the infrastructure of democracy.
We have neglected this infrastructure for too long, and at our peril.
Problems in Florida and elsewhere during the November 2000 Presidential
election underscored the effects of our years of neglect.
I was pleased to see that President Bush's fiscal year 2003 budget
request included $400 million for a revolving fund for States for
election improvements, and additional funds projected through fiscal
year 2005, for a total of $1.2 billion over 3 years. This is
commendable, but I think it falls short of what we need.
S. 565 authorizes $3.5 billion through fiscal year 2006 to help
States and localities:
Meet new Federal standards for voting systems;
Replace or upgrade voting technology;
Educate and train voters, election officials, and poll workers; and
Make polling places and equipment physically accessible to the
disabled.
As Senator Bond and others have said, the new standards contained in
S. 565 are meant to ``make it easier to vote, and harder to vote
fraudulently.'' What a laudable goal.
Under the bill, voting systems must notify voters if they ``over
vote''--that is, if they vote for too many candidates for a particular
office or position. Voters must be given the opportunity to change
their ballot, and verify that it comports with their wishes before
casting it.
Voting systems must provide nonvisual accessibility for the blind and
visually impaired. They must provide ballots in other languages for
voters with limited proficiency in English.
The bill requires that voters be informed of their right--and be
allowed--to cast provisional ballots if their eligibility is challenged
at the polling place, and to find out if their votes are counted.
The bill also requires the States to develop statewide computerized
and interactive voter registration lists both to make it easier to vote
and to deter fraud.
To meet these requirements, S. 565 provides a 100 percent Federal
match. There is no unfunded mandate here foisted on State and local
governments. We give them the money they need to do what we ask them to
do.
The bill comes at an absolutely crucial time for California. Last
September, California Secretary of State Bill Jones ``de-certified''
the punch-card voting systems in nine counties, which collectively have
8.6 million registered voters. That's more people than the total
populations of 39 States. The counties include:
Los Angeles (4 million registered voters);
San Diego (1 million registered voters);
San Bernardino (700,000 registered voters);
Alameda (700,000 registered voters); and
Sacramento (600,000 registered voters).
The other affected counties are Mendocino, Santa Clara, Shasta, and
Solano.
Secretary of State Jones gave these jurisdictions until the November
2006 elections to upgrade their systems, presumably to ``touch screen''
machines, also known as ``Direct Record Electronic''--DRE--devices.
You can imagine what a challenge it will be to get new systems in
place for so many voters. In Los Angeles alone, the cost is expected to
be between $90 million and $100 million. In Sacramento, it will cost
$20 million to $30 million.
But there is more: civil rights groups and other plaintiffs sued to
move the date up from 2006 to 2004. Just 2 months ago, U.S. District
Judge Stephen V. Wilson ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
So these counties have about 2 years--less really--to get new
systems. It is absolutely imperative that we pass this bill, work out a
compromise with the House, and get Federal funds to these--and other--
jurisdictions as soon as possible.
Last month, California voters approved Proposition 41, a $200 million
[[Page S2524]]
bond measure that will provide 3-to-1 matching grants to county
governments for the purchase of new election equipment. So the State is
doing what it can to fix this problem. But it can-not do it by itself.
With regard to the bill before us, I want to commend Senators Dodd
and McConnell for their hard work in negotiating the compromise we will
be voting on shortly. Fixing our election systems--fixing the
infrastructure of our democracy--is not a partisan issue. The chairman
and ranking member of the Rules Committee have done an admirable job. I
am confident that the Senate will approve the compromise amendment
overwhelmingly.
I am also grateful that the Senate saw fit to approve 2 of my
amendments. I offered these amendments to address concerns my staff and
I heard from California election officials, notably Bradley J. Clark,
the Alameda County Registrar who serves as President of the California
Association of Clerks and Election Officials, and Connie B. McCormack
and Mischelle Townsend, the Los Angeles County and Riverside County
Registrars, respectively.
My first amendment would task the Election Administration
Commission--EAC--created under the bill with studying the technical
feasibility of providing ballots and other election materials in eight
or more languages. Section 101(a)(4) of S. 565 as amended significantly
expands the Voting Rights Act--VRA--of 1965 requirement regarding the
availability of voter registration and election materials in foreign
languages.
