[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 103 (Monday, June 25, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7043-H7048]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND VOTER INTIMIDATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2007
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1281) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit
certain deceptive practices in Federal elections, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1281
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Deceptive Practices and
Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN FEDERAL
ELECTIONS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 29 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 618. Deceptive practices in Federal elections
``(a) Whoever, before or during a Federal election
knowingly communicates election-related information about
that election, knowing that information to be false, with the
intent to prevent another person from exercising the right to
vote in that election, or attempts to do so, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both.
``(b) As used in this section--
``(1) the term `Federal election' means any general,
primary, run-off, or special election for the office of
President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of
the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, or
Delegate or Commissioner from a territory or possession; and
``(2) the term `election related information' means
information regarding--
``(A) the time, place, or manner of conducting the
election;
``(B) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter
eligibility for the election, including--
``(i) any criminal penalties associated with voting in the
election; or
``(ii) information regarding a voter's registration status
or eligibility;
``(C) with respect to a closed primary election, the
political party affiliation of any candidate for office, if
the communication of the information also contains false
information described in subparagraph (A) or (B); or
``(D) the explicit endorsement by any person or
organization of a candidate running for any office voted on
in the election.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
29 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new item:
``618. Deceptive practices in Federal elections.''.
SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF PENALTY FOR VOTER INTIMIDATION.
Section 594 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``one year'' and inserting ``5 years''.
SEC. 4. SENTENCING GUIDELINES.
(a) Review and Amendment.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the United States Sentencing
Commission, pursuant to its authority under section 994 of
title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this
section, shall review and, if appropriate, amend the Federal
sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable to
persons convicted of any offense under sections of title 18,
United States Code, that are added or modified by this Act.
(b) Authorization.--The United States Sentencing Commission
may, for the purposes of the amendments made pursuant to this
section, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines in
accordance with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of
the Sentencing Act of 1987 (28 U.S.C. 994 note) as though the
[[Page H7044]]
authority under that section had not expired.
SEC. 5. REPORTING VIOLATIONS AND REMEDIAL ACTION.
(a) Reporting.--Any person may report to the Attorney
General any violation or possible violation of section 594 or
618 of title 18, United States Code.
(b) Corrective Action.--
(1) In general.--Immediately after receiving a report under
subsection (a), the Attorney General shall consider and
review such report and, if the Attorney General determines
that there is a reasonable basis to find that a violation has
occurred, the Attorney General shall--
(A) undertake all effective measures necessary to provide
correct information to voters affected by the false
information; and
(B) refer the matter to the appropriate Federal and State
authorities for criminal prosecution or civil action after
the election.
(2) Regulations.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General shall promulgate
regulations regarding the methods and means of corrective
actions to be taken under paragraph (1). Such regulations
shall be developed in consultation with the Election
Assistance Commission, civil rights organizations, voting
rights groups, State and local election officials, voter
protection groups, and other interested community
organizations.
(B) Study.--
(i) In general.--The Attorney General, in consultation with
the Federal Communications Commission and the Election
Assistance Commission, shall conduct a study on the
feasibility of providing the corrective information under
paragraph (1) through public service announcements, the
emergency alert system, or other forms of public broadcast.
(ii) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to
Congress a report detailing the results of the study
conducted under clause (i).
(3) Publicizing remedies.--The Attorney General shall make
public through the Internet, radio, television, and newspaper
advertisements information on the responsibilities, contact
information, and complaint procedures applicable under this
section.
(c) Reports to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after any primary,
general, or run-off election for Federal office, the Attorney
General shall submit to Congress a report compiling and
detailing any allegations of false information submitted
pursuant to subsection (a) and relating to such election.
(2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) detailed information on specific allegations of
deceptive tactics;
(B) statistical compilations of how many allegations were
made and of what type;
(C) the geographic locations of and the populations
affected by the alleged deceptive information;
(D) the status of the investigations of such allegations.
