[House Report 110-581]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     110-581

======================================================================



 
              UNIVERSAL RIGHT TO VOTE BY MAIL ACT OF 2008

                                _______
                                

 April 14, 2008.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on House Administration, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 281]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 281) to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 
to allow all eligible voters to vote by mail in Federal 
elections, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 
pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 
2008''.

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.
          (3) Allowing voters to vote by mail can lead to increased 
        voter participation.
          (4) Voting by mail is more convenient for many voters.
          (5) Voting by mail gives voters more time to consider their 
        choices.
          (6) Studies show that an overwhelming majority of voters 
        prefer voting by mail as an alternative to going to the polls.
          (7) No evidence exists suggesting the potential for fraud in 
        absentee balloting is greater than the potential for fraud by 
        any other method of voting.
          (8) 28 States currently allow universal absentee voting, 
        which permits any voter to request a mail-in ballot without 
        providing a reason for the request.

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 as 
required under subsection (b) and 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.
  ``(b) Requiring Signature Verification.--A State may not accept and 
process an absentee ballot submitted by any individual with respect to 
an election for Federal office unless the State verifies the 
identification of the individual by comparing the individual's 
signature on the absentee ballot with the individual's signature on the 
official list of registered voters in the State, in accordance with 
such procedures as the State may adopt.
  ``(c) Effective Date.--A State shall be required to comply with the 
requirements of this section with respect to the regularly scheduled 
general elections for Federal office held in November 2010 and each 
succeeding election for Federal office.''.
  (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.''.

