Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 65 (Tuesday, May 4, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 4, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3093-S3099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Isakson, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 3297. A bill to update United States policy and authorities to
help advance a genuine transition to democracy and to promote recovery
in Zimbabwe; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act with Senator
Isakson and Senator Kerry. This legislation aims to update U.S. policy
and to provide the necessary direction and flexibility for the United
States to proactively push for democracy and economic recovery in
Zimbabwe. In September 2008, the parties in Zimbabwe signed the Global
Political Agreement, the GPA, and committed to work together to chart a
new political direction for the country. Unfortunately, that commitment
has not yet been fulfilled and political and human rights abuses
continue at a disturbing rate. Nonetheless, the GPA and the formation
of the transitional government have created new political realities and
realignment in Zimbabwe, and subsequently, new opportunities to push
for a genuine transition to democracy and for economic recovery. The
United States and other international stakeholders can seize those
opportunities by supporting reformers, while renewing and ramping up
pressure on those who obstruct implementation of the GPA. Our bill aims
to promote such a dynamic approach.
We are all familiar with the tragic story of Zimbabwe's descent.
Zimbabwe was one of Africa's most prosperous countries, a major food
producer and home to the continent's best education system. Its leader
Robert Mugabe was considered one of the great liberation leaders of
southern Africa. Yet over time, Mugabe and his regime moved to tighten
their grip on power, using increasingly violent tactics to stop the
political opposition, stifle independent media, and take over private
property. The results, particularly in the last decade, have been
disastrous. Mugabe has presided over the collapse of Zimbabwe's economy
and a dramatic decline in the living conditions of his people. At the
end of 2008, Zimbabwe's economy reached a low point with world-record
inflation, millions of people at risk of starvation, and unemployment
over 90 percent. Meanwhile, Mugabe and his party have had to resort to
increasing violence to repress the will of the people. Most recently,
following the March 2008 election, the Mugabe regime and its cronies
launched a brutal campaign of violence against members and supporters
of the opposition MDC after Morgan Tsvangirai won the first round of
voting.
I have closely followed the situation in Zimbabwe since 1999 when I
traveled to Harare and witnessed then the early stages of this
political crisis. During that trip, I also met some incredibly dynamic,
committed and inspiring civil society leaders. Upon returning, I said
on the Senate floor that we must not abandon these leaders; that the
international community should move to arrest Zimbabwe's descent before
it became more complex. I teamed up then with Senator Bill Frist to
author legislation on U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe.

[[Page S3094]]

