[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16056-16059]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            ELECTION REFORM

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to talk about election reform. 
I have talked about it on a number of occasions.
  Yesterday, as chairman of the Rules Committee, we had a markup of one 
of the election reform bills. I say with a high degree of sadness--and 
I truly mean this--that our good friends on the Republican side of the 
aisle decided for whatever reasons not to show up; to sort of boycott 
the markup. I haven't had that experience in my 20 years in the Senate 
and 6 years in the House. I gather that it may have happened on other 
committees but never on ones on which I served.
  Again, I understand there is disappointment sometimes when our 
amendments or our bills are not going to be marked up, or are not going 
to have the necessary votes to be marked up. I had scheduled the markup 
well in advance with full notice. There are some 16 election reform 
bills that I know of which have been introduced in the Senate. We 
didn't mark up all of them. We marked up one bill. It was open for 
amendment, or substitution, as is the normal process. As I have been 
both in the majority and minority, over the years that is how it has 
been done.
  In the Rules Committee you cannot vote by proxy. You have to be there 
for the final vote. You can only vote by proxy on amendments.


[[Page 16057]]

  We had the convening of the markup at 9:00 in the morning with the 
full idea that at least an hour-and-a-half would be available for 
people to come and offer amendments, debate, or discuss the issue of 
election reform.
  I think there were some 200 to 300 people in the hearing room. Many 
came in wheelchairs and some with seeing-eye dogs and other such 
equipment in order to assist them. There were people from various 
ethnic and racial groups in the country who care about election reform, 
and average Americans who just wanted to see what Congress might do and 
what the Senate might do in response to the tremendously disappointing 
events of last fall when we saw what tremendous shambles our election 
process is in. The events of last fall peeled back the scandalous 
conditions of our electoral processes all across the country--not only 
in one state during one election. Almost without exception, every State 
is in desperate need of repairing the election process.
  As a result of what happened last fall, there has been a heightened 
degree of interest in doing something about our election process. As a 
result, as the chairman of the Rules Committee since June, I have had 
three hearings on the issue. We had one hearing prior to that when I 
was ranking member of the committee.
  The bill I propose is one that has been cosponsored by 50 other 
Members of this body. It received some rhetorical support from others 
who are not exactly cosponsors but have told me that they will support 
the bill when it comes to the floor. The same bill has been introduced 
by Congressman John Conyers of Michigan in the House of 
Representatives. It enjoys, I think, over 100 bipartisan cosponsors in 
that body. There are also other bills that enjoy some support. The bill 
offered by the now ranking member of the Rules Committee, Senator 
McConnell, has some 70 cosponsors. Thirty-one of those cosponsors are 
cosponsors of the bill I introduced.
  There is a lot of interest in this subject matter. What was 
disappointing to me and what saddened me was that on a day in which we 
were going to hold a markup to figure out how we might improve the 
electoral system so more people would have the opportunity to vote and 
have their votes counted, our friends on the other side decided not to 
come and be heard, let alone vote on this matter.
  That troubles me, and I hope it is something not to be repeated. It 
is not a very good civics lesson, particularly for the dozens of people 
who showed up yesterday. Some made the extra strenuous effort to be 
there, considering their physical condition.
  Mr. President, between 4 to 6 million people last November 7 showed 
up to vote and were told their votes would not count despite the fact 
they had the right to vote. Many of them stood in lines in the colder 
northern tier States for hours on end.
  I heard in our hearings in Atlanta the other day, with Senator 
Cleland at my side, witnesses from Georgia who literally sat in rooms 
for hours without chairs--elderly people simply waiting for a chance to 
vote and to have their votes counted.
  When you have a markup of a bill that is open for all sorts of bills 
to be considered as amendments or substitutes before the committee, it 