                       Purpose of the Legislation

    Since the time of the Civil War, the absentee ballot has 
allowed voters who cannot make it to the polls a chance to 
exercise their right to vote. States have historically allowed 
absentee voting for such reasons as absence, illness, advanced 
age, religious obligation or military service.
    Although these reasons or ``excuses'' for requesting an 
absentee ballot are logical, they are not the only reasons why 
a voter might not be able to vote at the polls. For example, 
many voters today work long hours, commute great distances or 
have childcare or other obligations that make voting in person 
difficult or impossible. In addition, during high turnout 
elections, long lines at the polls can prevent voters from 
voting. No voter should be prohibited from voting simply 
because he or she cannot be at the polls at a certain time.
    Moreover, many states' acceptable excuses are hard to 
define and even harder to verify. For instance, some states use 
``absence'' to mean out of the precinct, while others define it 
as out of the city, county or community. Some states specify 
acceptable and unacceptable reasons for that absence; others do 
not. Some states say a voter must be absent during the entire 
time the polls are open; others do not. Illness is also 
difficult to limit in any useful way. Some states only permit 
ill voters to vote absentee if they cannot get to polls without 
assistance from another person; others do not. Drawing lines 
between medical conditions is not easy and does not serve a 
useful purpose.
    In addition, to verify excuses, some states require voters 
to spend time and money acquiring a notary signature or 
doctor's note. Other states infringe upon voters' privacy by 
requiring them to detail vacation plans, medical conditions or 
employment information in order to request an absentee ballot. 
It is of questionable necessity that any state should require 
such personal, private information. Releasing this information 
does not increase security in any meaningful way and only 
serves to increase the burden on elections officials. Arduous 
or intrusive verification requirements may deter voters from 
requesting absentee ballots and consequently from voting 
altogether.
    In 1967, Kansas became the first state to offer ``No 
Excuse'' absentee voting, a process by which any eligible voter 
could request an absentee or mail ballot for any reason. Over 
time, No Excuse absentee voting has become popular with both 
elections officials and voters. Currently 28 states offer No 
Excuse absentee voting. No state has reverted back.
    Voters like No Excuse absentee voting because it gives them 
peace of mind knowing that they will be able to vote no matter 
what comes up on Election Day. Many also appreciate the 
opportunity to take the time to study their choices and 
appreciate not feeling rushed in a voting booth.
    In states with No Excuse absentee voting, between 20 and 45 
percent of voters generally choose to vote absentee. Elections 
officials also like No Excuse absentee voting because they do 
not have to check excuses on a case-by-case basis, which gives 
them more time to process ballots, and it relieves some of the 
strain at the polls on Election Day.
    A recent study by the Election Assistance Commission found 
that 65 percent of Americans said that all voters should have 
the option to vote absentee.
    While 28 states allow their voters to vote absentee for any 
reason, 22 states, the District of Columbia and all of the 
territories still restrict many voters from obtaining absentee 
ballots by requiring excuses. Thus, there exists a great 
inequity across the nation in voting opportunities because some 
voters can vote at any time (within the absentee period) while 
others must vote only when the polls are open (either on 
Election Day or through early voting). Voters in ``No Excuse'' 
states have a significant advantage over those in the other 
states and territories in federal elections.
    Although there are indications that individual states will 
continue to remove absentee conditions and that eventually all 
will be ``No Excuse'' states, there is no reason voters should 
lose opportunities in the meantime.
    The intent of H.R. 281 is to maximize voter opportunity by 
allowing all voters in the United States to have the option to 
vote by absentee ballot. H.R. 281 ensures that there will be no 
more barriers to absentee voting than there are to poll voting. 
It prevents states from adding restrictions to absentee 
eligibility that they do not add for poll voting eligibility. 
For example, if a notary signature is not required to vote at 
the polls, it would not be required to vote by mail. Or, if 
voters of all ages can vote at the polls, voters of all ages 
can vote by absentee.
    Importantly, this bill does not force any voter to vote by 
mail or deprive voters of the opportunity of going to the polls 
to vote. Its intention is only to provide voters the choice of 
using an absentee ballot subject to the same eligibility 
requirements as in-person voting.
    While this bill removes voters' barriers to absentee 
voting, it does not impose upon a state's right to administer 
elections. It does not interfere with the request or receipt 
deadlines or how a state processes its absentee ballots.
    In response to concerns that the bill did not give states 
enough time to prepare for processing the likely increased 
number of absentee ballots, the Committee accepted an amendment 
to change the date of enactment from 2008 to 2010. This change 
should give elections officials ample time to adjust. Since all 
states currently have secure systems to process absentee 
ballots, this bill does not ask elections officials to do 
anything new. It merely expands the pool of voters eligible to 
vote by absentee.
    Because absentee voting is so popular in current No Excuse 
states, the Committee encourages officials in states that 
currently have restrictions to learn from the best practices in 
states that currently process large numbers of absentee 
ballots. One such practice is the offering of ``Permanent 
Absentee'' status to voters. This allows the state to 
automatically send ballots by mail to voters who have indicated 
they want to vote absentee every time. This practice saves the 
voters the time of requesting a ballot each time and results in 
elections officials saving time and money because of decreased 
data entry costs.
    Finally, in order to ensure that states continue to make 
absentee voting as free from fraud as possible, the Committee 
accepted an amendment to require elections officials to use 
signature checks. Signature checks by trained professionals 
have proven to be the most effective way to verify that an 
absentee ballot was actually voted by the correct voter. States 
use this method currently and should continue to do so to 
enhance ballot security.

               Section-by-Section Summary of Legislation


Section 1. Short title

    (a) Entitles bill ``Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 
2007''

Section 2. Findings

    (a) Finds that an inequality of voting rights exists 
because voters in some States have the universal right to vote 
by mail while voters in other States do not.
    (b) Finds that many voters often have work, family or other 
commitments that make getting to polls on the date of an 
election difficult or impossible.
    (c) Finds that allowing voters to vote by mail can lead to 
increased voter participation.
    (d) Finds that voting by mail is more convenient for many 
voters.
    (e) Finds that voting by mail gives voters more time to 
consider their choices.
    (f) Finds that studies show that an overwhelming majority 
of voters prefer voting by mail as an alternative to going to 
polls.
    (g) Finds that no evidence exists suggesting that the 
potential for fraud in absentee balloting is greater than the 
potential for fraud by any other method of voting.
    (h) Finds that 28 states currently allow for universal 
absentee voting.