And in 2001, President Bush signed that legislation, the Zimbabwe
Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, into law. ZDERA, as that bill is
known, placed restrictions on U.S. support for any new international
loan, credit or debt reduction for Zimbabwe until the President
certifies that a number of political conditions have been met, namely
an end to abuses and the restoration of rule of law. The bill also
called for targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for
politically motivated violence.
At the same time, ZDERA also spelled out the United States'
commitment to the Zimbabwean people in their struggle to effect
peaceful and democratic change. And it stated our commitment to be a
strong partner in helping the Zimbabwean people to rebuild their
country when that change was achieved. I have not given up on that
commitment, despite the Mugabe regime's relentless and violent efforts
to hold onto power. In 2002, I tried to return to the country, but my
visa was revoked and the government blocked my entry into the country.
In 2003, I traveled to South Africa and Botswana, in part to discuss
the crisis in Zimbabwe and the regional consequences. Most recently, in
2008 and 2009, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Africa
Subcommittee, I have held hearings specifically on Zimbabwe and U.S.
policy options.
With the signing of the GPA, I was skeptical that Robert Mugabe and
his allies had any real intention to share power and respect the
agreement. I remain skeptical as at almost every turn, hardliners in
the transitional government have resisted any moves that would
undermine their historic patronage system and power structures. Mugabe
has refused to implement several parts of the agreement, continuing to
use Western sanctions as a scapegoat. Meanwhile, state security forces
remain largely under the control of ZANU-PF and continue to harass
civil society activists and participate in illegal, often violent,
seizures of private land and property. In this sense, little has
changed in Zimbabwe.
Yet at the same time, for many Zimbabweans, the establishment of a
transitional government that includes former opposition leaders who
were imprisoned and tortured as part of Zimbabwe's democratic struggle
has brought forth a sense of possibility that has not existed for
years. It has brought their struggle for democracy into the halls of
government. And over the last year, some progress has been made toward
enacting reforms. Most notably, the Finance Ministry has managed to
halt Zimbabwe's economic decline and put an end to some of the
disastrous fiscal activities of the previous regime. That said,
progress has been slow and limited mostly to the economic sector. We
cannot deceive ourselves into thinking that the return of food and
other goods to stores is an indication that true democracy has taken
root. Reformist elements in the government continue to lack the
leverage as well as the qualified personnel and resources to overcome
the resistance of hardliners and to break their hold on the security
sector. They need greater support if they are going to win this
struggle and achieve a genuine transition to democracy and economic
recovery.
I respect those who are cautious about changing the international
posture toward Zimbabwe until there is greater progress and a clear
transition underway. I too am cautious, as there is good reason to be
so. But at the same time, I also believe we must support the Zimbabwean
people in their ongoing struggle for peaceful, democratic change and we
can best do that by reconsidering some of the strict polices of years
prior. We must realize that the dynamics of that struggle have
changed--not as much as we would like them to go, not even close but
there has been change. Adhering to a strict wait-and-see approach
allows Mugabe and his allies to continue to marginalize reformers in
the transitional government and manipulate the political environment,
while relying on their usual anti-Western propaganda to win local and
regional support. Alternatively, through proactive and targeted
engagement, there may be ways that we can better support reformers in
government, create incentives for others in the government to embrace
such reform, and isolate the hardliners. If we are to see institutional
change in Zimbabwe, it is in our interest to pursue those
possibilities.
The United States has a key role to play in this regard. We continue
to be very active in Zimbabwe, providing humanitarian assistance and
support for civil society. In Fiscal Year 2009, the United States
provided nearly $300 million to Zimbabwe, over half of which was food
assistance. Over the last year, some within the administration have
begun to explore ways we can better target our assistance to help
reformers in order to consolidate democratic reforms and lay the
groundwork for economic recovery. We have already provided some
technical assistance to help certain ministries in the government. This
is the right approach and we should continue to look for ways to
proceed, both symbolically and substantively. At the same time, we
should continue to update and increase targeted pressure on those
individuals and institutions that are actively obstructing reform. We
should also look for innovative ways to address illegal activities that
are in violation of the GPA.
The Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of
2010 seeks to encourage and provide the authority and flexibility for
the Obama administration to pursue such a dynamic approach toward
Zimbabwe. Our bill authorizes continued and expanded technical
assistance to reformist ministries of the transitional government as
well as to the Parliament as it seeks to repeal or amend repressive
laws. It also amends the funding restrictions on Zimbabwe in the fiscal
year 2010 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill to allow for
greater engagement in the areas of health and education. Furthermore,
it encourages the United States to promote agricultural development as
much as possible within our food assistance efforts, while we actively
press the government to reestablish security of tenure for all
landowners.
In addition, our bill would amend ZDERA to allow the United States
greater flexibility and leverage when engaging with the International
Financial Institutions on Zimbabwe. The law from 2001 restricts U.S.
support for any international loan, credit or debt reduction to
Zimbabwe until the President certifies that certain political
conditions have been achieved in the country. This restriction
currently has no discernible impact as Zimbabwe can only be eligible
for such international support when it deals with its arrears, which
now total billions of dollars. Nonetheless, this restriction has become
a powerful symbol and it functionally ties the hands of the State and
Treasury Departments to actively engage with the IMF, African
Development Bank and other institutions to develop plans for supporting
Zimbabwe's longer-term recovery when there is a genuine transition. Our
bill would amend ZDERA to allow for such engagement, making U.S.
support conditional on the proposed assistance itself, specifically
whether there are sufficient controls for transparency and oversight,
and whether funds will be administered by ministries that have
demonstrated a commitment to reform.
Amending ZDERA will help to provide flexibility and leverage for the
U.S. government, but also to undercut Mugabe's propaganda. Over the
years, Mugabe and his allies have conveniently portrayed ZDERA as a
symbol of Western hostility and blanket sanctions on Zimbabwe. While
those allegations are clearly false, the changes made by our bill will
go a long way towards ensuring they have a much harder time spinning
this lie and deflecting responsibility from their own disastrous
policies.
ZDERA, of course, is not to be conflated with our targeted sanctions
against specific individuals and financial institutions that are
directly involved in the breakdown of the rule of law and abuses of
power. Our bill calls for the continuation of that program as I see no
reason to terminate this sanctions program until we see an end to
widespread abuses. Instead, our bill calls for the continued review and
updating of those sanctions. It also encourages new action to address
illegal activities involving diamonds in Zimbabwe that are reportedly
fueling abuses and undermining democratic progress. Specifically, it
urges the

[[Page S3095]]