(E) any corrective actions taken in response to such
allegations;
(F) the rationale used for any corrective actions or for
any refusal to pursue an allegation;
(G) the effectiveness of any such corrective actions;
(H) whether a Voting Integrity Task Force was established
with respect to such election, and, if so, how such task
force was staffed and funded;
(I) any referrals of information to other Federal, State,
or local agencies;
(J) any suit instituted under section 2004(b)(2) of the
Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(b)(2)) in connection with
such allegations; and
(K) any criminal prosecution instituted under title 18,
United States Code, in connection with such allegations.
(3) Report made public.--On the date that the Attorney
General submits the report required under paragraph (1), the
Attorney General shall also make the report publicly
available through the Internet and other appropriate means.
(d) Delegation of Duties.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall delegate the
responsibilities under this section to a Voting Integrity
Task Force established under paragraph (2).
(2) Voting integrity task force.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General shall establish a
Voting Integrity Task Force to carry out the requirements of
this section with respect to any general, primary, run-off,
or special election for Federal office.
(B) Composition.--Any Voting Integrity Task Force
established under paragraph (1) shall be under the direction
of the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights
Division and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal
Division, jointly.
(e) Federal Office.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Federal office'' means the office of President, Vice
President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member
of the House of Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner
from a territory or possession of the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the lead sponsors, the gentleman
from Illinois, Rahm Emanuel; the gentleman from New Jersey, Rush Holt;
the gentleman from California, Xavier Becerra; the gentleman from
California, Mike Honda; and the gentleman from Minnesota, Keith
Ellison, with more than 50 other cosponsors of this important
legislation to protect the right to vote. Obviously there is no more
important issue that comes before this Congress than protecting the
right to vote. It is the cornerstone right of our democracy. Without
it, all other rights and privileges enjoyed by us are in jeopardy.
Protecting this right, however, has not been an easy task.
Historically, it was not until passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act
that we began to accord the highest meaning to that right. Less than 40
years later, however, we endured the debacle of the Florida 2000
presidential election.
{time} 1715
And the problems continue. In the most recent midterm and
presidential elections, we learned of numerous incidents in which
deceptive practices were used to thwart and frustrate citizens from
exercising the right to vote. Some voters were, believe it or not, told
to vote on the wrong day. Wednesday is not the right day to vote in
congressional or presidential elections. Others were told that they
could not vote without paying outstanding parking tickets. Others were
told that they would be imprisoned if they voted without paying overdue
utility bills. Ultimately, eligible voters were misled, deceived and
disenfranchised in a number of other ways.
It is our collective intent in the Judiciary Committee to end this
practice, and we are here talking about seriously protecting the right
to vote.
I believe every Member of the House of Representatives cares deeply
about this issue, and that is why we must pass the measure under
consideration, for this bill explicitly prohibits deceptive practices,
provides voters with greater Federal protection and increases the
penalty for voter intimidation and misinformation in campaigns.
What makes me proud of this measure is that so many of our
organizational friends in the voting rights community and the civil
rights community as well have joined us in support of this legislation.
Among them are the People For the American Way, the very historic
Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, the NAACP, the ACLU, the
Jewish Council For Public Affairs, and the New York City Bar itself.
This is not an entire solution for reforming and improving the
election process. Among other things, we also need to reduce our
reliance on unverifiable electronic voting machines, which undermine
accountability and our citizens' confidence in election results. We
also need to ensure a fair allocation of voting machines in polling
places, as well as a unified system of educating those who work the
polls as to the rules and procedures. We should make election day a
national holiday, so no one has to choose between their
responsibilities as citizens and their responsibilities to their
employers.
But this legislation is an important step and one that we should take
today. Let's face it: If we allow the infrastructure of our democracy
to remain frazzled and to decay, our citizens will rightly lose
confidence in the legitimacy of the voting process, and we should work
to keep that from ever happening.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with all of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to support this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he may
[[Page H7045]]
consume to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, whose genius
brought this measure into existence. He thought long and hard about
this before we all got on board.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and my
colleagues Mr. Holt from New Jersey, Mr. Becerra from California, Mr.
Honda from California and Mr. Ellison from Minnesota in joining me in
sponsoring this legislation and bringing it to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I remember when we had this legislation in the full
committee by Chairman Conyers. About a week earlier than that, I had
taken my 10-year-old down to Selma for the anniversary of the March
over the bridge. It was his birthday gift, and we went on that march
with John Lewis. And through the museums we walked through, my son and
I were reminded of how the State was used to intimidate voters from
exercising their right to vote. America reached out and widened the
circle of democracy by ensuring that those who wanted to exercise their
right to vote had a chance to vote.
