[House Report 110-851]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress Rept. 110-851
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
VETERAN VOTING SUPPORT ACT
_______
September 15, 2008.--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. 6625]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 6625) to require the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to permit facilities of the Department of Veterans
Affairs to be designated as voter registration agencies, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
In section 4(2), strike the semicolon and insert the following: ``,
except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to waive any
requirement under State or local law regarding an individual's
eligibility to receive an absentee ballot or vote by absentee ballot in
any election;''.
Veteran Voting Support Act of 2008
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
H.R. 6625, the Veteran Voting Support Act, was introduced
in response to the Department of Veterans Affairs' voting
assistance policy adopted in Directive 2008-025\1\, which
denies our veterans the voter registration opportunities and
voting assistance they deserve. Despite several meetings and
concerns expressed by state election officials, advocacy
groups, and congressional members, including this Committee,
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) refused to change its
voting assistance policy. Consequently, this legislation would
require the VA to proactively provide voter registration
opportunities and enthusiastically assist our veterans with the
voting process. H.R. 6625 is co-sponsored by 37 Members of
Congress and supported by organizations that represent over six
million veterans and hundreds of thousands of concerned
citizens.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Please see Appendix A for Directive 2008-025.
\2\H.R. 6625 is supported by the American Legion, Paralyzed
Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign
Wars, Vietnam Veterans Association, American Association of People with
Disabilities, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Brennan
Center, DEMOS, Common Cause, People for the American Way, and the NAACP
Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF). Please see Appendix E for
Letters of Support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our veterans have dedicated their lives to protecting our
country and deserve every commitment from the government to
offer them the opportunity to participate in the political
process. However, it is apparent through the VA's policies and
actions that the VA views voter registration and assistance as
a hindrance rather than a responsibility. For example, the VA's
voting assistance policy only permits voting assistance if
requested and restricts opportunities for veterans to become
registered to vote. In addition, the VA's refusal to accept the
California Secretary of State's request for VA facilities to
help assist in registering veterans is unprecedented.\3\ The VA
should seriously and proactively assist our veterans with the
voting process. H.R. 6625 would require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to permit States to designate VA facilities as
voter registration agencies under Section 7 of the National
Voter Registration Act. As designated voter registration
agencies under Section 7, the VA facilities would be required
to regularly offer registration and assist veterans in voting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\James P. Peake, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, letter to Debra
Bowen, California Secretary of State, May 19, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation of Directive 2008-025 has created instances
where state election officials have been denied the opportunity
to educate and assist veterans with the voting process at VA
facilities. Specifically, in July of 2008 the Connecticut
Secretary of State was denied access to the West Haven Veterans
Center to educate veterans about the state's new voting
equipment as well as conduct voter registration efforts.\4\
This situation is unacceptable as election officials have the
expertise and knowledge to assist our veterans in the
registration and voting process. These sentiments were also
expressed in a July 16, 2008 letter sent by 20 Secretaries of
State urging the VA to change its voter assistance policy.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\O'Leary, Mary, ``State officials protest ban on voter
registration at VA facilities,'' New Haven Register, July 1, 2008.
\5\Bysiewicz, Susan, Connecticut Secretary of State, letter to
James P. Peake, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, July 16, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 6625 will ensure that the very individuals with voting
expertise and experience are not denied access to VA
facilities. To guarantee that veterans utilizing VA facilities
are able to benefit from the expertise of election officials,
H.R. 6625 specifically prohibits the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs from banning election administration officials from
providing voting information to veterans at designated VA
facilities. State election officials are responsible for
encouraging participation and ensuring integrity in our
election system and federal agencies should not undermine these
efforts.
H.R. 6625 also addresses the VA prohibition on voter
registration drives at VA facilities. By prohibiting non-
partisan voter registration drives, the VA overlooks one of the
most effective tools in promoting veterans' right to vote.
