[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 7 (Thursday, January 17, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E43]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             INTRODUCTION OF CAGING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2008

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 17, 2008

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Caging Prohibition Act of 2008, a critical contribution to the 
Congress's election reform efforts as we approach the 2008 election. I 
would like to acknowledge and thank those that join me in this 
introduction--Representatives Rahm Emanuel, Chris Van Hollen, Xavier 
Becerra, Rush Holt, Mike Honda, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, and Gwen 
Moore and members of my committee, the Judiciary Committee--
Representatives Jerrold Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Steven Cohen, and Keith 
Ellison.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 17, 2008--On Page E43 the following appeared: Mr. 
CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. CONYERS. 
Madam Speaker, today I am


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Since the late 1950's, the pernicious practice of ``voter caging'' 
has been used to discourage or prevent eligible voters from having 
their vote cast and counted on election day. Recent elections have 
shown that caging tactics are not outdated, and in fact, have been used 
to disenfranchise voters in recent midterm and Presidential elections. 
While caging efforts have traditionally been directed at minority 
communities, all voters are susceptible to these attempts at voter 
intimidation and suppression.
  The undemocratic practice of voter caging involves sending mail to 
voters at the addresses at which they are registered to vote. Should 
such mail be returned as undeliverable or without a return receipt, the 
voter's name is placed on a ``caging list.'' These caging lists are 
then used to challenge a voter's registration or eligibility. For those 
that suggest that voter caging is done with the purest of intentions, I 
point out that this method remains an unreliable and dangerous way to 
identify ineligible voters. Mail may be returned as undeliverable for 
any number of reasons unrelated to an individual's ability to vote. 
Typos, transposed numbers, new street names, and improper deliveries 
explain just some of the many reasons for returned mail.

  In my home State of Michigan, I have seen firsthand how caging 
efforts are used to harass, bully, and ultimately disenfranchise, 
eligible voters. During the 2004 election, challengers monitored every 
single one of Detroit's 254 polling stations. With a Michigan lawmaker 
advocating ``suppress the Detroit vote,'' it was obvious why the 
challengers were at every polling place--to create a tense and hostile 
environment for those eligible voters who simply wished to participate 
in our democracy by casting a ballot. And furthermore, I cannot help 
but think that ``suppress the Detroit vote'' is synonymous with 
``suppress the Black vote'' as Detroit is 83 percent African American. 
These voter suppression campaigns always seem to target our most 
vulnerable voters--racial minorities, language minorities, low-income 
people, homeless people, and college students.
  However, during the 2004 election, we learned that no one is immune 
to voter suppression when Ohio and Florida caging lists specifically 
targeted soldiers whose mail was returned as undeliverable because they 
were stationed overseas. Here it is, our soldiers are fighting for 
democracy abroad, but find out that they cannot participate in 
democracy at home. During the last Presidential election, caging 
tactics were not limited to Michigan, Ohio, and Florida. Reports of 
caging came from all over the country--from Wisconsin, where 
``suspicious addresses'' were used as the basis for challenges, to 
Nevada, where partisan gains were the acknowledged motive for 
challenges.

  Voter caging is inconsistent with the principle that every eligible 
citizen should be entitled to the right to vote. The Caging Prohibition 
Act of 2008 will clearly define and criminalize voter caging and other 
questionable challenges intended to disqualify eligible voters. This 
bill is really quite simple. One, it requires election officials to 
corroborate their caging documents with independent evidence before a 
voter can be deemed ineligible. And two, it limits all other challenges 
that do not come from election officials to those based on personal, 
first-hand knowledge.
  Caging tactics meant to suppress the vote do more than impede the 
right to vote. They threaten to erode the very core of our democracy. 
By eliminating barriers to the polls, we can help restore what has been 
missing from our elections--fairness, honesty, and integrity.

                          ____________________