That week, when I came back from Selma, we were in the full committee
marking up this legislation. What had happened, and I noted then in the
committee and others had noted, and it was not unique, was that the
baton of intimidation had been transferred from the State to parties.
They intimidated voters using leaflets to falsify voting places, days
of voting and what information was required to vote. Phone calls had
been used, all types of information, to basically dissuade Americans
from exercising their right to vote. Through the 1950s, 1940s, 1930s,
et cetera, that was the voice of our State governments and apparatus,
to intimidate voters.
That insane act of intimidation, in communities across America and
neighborhoods, now that baton had been passed to State parties, who
were doing the same thing, suppressing people's right to exercise their
right to vote.
Three years ago in this hall in the President's State of the Union,
he recognized a young woman from Iraq who voted. She held up her purple
finger. Colleagues, on the Republican side of the aisle, they also
marked their finger purple, recognizing the importance of voting. Iraq
and the people of Iraq, Sunni, Shia and Kurd, had taken that step of
courage and voted. She came here in the State of the Union in this
hall, the hall of democracy that people around the world look at, and
said, you protected our right to vote.
This legislation is intended to ensure that individuals do not
receive phone calls lying and deceiving about where they vote; they do
not receive leaflets telling them they need other information than they
properly need to vote; and, most importantly, that the location of
where they are voting had been changed, when it never had been changed,
all in an attempt to suppress the voting by individuals across
communities and to depress the turnout of people who wanted to vote on
Election Day.
The chairman of the committee noted other things we have to do, like
a paper trail for voting to ensure the integrity on election day.
This legislation ensures that if you try to use acts of intimidation
to deprive people of the right to vote, the United States Government,
with the full force of its laws, will say there is a higher penalty and
you will pay a price for that act of deception.
I commend Members on both sides of the aisle for bringing up this
legislation. It is bipartisan in nature and in its finest sense it
speaks to the voice of democracy. Whatever our policy differences on
other subjects, we ensure that when people want to vote, they have a
right to vote, and that the agencies of both our parties and our
government don't try to intimidate people from exercising that right,
but encourage them to vote.
That is what the Act here is. I am proud that this legislation not
only receives bipartisan support, but wide support across both parties,
because it speaks to what is so appropriately the American way and what
is right about voting.
Mr. Speaker, nothing is more American than voting and nothing could
be more un-American than deceiving one from taking the right to vote.
I want to thank the chairman for bringing this legislation to the
floor today.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the gentleman from Illinois talk
about having made the trip to Selma with John Lewis this year. I had
the privilege of doing that several years ago and learned the
experiences that you can learn only by being there and walking down the
avenues that great men like John Lewis traveled.
One of the things that is important for us to remember is we have
heard discussions here today about the denial of the right to vote, and
that denial changes from generation to generation in the methodology
used to deny people.
At one time we heard discussions about the denial by the State of
individuals' right to vote. We have also heard discussions about it is
a denial to vote if you fraudulently give information to individuals
about their voting rights. But it is equally a denial if you are here
illegally and you are voting by non-citizen, and that is a denial to
individuals legally voting in elections, and that is just as much of a
problem. It is also a denial if we have people voting in elections when
they are not legally entitled to do so.
So, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1281 addresses the very serious issue of
integrity in the election system and it provides that whoever knowingly
communicates false election-related information about that election
with intent to prevent another person from exercising the right to vote
in that election or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.
We all want fair elections and we all want people to vote based on
facts and not false rumors. I hope one day we will be able to reach the
point where we are able to take away those false rumors. This
legislation can't do that. But I am glad this legislation addresses the
problem of knowingly and intentionally trying to give false
information, and I support that approach.
I am also glad to see that ranking member Smith's amendment to strike
the part of the bill as it was originally introduced that would limit
its prohibition on voting fraud to fraud committed within 60 days of a
Federal election was adopted by the committee. If it is fraud, it is
fraud, and it shouldn't have been limited to just 60 days. That
amendment is included in this legislation on its floor here today.
