[House Report 118-386]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2nd Session } { 118-386
======================================================================
CITIZEN BALLOT PROTECTION ACT
_______
February 13, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Steil, from the Committee on House Administration, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4316]
The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 4316) to amend the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 to permit a State to include as part of the mail
voter registration form a requirement that applicants provide
proof of citizenship, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Committee Action................................................. 10
Committee Consideration.......................................... 11
Committee Votes.................................................. 11
Statement of Constitutional Authority............................ 12
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 13
Statement of Budget Authority and Related Items.................. 13
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 13
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 13
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 13
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 13
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 13
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 14
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 14
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 14
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 14
Dissenting Views................................................. 16
The amendment (stated in terms of the page and line numbers
of the introduced bill) is as follows:
Page 2, insert after line 14 the following (and redesignate
the succeeding provision accordingly):
(b) Technical Correction.--Section 6(a)(1) of such Act (52 U.S.C.
20505(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``Federal Election Commission'' and
inserting ``Election Assistance Commission''.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 4316, the Citizen Ballot Protection Act, introduced by
Representative Gary M. Palmer (AL-06) and co-sponsored by
Representatives Chuck Edwards (NC-11), Andrew Clyde (GA-09),
Randy Weber Sr. (TX-14), Clay Higgins (LA-03), Jeff Duncan (SC-
03), Dan Crenshaw (TX-02), Andy Biggs (AZ-05), and Mike Bost
(IL-12) amends the National Voter Registration Act to allow
States to require documentary proof of citizenship on the
national mail voter registration form for applicants that
register to vote in federal elections. In spite of the
Constitution's vestment with the States the power to set and
enforce voter qualifications, the Supreme Court in Arizona v.
Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc.,\1\ interpreted the
National Voter Registration Act (``NVRA'') to prohibit States
from verifying the citizenship status of applicants that
register on this form. Instead, the form only requires
applicants on their oath or attestation, under penalty of
perjury, to verify that they are a United States citizen. This
legislation would overrule Inter Tribal Council's statutory
interpretation and recognize the States' constitutional
authority to require documentary proof of citizenship on the
federal voter registration form provided for under the NVRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\133 S.Ct. 2247 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background and Need for Legislation
BACKGROUND
Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution\2\
(``the Elections Clause'') explains that the States have the
primary authority over election administration, the ``times,
places, and manner of holding elections, which includes voter
registration. Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress
a purely secondary role\3\ to alter or create election laws
only in the extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or
obstinate refusal to pass election laws. As do other aspects of
our federal system, this division of sovereignty continues to
serve to protect one of Americans' most precious freedoms, the
right to vote.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 4, cl. 1 (``[t]he Times, Places and
Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be
prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress
may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations . . .'').
\3\Although the text of the Elections Clause, read literally and
without the benefit of context, might suggest Congress has unlimited
authority in this space, an examination of an examination of history,
precedent, the Framers' words, debates concerning ratification, the
Supreme Court, and the Constitution itself provide that this is not the
case. See Report: The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional
Authority Over Elections, Comm. on H. Admin. (Republicans) (Aug. 12,
2021), https://republicanscha.house.gov/sites/
republicans.cha.house.gov/files/documents/
Report_The%20Elections%20Clause_States%20Primary%20Constitutional%20Auth
ority %20over%20Elections%20%28Aug%2011%202021%29.pdf.
\4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal Constitution contains several voting rights
amendments, all of which only protect ``the right of citizens
of the United States'' in the voting process.\5\ To enforce
those rights, federal law makes it unlawful for non-citizens to
vote in federal elections.\6\ Similarly, federal law prohibits
foreign nationals\7\ from contributing or donating in
connection with a federal, state, or local election,\8\ making
a contribution or donation to a committee of a political
party,\9\ or making an expenditure (including an independent
expenditure) or disbursement for an electioneering
communication.\10\ Although the Supreme Court of the United
States has never been presented with the question whether the
foreign national prohibition violates the First Amendment, it
has previously affirmed a three-judge court's decision,
authored by then-Judge Kavanaugh, which upheld the foreign
national prohibition with respect to foreign nationals who
wanted to make contributions to federal and State
candidates.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See U.S. Const. Amend. XV, Sec. 1 ``The right of citizens of the
United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition
of servitude.''; U.S. Const. Amend. XIX, Sec. 1 ``The right of citizens
of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of sex.''; U.S. Const. Amend.