The VRA currently requires the availability of voter registration and
election materials in native languages for specified ``language
minority groups'' if a certain threshold is reached: No. 1, more than 5
percent of the voting-age citizens within the jurisdiction are members
of a ``single language minority'' and have limited English-proficiency;
or No. 2, there are at least 10,000 such voters.
The VRA restricts the term ``language minority groups/single language
minority'' to people who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan
Natives, or of Spanish heritage.
S. 565, as amended, goes beyond the four categories above, and the
registrars are concerned that it could require a larger jurisdiction
like Los Angeles, San Francisco, or San Diego to prepare ballots and
other election materials in languages not covered by the VRA without
first assessing the need for such ballots.
We have school districts in these cities where 48 different languages
are spoken.
In the November 2000 elections, Los Angeles County spent $2.2 million
out of a total budget of $21 million to prepare registration materials
and ballots in six languages: Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
Vietnamese, and Tagalog--the native language of Filipinos.
According to the Los Angeles County Registrar, Ms. McCormack, each
language costs about $250,000 per election, and she anticipates adding
Cambodian for the November 2002 election.
She certainly does not want to disenfranchise any voter, nor would I
countenance such an effort. But I think it is important for the EAC to
study the technical challenges the multi-lingual ballot provision
places on a jurisdiction like Los Angeles.
For instance, Ms. McCormack told my staff that while the technology
is improving, it is still very difficult to devise ballots in
``character'' languages such as Chinese, even on the newer machines.
Prior to the November 2000 elections, she invited companies to bid on
a contract to provide a limited number of machines with multi-lingual
ballot capabilities. She drew just two bids.
Another chief concern I heard about is the requirement in Section
102(a) of the substitute amendment that appropriate election officials
must notify a provisional voter in writing within 30 days if his or her
provisional ballot is rejected, and the reason for it being rejected.
The goal--getting voters properly registered--is certainly
worthwhile, but the requirement is administratively cumbersome for some
jurisdictions. Los Angeles County, for instance, received over 100,000
provisional ballots in the November 2000 elections, and rejected close
to 40,000.
In addition to notifying, in writing, those voters whose provisional
ballots have not been counted, the amended bill reburies election
officials in each jurisdiction to establish a ``free access system''
such as a toll-free number or an official Website that voters can
contact to determine if their provisional ballots have been counted.
It strikes me that establishing the free access system, informing
voters about it, and allowing them to find this information out for
themselves is more manageable than requiring the written notification.
In either instance, I am concerned about protecting the privacy of
the data that such a free access system would contain.
S. 565, as amended--Section 102(a)(6)(BN)--is silent on that point.
Identify theft is one of the Nation's fastest growing crimes. I felt
compelled to offer an amendment to the bill--which has been adopted--to
direct the appropriate State or local election officials to protect the
security of the personal information contained in the free access
systems that will be created.
I am pleased that the Senate also adopted the amendment senators
Chafee and Reed of Rhode Island offered to ensure that State and local
governments making multi-year payments for new voting equipment
purchased prior to January 1, 2001 are eligible to apply for grants
under this bill.
This amendment, as I understand it, ``grandfathers'' Riverside and
Marin Counties so that they can tap into Section 203 grant monies to
help them defray the cost of equipment they purchased prior to the
November 2000 elections.
According to Ms. Townsend, the Riverside County Registrar, prior to
the 2000 elections, Riverside County using Pitney Bowes for financing--
purchased 4,250 touch screen machines from Sequoia, an Oakland
manufacturer, at a cost of $14 million amortized over 15 years (for a
total cost, including interest, of roughly $20 million).
The new DRE system was so successful that Riverside had one of the
ten lowest voter error rates of all counties nationwide--less than one
percent.
Ms. Townsend told my staff that much of the error rate was
attributable to paper absentee ballots. ``Over-voting'' is impossible
on touch screens, and ``under-voting'' is the prerogative of individual
voters and, consequently, may not represent an error.
Riverside was the first county nationwide to rely exclusively on
touch screens and is serving as a model for other jurisdictions. The
county was commended in the report issued by the Election Reform
Commission former Presidents Ford and Carter co-chaired.