Illegal voting by non-citizens can occur when voting registration
forms are filled out more than 60 days before a Federal election. It is
illegal for non-citizens to vote in Federal elections, and that raises
an important issue of interpretation that I would like to take just a
moment to address, Mr. Speaker.
We have to ensure that the courts give this bill its full intended
scope to protect our elections from all fraud, all denial of people's
right to vote.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires that a person
registering to vote affirm that they are a U.S. citizen. If a non-
citizen signs or attempts to sign any form that can be used for voting
purposes, including a voter registration form, and that form states
that they are a citizen when they are not, then that is a false
statement.
This bill specifically defines election-related information to
include ``information regarding a voter's registration status or
eligibility.'' If a non-citizen fraudulently votes for, say, candidate
Jones, they will necessarily negate the legitimate vote of a legal
voter that voted for candidate Brown. That effectively denies the legal
voter's right to vote.
In the landmark case Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court stated ``the
right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the
weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting
the free exercise of the franchise.'' So an illegally voting non-
citizen in that case would violate the clear terms of H.R. 1281 and be
subject to up to 5 years in jail.
Regarding the issue of intent, Black's Law Dictionary defines
``constructive intent'' as ``a legal principle that actual intent will
be presumed when an act leading to the result could have been
reasonably expected to cause that result.''
[[Page H7046]]
If someone knows they are not a citizen but they sign a voter
registration form that states that they are a citizen, and then that
person votes illegally and knows they are voting illegally, then they
obviously know that their illegal vote is going to cancel out the vote
of another legally voting citizen. That knowledge constitutes intents
to deny another voter their right to exercise their vote, and it is
properly punished under this legislation.
I certainly support that result, and I believe the court should
interpret this legislation accordingly. After all, the bill is designed
to protects the rights of legal voters, not illegal ones.
At the committee's markup, I offered a sentencing enhancement
amendment to enforce this principle. However, I was deeply disappointed
that it was ruled nongermane. It provided that, ``if the offense
results in voting in a Federal election by more than 10 persons who are
not citizens of the United States, the offender shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.''
If we really want to stop this, we can get serious by making those
penalties meet the crime. I believe that this was an incorrect
germaneness ruling based on the rules and precedents of the House. I
had certainly hoped to have a vote on this amendment before we got to
final consideration here on the floor.
Increasing the penalties for those whose fraudulent, illegal voting
negates the legal votes of more than 10 citizens is common sense, and I
thought it would have bipartisan support.
Despite my disappointment on that score, I support this legislation
because it provides another mechanism for punishing illegal non-citizen
voting and other forms of fraud. However, this legislation does not go
nearly far enough. It fails to address what the American people want,
more reliable and accurate forms of voter identification. A better
system of voter identification would increase confidence in the
integrity of elections by preventing more illegal voters from denying
citizens the right to vote by negating their legal votes with
fraudulently cast ballots.
I hope some day both sides of the aisle can work toward that end.
But, Mr. Speaker, as to today, we support this legislation and we are
especially pleased with the fact that it reminds us that if we are
denying the right to vote, it doesn't matter if it is the State denying
it, it doesn't matter if it is done because of fraudulent information,
it doesn't matter if it is done because someone is illegally voting and
negating the vote of someone who is legally voting, or if someone is
entering a voting booth who is not legally entitled to do so and they
cast an illegal vote.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the
coauthor of this bill, who has worked in this area with the Committee
on the Judiciary across the years. I have been very pleased about his
work in trying to create an effective paper trail and other voter
rights initiatives, and I am so happy that he is with us today.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chair, and I commend
him for his work in this area, and I rise today to urge my colleagues
to support the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention
Act.
This important legislation, as you have heard, would make it a crime
knowingly to communicate false information about an election with the
intention of preventing another person from exercising the right to
vote and would require the Department of Justice to take immediate
corrective action on behalf of affected voters, as well as to refer
such matters for appropriate prosecution.
It pains me deeply, as I think it does all here, that this is
necessary still four decades after the enactment of the Voting Rights
Act. It should pain us all that when the United States looks in the
mirror, what we see staring back at us is an electoral system still
rife with abuses. It embarrasses me to say this, but it is what we must
do, take an honest look to begin to correct.