XXIV, Sec. 1 ``The right of citizens of the United States to vote in
any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for
electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or
Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or
other tax.''; U.S. Const. Amend. XXVI, Sec. 1 ``The right of citizens
of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of age.''
\6\See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 611. Each of the voting rights amendments
listed in the previous footnote provide the authority for Congress to
enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation. In South Carolina v.
Katzenbach, the Supreme Court held that Congress has the power to act
under this authority as it would any of its powers under Article I,
Section 8 as articulated in McCulloch v. Maryland. See South Carolina
v. Katzenbach, 383, U.S. 301, 326-27 (1966). Allowing non-citizens to
cast ballots in American elections weakens our electoral system,
directly and indirectly impacts Federal policy and funding decisions
and candidate choice through the election of State and local officials,
dilutes the value of citizenship, and sows distrust in our elections
system; Even if a State has the sovereign authority, no State should
permit non-citizens to cast ballots in State or local elections. See
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; U.S. Const. Amend. XV; U.S. Const. Amend. XIX;
U.S. Const. Amend. XXIV; U.S. Const. Amend. XXVI.
\7\Federal law defines foreign national as an individual who is not
a citizen of the United States and not lawfully admitted for permanent
residence under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(20) or a foreign principal, as
defined in 22 U.S.C. Sec. 611(b).
\8\52 U.S.C. Sec. 30121(a)(1)(A).
\9\Id. at Sec. 30121(a)(1)(B).
\10\Id. at Sec. 30121(a)(1)(C). Federal law defines an
electioneering communication as ``any broadcast, cable, or satellite
communication which--refers to a clearly identified candidate for
Federal office; is made within--60 days before a general, special, or
runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or 30 days
before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a
political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the
office sought by the candidate; and in the case of a communication
which refers to a candidate for an office other than President or Vice
President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.'' Id. at
Sec. 30104(f)(3).
\11\See Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 288 (D.D.C. 2011),
aff'd, 565 U.S. 1104 (2012). Importantly, the three-judge decision did
not rely on Congress' power under the Elections Clause of Article I,
Section 4 to justify the foreign national spending prohibition. Cf.
Report: The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional Authority
Over Elections, Comm. on H. Admin. (Republicans) (Aug. 12, 2021),
https://republicanscha.house.gov/sites/republicans.cha.house.gov/files/
documents/
Report_The%20Elections%20Clause_States%20Primary%20Constitutional
%20Authority%20over%20Elections%20%28Aug%2011%202021%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Elections Clause provides States the primary
authority over election administration, it and other
constitutional provisions also provide States the power to
establish voter qualifications. Specifically, ``Article I,
Sec. 2, cl. 1, provides that electors in each State for the
House of Representatives `shall have the Qualifications
requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State
Legislature,' and the Seventeenth Amendment adopts the same
criterion for senatorial elections.''\12\ Similarly, Article II
gives State legislatures the power to appoint presidential
electors\13\ and every State has delegated this responsibility
to its voters.\14\ States can establish voter qualifications
for voters voting in a presidential election that do not run
afoul of other constitutional commands.\15\ These explicit
constitutional commands make clear that States are given the
authority to establish voter qualifications, not Congress; a
principle the Supreme Court has reaffirmed twice in the past
decade.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Inter Tribal Council, 133 S.Ct. at 2247, 2258.
\13\U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 2 ``Each state shall appoint,
in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of
electors . . .''; See also Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000) (``The
individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for
electors for the President of the United States unless and until the
state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to
implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college.'')
\14\See Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S.Ct. 2316, 2328 (2020)
(``State election laws evolved to reinforce that development, ensuring
that a State's electors would vote the same way as its citizens. As
noted earlier, state legislatures early dropped out of the picture; by
the mid-1800s, ordinary voters chose electors.'')