Obama administration to consider new sanctions on individuals
overseeing these activities and to press for Zimbabwe's suspension from
the Kimberley Process. Zimbabwe's continued participation in the
Kimberley Process undermines the integrity and important work of that
process.
Finally, whenever it happens, Zimbabwe's next election will be a
critical step toward any genuine transition to democratic rule and a
sustainable economic recovery. The past elections have been flashpoints
for increased violence and the breakdown of the rule of law. This
cannot be the case this next time around if Zimbabwe is to move
forward. The international community needs to prepare a coordinated
strategy to help reduce the risk of violence and other abuses around
such elections. Our bill directs the Obama administration to begin
engaging with international partners now toward developing such a
strategy.
International actions alone will not determine whether real and
lasting democratic change is achieved in Zimbabwe; that will ultimately
be determined by the Zimbabwean people themselves. But I do believe
that we can help Zimbabweans pursue a genuine transition toward
democracy and economic recovery. To do this, we need an approach that
is flexible and responsive to evolving conditions and challenges on the
ground. I believe this bill helps move us toward such an approach.
Nearly a decade ago, in passing ZDERA, the U.S. Congress committed to
support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful,
democratic change, achieve economic growth and restore the rule of law.
Today, we can reaffirm that commitment by passing the Zimbabwe
Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act. I hope my colleagues
will join us in doing so.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Carper, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Merkley, and Mrs. Gillibrand):
S. 3299. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to allow
all eligible voters to vote by mail in Federal elections; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of three
bills to improve the administration of U.S. elections. These bills
would empower voters--giving them a greater ability to control how and
when they participate in the electoral process. Just as technological
developments have changed the way people manage everything from their
bank accounts to their communication with friends and family, they can
also give voters more power to control their involvement in the
electoral process. By empowering individual voters, my bills would
increase turnout and lower administrative costs, while improving the
security and integrity of elections.
As my colleagues know, I am an ardent believer in bipartisanship. One
thing both parties agree on is that the states are great laboratories
for policy innovation. The bills I am introducing today are prime
examples of progress that was pioneered at the state level. It's now
time to take that proven success to the national level.
An increasing number of voters across the country now Vote by Mail.
In fact, in the 2008 presidential election, one-fifth of ballots
nationwide were cast by mail. I am proud to say that the State that
blazed the trail for Vote by Mail is my home State of Oregon. There
were many steps along this path, but the turning point came in 1996.
That year, Oregon conducted its first State-wide primary and general
election for a Federal race exclusively by mail. That election, of
course, sent me to the U.S. Senate. But that election was not just a
success for my campaign, it was a win for the voters of Oregon.
Through the success of Vote by Mail for that special election, folks
in Oregon saw that elections could be conducted without long lines,
malfunctioning equipment, and the risks of fraud inherent at polling
places. The resounding success of that first Vote by Mail, State-wide,
Federal election led directly to the passage of a referendum in Oregon
on Vote by Mail two years later. In 1998, an overwhelming majority--70
percent--of Oregonians voted to adopt Vote by Mail for all elections.
The Vote by Mail system was fully in place for the next election cycle,
meaning that since 2000, all Oregon voters have voted exclusively by
mail.
The three bills I am introducing today draw upon the success that
Oregon has experienced with Vote by Mail and more recently with online
voter registration. The first is the Universal Right to Vote by Mail
Act. This bill would put into law the fact that every citizen has the
right to vote by mail. Under this bill, any voter who requests an
absentee ballot would receive one. No longer would arbitrary
requirements block voters from choosing to Vote by Mail.
The second bill is the Vote by Mail Act. It would provide grants to
states, or smaller jurisdictions, that wish to make the transition to
Vote by Mail.
Finally, the Online Voter Registration Act would provide grants to
states that wish to implement an online system that would allow voters
to register to vote, update voter information, and request an absentee
ballot using the internet. In Oregon, Washington, and Arizona, online
systems are already working to reduce administrative costs and make it
easier for voters to participate in elections.
Ten years of proven results with Oregon's Vote by Mail system has
shown that this policy experiment has been a resounding success. Voters
in Oregon strongly support Vote by Mail. An academic study conducted in
2005 found that over 80 percent of Oregonians prefer Vote by Mail to
conventional polling place elections. Vote by Mail is also a more cost-
effective way to run elections. In Oregon, the Elections Division
estimated that costs were reduced by 30 percent when Vote by Mail
replaced polling place elections.
One of the greatest results that Vote by Mail has had on Oregon's
election is that it has increased voter turnout and that's an outcome
that every state should want. In the three Presidential elections in
Oregon since Vote by Mail was adopted, turnout has been 84 percent--an
increase of 6 percent over the three prior Presidential elections. Vote
by Mail has an even stronger beneficial impact on turnout for lower-
profile elections, such as off-year, municipal, or referenda elections.
Vote by Mail also reduces election fraud. This may sound counter-
intuitive to skeptics who believe voting by mail is less secure than
voting at a polling place. However, a Vote by Mail system offers many
safeguards that are not available in conventional elections. There is a
paper trail for each and every vote, and the processing is conducted at
a central, secure location that can be viewed by the public. By
expanding the voting period--rather than compressing it into one day--
Vote by Mail affords election officials the time to identify problems,
fix errors, and investigate any questionable ballots. If the goal of
our country's elections is to make sure the voice of every voter is
heard clearly and securely, there is no greater tool than Vote by Mail.
Oregon's experience has shown that in a Vote by Mail system fraud is
almost non-existent. Every ballot envelope is scrutinized before it is
opened, and the voter's signature on it is reviewed to make sure it
matches the one on file for the voter. With the longer time period
involved--typically about two and a half weeks--in a Vote by Mail
election, there is ample opportunity to determine whether a ballot is
valid before it is counted and to investigate any allegations of fraud.
If a ballot is fraudulent, it never gets counted. That could never
happen in a polling place election where, by the time fraud is found,
the vote has already been counted and can't be retrieved. Since Oregon
converted to exclusive Vote by Mail elections, over 15 million ballots
have been cast. During this time, thousands of ballots have been
challenged and investigated for allegations of fraud. Thorough
investigation of every allegation, however, has revealed only nine
instances of vote fraud. There has been absolutely no evidence of any
large-scale, systemic vote fraud that some predicted when Vote by Mail
was first adopted in Oregon.
Vote by Mail offers additional advantages that may not be readily
apparent. For example, on Election Day in 2006, Tillamook County,
Oregon, experienced a deluge of 13 inches of rain. Roads were closed,
parts of the county

