[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 126-127]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 INTRODUCING THE CAGING PROHIBITION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 5, 2011

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Caging 
Prohibition Act of 2011, a much needed reform to our election system. I 
believe that we should continue to focus on improvements to our 
election system in this Congress leading up to the presidential cycle 
next year. As we begin to focus election fixes and greater voter 
protections, this legislation can make a critical contribution to such 
efforts. Prohibitions on voter caging will ensure that our democracy 
lives up to the belief that every eligible citizen is entitled to the 
right to vote.
  Voter caging, though just recently given media attention, is a 
disenfranchisement tactic that has been around for over 50 years. This 
undemocratic tactic often 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, voters' names 
are placed on a ``caging list,'' that list then being used to challenge 
voters'' eligibility.
  Those suggesting that voter caging is necessary to weed out 
ineligible voters must recognize this practice is unreliable and 
dangerous for such purposes. Mail may be returned as undeliverable for 
any number of reasons unrelated to an individual's eligibility to vote. 
For example, mail is returned due to typos, transposed numbers, new 
street names, and improper deliveries.
  Voters in my home state of Michigan have been subjected to voter 
caging controversies in the last two Presidential elections. In the 
2008 Election, a voter caging strategy meant to politically capitalize 
on the subprime mortgage crisis was identified. Those voters whose 
homes had been subjected to foreclosure were targets for caging on the 
basis that they no longer resided at the addresses at which they 
registered to vote.
  During the 2004 Election, challengers monitored every single one of 
Detroit's 254 polling

[[Page 127]]

stations. This strategy was consistent with a Michigan lawmaker's 
effort to ``suppress the Detroit vote.'' It was widely accepted that 
this statement was synonymous with ``suppress the Black vote,'' as 
Detroit is 83 percent African American.
  Our most vulnerable voters--racial minorities, language minorities, 
low-income people, the homeless, and college students--always seem to 
be targeted for caging and other voter suppression campaigns. However, 
all voters are susceptible to voter intimidation and suppression. For 
example, during the 2004 election, Ohio and Florida caging lists 
included the names of soldiers whose mail had been returned as 
undeliverable because they were stationed overseas.
  It is because no one is immune to caging and other disenfranchisement 
tactics, that I have introduced the Caging Prohibition Act. This bill 
is really quite simple, as it one, requires election officials to 
corroborate their caging documents with independent evidence before a 
voter can be deemed ineligible. And two, limits all other challenges 
that do not come from election officials to those based on personal, 
first-hand knowledge.
  By eliminating caging tactics, we restore what has been missing from 
our elections--fairness, honesty, and integrity. I ask that my 
colleagues in the Congress join me in supporting the Caging Prohibition 
Act of 2011. Please stand with me in protecting the very core of our 
democracy.

                          ____________________