\15\See Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 28-29 (1968) (``State laws
enacted pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 1, of the Constitution to regulate
the selection of electors must meet the requirements of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.'')
\16\ In Inter Tribal Council, 133 S.Ct. at 2258, Inc, every justice
agreed on this point. ``Prescribing voting qualifications, therefore,
``forms no part of the power to be conferred upon the national
government'' by the Elections Clause . . .'' Id. at 2258; ``both the
plain text and the history of the Voter Qualifications Clause, U.S.
Const., Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment authorize
States to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections,
which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those
qualifications are satisfied.'' Id. at 2262 (Thomas., J. dissenting);
``Under the Constitution, the States, not Congress, have the authority
to establish the qualifications of voters in elections for Members of
Congress. See Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 1 (House); Amdt. 17 (Senate).'' Id.
at 2270 (Alito., J. dissenting). See also Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph
Institute, 138 S.Ct. 1833, 1846 (2018) (``The Constitution gives States
the authority to set the qualifications for voting in congressional
elections, Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 1; Amdt. 17, as well as the authority to
set the ``Times, Places and Manner'' to conduct such elections in the
absence of contrary congressional direction, Art. I, Sec. 4, cl. 1.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every State has used its constitutional authority to
establish voter qualifications, often consisting of age,
residency, and citizenship requirements.\17\ Several States
have enshrined U.S. citizenship in their State constitution as
a qualification for voters to vote in State elections.\18\ To
enforce both the federal and State constitutional and statutory
prohibitions on noncitizen voting, several States have enacted
documentary proof of citizenship requirements when applicants
register to vote.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\See Kramer v. Union Free School District 395 U.S. 621, 625
(1969) (`` . . . States have the power to impose reasonable
citizenship, age, and residency requirements on the availability of the
ballot.''); See also Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 91 (1965)
(``There can be no doubt either of the historic function of the States
to establish, on a nondiscriminatory basis, and in accordance with the
Constitution, other qualifications for the exercise of the
franchise.'')
\18\See Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States,
Ballotpedia, available at https://ballotpedia.org/
Laws_permitting_noncitizens_ to_vote_in_ the_United_States.
\19\See, e.g. A.R.S. Sec. 16-121.01; MS Code Sec. 23-15-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Voter Registration Act (``NVRA'') was signed
into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993 ``to establish
procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens
who register to vote in elections for Federal office; . . .
protect the integrity of the electoral process; and . . .
ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are
maintained.''\20\ The legislation is commonly referred to as
the ``motor voter'' law because it requires States to provide
individuals with voter registration materials when they apply
for a driver's license.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\52 U.S.C. Sec. 20501(b).
\21\Id. at Sec. 20503(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One way the NVRA increased the number of eligible citizens
who register to vote in elections for Federal office was the
creation of the national mail voter registration application
form (``federal form'').\22\ Setting aside any constitutional
concerns with this direction,\23\ the NVRA requires each State
to ``accept and use'' the federal form for applicants that
register to vote in elections for federal office.\24\ When
applicants register on the federal form, they must follow the
State specific instructions for the State where they are
applying to register to vote. But in order to be placed on the
federal form, those instructions must first be accepted by the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (``EAC''). When some States
requested that the EAC include their documentary proof of
citizenship requirement as part of their state-specific
instructions, the EAC refused, and the litigation described
below ensued. Today, the federal form only requires applicants
to swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that they are a
U.S. citizen.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\Id. at Sec. 20505.
\23\See Report: The Elections Clause: States' Primary
Constitutional Authority Over Elections, Comm. on H. Admin.
(Republicans) (Aug. 12, 2021), https://republicanscha.house.gov/sites/
republicans.cha.house.gov/files/documents/
Report_The%20Elections%20Clause_States%20Primary%20
Constitutional%20Authority%20over%20Elections%20%28Aug%2011%202021%29.pd
f.
\24\52 U.S.C. Sec. 20505(a). With the codification of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002, the federal form went from being housed with
the Federal Election Commission to the Election Assistance Commission.
See Id. at Sec. 20508.