[[Page S3096]]

became unreachable, and a State of emergency was declared. Even so, 70
percent of the voters in Tillamook County cast their ballots. Vote by
Mail ensured that lack of access to polling places because of a natural
disaster on Election Day was no impediment to voting.
It is not only bad weather that can be overcome with Vote by Mail--an
illness, caring for a loved one, pregnancy, work, travel, or religious
obligations can all keep citizens from exercising their right to vote
at a polling place on a one-day election. Vote by Mail trumps all of
these obstacles. Such barriers are not an issue in Oregon, but they may
prevent voters in 28 states and territories from voting. In those
states and territories, voters must meet arbitrary requirements to get
an absentee ballot. I believe the decision to obtain an absentee ballot
should be made by the voter. I can see no justification for allowing
arbitrary, bureaucratic rules to disenfranchise any voter anywhere in
America.
I would also note that excuse requirements for obtaining an absentee
ballot constitute an unwarranted invasion of voter privacy. All
information submitted on an absentee ballot request form becomes part
of the public record. There is no reason why voters should be forced to
reveal sensitive personal information simply to have the opportunity to
vote. I believe all voters should enjoy equal access to mail ballots
while having their privacy ensured.
That is why I am introducing the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act.
This bill is, fundamentally, about access and fairness. No citizen
should have to miss an election because they have to work, are ill, are
caring for a loved one, traveling, or have a religious obligation. When
voting for President, Oregonians shouldn't have an advantage over New
Yorkers or Virginians. The Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act doesn't
force anyone to Vote by Mail, nor does it require states to implement
any new voting systems. All States are already required to have an
absentee ballot system. This bill merely says all voters should have
equal protection in choosing how to participate in elections.
I am also introducing today the Vote by Mail Act of 2010, which would
create a three-year, $18 million grant program to help states, or
smaller jurisdictions, transition to Vote by Mail systems like the one
in Oregon. This bill would not mandate that any state adopt Vote by
Mail. However, the bill would provide funding for state or local
jurisdictions that choose to take advantage of the benefits that Vote
by Mail offers. The bill would provide grants of $2 million dollars to
states, or grants of $1 million to smaller jurisdictions, to help pay
for the costs of implementing a Vote by Mail system. I believe Vote by
Mail can improve elections in any state that adopts it. But rather than
simply assume that Vote by Mail delivers benefits, I offer a solution
that would provide proof that it does. My bill would instruct the
Government Accountability Office to evaluate Vote by Mail and produce a
study comparing traditional voting methods with Vote by Mail.
Finally, I am introducing the Online Voter Registration Act to help
give voters the ability to register, update voter information, and
request absentee ballots using the internet. This bill would empower
voters and would reduce administrative costs. In 2008, three quarters
of folks in our country reported using the internet, and 87 percent of
young adults did so. These are the very people who will be registering
to vote for the first time, and they expect the government to
accommodate the way they live their lives. But this bill isn't just
about making things easier for young adults. The internet is well-
suited to this work and can save time, protect voters' privacy, reduce
paper, and lower costs. Many States already allow citizens to renew
their driver's licenses or register their cars online. Expanding the
list of those government services offered online to Voter Registration
simply makes sense.
Oregon, Washington, and Arizona have already established online voter
registration systems. In the initial election cycle of implementation
for Washington's system, the State reported saving over $87,000 in less
than a year. Expanding access to online voter registration makes sense,
but designing and implementing such systems requires considerable
start-up expenses. That's why the Online Voter Registration Act would
provide grants of $150,000 to States to help cover the implementation
costs.
I would like to thank those who have supported Vote by Mail,
including the original cosponsors of the two bills: Senators Kerry,
Carper, Cantwell, Merkley, and Gillibrand. I would also like to thank
the many organizations that support Vote by Mail, including the
National Association of Letter Carriers, National Association of
Postmasters, National Association of Postal Supervisors, American
Postal Workers Union, National Postal Mail Handlers Union, National
Rural Letter Carriers' Association, and other labor organizations
including the AFL-CIO and SEIU. Vote by Mail also has the support of
many civil rights and elections organizations, including Common Cause,
the NAACP, the ACLU, and The League of Rural Voters.
I urge my colleagues to give voters more choice and greater
opportunity to participate in elections by supporting these important
bills. It's time to move the nation's elections systems into the 21st
century and answer the needs of today's voters. These bills are an
important step in that direction.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3299