Across the country, millions of voters who historically have
not participated in elections have been energized to
participate this year through new and innovative registration
programs, many of which are conducted by election officials and
non-partisan organizations. It is unreasonable to deny veterans
these opportunities merely because they reside in VA
facilities. Therefore, H.R. 6625 would require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to allow election officials and non-partisan
organizations to provide voter registration and assistance at
VA facilities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\H.R. 6625 instructs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide
States the ability to designate facilities of the Department of
Veterans as voter registration agencies. However, the Committee
recognizes the range of VA facilities spans medical centers, outpatient
clinics, cemeteries and psychiatric clinics. States are urged to use
discretion in the designation of facilities and consider whether a VA
cemetery is an appropriate venue to conduct education and outreach. The
Committee does not believe it is. Furthermore, reasonable care must be
taken by all to ensure that ongoing medical care services at VA
facilities are not disrupted. The Committee anticipates that the States
will take care regarding this imperative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VA has repeatedly objected to voter registration drives
under the premise that local VA facilities would have the
purportedly burdensome task of determining which organizations
are in fact non-partisan and which are partisan. This task has
already been accomplished through 26 U.S.C. Sec. 501(c)(3),
the registration of non-profit charities under the United
States Internal Revenue Code. By allowing 501(c)(3)
organizations to conduct registration drives, local VA
facilities would not have to investigate whether an
organization has a political affiliation. Instead, an
organization that has been classified by the United States
Government as a 501(c)(3) organization in good standing should
be considered non-partisan. The VA can rest assured that if the
Internal Revenue Service finds that an organization is
violating its status as a 501(c)(3) organization, the proper
steps will be taken to remedy the situation; in fact, the
draconian consequences of violating 501(c)(3) standards make
most non-profits extraordinary careful to avoid such
violations. In addition, despite claims made by the VA, the
Hatch Act (53 Stat. 1147) does not prohibit federal employees
from assisting in voter registration drives, nor does the Hatch
Act prohibit federal property from being used for nonpartisan
education and registration activities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\``Political Activity and the Federal Employee,'' U.S. Office of
Special Counsel, December 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 6625 also requires designated VA facilities to provide
absentee voting information, assist veterans in registering as
well as voting absentee, and work with election officials to
ensure proper delivery of voting materials. These additional
requirements are necessary to ensure the VA is proactively
assisting our veterans. Furthermore, many veterans using the VA
facilities may be disabled and may require additional
assistance.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\There have been legitimate concerns about the requirement that
the VA make available absentee ballots when requested. It should be
noted that the VA should not store blank absentee ballots at facilities
but rather ensure requested absentee ballots sent by local election
offices are made available to inidividuals who request them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, the VA has argued that providing voter registration
opportunities will disrupt facility operations. We have heard
these unsupported arguments before, by critics of the National
Voter Registration Act requirements. However, as witnessed
through Departments of Motor Vehicles' ``motor voter''
registrations, agencies can successfully conduct their primary
responsibilities and register voters as well.\9\ In addition,
as noted by Ms. Kathy Truss of the Michigan Department of Human
Services during the April 1, 2008 Committee on House
Administration's Subcommittee on Elections Hearing,
``compliance with the National Voter Registration Act is not
just another federal mandate; it is a key component for
families to act on their own behalf and become part of the
public debate.''\10\ Promoting civic engagement at the
Department of Veterans Affairs should not be viewed as a
disruption in operations; rather, it is an instrumental
component of providing medical and social support services to
our veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\It should be noted that of the 36 million voter registration
applications processed from 2004-2006, over 50% were received from
motor vehicle agencies or other public assistance agencies. U.S.
Election Assistance Commission's ``The Impact of the National Voter
Registration Act, 2005-2006.''
\10\Hearing on the National Voter Registration Act, Section 7: The
Challenges That Public Assistance Agencies Face. 110th Congress 2nd
Sess. Page 95 (April 1, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION
Section One--Establishes the short title of this legislation as the
``Veteran Voting Support Act''
Section Two: Findings
Finds that veterans have risked the greatest
sacrifice in the name of our country and deserve to be
supported by the people and the government of the United
States.
Finds that veterans are especially qualified to
understand issues of foreign policy and should be able to voice
that understanding through voting.
Finds that the Department of Veterans Affairs
should make every effort to assist veterans in participating in
our democracy by helping veterans register and vote.
Section Three--Department of Veterans Affairs facilities as voter
registration agencies
Requires that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
permit states to designate VA facilities as voter registration
agencies under Section 7 of the National Voter Registration
Act.