\25\National Mail Voter Registration Form, U.S. Election Assistance
Commission (Dec. 29, 2023), https://www.eac.gov/voters/national-mail-
voter-registration-form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 200 that
required voters to present proof of citizenship when they
register to vote.\26\ To prove their U.S. citizenship,
applicants could present a photocopy of their passport or birth
certificate, a driver's license number, if the license states
that the issuing authority verified the applicant's U.S.
citizenship, evidence of naturalization, tribal identification,
or other methods pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986.\27\ But the EAC refused to include Arizona's
documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the State
specific instructions Arizona asked for on the federal
form.\28\ In response, Arizona enacted a statute that required
State officials to reject an applicant's federal form without
documentary proof of citizenship.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Inter Tribal Council, 133 S.Ct. 2252 (2013).
\27\Id.
\28\Id.
\29\Id. at 2254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., the
Supreme Court (``Court'') held that the NVRA's command that
States ``accept and use'' the federal form preempted Arizona's
requirement that State officials reject an applicant's federal
form without documentary proof of citizenship.\30\ By
interpreting solely the plain statutory text of the NVRA
without reaching the constitutional question, the Court
declined to determine to whether the NVRA's ``accept and use''
requirement was constitutional if it prevented a State from
enforcing its constitutionally sound voter qualifications. As a
result, Arizona, and every other State with a documentary proof
of citizenship requirement have been required to accept the
registration of applicants that used the federal form and allow
them to vote in federal elections, any state law to the
contrary notwithstanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\Id. at 2260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court first rejected Arizona's textual argument that
the NVRA did not prohibit States from asking applicants for
additional information before registering them to vote. It
reasoned that while the NVRA requires States to accept a
completed federal form, States remain constitutionally
competent to create their own voter registration forms for
state elections, including those that may require information
not contemplated by the federal form, and that the federal
form's purpose was to serve as a backstop to ensure one method
of registering to vote in federal elections was always
available.\31\ As such, the Court determined that the plain
meaning of the NVRA's text required States to register to vote
for federal elections all eligible applicants who complete the
federal form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\Id. at 2254-56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona also argued that the presumption against pre-
emption should prevent the Court from reaching the plain
meaning of the NVRA's text. Under this canon of statutory
interpretation, courts will read a statute to protect State
legislative authority unless overriding State authority was the
manifest purpose of the statute.\32\ The Court rejected this
argument noting that the NVRA was passed pursuant to the
Elections Clause, and whenever Congress enacts legislation
under this clause, it necessarily displaces State
legislation.\33\ Importantly, the Court's gloss on the scope of
the Elections Clause is nothing more than an obiter dictum
because it was not necessary to decide the Court's statutory
interpretation of ``accept and use'' in the NVRA.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\Id. at 2256-57.
\33\Id.; See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. When the Supremacy Clause
applies, federal law displaces any State law to the contrary.
\34\Inter Tribal Council, 133 S.Ct. at 2253-54. Cf Id. at 2263-64
(Thomas, J., dissenting), Id. at 2271-72 (Alito, J, dissenting). Cf.
Report: The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional Authority
Over Elections, Comm. on H. Admin. (Republicans) (Aug. 12, 2021),
https://republicanscha.house.gov/sites/republicans.cha.house.gov/files/
documents/Report_
The%20Elections%20Clause_States%20Primary%20Constitutional%20Authority%2
0over%20
Elections%20%28Aug%2011%202021%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the Court was concerned that the plain meaning of the
NVRA might prevent Arizona from getting the information it
needs to enforce its citizenship requirement. It recognized
this would raise constitutional concerns as the federal
government has no authority to prescribe voting qualifications,
and a federal statute that prohibited States from getting the
information it needed to enforce its qualifications would raise
serious constitutional problems.\35\ In response to this
problem, the United States argued the NVRA could be read to
require the EAC to place State specific instructions if the
information is necessary for a State to assess the eligibility
of an applicant.\36\ The Court avoided the constitutional
question by invoking the constitutional avoidance canon\37\ and
suggested that Arizona ask the EAC again to place its
documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal
form with the alternative that if the EAC refused, Arizona
could sue the EAC for violating the Administrative Procedure
Act (``APA'').\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\Inter Tribal Council, 133 S.Ct. at 2258-59.
