[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.

                          ____________________