is disheartening to me that such a message might be sent that we don't 
care enough to vote on a bill such as this to encourage Americans to 
vote.
  I hope that when we come back in September the offer I made in 
November of last year as the ranking Democrat on the committee to the 
then-chairman of the committee to work together on a bipartisan bill 
will be taken up, and that we can sit down and try to craft something a 
majority of our colleagues would like to get behind and support; and 
that the other body would do the same, and put some meaningful 
resources on the table so that States and localities will have the help 
to make the changes that are necessary in order for the election system 
in our country to work.
  The election system is in a shambles. This is not some question of 
fixing a minor problem, I regret to report. All you need to do is read 
the reports that have come out in the last few days--studies from the 
Civil Rights Commission report, to the reports by the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology.
  Their studies indicate, as I noted a few moments ago, a stunning 4 to 
6 million people showed up last fall who attempted to vote or intended 
to vote and were not able to have their votes counted. It is a 
scandalous situation by any estimation.
  For example, in my State alone--one of the most affluent States in 
the Union, the State of Connecticut, on a per capita income basis--we 
have not bought a new voting piece of equipment in almost a quarter of 
a century. In fact, the company that made the machines we use in my 
State no longer exists.
  Mr. President, there are some exceptions. I think some States, such 
as Rhode Island, because of the tremendous efforts of the former 
secretary of State there--now Congressman Jim Langevin, who is a 
quadriplegic and has been elected to Congress by the good people of 
Rhode Island--have become very progressive in regards to the electoral 
reform.
  The people in Rhode Island who are blind, for instance, can vote 
without having someone go into the voting booth with them. It is the 
only State I know of in the country where you can do that today. But 
Congressman Langevin was sensitive to it because of his own physical 
condition. He told me, with very minor investments--about $400 per 
precinct--they were able to make not only the voting place accessible 
but the ballot accessible.
  Last fall, 10 million blind people did not vote in America. I have a 
sister who is blind, blind from birth. She is legally blind. She 
totally lacks vision in one eye, and has very slight vision in her 
other eye. From time to time, she has needed assistance--and I don't 
want to suggest to you she has not voted on her own from time to time--
but she works with many people as part of the National Federation of 
the Blind. She is a board member and attends their conventions. You 
need only talk to people in your respective States, and ask people who 
are totally blind what it was like to go and vote last fall. They will 
tell you they had to take someone with them to vote. Some States will 
allow you to bring a family member. Some insist you go in with a poll 
worker you don't know. So the idea of casting a ballot in private is 
nonexistent.
  Therefore, when I talk about trying to establish some national 
requirements to improve the system, it isn't just better equipment, it 
is also making the voting booth more accessible to those who are 
disabled.
  At any rate, let me share with you these statistics. As I said, there 
were 4 to 6 million people--this is stunning--trying to do their civic 
duty who were turned away and denied the chance to vote.
  Earlier this week, former Presidents Ford and Carter released a 
report. Their findings echo those of the Cal-Tech-MIT report. The 
report makes clear that the election of 2000 was more than ``a closely 
contested election,'' as some have attempted to characterize it. It was 
more than a matter of a few disputed ballots in a single State. It was, 
in the words of the Ford-Carter Commission----
  Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague from the State of 
Washington. I would like to be able to proceed for about 5 additional 
minutes, if that is all right with her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
  The Ford-Carter Commission described the results of last fall's 
election as ``a political ordeal unlike any in living memory.'' It was 
an ordeal that spread beyond a few counties in Florida to encompass--
and incriminate--the electoral system within our entire Nation.
  Like the Cal-Tech-MIT report, this report adds to the growing body of 
evidence that in the year 2000--and in previous years--American voters 
were disenfranchised--not by the thousands,