Section 3. Promoting ability of voters to vote by mail in Federal 
        elections

    (a) Amends the Help America Vote Act by adding new 
subsection 303A.
    (b) Subsection 303A provides that a State may not impose 
any additional conditions or requirements on the eligibility of 
an individual to cast his or her vote in such election by mail, 
except to the extent that the State imposes a deadline for 
requesting the ballot or returning the ballot to the 
appropriate State or local election official.
    (c) Makes this section effective with respect to federal 
elections held in 2010 and thereafter.
    (d) Requires States to verify a voter's signature before it 
accepts and processes an absentee ballot submitted by an 
individual.

               Committee Consideration of the Legislation


                       INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL

    On January 5, 2007, Mrs. Davis of California (for herself, 
Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Schiff, Mrs. 
Capps, Ms. Hooley, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. McDermott) introduced 
H.R. 281; which was referred to the Committee on House 
Administration.

                                Hearings

    On October 16, 2007, the Committee on House Administration 
Subcommittee on Elections held a hearing entitled ``Expanding 
and Improving Opportunities to Vote by Mail or Absentee.'' The 
following members were present at the hearing: Subcommittee 
Chair Zoe Lofgren, Reps. Charles A. Gonzalez, Susan A. Davis, 
Artur Davis and Kevin McCarthy.

Witnesses

    Panel One:
          1. The Honorable Susan A. Davis, Congresswoman (CA-
        53)
    Panel Two:
          1. Commissioner Ruth Goldway, Postal Rate Commission
          2. The Honorable Deborah L. Markowitz, Secretary of 
        State of Vermont
          3. Mr. Joe Holland, County Clerk, Recorder and 
        Assessor, Santa Barbara County, CA
          4. Mr. Jonathan Bechtle, Director of Evergreen 
        Freedom Foundation's Citizenship and Governance Center
    On October 22, 2007, the Committee on House Administration 
Subcommittee on Elections continued its hearing entitled 
``Expanding and Improving Opportunities to Vote by Mail or 
Absentee.''
    Members present: Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren, Reps. 
Charles A. Gonzalez, Susan A. Davis, Vernon J. Ehlers and Kevin 
McCarthy.

Witnesses

          1. Mr. John Fortier, American Enterprise Institute
          2. Mr. Warren Harrison, former Director of Elections 
        for the State of Texas

                                 Markup

    On Wednesday, April 2, 2008, the Committee met to mark up 
H.R. 281. The Committee favorably reported H.R. 281, as 
amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.

             Matters Required Under the Rules of the House


                         COMMITTEE RECORD VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of House rule XIII requires that the results of 
each record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together 
with the name of those voting for and against, to be printed in 
the committee report.

Record votes on amendments to H.R. 281

    The first recorded vote of the markup was Mr. Ehlers' 
Amendment #2, which would require a State, prior to providing 
an individual with an absentee ballot, to require that 
individual to sign, under penalty of perjury, an attestation 
that the voter has requested the ballot free from coercion and 
is casting the ballot freely and without undue influence. The 
vote was 3-4 and the amendment was not agreed to.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Member                     Ayes       Noes     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brady..............................  .........          X  .........
Ms. Lofgren............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Capuano............................  .........          X  .........
Mr. Gonzalez...........................  .........  .........  .........
Mrs. Davis (CA)........................  .........          X  .........
Mr. Davis (AL).........................  .........          X  .........
Mr. Ehlers.............................          X  .........  .........
Mr. Lungren............................          X  .........  .........
Mr. McCarthy...........................          X  .........  .........
                                        --------------------------------
    Total..............................          3          4  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee then voted on Mr. Ehlers' Amendment #3, which 
would have preserved state conditions and requirements 
concerning the eligibility of an individual to obtain an 
absentee ballot by mail that are in effect as of the effective 
date of the Act. The vote was 3-4 and the amendment was not 
agreed to.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Member                     Ayes       Noes     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brady..............................  .........          X  .........
Ms. Lofgren............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Capuano............................  .........          X  .........
Mr. Gonzalez...........................  .........  .........  .........
Mrs. Davis (CA)........................  .........          X  .........
Mr. Davis (AL).........................  .........          X  .........
Mr. Ehlers.............................          X  .........  .........
Mr. Lungren............................          X  .........  .........
Mr. McCarthy...........................          X  .........  .........
                                        --------------------------------
    Total..............................          3          4  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments that were withdrawn