This legislation is essentially the legislation that I introduced in
the previous Congress, along with a companion bill in the other body by
Senator Obama. I am pleased that Representative Emanuel and Chairman
Conyers and many others have joined to advocate this bill now.
Now, consider just a few examples. In the 2004 elections in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, fliers attributed to a nonexistent organization
called the Milwaukee Black Voters League were distributed in minority
neighborhoods warning residents that ``if anyone in your family has
ever been found guilty of anything, even a traffic violation, you can't
vote in the presidential election,'' and that ``if you violate any of
these laws, you can get 10 years in prison.'' It sounds like nonsense,
but to those voters, that was intimidation.
It was no better in 2006. In a documented case in Virginia, a
registered voter received a telephone message from a caller claiming to
be from the Virginia Board of Elections informing him that he was not
registered, and that if he showed up at the polls to vote, he would be
criminally prosecuted. Again, it is easy to dismiss that as nonsense,
but it is coercion.
{time} 1730
It is disenfranchisement, it is deception.
Now there is no way to know exactly how many voters were deterred or
led astray by such deceptive practices, but such practices are no less
criminal than outright threats or intimidation.
Now as you've heard from the chairman and others, this is not the be
all and end all of election reform legislation. We still have to
prevent disenfranchisement that results from the shortage of equipment,
equipment inequitably distributed among precincts. We still have to
prevent disenfranchisement by manipulation of the registration lists.
We still need to require that provisional ballots be counted if they
are legitimate because under the Help America Vote Act, they must be
offered to voters who are not on the registration list, but if it turns
out that the voter is a legitimate voter, the provisional ballot is not
required under law to be counted.
We must make sure that tabulation of results after the polls close is
more transparent. I have various legislation that would deal with these
things, as well as legislation that would ensure that every voter has a
voter-verified paper ballot and that audits would apply in every
Federal election. Those are some of the things we need to do.
But this is an important step to beat back, to subdue the cynicism
about our government. When I talk with students, I often ask them what
they think is the most ingenious invention of humans. And they, knowing
that I am a scientist, often come up with some technological answer. I
would argue that it is our constitutionally democracy. It has
transformed not just America but the world, demonstrating that peaceful
and productive government by the consent of the governed is possible.
That consent, the very cornerstone of the system, is given by the
vote. And the Supreme Court has held that the right to vote is the most
fundamental right as it is the preservative of all others. The measure
before us will criminalize knowing acts of deception designed to
prevent voters from voting.
Our democratic government works only if the people believe it does.
Think about that. If we are to let people work their will at the
polling place, we must remove coercion, deception, distortion and
disenfranchisement. Cynicism about the process, cynicism about our
ability to governor ourselves is at a critically high level. By passing
this legislation, we can help to reduce that cynicism and help to
realize the promise of the genius of Philadelphia 220 years ago.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted today that we can come in here on an
issue that we agree on and recognize, as the gentleman just stated,
that this is not the end all legislation. It is a small step, but it is
a step. No matter what the legislation is that we pass, it is only
going to be as good as the enforcement that goes behind, and we want to
send out a message to prosecutors across the country who might get an
opportunity to enforce this of how excited we are to put at least
another tool in their hand where they can have
[[Page H7047]]
the possible imprisonment of up to 5 years for denying people the right
to vote, whether it is by fraudulent information, or whether it is
individuals that are illegally voting by noncitizens.
We have had reports to our committee of thousands of voters who are
registered in as many as four States. While this may not be a perfect
piece of legislation, it at least takes us a step in the direction we
want to go.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I merely want to close by thanking the
distinguished ranking member on the Crime Subcommittee, Randy Forbes,
for the excellent work that he performs all the time, but especially on
this bill. I want no misunderstanding about our appreciation of this
bill being about prohibiting deceptive practices against eligible
voters.
This is not a measure that deals with prosecuting ineligible voters
unless they try to deceive eligible voters. The issue of voter fraud is
a very serious one, well publicized, and it is the intention of the
Chair of the committee that the Subcommittee on Crime hold hearings on
this subject because we think it is an important one that needs to be
examined very clearly.