Section Four--Assistance with absentee ballots
Requires VA facilities designated as voter
registration agencies to provide voting information, assist
veterans in registering as well as voting, and work with
election officials to ensure proper delivery of voting
materials. Provides that nothing in this act may be construed
to waive any requirement under State or local law regarding an
individual's eligibility to receive an absentee ballot or vote
by absentee ballot.
Section Five--Assistance provided by non-partisan organizations
Requires that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
allow non-partisan organizations to provide voter registration
and assistance at VA facilities.
Section Six--Assistance provided by election administration officials
Prohibits the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from
banning election administration officials from providing voting
information to veterans at any VA facility.
Defines `voting information' as non-partisan
information intended for the public about voting, which
includes voter registration, voting systems, absentee
balloting, polling locations, and other important resources for
voters.
Section Seven--Annual report
Requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submit
to Congress an annual report on how the Secretary has complied
with the requirements of this Act.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATION INTRODUCTION
On July 29, 2008, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, along with 37
members of the House, introduced H.R. 6625, which was referred
to the Committee on House Administration with an additional
referral to the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. On
Wednesday, July 30, 2008, the Committee met to mark up H.R.
6625. The Committee ordered H.R. 6625 be favorably reported to
the House with an amendment by a voice vote.
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. There were no recorded votes during the
consideration of H.R. 6625.
Amendment agreed to by voice vote
Ehlers Amendment #2: This amendment would provide
clarification language in Section 4 that nothing in this act
may be construed to waive any requirement under State or local
law regarding an individual's eligibility to receive an
absentee ballot or vote by absentee ballot. The amendment was
agreed to by a voice vote.
Amendments not agreed to by voice vote
Ehlers Amendment #1: This amendment would remove the
requirement in Section 4 that the Department of Veterans
Affairs make absentee ballots available as well as assist
veterans in completing absentee ballots. The amendment was not
agreed to by a voice vote.
Ehlers Amendment #3: This amendment would remove Section 5
of the legislation, which requires the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to permit non-partisan organizations to provide voter
registration and assistance at VA facilities. The amendment was
not agreed to by a voice vote.
Ehlers Amendment #4: This amendment would limit the VA
facilities that states can designate as voter registration
agencies under Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act
to only those in which the Veterans Affairs Voluntary Service
does not provide voter registration assistance. The amendment
was not agreed to by a voice vote.
Ehlers Amendment #5: This amendment would limit Section 4
requirements to only inpatient or residential facilities. The
amendment was not agreed to 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 the
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 I, 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. 6625 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. 6625 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 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:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 15, 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. 6625, the Veteran
Voting Support Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dwayne M.
Wright.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Sunshine
(For Peter R. Orszag, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 6625--Veteran Voting Support Act
H.R. 6625 would require the Secretary of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) to allow states to designate VA
facilities as voter registration sites and to provide
information and assistance to individuals wishing to register
to vote or to cast an absentee ballot. The bill also would
permit nonpartisan organizations--such as the League of Women
Voters--to provide such information and assistance at VA
facilities. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 6625 would
cost less than $500,000 over the 2009-2013 period, subject to
appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the bill would
not affect direct spending or revenues.
The 1,330 facilities under VA's jurisdiction include Vet
Centers, VA Medical Centers, community-based outpatient
clinics, regional offices, and cemeteries. Assuming that all
but the national cemeteries--about 135 in total--are feasible
as voter registration sites, about 1,200 facilities could be
used to offer the services that would be required under H.R.
6625.
The materials necessary for voter registration and absentee
balloting are prepared by the states. The states also have
existing programs to train individuals on compliance with the
National Voter Registration Act. Furthermore, VA recently
announced plans to use the managers of its Voluntary Services
Program (VSP) as site coordinators to direct the efforts of
volunteers working to ensure timely delivery of materials and
information to individuals needing assistance with voter
registration at VA hospitals and clinics. Assuming that VSP
managers or current VA employees would be used as site
coordinators at other VA facilities, and that most of the work
would be done by volunteers, CBO expects that the costs
associated with completing those extra duties would be less
than $500,000 over the 2009-2013 period.
H.R. 6625 also would require VA to complete annual
compliance reports to the Congress outlining its efforts to
utilize VA facilities as voter registration sites. CBO
estimates that implementing section 7 would cost less than
$500,000 over the 2009-2013 period, subject to appropriation of
the necessary amounts.
H.R. 6625 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
This estimate was prepared by Dwayne M. Wright. The
estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
H.R. 6625 makes no changes to existing law.