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 ``Universal Right to Vote by
Mail Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) An inequity of voting rights exists in the United
States because voters in some States have the universal right
to vote by mail while voters in other States do not.
(2) Many voters often have work, family, or other
commitments that make getting to polls on the date of an
election difficult or impossible. Under current State laws,
many of these voters are not permitted to vote by mail.
(3) 28 States currently allow universal absentee voting
(also known as ``no-excuse'' absentee voting), which permits
any voter to request a mail-in ballot without providing a
reason for the request, and no State which has implemented
no-excuse absentee voting has repealed it.
(4) Voting by mail gives voters more time to consider their
choices, which is especially important as many ballots
contain greater numbers of questions about complex issues
than in the past due to the expanded use of the initiative
and referendum process in many States.
(5) Voting by mail is cost effective. After the State of
Oregon adopted vote by mail for all voters, the cost to
administer an election in the State dropped by nearly 30
percent over the next few elections, from $3.07 per voter to
$2.21 per voter.
(6) Allowing all voters the option to vote by mail can
reduce waiting times for those voters who choose to vote at
the polls.
(7) Voting by mail is preferable to many voters as an
alternative to going to the polls. Voting by mail has become
increasingly popular with voters who want to be certain that
they are able to vote no matter what comes up on Election
Day.
(8) No evidence exists suggesting the potential for fraud
in absentee balloting is greater than the potential for fraud
by any other method of voting.
(9) Many of the reasons which voters in many States are
required to provide in order to vote by mail require the
revelation of personal information about health, travel
plans, or religious activities, which violate voters' privacy
while doing nothing to prevent voter fraud.
(10) State laws which require voters to obtain a notary
signature to vote by mail only add cost and inconvenience to
voters without increasing security.

SEC. 3. PROMOTING ABILITY OF VOTERS TO VOTE BY MAIL IN
FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

(a) In General.--Subtitle A of title III of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended
by inserting after section 303 the following new section:

``SEC. 303A. PROMOTING ABILITY OF VOTERS TO VOTE BY MAIL.

``(a) In General.--If an individual in a State is eligible
to cast a vote in an election for Federal office, the State
may not impose any additional conditions or requirements on
the eligibility of the individual to cast the vote in such
election by mail, except to the extent that the State imposes
a deadline for requesting the ballot and related voting
materials from the appropriate State or local election
official and for returning the ballot to the appropriate
State or local election official.

[[Page S3097]]

``(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a)
shall be construed to affect the authority of States to
conduct elections for Federal office through the use of
polling places at which individuals cast ballots on the date
of the election.
``(c) Effective Date.--A State shall be required to comply
with the requirements of subsection (a) with respect to
elections for Federal office held in years beginning with
2012.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Enforcement.--Section
401 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15511) is amended by striking
``and 303'' and inserting ``303, and 303A''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for such Act
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
303 the following new item:

``Sec. 303A. Promoting ability of voters to vote by mail.''.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Carper, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Merkley, and Mrs. Gillibrand):
S. 3300. A bill to establish a Vote by Mail grant program; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3300