But today, we move forward from the 15th amendment in the
Constitution, we move forward from the Voter Rights Act of 1965 that
has been amended several times, and we now come to a specific set of
practices that have been very detrimental in coercing and intimidating
and confusing many voters.
I am so pleased that this committee at this day and time is prepared
to deal with preventing voters from being disenfranchised by being
misled on their way to polling. It has been documented and we are
directly prohibiting these kinds of tactics and we are turning many of
them from a misdemeanor into a felony. I congratulate all the members
of the Committee on the Judiciary and particularly the sponsors of this
piece of legislation, and urge support of the bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1281, the
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act. I am proud
to be a cosponsor of this important bill.
We have come a long way since the Jim Crow era of voter
disenfranchisement and intimidation, but we still have a long way yet
to go to ensure an equal right to vote for all citizens. Every
election, we hear shocking and disgraceful stories of voters being lied
to about their voter registration or citizenship status, polling place
information, or even the date of the election, in order to suppress the
vote in certain areas. The targets of these tactics seem to always be
the same: racial minorities, immigrants and poor communities.
Thomas Paine once said, ``Voting is the right upon which all other
rights depend.'' Throughout our nation's history, Congress has acted to
ensure that right, granting African Americans and women the right to
vote, prohibiting states from requiring the payment of poll taxes to
vote, and the passage and reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of
1965. Today, we continue in that grand tradition with passage of this
important legislation to make it unlawful to knowingly communicate
false information with the intent to prevent another person from
casting a ballot.
The right to vote may be the most basic right we have as Americans,
but we must remain vigilant in protecting this right in order to ensure
that it is not weakened or undermined by those who seek political gain
at the expense of this basic tenet of democracy.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1281.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act.
Tactics that attempt to deceive or mislead voters regarding
elections, candidates, or voting procedures chip away at the very
cornerstone of our democracy: the right to vote. I strongly support
this legislation because it will track and expose these tactics for
what they are in order to continue to prove that we are not living up
to the true meaning of democracy. Every vote is not being considered.
Every vote is not being counted.
Before and during the last election, there were reports of mass
disenfranchisement and voter intimidation across the country. My
district was subject to all types of deceptive flyers and phone calls
targeted to black voters with misinformation designed to discourage
them from voting. Mr. Speaker, as you know such tactics designed to
prevent citizens from exercising their right to vote are not new. I am
pleased that this legislation will make these types of acts a federal
crime and set a penalty of up to 5 years in prison for any type of
voter intimidation.
I urge my colleagues to value and protect the right to vote by voting
for this important legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 1281, the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention
Act of 2007. H.R. 1281 will hopefully go a long way in addressing a
variety of election irregularities that have arisen in recent
elections, including deceptive practices, voter intimidation, voter
disenfranchisement, and an overall lack of trust in the electoral
process.
Mr. Speaker, protecting the right to vote of all Americans is of
paramount importance to me. The most fundamental aspect of American
citizenship is the right to vote and to have full confidence that the
vote is counted. Thousands of people have bled and died for the right
to vote and their sacrifices shall not be in vain. Whenever this body
is presented with inquiries to determine whether our voting system has
been compromised in any manner, we have a solemn duty to investigate
such matters.
As many of you know, election reform became a central issue in the
wake of the irregularities identified in Florida in the 2000
Presidential Election. In June 2001, the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, an independent bipartisan agency charged with monitoring and
protecting voting rights, reported that ``credible evidence shows many
Floridians were denied the right to vote.'' After analyzing the 179,855
ballots that were invalidated, and finding that fifty-three percent
(53%) were cast by black voters, the Commission concluded that in
Florida, African-Americans were 10 times as likely to have a vote
rejected as a white voter. This concern helped lead to the passage in
2002 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The Judiciary Committee held
hearings on the legislation, and members of our Committee participated
in the Conference Committee. Since the enaction of HAVA, concern about
deceptive practices and election irregularities have not abated. There
have been numerous published reports about these incidents in both the
2004 and 2006 elections. There are also a number of reported incidents
that were not addressed by the HAVA legislation. These include the
following:
Ohio--There were numerous reported irregularities in Ohio in the 2004
election, which led me to conduct a review and issue a much-cited
report entitled, ``What Went Wrong in Ohio.'' The irregularities
identified included:
1. Newly registered voters in Lake County received letters informing
them that their registrations were illegal and that they would be
unable to vote. The letter was sent on falsified Lake County Board of
Elections letterhead.
