[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 63 (Monday, May 7, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2913-S2914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VOTING RIGHTS
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, earlier today, Senator Durbin and
the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and
Human Rights held a hearing in Cleveland to examine efforts that could
hinder the ability of Ohioans to exercise one of their fundamental
constitutional rights, the right to vote. These efforts, in the guise
of preventing fraud, are part of a cynical effort to impede access to
the ballot. Specifically, H.B. 194 in Ohio repeals a number of
commonsense measures that assist people with voting.
For 8 years I served as secretary of state of Ohio, charged with
administering elections, so I understand what goes into ensuring the
fundamental right to vote. Inherent in that responsibility is ensuring
that voting is accessible, free of intimidation and roadblocks.
As a State, over a period of decades, Ohio legislators undertook a
bipartisan--and I underscore that word ``bipartisan''--effort to help
Ohioans get access to the polls. When I was secretary of state, we had
significant input and assistance from Republicans as we made voting
laws work for huge numbers of people. We understood Ohioans had many
priorities pulling them in many directions so we ought to make
registration accessible. People could register using utility bills. The
electric company included registration forms in utility bills.
McDonald's, at my request, printed 1 million tray liners so people
could actually fill them out to register to vote. At the Bureau of
Motor Vehicles, people could register to vote. This was bipartisan. The
legislature, when acting, would expand this right to vote, make sure
this right to vote was protected. It was generally bipartisan.
Today, rather than protecting the right to vote, we are seeing brazen
attempts to undermine it. We are told this bill and laws similar to it
will reduce costs and reduce the risk of voter fraud. The overwhelming
evidence, however, indicates that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent
and these new laws will make it harder and more costly for hundreds of
thousands of Ohioans to exercise the right to vote and more costly for
the election system, meaning taxpayer--county boards of elections and
all that.
Voters are simply not going to awaken one morning in Cleveland and
vote and then drive to Elyria and then vote and then drive to Norwalk
and then vote, then drive to Adena and then vote and then drive to
Mansfield and then vote. People are not going to defraud the system
that way. Why? No. 1, they are going to get caught, probably; and
second, they are going to go to jail--all to take the risk of giving
Barack Obama or Mitt Romney five more votes in a State of 11 million
people. That is not going to happen.
Yet the people who are attacking our voting rights are claiming
individuals are going to do things such as that to defraud--college
students voting in college and then voting back in their hometown.
People are not going to do that because the disincentives are too
strong, the penalties are too harsh. There is simply no reason, so one
can vote one extra time, that someone would possibly do that.
Let me tell a little bit about this new law. The new law--and what is
disappointing to me--this new law repeals what was a bipartisan effort
in 2006. In 2006, in response to some election problems of 2004 in the
Presidential race, where people stood in long lines to vote, and there
were other problems--in 2006, the Republican House and the Republican
Senate in Columbus and the Republican Governor--with support from
Democrats, so it was clearly bipartisan--passed voter reforms to set up
early voting, to set up 1 week where voting and voter registration and
early voting overlapped so people could actually register and vote
during that week in early October. We did other things that made
registration and voting more accessible.
But in spite of that, in spite of the consensus in Ohio about voting,
now there is an effort to undercut that consensus. First, the law
significantly reduces the early voting window. It takes away Saturday,
Sunday, and Monday voting before the election, when over 100,000 people
voted in Ohio that year, in 2008. This reduction in early voting was
made despite the fact that evidence overwhelmingly indicates that
limiting early voting will actually cost the taxpayers, boards of
elections, money. Make no mistake, cutting Sunday voting was intended
to suppress voting.
On the Sunday before election, Ohioans, who work long hours during
the week, often go to the polls after church, fulfilling their civic
and spiritual obligations on the same day. By ending early voting, the
lines outside polling stations on election day will only get longer.
The costs will only increase. This increases frustration and limits
voting.
Another burden posed by H.R. 194 is that it bars poll workers from
performing one of their most basic functions, helping voters find their
right precinct. This law no longer requires that poll workers assist a
confused, elderly, disabled or young voter in getting to their correct
precinct. Here is how it works. We have tried to save money. As more
people voted earlier, relieving some of the pressure on election day,
the boards of elections have combined voting precincts. Instead, we
will have fewer precincts in the same county and have to hire fewer
poll workers. What that also means is sometimes they combine these
precincts in these voting stations into one building so people might
walk into a polling station and go to the wrong table. Under the law
now, the poll worker is not required to help that person and say: No,
you can't vote here, but you can vote across in the room next door, at
this church or at this school. Someone today might walk in and the poll
worker will simply say you are not eligible to vote in this precinct
and they will walk home and not vote. This law discourages in many
ways. Because these poll workers are people who live in the
neighborhoods it discourages neighbors helping neighbors.
This is a solution in search of a problem. It is not something we
need to do. There was consensus in Ohio that things needed to change
after 2004. The laws enacted in 2006 led to shorter lines, more
clarity, and less frustration for voters. While none of the changes I
mention today make it impossible to vote, they build burdens to voting,
burdens that have no good reason. That will mean fewer minority voters,
fewer young voters, fewer elderly voters, fewer disabled voters. That
may be what some politicians in this town want, but it is not what the
people of Ohio want. Ohio deserves better when it comes to protecting
our most fundamental constitutional rights.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S2914]]
____________________