\36\Id. at 2259. Because the EAC had already rejected Arizona's
request to have the documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the
federal form, this argument makes little sense.
\37\Under this canon of statutory interpretation, ``if a statute
has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution,
courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.'' Nat'l Fed'n of
Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 2593 (2012) (opinion of
Roberts, C.J.).
\38\Inter Tribal Council, 133 S.Ct. at 2259-60. Both dissents
pointed out that asking the EAC a second time made little sense,
especially in light of the fact that the EAC had no commissioners to
review and accept or deny a State's request at the time the opinion was
issued. See Id. at 2270 (Thomas, J., dissenting) and Id. at 2273
(Alito, J., dissenting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his solo dissent, Justice Thomas accepted Arizona's
interpretation of the NVRA that the federal form is one of
several steps in the voter registration process in light of
Arizona's constitutional authority to set voter
qualifications.\39\ Importantly, he explained the narrow reach
of congressional authority under the Elections Clause\40\ and
argued that the clause could not be used to pre-empt State
election laws on voter qualifications because, as the majority
agreed,\41\ the Elections Clause confers no authority to set
voter qualifications.\42\ Finally, he disagreed with the
Court's use of the constitutional avoidance canon because if it
had used the canon correctly with Arizona's constitutional
authority in mind, it should have adopted Arizona's reading of
the NVRA.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\Id. at 2261-62 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
\40\Id. at 2267 (Thomas, J., dissenting). ``The concern that gave
rise to Article I, Sec. 4, also supports this limited reading. The
Times, Places and Manner Clause was designed to address the possibility
that States might refuse to hold any federal elections at all,
eliminating Congress, and by extension the Federal Government . . .
Reflecting this understanding of the reasoning behind Article I,
Sec. 4, many of the original 13 States proposed constitutional
amendments that would have strictly cabined the Times, Places and
Manner Clause to situations in which state failure to hold elections
threatened the continued existence of Congress.''
\41\Id. at 2258 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
\42\Id. at 2267-68 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
\43\Id. at 2270 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Justice Alito's solo dissent, he agreed with Arizona and
Justice Thomas that the NVRA should be interpreted, in light of
the State's constitutional authority to impose voter
qualifications, to be one of several steps in the voter
registration process.\44\ He also underscored how practically
unsound the Court's interpretation of the NVRA was as it would
lead to Arizona maintaining separate federal and state
registration processes with separate federal and state voter
rolls.\45\ Moreover, whether someone can register to vote in
Arizona without providing proof of citizenship would now
entirely be based on whether the applicant completes the
federal or state form when the applicant might not understand
the different results.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\Id. at 2274 (Alito, J., dissenting).
\45\Id. at 2272 (Alito, J., dissenting).
\46\Id. at 2274 (Alito, J., dissenting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Inter
Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., several States requested the EAC
include their documentary proof of citizenship requirement on
the federal form. But the EAC rejected these requests,
reasoning that providing documentary proof of citizenship would
require applicants to ``submit more information that is
necessary to enable election officials to assess
eligibility.''\47\ The EAC reasoned that the sworn statement on
the federal form is relied on by most jurisdictions in the
United States to enforce their citizenship requirement, and
there are hefty fines and penalties associated with applicants
that lie about their citizenship.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\Memorandum of Decision Concerning State Requests To Include
Additional Proof-Of-Citizenship Instructions On The National Mail Voter
Registration Form at 28-30, U.S. Election Assistance Commission (Jan.
17, 2014), available at https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/
files/legal-work/129-1%20Memorandum%20of%20Decision.pdf. (emphasis
added).