    After discussion in the Committee, Mr. McCarthy withdrew 
his Amendment #2, which would have struck the language in 
Section 3 of the bill and would have inserted the following: 
``If an individual in a State is eligible to obtain a ballot 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 obtain the ballot in advance 
of the election for purposes of casting the ballot 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 to the extent 
that the State considers necessary to prevent the occurrence of 
voter fraud.'' No vote was taken.

Amendments agreed to by voice vote

    The Committee voted to accept Mr. Ehlers' Amendment #1, 
which postponed the effective date of H.R. 281 until the year 
2010. The Committee also voted to accept Mr. McCarthy's 
Amendment #1, which requires States to verify a voter's 
signature before it accepts and processes an absentee ballot 
submitted by an individual.
    The Committee then voted to favorably report H.R. 281, as 
amended. The vote to report favorably was approved by a voice 
vote.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

                        Constitutional Authority

    In compliance with clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the 
Committee states that Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. 
Constitution grants Congress the authority to make laws 
governing the time, place and manner of holding Federal 
elections.

                         Earmark Identification

    Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI, H.R. 281, the Universal 
Right to Vote by Mail Act, does not include any congressional 
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as 
defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

                        Preemption Clarification

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a committee statement on the extent to 
which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state 
or local law. H.R. 281 is intended to apply in all States and 
preempt laws to the contrary in their application to Federal 
elections.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the to the bill, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:
                                                     April 8, 2008.
Hon. Robert A. Brady,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 281, the Universal 
Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2007.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
Pickford, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                           Peter R. Orszag.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 281--Universal Right To Vote by Mail Act of 2008

    H.R. 281 would amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to 
require states, beginning in 2010, to allow eligible voters to 
request a mail-in ballot for all federal elections without 
having to provide a reason. States would also be required to 
verify the signature on the absentee ballot by cross-checking 
it with the voter's signature on the official list of 
registered voters. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 281 
would have no impact on the federal budget.
    Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from 
the application of that act any legislative provisions that 
enforce the constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has 
determined that H.R. 281 would fall within that exclusion 
because it would protect individuals' voting rights. Therefore, 
we have not reviewed the bill for mandates.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew 
Pickford. This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
    Summary: H.R. 281 would amend the Help America Vote Act of 
2002 to require states, beginning in 2010, to allow eligible 
voters to request a mail-in ballot for all federal elections 
without having to provide a reason. States would also be 
required to verify the signature on the absentee ballot by 
cross-checking it with the voter's signature on the official 
list of registered voters. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 
281 would have no impact on the federal budget.
    Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from 
the application of that act any legislative provisions that 
enforce the constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has 
determined that H.R. 281 would fall within that exclusion 
because it would protect individuals' voting rights. Therefore, 
we have not reviewed the bill for mandates.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew 
Pickford. This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                     HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is 
as follows:
     * * * * * * *

    TITLE III--UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY AND 
                       ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

                        Subtitle A--Requirements

Sec.  301.  Voting systems standards.
     * * * * * * *
Sec.  303.  Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements 
          and requirements for voters who register by mail.
Sec.  303A.  Promoting ability of voters to vote by mail.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   TITLE III--UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY AND 
                      ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

Subtitle A--Requirements

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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 as required under subsection (b) and 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.
  (b) Requiring Signature Verification.--A State may not accept 
and process an absentee ballot submitted by any individual with 
respect to an election for Federal office unless the State 
verifies the identification of the individual by comparing the 
individual's signature on the absentee ballot with the 
individual's signature on the official list of registered 
voters in the State, in accordance with such procedures as the 
State may adopt.
  (c) Effective Date.--A State shall be required to comply with 
the requirements of this section with respect to the regularly 
scheduled general elections for Federal office held in November 
2010 and each succeeding election for Federal office.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. ACTIONS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DECLARATORY AND 
                    INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