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 ``Vote by Mail Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Supreme Court declared in Reynolds v. Sims that
``[i]t has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified
voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote . . .
and to have their votes counted.''
(2) In recent presidential elections, voting technology
failures, procedural irregularities, and long lines for
polling places deprived some Americans of their fundamental
right to vote.
(3) Under the Oregon Vote by Mail system, election
officials mail ballots to all registered voters at least 2
weeks before election day. Voters mark their ballots, seal
the ballots in both unmarked secrecy envelopes and signed
return envelopes, and return the ballots by mail or to secure
drop boxes. Once a ballot is received, election officials
scan the bar code on the ballot envelope, which brings up the
voter's signature on a computer screen. The election official
compares the signature on the screen and the signature on the
ballot envelope. Only if the signature on the ballot envelope
is determined to be authentic is the ballot forwarded on to
be counted.
(4) Oregon's Vote by Mail system has deterred voter fraud
because the system includes numerous security measures such
as the signature authentication system. Potential misconduct
is also discouraged by the power of the State to punish those
who engage in voter fraud with up to 5 years in prison,
$100,000 in fines, and the loss of their vote.
(5) Oregon's Vote by Mail system promotes uniformity and
strict compliance with Federal and State voting laws because
ballot processing is centralized in county clerks' offices,
rather than at numerous polling places.
(6) Vote by Mail is 1 factor making voter turnout in Oregon
consistently higher than the average national voter turnout.
In the 2004 presidential election, for example, Oregon had a
turnout rate of 86.48 percent of registered voters, compared
to 69.96 percent turnout of registered voters nationally.
(7) Women, younger voters, and homemakers also report that
they vote more often using Vote by Mail.
(8) Vote by Mail reduces election costs by eliminating the
need to transport equipment to polling stations and to hire
and train poll workers. Oregon reduced its costs to
administer elections by nearly 30 percent after implementing
Vote by Mail. In Oregon's last polling place election in
1998, the cost per voter was $3.07. By 2004, the cost per
voter in Oregon had dropped to $2.21.
(9) Vote by Mail allows voters to educate themselves
because they receive ballots well before election day, which
provides them with ample time to research issues, study
ballots, and deliberate in a way that is not possible at a
polling place.
(10) Vote by Mail is accurate--at least 2 studies comparing
voting technologies show that absentee voting methods,
including Vote by Mail systems, result in a more accurate
vote count.
(11) Vote by Mail results in more up-to-date voter rolls,
since election officials use forwarding information from the
post office to update voter registration.
(12) Vote by Mail allows voters to visually verify that
their votes were cast correctly and produces a paper trail
for election recounts.
(13) In a survey taken 5 years after Oregon implemented the
Vote by Mail system, more than 8 in 10 Oregon voters said
they preferred voting by mail to traditional voting.
(14) Voters in other States are moving toward Vote by Mail
as well. In 2008, 89 percent of voters in Washington State
who cast ballots voted by mail, 64 percent of voters in
Colorado voted by mail, and 44 percent of voters in
California voted by mail.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Election.--The term ``election'' means any general,
special, primary, or runoff election.
(2) Participating state.--The term ``participating State''
means a State receiving a grant under the Vote by Mail grant
program under section 4.
(3) Residual vote rate.--The term ``residual vote rate''
means the sum of all votes that cannot be counted in an
election (overvotes, undervotes, and otherwise spoiled
ballots) divided by the total number of votes cast.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means a State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, or a territory or possession of the United States.
(5) Voting system.--The term ``voting system'' has the
meaning given such term under section 301(b) of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(b)).

SEC. 4. VOTE BY MAIL GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--Not later than 270 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Election Assistance Commission
shall establish a Vote by Mail grant program (in this section
referred to as the ``program'').
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program is to make
implementation grants to participating States solely for the
implementation of procedures for the conduct of all elections
by mail at the State or local government level.
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--In no case may grants made
under this section be used to reimburse a State for costs
incurred in implementing mail-in voting for elections at the
State or local government level if such costs were incurred
prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Application.--A State seeking to participate in the
program under this section shall submit an application to the
Election Assistance Commission containing such information,
and at such time, as the Election Assistance Commission may
specify.
(e) Amount and Awarding of Implementation Grants; Duration
of Program.--
(1) Amount of implementation grants.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the amount of
an implementation grant made to a participating State shall
be, in the case of a State that certifies that it will
implement all elections by mail in accordance with the
requirements of subsection (f), with respect to--
(i) the entire State, $2,000,000; or
(ii) any single unit or multiple units of local government
within the State, $1,000,000.
(B) Excess funds.--
(i) In general.--To the extent that there are excess funds
in either of the first 2 years of the program, such funds may
be used to award implementation grants to participating
States in subsequent years.
(ii) Excess funds defined.--For purposes of clause (i), the
term ``excess funds'' means any amounts appropriated pursuant
to the authorization under subsection (h)(1) with respect to
a fiscal year that are not awarded to a participating State
under an implementation grant during such fiscal year.
(C) Continuing availability of funds after appropriation.--
An implementation grant made to a participating State under
this section shall be available to the State without fiscal
year limitation.
(2) Awarding of implementation grants.--
(A) In general.--The Election Assistance Commission shall
award implementation grants during each year in which the
program is conducted.
(B) One grant per state.--The Election Assistance
Commission shall not award more than 1 implementation grant
to any participating State under this section over the
duration of the program.
(3) Duration.--The program shall be conducted for a period
of 3 years.
(f) Requirements.--
(1) Required procedures.--A participating State shall
establish and implement procedures for conducting all
elections by mail in the area with respect to which it
receives an implementation grant to conduct such elections,
including the following:
(A) A process for recording electronically each voter's
registration information and signature.
(B) A process for mailing ballots to all eligible voters.
(C) The designation of places for the deposit of ballots
cast in an election.
(D) A process for ensuring the secrecy and integrity of
ballots cast in the election.
(E) Procedures and penalties for preventing election fraud
and ballot tampering, including procedures for the
verification of the signature of the voter accompanying the
ballot through comparison of such signature with the
signature of the voter maintained by the State in accordance
with subparagraph (A).
(F) Procedures for verifying that a ballot has been
received by the appropriate authority.
(G) Procedures for obtaining a replacement ballot in the
case of a ballot which is destroyed, spoiled, lost, or not
received by the voter.
(H) A plan for training election workers in signature
verification techniques.
(I) Plans and procedures to ensure that voters who are
blind, visually-impaired, or