Clearly, we do not want to punish Riverside County--or Marin County,
which purchased DRE touch screen machines and precinct-based optical
scanners in time for the November 2000 elections--for acting
responsibly.
As I said a moment ago, I want to thank Senators Dodd and McConnell
for accommodating my concerns. I think the amendments I offered and the
Chafee-Reed amendment make an already outstanding bill even better.
While much of our discussion concerning specific provisions in the
bill may sound arcane or parochial, there is also something much larger
at stake here.
One hundred years ago, democracy was still very much a tenuous
experiment around the world. Even in the United States, African-
American men were largely disenfranchised and women still had to wait
for 2 more decades before they could vote.
According to a 1999 report issued by Freedom House, in 1900, only 5
percent of the world's population had the right to elect their
leader(s). Now, 58 percent of the world has this right.
In 1900, no nation elected its leader by universal adult suffrage;
now, 119 nations do. That is 62 percent of all of the countries in the
world.
According to the report, entitled Democracy's Century:
Like economic progress, political progress has been uneven.
But the general trends are hard to ignore. They reinforce the
conclusion that humankind, in fits and starts, is rejecting
oppression and opting for greater openness and freedom.
This report was published before the terrorist attacks on September
11. We have been reminded in a visceral way that enemies of freedom
still exist. We have met those enemies on the battlefields of
Afghanistan. The battle we
[[Page S2525]]
now wage is every bit as serious as the cold war. I fervently believe
that freedom will win out. Democracy will continue its march. Respect
for human rights will grow.
The newly established or emerging democracies of the world look to us
for inspiration and for guidance. That is why it is so crucial that we
pass S. 565 and set about mending our democracy.
I traveled abroad after the 2000 elections, and I heard an earful
from foreigners. ``Don't lecture us,'' they said, and rightfully so.
While we were able to settle on the results peacefully, in our
courts, the events surrounding that election shame us, diminish us in
the eyes of those who aspire to be like us, and embolden our enemies,
freedom's enemies.
On April 27, 1994, 43 million black South Africans--86 percent of the
eligible voters--cast their first ballots. Can any of us forget the
poignant images we saw on television back then of people waiting 8
hours or more to vote, of lines of voters seemingly stretching to the
horizon?
Yes, democracy is on the march. But it is fragile. We have to protect
and nourish it. Even here in America--especially here in America. We
are a beacon to the rest of the world, especially to oppressed people
everywhere.
We Americans have been complacent and neglectful with regard to our
democracy. We have allowed the infrastructure that sustains it to fray
around the edges. Our democracy has lost some of its marvelous luster.
It is time to restore that luster.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of this
historic election reform legislation, which of course comes before the
Senate at a time when our Nation is responding to new challenges at
home and abroad.
I want to thank Senators Dodd and McConnell and other Senators for
their hard work to create this bipartisan bill, and I thank the
majority leader and the minority leader for working together and
ensuring that this legislation is being considered at this time. Our
efforts to address this issue together demonstrate to the American
people that a matter as critical as election reform can and should be
driven by the national interest, not by partisan, parochial or
political interests.
After all, the integrity of self-governed democracies starts with the
right of citizens to vote, and when that right is not shared equally,
the strength of our democracy is diminished.
We must recognize and celebrate the fact that American history has
been a story of continual progress in this regard. Generation after
generation, voting booths have been opened and voting rights extended
to groups of citizens once disenfranchised. That wonderful process of
growth has, over the generations, built a broader and better America
that has become a brighter beacon of equality and opportunity to people
around the world.
But we can never stop forming, in the words of our Constitution, a
more perfect union, and to that end we must realize that haphazard or
bureaucratic disenfranchisement still occurs in America today as a
result of arcane or confusing voting systems. We must realize that
millions of Americans who are eligible to vote still encounter
unnecessary barriers to casting their vote, and to having their votes
counted. That disenfranchisement, whenever and however it occurs, is a
blemish on the sanctity of our system, and it is a blemish that only
we--the democratic representatives of the people--can help to heal.