2. An elderly couple living on the North Side of Columbus received a
call informing them that their polling place had changed and that they
should vote ``on the other side of town.'' The caller claimed to be a
representative of the Franklin County Board of Elections. When the
elderly couple called the board to verify the change, they learned that
others in the area had received deceptive phone calls, including offers
to hand-deliver absentee ballots to the Board of Elections office.
3. The misallocation of voting machines led to lines of 10 hours or
more that disenfranchised scores if not hundreds of thousands of
predominantly minority voters. In Franklin County, 27 of the 30 wards
with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush,
while 6 of the 7 wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins
for Kerry.
4. Then-Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's decision to restrict
provisional ballots resulted in the purging of tens if not hundreds of
thousands of voters. In Hamilton County, this resulted in the result
where hundreds of voters who showed up at the right polling place, but
were directed to the wrong table by election workers, had their ballots
thrown out.
5. Mr. Blackwell's rejected voter registration applications based on
paper weight. Ironically, forms obtained from the Secretary of State's
office did not comply with his own paper weight directive.
6. Preelection ``caging'' tactics, selectively targeting 35,000
predominantly minority voters for intimidation. The Third Circuit has
previously found these activities to be illegal and indirect violation
of consent decrees barring the targeting of minority voters for poll
challenges.
North Carolina--In 2004, more than 4,500 votes were lost because of a
mistake in voting machine capacity. In Carteret County, these votes
were lost because officials believed that a computer that stored
ballots electronically could hold more data than it did.
Louisiana--In 2002, flyers stating voters may cast their ballots 3
days after the election ``if the weather is bad,'' were distributed in
public housing complexes in New Orleans.
South Dakota--In 2004 in South Dakota, Native American voters were
prevented from
[[Page H7048]]
voting for failing to provide photographic identification upon request,
despite the lack of such requirements under state or federal law.
Arizona--Latino voters in Pima County, Arizona were reportedly met at
multiple polling places with a man who claimed he was ``bent on
discovering'' how many illegal immigrants were voting in the 2004
primary election. Dressed in a black shirt with the image of a badge
and the words ``U.S. Constitution Enforcement'' on his back, the man
carried a camera and video recorder holstered in a tool belt as he
entered polling places, looking for ``anomalies.''
Wisconsin--In the days leading up to the 2004 presidential election,
voters in Milwaukee's African American neighborhoods received flyers
from the fictional ``Milwaukee Black Voters League.'' The flier falsely
claimed that individuals could be found ineligible to vote due to
traffic violations, the criminal records of family members and voting
in a previous election during the year.'' Voters were also warned that
violations of such ``laws'' could result in a ten-year prison sentence
or forced separation from one's children.
Virginia--Voters in eight Virginia counties were apparent victims of
attempts at intimidation just before the 2006 election. Some received
messages from callers claiming to be from the non-existent ``Virginia
Elections Commission,'' telling them of incorrect voter registration
information and possible criminal charges for voting. Other callers
falsely claimed to represent a federal campaign and told voters that
their polling places had changed, sometimes to addresses that did not
exist.
California--In 2006, Latino voters in Orange County, California,
received mailings from the ``California Coalition for Immigration
Reform,'' falsely warning them in Spanish that ``if you are an
immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in
incarceration.''
Maryland--In 2006 certain candidates distributed fliers in
predominantly African-American neighborhoods falsely claiming that the
candidates had been endorsed by their opponents' party and by prominent
African American figures.
Florida--In 2004, over 4,000 potential voters, including students at
the University of Florida and Florida A&M University, discovered their
party registrations had been switched and their addresses changed.
Changed addresses could have barred them from voting because they would
have shown up at the wrong polling place.
Pennsylvania--In Pittsburgh, fliers printed on county letterhead
stated that ``due to immense voter turnout expected on Tuesday,'' the
election had been extended: Republicans vote on November 2, and
Democrats vote on November 3. Across the country, voters received
similar fliers in the 2004 presidential election.