\48\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the EAC's rejection of including a
documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal
form, Arizona and Kansas sued the EAC for violating the APA, as
the Supreme Court had suggested in Arizona v. Inter Tribal
Council of Ariz., Inc.\49\ The District Court held that the EAC
acted unlawfully by not including the documentary proof of
citizenship requirement because the States have the authority
to determine how to enforce their voter qualifications,
imposing a nondiscretionary duty on the EAC to update the form,
and that the NVRA did not preempt State laws requiring proof of
citizenship.\50\ But the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the EAC's duty was
discretionary, and that the States must prove that the federal
form does not provide the information they need to enforce its
voter qualifications, which Arizona and Kansas had not
shown.\51\ When Arizona and Kansas appealed the ruling to the
Supreme Court, it chose not to hear the case.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\Inter Tribal Council, 133 S.Ct. at 2259-60.
\50\Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Com'n, 6 F. Supp. 3d, 1252,
1271-72 (D. Kansas 2014). The court ordered the EAC to include Arizona
and Kansas' documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal
form.
\51\Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Comm'n, 772 F. 3d 1183,
1195-96 (10th Cir. 2014).
\52\576 U.S. 1055 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January of 2016, the EAC's new executive director
approved the requests of Georgia, Kansas, and Alabama to
include their documentary proof of citizenship requirement on
the federal form.\53\ But the United States Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit found that decision to be unlawful because
the director accepted the States' request on the belief that it
was within the States' competence to determine what should be
on the form and no independent review was required.\54\ Like
the Tenth Circuit, the D.C. Circuit determined that the NVRA
required States to prove that the documentary proof of
citizenship requirement is necessary to enforce its voter
qualifications.\55\ The dissent argued that reading raised
serious constitutional questions because the federal government
cannot upend State authority to determine the eligibility of
its voters, and the cleanest interpretation of the NVRA should
impose a nondiscretionary duty on the EAC to grant the States'
request.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\League of Women Voters of US v. Newby, 838 F. 3d 1, 6 (D.C.
Cir. 2016).
\54\Id. at 9-10.
\55\Id. at 10-11.
\56\Id. at 15-16 (Randolph, J., dissenting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 117th Congress, Representative Gary Palmer
introduced H.R. 8223, the Citizen Ballot Protection Act,\57\
which would overrule Inter Tribal Council and its progeny by
requiring the EAC to place on the federal form any state-
specific instructions with respect to the provision of
documentary proof of citizenship when an applicant registers to
vote in federal elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\Citizen Ballot Protection Act, H.R. 8223, 117th Cong. Sec. 2
(2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, former Ranking Member on the Committee on
House Administration, Representative Rodney Davis (IL-13),
introduced H.R. 8528, the American Confidence in Elections
Act,\58\ in the 117th Congress, which included Rep. Palmer's
H.R. 8223, the Citizen Ballot Protection Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\American Confidence in Elections Act, H.R. 8528, 117th Cong.
Sec. 2 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 118th Congress, Representative Bryan Steil (WI-01),
introduced H.R. 4563, an updated version of the American
Confidence in Elections Act,\59\ which again includes Rep.
Palmer's H.R. 4316, the Citizen Ballot Protection Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\American Confidence in Elections Act, H.R. 4562, 118th Cong.
Sec. 1 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Representative Palmer's (AL-06) Citizen Ballot Protection
Act would amend the NVRA to require the federal form to include
State specific instructions on providing documentary proof of
citizenship when an applicant registers to vote in a federal
election. This overturns the Supreme Court's decision in
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. and respects the
States' constitutional authority to impose reasonable
qualifications\60\ on applicants that register to vote and get
the information necessary to enforce those qualifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\Supra note 17 (explaining the Supreme Court's caselaw
protecting State authority to impose qualifications on its voters).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on House Administration holds sincerely that
every eligible American who wants to register to vote should be
afforded the opportunity to do so, and the Committee encourages
all eligible Americans to exercise their fundamental right to
vote according to the Constitution. However, federal law and
the majority of States have laws prohibiting noncitizens from
voting in their elections. To enforce those prohibitions, some
States made the decision to require applicants to provide
documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote. As
with other voting qualifications, applicants must provide proof
that they meet the age and residency requirements. In that way,
asking an applicant to provide proof of citizenship is no
different.