  The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any 
State or jurisdiction in an appropriate United States District 
Court for such declaratory and injunctive relief (including a 
temporary restraining order, a permanent or temporary 
injunction, or other order) as may be necessary to carry out 
the uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and 
administration requirements under sections 301, 302, [and 303] 
303, and 303A.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


MINORITY VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE VERNON J. EHLERS AND THE HONORABLE DAN 
                                LUNGREN

         H.R. 281, Universal Right To Vote by Mail Act of 2007

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    On Wednesday, April 3, 2008, the Committee on House 
Administration ordered favorably reported to the House, by 
voice vote, H.R. 281, the ``Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act 
of 2007'' as amended. In our view, H.R. 281 unnecessarily 
abrogates states' rights, and opens the door to organized 
fraud.

                             II. KEY ISSUES

Preserving States' rights
    The administration of elections in this country has always 
been the province of states and localities, and most of the 
elections involve predominately local and state offices and 
issues. We maintain that each state should decide for itself, 
to the greatest extent practicable, and consistent with the 
U.S. Constitution, the preferred method of selecting its 
elected officials and electors. While we fully support striving 
to improve the electoral process, the imposition of universal 
national standards is not the answer. Rather, improvements to 
the electoral process should be developed in concert with the 
states and localities, and not be thrust upon them, and we must 
recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
    By contrast, H.R. 281 would preempt existing election laws 
in twenty-two states. We disagree with the characterization 
made by the bill's sponsor, Mrs. Davis, that these laws are an 
``antiquated patchwork.'' Rather, we believe that there is no 
panacea, and that nationalized standards for the administration 
of elections undermine the traditional role of states as 
laboratories of democracy. On a more practical level, state and 
local elections administrators are better positioned than the 
U.S. Congress to develop and implement election procedures to 
best serve their voters--what works best in California or 
Oregon may not best serve the voters of Kansas or Michigan.
    Moreover, we are troubled by the concerns expressed to the 
Members of this Committee by the National Conference of State 
Legislatures (NCSL). State Legislatures are paying attention to 
this issue, and their concerns are well founded. It is natural 
that states would be concerned about being ``forced to overhaul 
their standards, protocols and policies in a very short period 
of time and with no appropriated federal dollars in place,'' 
and these concerns should be addressed.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures to the 
Committee on House Administration, April 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The adoption of the amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers, to 
postpone the effective date of this legislation until 2010, is 
merely one small step towards addressing these concerns. 
However, states whose laws are impacted by this legislation 
should be allowed to seek an extension of time to comply, in 
cases where such time is necessary for states to implement the 
safeguards necessary for expanded absentee voting.
    We support the amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers, providing 
that notwithstanding any other provision of H.R. 281, any state 
may continue to enforce any condition or requirement concerning 
the eligibility of an individual to obtain an absentee ballot 
by mail. This amendment failed on a party line vote of 3-4.
    Until the passage of the National Voter Registration Act 
(NVRA) in 1993, the federal government generally did not 
interfere with the administration of elections by state and 
local officials. However, long before the passage of NVRA, 
states implemented measures for the fair and efficient 
administration of elections, including absentee voting. For 
example, during the Civil War, twenty-six states passed laws 
allowing soldiers to vote absentee; and by 1924, all but three 
states had enacted absentee voting provisions. The federal 
government ought not to force states to abandon these measures. 
Instead, the federal government should strive to work with 
states to develop ways to improve election administration 
generally, including absentee ballots.
    Finally, we question the finding of Congress that an 
inequity of voting rights exists in the Untied States because 
voters in some states have the universal right to vote by mail 