The provisions in this legislation will help guarantee access and
accuracy in the voting booth and ballot box by making sure that the
fundamental right to vote of all citizens is protected, that the
ballots of all registered voters are counted, and that only those
persons who are eligible to vote can do so.
We can all agree that the November 2000 election--which I seem to
recall reading a thing or two about in the newspapers--exposed serious
flaws in our federal election process, and I am happy to say that this
legislation has an answer for most of the flaws exposed.
Experts estimate that in November 2000, some 2.5 million Americans
had their ballots for President discarded for any number of reasons. In
some cases, the cause was faulty voting equipment, in others confusing
ballots. This legislation will wisely require States to adopt voting
systems which permit voters to verify their ballot choices and correct
errors before their vote is cast. It requires states to adopt systems
that address the needs of disabled voters, and of voters with limited
English proficiency. And to make sure that these provisions have teeth,
the bill sets Federal standards for voter error rates and requires
states to meet or beat those benchmarks.
In the 2000 election, many citizens who believed they were eligible
to vote were simply turned away from the polls. This legislation will
make sure that all citizens who show up to vote have the right to cast
provisional ballots, so that their votes can be tabulated if and when
their eligibility is verified.
According to reports, in the 2000 election, other citizens were
denied the right to vote because registration lists were simply not
accurate. This legislation will require each State to create
computerized, statewide voter registration lists and to coordinate
those lists with other databases to ensure that the lists are as up-to-
date and as error-free as possible.
The November 2000 election also made it painfully clear that states
were being forced to bear the total financial burden for federal
elections, and many states lacked the funding necessary to implement
more efficient voting systems. This legislation authorizes $3.5 billion
to help states and localities meet the requirements for upgrading
voting systems, to improve accessibility for disabled and special needs
voters, and to implement new procedures to increase voter turnout,
educate voters, and identify, deter, and investigate voter fraud.
Mr. President, the revolutionary idea at the core of American
democracy is that our government's power is derived from the consent of
the governed. In other words, small-r republican government depends
upon the small-d democratic right to vote. Two hundred years ago.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``The will of the people . . . is the only
legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect is free
expression should be our first object.''
Today, the best way for us to protect the free expression of the will
of the people is to build an election system that all Americans can
count on, by ensuring that all their votes and only their votes are
counted. This legislation furthers our progress toward that noble goal.
It deserves our strong support.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have before us a bill that seeks to
take unprecedented steps to improve the methods by which Americans vote
for our elected officials. To a large extent, Congress is charting new
territory in an area where States have traditionally been left to their
own devices. Congress has in the past stepped in to guarantee the right
to vote for American military personnel and U.S. citizens who live
abroad as well as to protect the voting rights of Americans against
discrimination. Most recently, Congress has involved itself in the area
of voter registration with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
However, the Federal Government to date has had little or no role with
respect to the administration of elections, which is traditionally a
State and local responsibility.
Since this is new territory for Congress, we must start by asking
ourselves what we are trying to accomplish. The closeness of the 2000
presidential election highlighted some of the shortcomings in the
voting systems and processes that are used throughout the country. Many
suggestions have been tossed around for ways we can improve elections
in the United States ranging from radical constitutional reforms to
minor adjustments on the local level. It is clear to me that the most
important role Congress can play is to provide the resources, both
financial and technical, that are necessary for states and communities
to administer fair and accurate elections.
The Dodd-McConnell compromise legislation being considered by the
Senate takes steps to help State and local governments achieve high
standards of fairness and accuracy in elections. Still, the bill is not
perfect. Because of the nature of compromise legislation, every Senator
can find things they like and things they do not.
[[Page S2526]]
Nevertheless, this bill does accomplish one of the key objectives of
Federal election reform. Central to any attempt to help States and
localities improve their election systems is providing funds to do so.
It's usually not lack of will but lack of funds that hinders local
reform efforts. I'm pleased that this bill provides a total of $3.5
billion to States and localities to help improve the administration of
elections. Funds will become available through a newly created Election
Administration Commission for items like upgrading or replacing voting
machines, improving accessibility for disabled voters, and simplifying
voting and voter registration procedures.