This legislation will also rectify the practical
difficulties that exist with execution of the NVRA as a result
of the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal
Council of Ariz., Inc. In States with a documentary proof of
citizenship requirement, applicants that register on the
federal form now are permitted only to vote in federal
elections in the state rather than in both federal and state
elections, as would typically be expected. With passage of the
Citizen Ballot Protection Act, the federal and state voter
registration forms in states like Arizona with a documentary
proof of citizenship requirement would require the same
information from applicants, allowing successful applicants to
vote in federal and State elections. In addition, no State
would need to maintain a separate federal election-only voter
list for those registrants who used the federal form and chose
not to supply the additional, state-required information.
It is telling that Committee Democrats in their Dissenting
Views do not defend the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v.
Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. Instead, they protest that
some otherwise-qualified applicants do not have proof of their
United States citizenship and therefore cannot register to
vote. If that is true, a couple different solutions come to
mind. First, States could expand the number of ways an
applicant could prove that he or she is a citizen, including
the provision of fail-safe procedures to ensure any such edge
cases are addressed, such as examinations by officials of any
relevant documents tending to confirm an individual's
citizenship.\61\ States could offer free access to any
citizenship records they maintain and could enter into similar
agreements with their sister States.\62\ Similarly, States
could allow applicants without sufficient documentary proof of
citizenship to register provisionally and to cast a ballot,
permitting the later provision of documentary proof of
citizenship within a reasonable timeframe for their ballot to
count. Those solutions respect a State's lawful decision under
the Constitution to require documentary proof of citizenship to
enforce its voter qualifications. But importantly, H.R. 4316
also respects a State's decision not to require provision of
documentary proof of citizenship. H.R. 4316 does not establish
a one-size-fits-all approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\For example, under its 2011 Secure and Fair Elections Act,
Kansas provided a fail-safe method to prove citizenship in the event an
otherwise-qualified applicant does not possess the correct documents.
K.S.A. Sec. 25-2309(m)(6).; See also Kansas woman, 92, needs family
Bible to register to vote, CBSNews.com (Aug. 29, 2014), https://
www.cbsnews.com/video/kansas-woman-92-needs-family-bible-to-register-
to-vote/.
\62\See, e.g., Birth Certificate for Voter ID, Kansas Department of
Health and Environment, https://www.kdhe.ks.gov/1191/Birth-Certificate-
for-Voter-ID (``Qualifying individuals who lack proof of identity and
desire to obtain a free nondriver identification card may obtain a
birth certificate at no cost to the individual[.]'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 118th Congress, at least two bills, H.R. 4563, the
American Confidence in Elections Act,\63\ and H.R. 3162,
Protecting American Voters Act\64\ allow State election
officials to request citizenship information on prospective
voters from federal government entities that maintain that
information. This would be an additional way of helping
otherwise-qualified applicants without documentary proof of
citizenship prove their status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\American Confidence in Elections Act, H.R. 4562, 118th Cong.
Sec. 1 (2023).
\64\Protecting American Voters Act, H.R. 3162, 118th Cong. Sec. 1
(2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Democrats also argue the Citizen Ballot
Protection Act ``strikes directly against the purpose of the
NVRA'' to ``expand access to voter registration for all
eligible Americans . . .''\65\ But Committee Democrats might
want to re-visit the NVRA: its text is crystal clear that
American citizens are the individuals it is meant to protect.
The NVRA's first finding is that the fundamental right to vote
belongs to citizens of the United States.\66\ And its first
purpose is ``to establish procedures that will increase the
number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections
for Federal office.''\67\ Therefore, the NVRA makes clear the
process should be designed to protect the citizen's right to
vote, and a State requesting documentary proof of citizenship
to enforce its lawful voter qualification is entirely
consistent with that goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\Dissenting Views at 2.
\66\52 U.S.C. Sec. 20501(a)(1) (emphasis added).
\67\Id. at Sec. 20501(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Action
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
On June 23, 2023, Representative Gary M. Palmer (AL-06),
joined by Representatives Chuck Edwards (NC-11), Andrew Clyde
(GA-09), Randy Weber Sr. (TX-14), Clay Higgins (LA-03), Jeff
Duncan (SC-03), Dan Crenshaw (TX-02), Andy Biggs (AZ-05), and
Mike Bost (IL-12) introduced H.R. 4316, the Citizen Ballot
Protection Act. The bill was referred to the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on House Administration.
