[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6009-6010]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 6010]]

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.

                          ____________________