On the other hand, one problem with this bill is the degree of
Federal control that will be exerted on elections. It's difficult to
strike the right balance between helping States and localities improve
the administration of elections while still allowing for local
flexibility. This bill contains a number of well intentioned but
specific mandates on States and localities along with potentially heavy
handed enforcement procedures if they are deemed to be out of
compliance with Federal mandates. Still, the bill does provide for 100
percent funding for all Federal mandates thus lessening the impact on
the State and local governments that must implement these mandates.
Finally, I'm pleased that measures were included in this bill,
largely through the work of Senator Bond, to combat the problem of
voter fraud. The Dodd-McConnell compromise strengthens language in
current law providing penalties for giving false information with
respect to voting or voter registration, or for conspiring to do so. It
also clarifies that these penalties apply for giving false information
with respect to naturalization, citizenship, or alien registration.
The compromise also contains carefully balanced language designed to
protect against the kinds of fraud that can occur with mail-in voter
registration and mail-in voting. While efforts to strip out these anti-
fraud protections threatened to unravel the compromise, I am pleased
that this matter was resolved and a compromise was found that protects
the ability to vote by mail without weakening the bill's anti-fraud
protections.
In addition, other measures have been added to the bill through
amendments on the Senate floor to give States more tools to ensure the
integrity of their voter lists and prevent fraud, including my
amendment to allow for coordination of statewide voter lists with
social security records to check for deaths and individuals registered
under false identities. Voter fraud is a direct threat to the electoral
process and these measures represent progress toward eliminating that
threat.
At the end of the day, we have a bipartisan bill that takes concrete
steps to help state and local governments improve the administration of
elections. While it isn't perfect, the Dodd-McConnell legislation
represents a positive move that should give Americans greater
confidence in their elections and our system of government.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Election
Reform. Today is a good day for this country and the manner in which we
hold federal elections.
For several weeks after the last vote was cast in the 2000 elections,
Americans were inundated with image after image of ballots being
counted and recounted. As the election was further scrutinized,
numerous stories of voter fraud were brought to the nation's attention.
While the list of problems encountered during the last election is
seemingly unending, the point is that there are improvements to the
system that must be made. Today, we have taken a very big, very
important step in making sure that this system works better. After all,
we have no more important right as American citizens than the right to
vote.
In this bill, we set forth some very important standards and
procedures to protect this right. We will require systems to permit a
voter to verify his ballot choices and correct errors before the ballot
is cast so that the voter can be certain that his vote will be for the
candidate of his choice.
In the case where an individual claims to be a registered voter who
is eligible to vote but isn't on the official registration list, that
individual will be allowed to cast a provisional vote. The appropriate
election official must then verify the claim of eligibility. If the
claim is verified, that vote will be counted. There will then be a free
access system that the voter can use to check to see whether that vote
was counted, and if not, the system will give the reason for that
decision.
These measures, and others in the bill, are intended to make certain
that the people who are eligible to vote are given that right. The
other side of the coin is to make certain that people who are not
eligible to vote are prevented from voting. One of the things that this
bill does is require each state to implement an interactive,
computerized, statewide, voter registration list. This will also help
to make certain that noone is able to vote more than once.
One of the concerns that many states would have had with this piece
of legislation is the cost involved in implementing these reforms.
Recognizing these concerns, we have authorized $3.5 billion to make
certain that the states do not bear the burden of these reforms.
This legislation represents the hard work of many members from both
sides of the aisle. It is truly a testament to the good that can come
from bi-partisanship and I commend all of the Senators who worked so
hard to make this happen.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Dodd and Ranking
Member McConnell for working closely with me to reach agreement on an
amendment to help ensure that the millions of Americans living overseas
can vote in Federal elections.
Millions of Americans live abroad. Some are business people, some are
military personnel, others are students, and some are Peace Corp
volunteers. Their votes should count, too.
This amendment is simple and reasonable, but important. It directs
the Commission created in the Election Reform package to consider the
needs and concerns of millions of overseas voters, both civilian and
military personnel. The amendment directs the commission to study the
issue of long-term registration for overseas voters and make
recommendations. It would create a single office in every state that
overseas voters could contact for information about voter registration
and absentee ballots. The Commission is asked to determine if this
office could, and should do more. It states that when election
officials reject an absentee ballot, the overseas voter should be
notified and given an explanation on why their application was
rejected. Finally, this amendment also ask states to report on the
number of absentee ballots, within a reasonable time frame.