[[Page S3098]]

otherwise disabled have the opportunity to participate in
elections conducted by mail and to ensure compliance with the
Help America Vote Act of 2002. Such plans and procedures
shall be developed in consultation with disabled and other
civil rights organizations, voting rights groups, State
election officials, voter protection groups, and other
interested community organizations.
(J) Plans and procedures to ensure the translation of
ballots and voting materials in accordance with section 203
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a)).
(g) Best Practices, Technical Assistance, and Reports.--
(1) In general.--The Election Assistance Commission shall--
(A) develop, periodically issue, and, as appropriate,
update best practices for conducting elections by mail;
(B) provide technical assistance to participating States
for the purpose of implementing procedures for conducting
elections by mail; and
(C) submit to the appropriate committees of Congress--
(i) annual reports on the implementation of such procedures
by participating States during each year in which the program
is conducted; and
(ii) upon completion of the program conducted under this
section, a final report on the program, together with
recommendations for such legislation or administrative action
as the Election Assistance Commission determines to be
appropriate.
(2) Consultation.--In developing, issuing, and updating
best practices, developing materials to provide technical
assistance to participating States, and developing the annual
and final reports under paragraph (1), the Election
Assistance Commission shall consult with interested parties,
including--
(A) State and local election officials;
(B) the United States Postal Service;
(C) the Postal Regulatory Commission established under
section 501 of title 39, United States Code; and
(D) voting rights groups, voter protection groups, groups
representing the disabled, and other civil rights or
community organizations.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Grants.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
award grants under this section, for each of fiscal years
2012 through 2014, $6,000,000, to remain available without
fiscal year limitation until expended.
(2) Administration.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to administer the program under this section,
$200,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2014, to
remain available without fiscal year limitation until
expended.
(i) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to authorize or require conduct prohibited under
any of the following laws, or to supersede, restrict, or
limit the application of such laws:
(1) The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301 et
seq.).
(2) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.).
(3) The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee et seq.).
(4) The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
(42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.).
(5) The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
1973gg et seq.).
(6) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12101 et seq.).
(7) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.).

SEC. 5. STUDY ON IMPLEMENTATION OF MAIL-IN VOTING FOR
ELECTIONS.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States (in this section referred to as the ``Comptroller
General'') shall conduct a study evaluating the benefits of
broader implementation of mail-in voting in elections, taking
into consideration the annual reports submitted by the
Election Assistance Commission under section 4(g)(1)(C)(i)
before November 1, 2013.
(2) Specific issues studied.--The study conducted under
paragraph (1) shall include a comparison of traditional
voting methods and mail-in voting with respect to--
(A) the likelihood of voter fraud and misconduct;
(B) the accuracy of voter rolls;
(C) the accuracy of election results;
(D) voter participation in urban and rural communities and
by minorities, language minorities (as defined in section 203
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a)), and
individuals with disabilities and by individuals who are
homeless or who frequently change their official residences;
(E) public confidence in the election system;
(F) the residual vote rate, including such rate based on
voter age, education, income, race, or ethnicity or whether a
voter lives in an urban or rural community, is disabled, or
is a language minority (as so defined); and
(G) cost savings.
(3) Consultation.--In conducting the study under paragraph
(1), the Comptroller General shall consult with interested
parties, including--
(A) State and local election officials;
(B) the United States Postal Service;
(C) the Postal Regulatory Commission established under
section 501 of title 39, United States Code; and
(D) voting rights groups, voter protection groups, groups
representing the disabled, and other civil rights or
community organizations.
(b) Report.--Not later than November 1, 2013, the
Comptroller General shall prepare and submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report on the study
conducted under subsection (a), together with such
recommendations for legislation or administrative action as
the Comptroller General determines to be appropriate.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 3301. A bill to establish an Online Voter Registration grant
program; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objeciton, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3301