1. Pennsylvania and Illinois/Abusive Robo-Calls--The media also
detailed numerous instances of prerecorded phone calls designed to
confuse voters. These misleading calls were made late in the evening,
or during the night, in an apparent effort to generate anger at
particular candidates. According to the Associated Press, one
individual ``received three prerecorded messages in four hours. Each
began, `Hello, I'm calling with information about [candidate] Lois
Murphy [in the Philadelphia area].' '' The Philadelphia Daily News
reported that ``[t]he calls, which begin by offering `important
information about Lois Murphy,' are designed to mislead voters into
thinking the message is from her.'' In Illinois, The Barrington
Courier-Review reported that a resident received the following phone
call--``Hi. I'm calling with information about [Candidate] Melissa
Bean.'' She received the same call a total of 21 times since October
24. Others reported receiving the same calls, none of which were paid
for by Ms. Bean's campaign.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 1281
to make the necessary changes that will ensure the highest level of
voter integrity.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1281 to make
it unlawful for anyone to disseminate false election-related
information about an election in order to prevent another person from
exercising the right to vote. I commend Chairman Conyers and
Representative Emanuel for their leadership in bringing this critical
bill to the floor.
The pernicious practices that H.R. 1281 would combat are not just
academic to me. During the Maryland governor's race last year, there
were numerous and substantiated reports of political operatives
distributing false campaign materials on Election Day to confuse voters
about the candidates, including endorsements they had allegedly
received.
In recent elections in Maryland, including the 2006 elections,
operatives have also spread false information about the time, place or
manner of voting or qualifications for, or restrictions on, voting, or
the political affiliations of candidates.
These grotesque practices are a direct assault on the most
fundamental right of Americans: the right to vote and have that vote
counted.
Over the past 40 years, tremendous progress has been made removing
the most conspicuous obstacles and impediments to voting in order to
guarantee that all Americans, regardless of their race or color, can
vote. Unfortunately, there exists in our Nation a small but committed
group of individuals who will sink to any low if they believe it will
produce a victory. H.R. 1281 goes after these people, who are a disease
on our democratic system.
I am hopeful that the House will overwhelming pass H.R. 1281 and send
the message that deceptive campaign practices are un-American and anti-
democratic.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an
original cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 1281, the Deceptive
Practices and Voter Intimidation Act of 2007.
This is an issue that is close to my heart. I am grateful to my
colleagues Mr. Emanuel, for introducing this legislation, and Chairman
Conyers, for his consideration or H.R. 1281 in the Judiciary Committee.
The great promise of America is that every citizen has a vote, a
voice in how our government is run. And we've seen in recent years
where 100 or 50 or 5 or even 1 vote has changed the outcome of an
election. So making sure that every U.S. citizen is able to vote is one
of our most fundamental responsibilities.
When most people think of Voting Rights Act violations they thing of
the 1960s, when African Americans were prevented from voting because of
the color of their skin. Many do not realize that voter suppression
still occurs today.
The targets of intimidation remain the same. This last election,
minority and naturalized immigrant communities were the targets of
deception, misinformation and voter intimidation designed to abridge
their right to vote.
In the district I represent, California's 47th, concerns were raised
when about 14,000 registered Hispanic voters received a written letter,
in Spanish, from the ``California Coalition for Immigration Reform''
informing voters that immigrants voting in a federal election were
committing a crime ``that could result in incarceration and possible
deportation. . .''
It also went on to advise voters that ``the U.S. government is
installing a new computerized system to verify names of all the newly
registered voters who participate in the elections in October and
November. Organizations against immigration will be able to request
information from this new computerized system.''
The intent of the letter was to intimidate. Families were afraid that
their personal information would be shared with anti-immigration groups
if they voted. They were afraid of retaliation for exercising their
right to vote.
Revisiting and reforming the voting rights laws will send a clear
message to potential violators that deceptive practices are
unacceptable and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
H.R. 1281 will strengthen the prohibition and punishment of deceptive
practices that aim to keep voters away from the polls on Election Day.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will go a
long way in preventing future acts of voter intimidation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1281, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________