Early in my political career, I served as the Secretary of State for
West Virginia, so I understand the importance of voting issues and the
need to be sensitive to the concerns of states. But we also have an
obligation to overseas Americans who deserve the chance to vote.
I deeply appreciate the interest and support of Chairman Dodd,
Senator McConnell and their staffs. I know that the bipartisan House
Election Reform legislation includes important provisions for overseas
voters, both civilian and military, recognizing that they, too, deserve
to vote.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this afternoon I would like to commend my
colleagues for passing S. 565, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Equal
Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001. I believe that this historic
piece of legislation will resolve many of the problems that the country
experienced in the Year 2000 election.
This bill includes a number of important elements that are designed
to improve and safeguard the voting process across the country. The
bill establishes uniform and nondiscriminatory Federal standards,
including voter notification procedures and a uniform error rate for
voting systems, that will reassure voters that their votes will be
correctly registered. The bill also includes mandatory procedures for
provisional voting that will ensure that all legitimate voters have the
right to vote. Additionally, the bill establishes an interactive,
computerized, statewide voter registration system that will prevent
future incidents of election fraud. The
[[Page S2527]]
bill also includes Federal grant programs that will help the States pay
for these new mandatory requirements, and provide incentives for States
to replace voting machines, educate voters, and train poll workers. The
bill also establishes an Election Administration Commission to improve
the administration of elections across the country by using grant
programs, studies, and recommendations.
Most importantly, this bill will play a role in improving the
situation for disabled voters. The obstacles facing millions of
disabled voters have concerned me long before the 2000 elections. I
find it particularly distressing that many of our nation's disabled
veterans, who sacrificed so much for our country, are confronted with
too many obstacles, including inaccessible polling places and machines
that cannot be used by blind and visually impaired voters. According to
a 2001 GAO report, requested by Senator Harkin and me, 84 percent of
all polling places in the U.S. are not accessible to disabled voters.
Additionally, no polling place visited by the GAO had a ballot or
voting system available for blind or visually-impaired voters to mark a
ballot without requiring assistance from a poll worker or companion.
I would like to thank my colleagues in the Senate for supporting my
amendment to ensure that the Federal Access Board will be consulted on
the new voting systems standards. The Access Board has a good deal of
insight and experience in solving the accessibility issues facing
voters with disabilities. I am also grateful to my colleagues for
accepting Senator Harkin's amendment, which I cosponsored, to make it
the Sense of the Senate that ``curbside voting'' should be allowed by
states only as a last resort. For many disabled voters, ``curbside
voting'' strips away their sacred right to cast a private ballot. It is
my hope that these amendments, combined with the $100 million grant
program to improve the accessibility of polling places and the new
voting systems standards, will ensure that the disabled community and
our Nation's veterans will become more involved in our Nation's
election process.
One major issue for the Senate was how to strike a balance between
preventing voter fraud and ensuring greater participation by legitimate
voters. The compromise substitute amendment included provisions that
would both include mandatory Federal standards to make the election
process easier for legitimate voters and prevent voter fraud. I
cosponsored this amendment, because it struck the necessary bipartisan
compromise that was required to ensure the passage of election reform
legislation.
I voted against the Schumer-Wyden amendment and against two cloture
motions regarding this amendment, because I believed that it would
destroy this bipartisan compromise. The issue of election reform is so
important that it requires broad bipartisan support, as was achieved in
the House of Representatives with the Ney-Hoyer bill. While I
understand the intentions of the proponents of the Schumer-Wyden
amendment, I was concerned that this amendment would strip out the
anti-fraud provisions of the compromise, and endanger passage of this
bill. My hope was that this impasse would force the parties to work
together to achieve meaningful election reform legislation. I am glad
that Senators Wyden and Bond were able to work together to resolve this
obstacle, and that we are now voting on final passage of this bill.
Again, I would like to congratulate my colleagues on passing this
legislation. It is my hope that the House-Senate Conference on this
bill can be resolved soon. We owe it to the American people to ensure
that they have fair, open, and accurate elections.
____________________