[[Page 16058]]

or even by the tens of thousands, but by the millions. These are people 
who intended to vote, stood in line, did everything they thought they 
needed to do--thought they had registered to vote--and for a variety of 
reasons were not able to cast their ballots, or not have their ballots 
counted.
  They were people who were disproportionately poor, who are racial or 
ethnic minorities, who speak English as a second--not first--language, 
and who are physically disabled.
  In Florida alone, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission found that African 
American voters were 10 times more likely than white voters to have 
their ballots thrown out.
  Across the country, the votes of poor and minority voters were three 
times more likely to go uncounted than the ballots of wealthier Anglo 
voters. That kind of disparity--based on race, income, ethnicity, 
language, and physical ability--is unacceptable, at least it ought to 
be, in any nation that calls itself a democracy. For a nation such as 
ours--which is the birth place of modern democracy, which holds itself 
out among the community of nations as an emblem of self-governance--six 
million people, out of 100 million who cast their ballots, were 
thwarted. That is more than unacceptable; it is unconscionable.
  Likewise, as our colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, has said, it 
is unacceptable and unconscionable when any American abuses his or her 
right to vote by committing fraud. I wholeheartedly endorse the 
comments that he made on the Senate floor yesterday that we need to 
expand voter participation and reduce voter fraud in our Nation.
  I appreciate, by the way, the Senator from Missouri telling me the 
night before what he was going to say on the floor the next day. Those 
are common courtesies we extend to each other, regardless of 
differences that may exist.
  Voter fraud and voter disenfranchisement are different wrongs, but 
they have a similar impact. They both debase our electoral system. They 
both distort the value of votes lawfully cast. And they both diminish 
the true will of the American people. I wholeheartedly embrace his 
statement that we need reforms that ensure that more Americans can vote 
and that fewer can cheat.
  I look forward to working with him during the month of August, and 
his staff, to see if we can craft those parts of what he has proposed 
as a part of our bill.
  Some have argued that--against this overwhelming evidence that 
millions of Americans are routinely deprived their right to effectively 
exercise the most fundamental right we have in a democracy; against 
this overwhelming evidence that our electoral system is in profound 
need of reform--we should make strengthening our election laws 
optional.
  In 1965 we passed the Voting Rights Act. We did not make the 
elimination of the poll tax or elimination of the literacy tests an 
option. We said: It is wrong because you are voting for President of 
the United States and the National Congress.
  If we were just voting for the local sheriff or the school board or 
the general assembly of that State, then I do not think the Federal 
Government has a lot to say. You might argue that we do. But when you 
are voting for the President and the National Congress, then, if you 
deprive people the right to vote, either de jure, by law, or de facto 
because of what you failed to do to make the system accessible to 
people, then you have affected the people who vote in my State when 
they vote for President or they vote for the National Congress.
  So the idea that somehow we are going to make de facto barriers to 
people's right to vote optional is as ludicrous on its face as it was 
in 1965 to say we had no right to abandon or get rid of de jure hurdles 
to people's right to vote when it came to casting ballots for the 
Presidency and the Congress of the United States.
  I am not interested in having overly burdensome requirements. I do 
not think having basic national standards that say, if you are blind, 
you have the right to vote in private; if you are disabled and cannot 
reach the machine, you ought to be able to do so. We did that with the 
Americans With Disabilities Act. You cannot go into a public 
accommodation or a public restroom that isn't handicap accessible 
today. You ought not be able to go into a voting booth that isn't 
handicap accessible.
  I do not think you are going to get that by leaving it optional. I 
think there does need to be a national requirement to see to it you do 
not have these punch-hole ballots or chads hanging around all over the 
place. I do not care if you want to have a different machine in every 
State, but meet basic minimum requirements.
  Provisional voting, giving people the right to see how they voted--
you can go to a gasoline station and you know how much gas you put in 
your car because you get a receipt to look at. Can't we do the same for 
a voting machine, so that when you vote, and you come out of the booth, 
you can take a look and make sure your vote was recorded as you 
intended it to be recorded in the 21st century? Or can't we have a 
sample ballot so you might have some idea about what you are going to 
see in the voting booth when you walk into that booth for the very 
first time?
  Those are the kinds of requirements I am talking about. I do not 
think that is overly aggressive, overly excessive. And I believe that 
if the National Government requires it, that we ought to also pay for 
it.
  My bill does both. I am pleased to say the Presiding Officer and 
others are cosponsors of the bill we have introduced. I am not 
suggesting it is perfect. I hope when we come back in September--I have 
been told by the majority leader; I appreciate his tremendous 
leadership on this issue--we will make this a priority issue so we can 
get it done. We can provide some resources and start to make a 
difference in the 2002 elections. Hopefully, by the 2004 Presidential 
race, we will at least reduce substantially the amount of abuse we saw 
occur in the 2000 election, and hereafter we will see to it that voting 
opportunities are not going to be left to wither and deteriorate to the 
point they had, as we evidenced, in the year 2000. It is not easy. It 
is going to take some investment.
  I will end on this note. It was said by Thomas Paine more than 200 
years ago. I know these other issues are important. I don't minimize 
them, whether we are talking about an energy bill, a farm bill, a 
Patients' Bill of Rights, all those questions that we debate every day 
as elected representatives in this body, down the hall in the other 
body, or down the street in the White House. All of that depends, as 
Thomas Paine said, on the right to vote. The right to vote is the right 
upon which all other rights depend. If we can't get the right to vote 
right, then what confidence do people have that we will make the kinds 
of decisions they asked us to make when they sent us here as their 
representatives?
  I know it is not as popular and doesn't have the same glamour 
attached to it as some of these other issues. I don't think there is 
anything more important this Congress can do than to see to it we 
redress the wrongs committed in the year 2000 and the years before 
then.
  I urge my colleagues, particularly those from the other side. I have 
gone to many of their offices. I have let them know. I have visited 
them the last several weeks. I have explained the bill and asked for 
their ideas. I want a bipartisan bill. I have been to the office of Ben 
Nighthorse Campbell, the offices of Lincoln Chafee, Peter Fitzgerald, 
Kit Bond--I have talked to them--on down the list. I will continue to 
do so because I want a bipartisan bill. I am saddened again that 
yesterday my Republican friends on the Rules Committee decided not to 
come and vote and be heard on a bill that was going to try to improve 
people's right to vote in America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 16059]]


  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Connecticut 
for his fine remarks on election reform, a very important issue, 
indeed, and one I am sure we will be addressing when we resume after 
our summer recess.

                          ____________________