while voters in other states do not. Historically, the absentee 
ballot has always been viewed as a privilege, not an absolute 
right. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained, the right to vote 
is unquestionably basic to a democracy, but the right to an 
absentee ballot is not.\2\ Preserving the rights of states to 
establish safeguards with respect to absentee voting does not 
interfere with the fundamental right to vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Prigmore v. Renfro, 356 F. Supp. 427, 432 (D.C.Ala., 1972), 
aff'd 410 U.S. 919, 93 S. Ct. 1369, 35 L.Ed.2d 582 (U.S.Ala. Feb 20, 
1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preventing fraud
    As with all aspects of election administration, the rules 
regarding absentee voting must be carefully assessed to ensure 
that the integrity of the electoral process is not sacrificed 
in the interest of expediency, and to this end, sufficient 
safeguards must be established. Our overriding concern is that 
legitimate votes may be cancelled out by fraudulent votes. This 
concern is particularly acute with respect to absentee voting, 
which inherently lacks the secrecy that is the hallmark of in-
person voting.
    Mail-in absentee voting is appropriate in cases where the 
voter would otherwise be unable to cast a ballot at the polls 
on Election Day, for example, the elderly, or overseas military 
service men and women. However, there is a genuine risk that 
the expansion of absentee voting may inadvertently create 
opportunities for those who would seek to systematically and in 
an organized fashion interfere with the electoral process. An 
examination of the legislative histories of states' absentee 
voting laws demonstrates that legislatures were concerned with 
the prevention of fraud when they enacted absentee voting 
requirements. Before forcing states to repeal these 
requirements, we must ensure that states are able to find other 
ways to address the potential for fraud and abuse.
    We question the assertion that no evidence exists 
demonstrating that the potential for fraud in absentee 
balloting is greater than the potential for fraud by any other 
means of voting. When a ballot is cast someplace other than the 
traditional polling place, it is much more difficult to 
guarantee that the ballot is being cast by an eligible voter, 
that his or her selection is made without inappropriate 
interference, and that the voted ballot makes it safely back to 
the elections office to be counted. For example, in 1996, in 
Dodge County, Georgia, supporters of candidates for sheriff 
were found guilty of paying voters for their absentee ballots. 
And in 2005, in Benton Harbor, Michigan, an individual was 
accused of unlawful possession of absentee ballots, and 
attempting to improperly influence absentee voters.
    We support the amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers, to require 
any state that offers no-excuse absentee voting to implement an 
attestation requirement under which a voter would sign a 
statement attesting that the ballot was requested voluntarily 
and without coercion, and that the ballot would be voted 
without outside influence. This amendment was, unfortunately, 
defeated by 3-4, again along party lines.
    Let there be no mistake: the intent of Mr. Ehlers' 
amendment was not to impose a second signature requirement, nor 
to create an independent grounds to challenge an absentee 
ballot. Moreover, contrary to the assertions made in opposition 
to this amendment, an attestation requirement does not 
criminalize the victim of voter intimidation. Perjury is a 
specific intent crime, which means that the government must 
demonstrate the voter voluntarily made the false statement with 
knowledge of its falsity. Accordingly, a voter who has been 
forced to falsely sign an attestation requirement has not made 
that statement voluntarily, and therefore will not be 
prosecuted.
    More importantly, an attestation requirement not only 
addresses the potential for fraud, but also draws attention to 
the solemnity of the act of casting a vote, reinforces the 
importance of secrecy of one's vote, and protects the freedom 
to vote as one desires. Therefore, we urge states that adopt 
so-called ``no excuse'' absentee voting to implement an 
attestation requirement to prevent improper casting of ballots.

                            III. CONCLUSION

    In certain circumstances, absentee voting provides a means 
for those who would otherwise not be able to participate in the 
democratic process to cast a ballot. However, H.R. 281, a 
federal mandate requiring states to implement across-the-board 
``no excuse'' absentee voting, raises fundamental questions 
about states' rights and preservation of the integrity of the 
electoral process.

                                   Vernon J. Ehlers.
                                   Daniel E. Lungren.
                                   
                                   