MINORITY VIEWS
H.R. 6625 Veteran Voting Support Act (VVSA)
On July 30, 2008, the Committee on House Administration
ordered H.R. 6625 reported favorably by voice vote. H.R. 6625
provides for the designation of Veterans Affairs facilities as
Voter Registration Agencies under section 7 of the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993, establishes additional
requirements with respect to the provision of special absentee
voting services at such facilities, and prohibits the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs from excluding third party voter
registration groups from VA facilities even when doing so is in
the best interest of the Veterans who use these facilities.
While we laud the Committee for addressing the critical
issue of enfranchising those who have served our nation, and we
support some of the bill's provisions, we have serious concerns
about the breadth of H.R. 6625, and the potential for
unintended detrimental consequences. In addition, we are
disappointed by the manner in which the Majority introduced
this legislation--less than twenty-four hours before bringing
it to mark up--which left insufficient time for meaningful
reflection and discussion about this important issue and denied
the members of this Committee the benefit of receiving
testimony from interested parties.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FACILITES AS VOTER REGISTRATION
AGENCIES; SPECIAL ABSENTEE VOTING SERVICES
Section 3 of H.R. 6625 permits a State to designate VA
facilities located in that state as voter registration agencies
(VRAs) under section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act.
Section 4 then imposes upon VA facilities designated as VRAs
additional duties with respect to absentee voting services.
While we do not categorically oppose the designation of VA
facilities as voter registration agencies where a state seeks
such designation (provided that in doing so patient care is not
compromised), we are concerned about the consequences of
burdening VA facilities with additional, potentially redundant
obligations.
As a preliminary matter, we note that H.R. 6625 fails to
take advantage of the important role of the VA's Voluntary
Service (VAVS), one of the largest centralized volunteer
programs in the federal government. In order to ensure that
veterans receive voter assistance services in a non-partisan
manner, with minimal disruption to facility operations, and at
the least risk to patients, we believe voter assistance
services should be coordinated through the VAVS to the greatest
extent practicable. Moreover, under VHA Directive 2008-025, the
VA already requires that each facility Director ensure that
each facility has a policy addressing assistance to VA patients
who seek to exercise their right to register and vote,
including informing all patients of the opportunity to receive
voting assistance, and obtaining and maintaining materials used
to assist with voter registration and voting.
Second, we are concerned about the special absentee voting
services imposed upon VA facilities that are designated as VRAs
pursuant to section 3 of H.R. 6625. Under section 7 of the
NVRA, which applies to public assistance agencies, public
libraries, marriage license bureaus, unemployment compensation
offices, military recruiting offices, and voter registration
services provided to a person with a disability at the person's
home, certain services must be made available: Distribution of
voter registration applications, assistance in completing voter
registration applications, and acceptance of completed voter
registration forms for transmittal to the appropriate
office.\1\ H.R. 6625 would impose upon VA facilities additional
duties relating specifically to absentee voting; however, the
Majority has not provided any justification for this special
treatment of VA facilities under NVRA. If there are concerns
about the adequacy of the services made available at all VRAs,
the Committee should investigate this issue before haphazardly
imposing additional obligations on VA facilities, especially
where such a burden may cause disruptions to facility
operations. This is also an example of how the Committee would
have benefitted from conducting a hearing on this bill before
marking it up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973gg-5(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Veterans Administration currently operates
approximately 155 medical centers, 125 nursing homes, 717
ambulatory care and clinic facilities, 45 residential
rehabilitation treatment programs, 209 vet centers, 125
cemeteries, and hundreds of administrative and other offices
nationwide. Clearly the voter assistance needs of veterans at
these facilities vary. For example, where a resident of a VA
facility is unable to vote in person on Election Day for health
reasons, it is appropriate and desirable to provide that
individual with assistance with absentee voting. However, in
other circumstances, it may be duplicative or unnecessary to
provide voter assistance above and beyond what is required at
all other NVRA section 7 VRAs. Recognizing this distinction,
Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment that would limit the scope of
the applicability of the special absentee voting provisions to
those VA facilities where patients reside; however, this
amendment was defeated along party lines.