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 ``Online Voter Registration
Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Americans have become increasingly comfortable with
using the Internet for a wide range of purposes, including
gathering information, purchasing items, performing financial
transactions, and obtaining information and services from the
Government.
(2) In 2008, 74 percent of adults in the United States
reported using the Internet, according to the Pew Internet
and American Life Project. Of those adults, 89 percent
reported using the Internet to find information, 71 percent
made purchases over the Internet, 70 percent read news
online, 56 percent looked up campaign or political
information, 55 percent utilized online banking, and 59
percent visited Government Internet websites.
(3) The Internet is well-suited to allow individuals to
provide and update personal information. Completing such
tasks online saves time, reduces paper, increases efficiency,
and lowers costs.
(4) Many States already allow citizens to access Government
services online, including renewing driver's licenses and
registering cars.
(5) Two States, Arizona and Washington, have already
implemented online voter registration systems, and a number
of other States are in the process of adopting online voter
registration systems.
(6) Although 2008 was the first election cycle that the
online voter registration system was in place in Washington
State, in the month prior to the general election, voter use
of the online voter registration system exceeded that of
mail-in registration cards by more than 20 percent.
(7) Younger adults who are registering to vote for the
first time are the most adept Internet users and expect to be
able to accomplish most tasks online. In 2008, 87 percent of
adults age 18 to 29 used the Internet. In Washington State,
voters age 18 to 24 had the highest rate of use of its online
voter registration system.
(8) During the 2008 election cycle, Washington State
processed about 130,000 online voter registration
transactions.
(9) Implementing an online voter registration requires an
initial investment to purchase the needed technology and to
input existing voter information into the registration
database. Washington State, for example, spent $278,000 to
establish its online voter registration system.
(10) Once in place, online voter registration systems allow
the processing of new voter registrations, changes of address
or party, and requests for absentee ballots.
(11) Washington State reports that it costs approximately
25 cents to process paper voter registration cards and 43
cents to process those submitted via the department of motor
vehicles in compliance with the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.). Voters must also pay
postage costs for registration cards sent through the mail.
Once in place, the online voter registration system requires
no processing by staff in order to complete a transaction,
and therefore has no per transaction cost. For the 2008
general election, the online voter registration system saved
Washington State $32,500, and saved consumers $54,600 in
postage costs, which resulted in total savings to the State
and consumers of over $87,000.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 4. ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Election Assistance Commission
shall establish an Online Voter Registration grant program
(in this section referred to as the ``program'').

[[Page S3099]]

(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program is to make grants
to participating States solely for the implementation of
online voter registration systems.
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--In no case may grants made
under this section be used to reimburse a State for costs
incurred in implementing online voter registration systems at
the State or local government level if such costs were
incurred prior to October 1, 2009.
(d) Application.--A State seeking to participate in the
program under this section shall submit an application to the
Election Assistance Commission containing such information,
and at such time, as the Election Assistance Commission may
specify.
(e) Amount and Awarding of Implementation Grants; Duration
of Program.--
(1) Amount of implementation grants.--
(A) In general.--The amount of an implementation grant made
to a participating State shall be $150,000.
(B) Continuing availability of funds after appropriation.--
An implementation grant made to a participating State under
this section shall be available to the State without fiscal
year limitation.
(2) Awarding of implementation grants.--
(A) In general.--The Election Assistance Commission shall
award implementation grants during each year in which the
program is conducted.
(B) One grant per state.--The Election Assistance
Commission shall not award more than 1 implementation grant
to any participating State under this section over the
duration of the program.
(3) Duration.--The program shall be conducted for a period
of 5 years.
(f) Requirements.--A participating State shall establish
and implement an online voter registration system which
individuals may use to register to vote, update voter
registration information, and request an absentee ballot in
the State.
(g) Best Practices, Technical Assistance, and Reports.--
(1) In general.--The Election Assistance Commission shall--
(A) develop, periodically issue, and, as appropriate,
update best practices for implementing online voter
registration systems;
(B) provide technical assistance to participating States
for the purpose of implementing online voter registration
systems; and
(C) submit to the appropriate committees of Congress--
(i) annual reports on the implementation of such online
voter registration systems by participating States during
each year in which the program is conducted; and
(ii) upon completion of the program conducted under this
section, a final report on the program, together with
recommendations for such legislation or administrative action
as the Election Assistance Commission determines to be
appropriate.
(2) Consultation.--In developing, issuing, and updating
best practices, developing materials to provide technical
assistance to participating States, and developing the annual
and final reports under paragraph (1), the Election
Assistance Commission shall consult with interested parties,
including--
(A) State and local election officials; and
(B) voting rights groups, voter protection groups, groups
representing the disabled, and other civil rights or
community organizations.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Grants.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
award grants under this section, for each of fiscal years
2010 through 2016, $1,800,000, to remain available without
fiscal year limitation until expended.
(2) Administration.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to administer the program under this section,
$200,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2016, to
remain available without fiscal year limitation until
expended.
(i) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to authorize or require conduct prohibited under
any of the following laws, or to supersede, restrict, or
limit the application of such laws:
(1) The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301 et
seq.).
(2) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.).
(3) The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee et seq.).
(4) The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
(42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.).
(5) The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
1973gg et seq.).
(6) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12101 et seq.).
(7) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.).

____________________