[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 119 (Thursday, September 21, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1804-E1805]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4844, FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY 
                              ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 20, 2006

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill in its 
present form.
  Having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, I have a solemn 
responsibility to vote against even the most politically popular 
proposals when there are serious doubts about the constitutionality of 
the legislation. And this bill, transparently brought forward to help 
the Republican majority whip up public emotions on the eve of a tough 
election, poses serious constitutional problems--in short, I think it 
violates the 24th Amendment.
  That amendment, added to the Constitution in 1964, says that the 
rights of Americans to vote in federal elections ``shall not be denied 
or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to 
pay any poll tax or other tax'' and that Congress ``shall have the 
power to enforce'' that part of the Constitution.
  But instead of enforcing that constitutional bar on making voting a 
taxable event, this bill would require states to choose between making 
some people pay to vote and paying to provide them with the 
identification that the bill says will be required if they want to 
exercise that right.
  The bill's supporters say the bill is constitutional because it says 
that states cannot make everyone pay for identification--they have to 
provide it free to people who cannot afford the ``reasonable cost'' of 
providing it.
  But the 24th Amendment is not ambiguous on whether it is permissible 
to make some people pay to vote, so long as they can afford it. 
Instead, it makes clear that no Americans--regardless of their income--
can be forced to pay ``any . . . tax'' in order to vote.
  And while some may argue that paying for a government-issued ID is 
not a tax, but just some kind of ``user fee,'' I am not persuaded--and 
I would remind them of the words of Richard Darman, OMB Director under 
President Reagan, who said that ``if it looks like a duck and walks 
like a duck and quacks like duck, it is a duck, [and] euphemisms like 
user fees will not fool the public.''
  That's one of the reasons the National Association of Counties (NACO) 
opposes the bill--because, as they say in their letter to the Speaker 
and Minority Leader, ``we fear that any fee imposed on other voters 
[besides those claiming to be too poor to afford an ID] could be 
characterized as a poll tax and be subject to challenge in court.''
  Further, aside from the constitutional questions, both NACO and the 
National Conference of State Legislatures oppose the bill because it 
would impose a burdensome unfunded mandate on every state and every 
local government. And, as the Conference points out, the bill ``is 
duplicative'' and ``adds bureaucratic burdens that are completely 
unnecessary. The REAL ID Act, flawed though it is, already requires a 
new state identification system based on legal presence . . . This 
second identification system would be used only for voting [but the 
Help America Vote Act] . . . and state and local election procedures

[[Page E1805]]

already address identification needs [while] . . . This legislation 
contains only a vague promise to reimburse states for the cost of 
providing voter ID's to indigent individuals. There is no specific 
appropriation for this . . . and little likelihood for one.''
  If the Republican leadership had been willing to allow the House to 
consider amendments, changes could have been made to remove any doubts 
about its constitutionality and to avoid burdening the state and local 
governments with unnecessary burdens. However, instead the leadership 
insisted on bringing the bill to the floor under a procedure that 
prevented that--one of the reasons that many have questioned whether 
the real purpose of the bill is less to respond to potential election 
fraud and more to make it harder for some citizens to vote.
  I am not opposed to a carefully constructed and constitutional bill 
that would enhance workplace identity, which is why I support H.R. 98. 
Nor am I opposed to legislating in order to ensure that non-citizens 
and others ineligible to vote are prevented from voting fraudulently. 
And I am hopeful that once the heat of this election season passes, the 
House will return to a more deliberative and bipartisan way of doing 
business on this issue and others.
  But, in the meantime, I think this bill does not merit enactment as 
it stands because its defects outweigh whatever value it may have as a 
supplement to the existing state and federal laws against election 
fraud.

                          ____________________