In addition, we specifically object to requiring the VA to
provide ``absentee ballots upon request.'' We believe that
those who are eligible to vote absentee under the laws of the
state of their residence should be offered absentee voting
information and the means to request an absentee ballot. As
stated supra, we expect VA facilities to provide their patients
with the opportunity to receive registration and voting
assistance when needed. However, we have serious concerns about
potential conflicts with state law regarding the handling of
absentee ballots under this provision, and we question the
wisdom and practicability of such a mandate. No other NVRA
section 7 VRA is required to keep on hand a stack of absentee
ballots. An amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers, which would strike
the provision requiring absentee ballots upon demand, was
defeated along partisan lines.
Mr. Ehlers also offered an amendment to section 4,
providing that nothing in this bill may be construed to waive
any requirement under State or Local law regarding an
individual's eligibility to receive an absentee ballot or vote
absentee. This amendment, which was adopted by voice vote,
illustrates the care which Congress must exercise when
legislating in the area of elections, which have traditionally
been the province of state and local officials.
THIRD PARTY VOTER REGISTRATION ORGANIZATIONS
Section 5 of H.R. 6625 requires the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to permit certain organizations to provide voter
registration information and assistance at any VA facility.
Although the Committee on House Administration does not have
jurisdiction over this section of the bill (and accordingly we
were not able to offer any amendments), we nonetheless strongly
object to this section.
Specifically, section 5 provides that the VA ``shall permit
a meaningful opportunity for nonpartisan organizations to
provide voter registration information and assistance'' at VA
facilities. However, the bill does not define ``meaningful
opportunity,'' ``voter registration information and
assistance,'' or ``nonpartisan organization.'' Without
providing definitions of these key terms, section 5 is overly
vague and difficult to apply fairly and consistently. For
example, the phrase ``meaningful opportunity'' means different
things to different people, and it would be inexcusable for a
Veteran who wishes to convalesce in a private setting to be
intruded upon by volunteers from a voter registration group, no
matter how well intentioned.
A recent California case illustrates these risks inherent
in allowing outside organizations unfettered access to VA
facilities and patients, as section 5 of H.R. 6225 provides
for:
In April 2004, the chairman of the Santa Clara County
California Democratic Central Committee (SCCDC), Steven
Preminger, along with two other individuals, visited a
VA facility in Menlo Park, California, intending to
register voters. One of the individuals accompanying
Mr. Preminger was wearing a ``John Kerry'' button, and
introduced the group as being affiliated with the
Democratic Party. When Mr. Preminger and his associates
were denied permission to register voters, based on a
VA regulation prohibiting partisan activities on VA
property, Mr. Preminger sued the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
In August 2007, a federal court upheld the regulation
generally prohibiting partisan activities at VA
facilities, holding that ``the VA must be able to
maintain a place of healing and rehabilitation for the
veterans for which it provides services.''\ 2\ In
August 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision holding
that the Department of Veterans Affairs properly
prohibited Mr. Preminger registering voters at the
Menlo Park facility and that the VA's application of
the regulation was reasonable and viewpoint neutral.\3\
The Court recognized that the ``primary mission'' of
the VA facility is to provide veterans with needed
healthcare, and that ``the VA's concern that voter
registration drives could compromise its ability to
provide health care services to veterans was a
reasonable rationale for denying [Preminger's]
permission to register voters.''\4\ And moreover, the
court held that the VA ``reasonably concluded'' that
``supervising numerous voter registration campaigns
would be difficult and time consuming, diverting
resources vital to the residents' treatment.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Preminger v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 517 F.3d 1299 (Fed.
Cir. 2008).
\3\Preminger v. Peake, et al., 2008 WL 3168617 (9th Cir. 2008).
\4\Id., at *5.
\5\Id.
The grounds upon which the Court relied in upholding the
VA's prohibition on partisan voter registration activities at
Menlo Park apply equally to any voter registration activities:
interference with the provision of healthcare to Veterans, and
disruption to facility operations. These concerns do not
necessarily reflect a mistrust of the motivations of third
party organizations that seek to conduct voter registration
activities, or their volunteers, but rather demonstrate a
commitment to protecting the health and dignity of our nation's
Veterans.
Accordingly, we were troubled that the Majority defeated an
amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers that would prohibit the
provision of voter registration services where doing so would
be detrimental to the health of, or interfere with the
provision of other services to any patient or beneficiary.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Because of the Committee's lack of jurisdiction over section 5,
this amendment, as drafted, would have applied only to section 4.
However, we believe these concerns apply to the provision of voter
registration services at all VA facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION DIRECTIVE 2008-053
On September 8, 2008, several weeks after the Committee
marked up H.R. 6625, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs issued a new directive revising the
Department's policy regarding the provision of voter assistance
services at VA facilities. Specifically, the new Directive
allows state and local election officials and qualified non-
partisan organizations some access to VA hospitals and
outpatient facilities for the purpose of assisting VA officials
in registering voters. The new policy also requires that state
and local government officials and outside groups coordinate
their voter registration activities with the VA to avoid
potential disruptions in critical patient care.
In addition, the Directive mandates each VA facility
establish a written policy on voter assistance that addresses
the following:
(a) Patients are granted authorized absence for such
periods of time as necessary to register and to vote, subject
to the opinions of their health care providers.
(b) If patients are unable to leave the facility,
assistance is provided for registering and for voting by
absentee ballot.
(c) Information on the voting assistance program is posted
throughout the facility.
(d) Criteria for evaluating the time, place, and manner of
voter registration and voter assistance activities are
established.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ 7\VHA Directive 2008-053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We applaud the VA's ongoing efforts to ensure that our
nation's Veterans are provided voter registration services.
Nevertheless, as we expressed during the markup of H.R. 6625,
we have serious concerns about allowing third-party groups
unfettered access to VA facilities; and accordingly, we are
pleased that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs reflected this
concern in Directive 2008-053, requiring VA facilities to
establish criteria to evaluate appropriate times, places and
manners of voter registration activities conducted at their
facilities. Likewise, we supported establishing a role for the
VA's Voluntary Service (VAVS) in voter registration at VA
facilities, and therefore we support the VA's decision to
involve the VAVS with implementation of the new voter
assistance policy. However, we are not assured that these new
policies will be sufficient to address our concerns until we
can determine with certainty that the voter registration
practices of third party organizations are not conducted in a
partisan manner and will not disrupt a facility's ability to
provide patient care.
Directive 2008-053 addresses some, but not all of our
concerns with H.R. 6625. Nevertheless, at this time it is our
sincerest hope that Directive 2008-053 will provide the
necessary assistance to Veterans that elect to exercise their
right to register to vote. But the real test will come in the
implementation of the new policy. And, in the meantime, we see
no reason to move forward with H.R. 6625.
CONCLUSION
Nothing is more important than ensuring that every vote is
counted, and every eligible citizen is able to cast a ballot.
Accordingly, we fully support measures to guarantee that
members of the Armed Forces and our nation's Veterans are
provided with sufficient information, opportunities, and
balloting materials to foster their participation in Federal
elections. However, we have serious concerns about the
unintended consequences of H.R. 6625, especially any potential
harm to the health and dignity of our nation's Veterans.
Finally, while the Majority rushed to mark up H.R. 6625
within twenty-four hours of its introduction in the House of
Representatives, they have been unwilling to address the
problem of the disenfranchisement of the members of our
nation's Armed Forces. Data from the 2004 and 2006 elections
reveal that our military service members stationed overseas
face substantial obstacles to their participation in elections,
including untimely receipt of ballots. Specifically, the U.S.
Election Assistance Commission, in a September 2007 UOCAVA
Survey, found that, out of the overseas military voters who
requested absentee ballots for the 2006 election, only 47.6% of
them actually had their ballots cast or counted; and moreover,
of the military and overseas absentee ballots that reached
election officials, nearly 10% were rejected because they were
received after the deadline. Recognizing the need to act on
this problem, Rep. Kevin McCarthy introduced the Military Voter
Protection Act of 2008 (MVP Act), which would provide for the
expedited return of completed ballots. In addition, Rep. Roy
Blunt introduced H. Con Res. 388, expressing the sense of
Congress that the federal government should take certain
additional and timely measures to ensure that members of the
Armed Forces and their dependents are provided with reasonable
information on how to register to vote and vote in the 2008
general elections. Unfortunately, the Majority has refused to
act on either of these pieces of legislation. We urge the
Majority to consider the voting rights of the members of our
Armed Forces as well as our nation's veterans.
Vernon J. Ehlers.
Daniel E. Lungren.
Kevin McCarthy.