HEARINGS
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House rule XIII,
in the 118th Congress, the Committee held two full committee
hearings and one subcommittee hearing to develop H.R. 4316.
1. On April 27, 2023, the Committee held a full
committee hearing titled, ``American Confidence in
Elections: State Tools to Promote Voter Confidence.''
The hearing focused on Title I of H.R. 4563, the
American Confidence in Elections Act, what tools States
need to boost voter integrity and strengthen voter
confidence, and how the federal government can provide
States with access to the information needed to
accomplish these goals. Witnesses included the
Honorable Ken Cuccinelli, Chairman, Election
Transparency Initiative, the Honorable Hans von
Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and
Senior Legal Fellow, the Heritage Foundation, the
Honorable Mac Warner, West Virginia Secretary of State,
the Honorable Donald Palmer, Commissioner, U.S.
Election Assistance Commission, and Mr. Joseph Paul
Gloria, Chief Executive Officer for Operations,
Election Center.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\American Confidence in Elections: State Tools to Promote Voter
Confidence: Hearing Before the H. Comm. On Admin., 118th Cong. (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. On May 24, 2023, the Committee on House
Administration Subcommittee on Elections held a
subcommittee hearing titled, ``American Confidence in
Elections: Ensuring Every Eligible American has the
Opportunity to Vote--and for their Vote to Count
According to Law.'' The hearing highlighted the strong
election integrity reforms that have passed throughout
several States and how important it is for States to
learn from other States' successes in the election
arena. Witnesses included Mr. Joseph Burns, Lawyer, Law
Office of Joseph T. Burns, PLLC, Ms. Lisa Dixon,
Executive Director, Lawyers Democracy Fund (now the
Center for Election Confidence), Mr. Thor Hearne,
Founding Partner, True North Law, LLC, the Honorable
Scot Turner, Executive Director, Eternal Vigilance
Action Inc., and Mr. Deuel Ross, Deputy Director of
Litigation, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
Inc.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\American Confidence in Elections: Ensuring Every Eligible
American has the Opportunity to Vote--and for their Vote to Count
According to Law: Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Elections of the H.
Comm. On Admin., 118th Cong. (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. On July 10, 2023, the Committee held a full
committee field hearing titled, ``American Confidence
in Elections: The Path to Election Integrity Across
America.'' The hearing outlined the newly introduced
H.R. 4563, the American Confidence in Elections Act,
and highlighted the successes of S.B. 202 (Georgia),
2021. Witnesses included the Honorable Hans von
Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and
Senior Legal Fellow, the Heritage Foundation, Dr.
Kathleen Ruth, former Vice Chair, Fulton County,
Georgia, Board of Registration and Elections, Mrs.
Vernetta Keith Nuriddin, Elections Consultant, City of
Milton, Georgia, and Ms. Cathy Woolard, Chair, Fulton
County, Georgia, Board of Registration and
Elections.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\American Confidence in Elections: The Path to Election
Integrity Across America: Hearing Before the H. Comm. On Admin., 118th
Cong. (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Consideration
On November 30, 2023, the U.S. House Committee on House
Administration met in open session and ordered the bill, H.R.
4316, Citizen Ballot Protection Act, reported favorably to the
House of Representatives, by a record vote of four to three, a
quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the
following votes occurred during the Committee's consideration
of H.R. 4316:
1. Vote on an amendment to H.R. 4316, offered by Mr.
Steil, passed by voice vote.
2. Vote to report H.R. 4316 favorably, as amended, to
the House of Representatives, passed by a record vote
of 4 ayes and 3 noes. Ayes: Steil, B., Loudermilk, B.,
Bice, S., Lee., L. Noes: Morelle, J., Sewell, T.,
Torres, N.
Statement of Constitutional Authority
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1--``The Times,
Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by
the Legislature thereof . . .''\71\ This clause,
consistent with contemporary thought and context,
informs Congress that the primary authority to set
election law and to administer federal elections rests
with the States and not with the Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 4, cl. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article I, Section 2, Clause 1--``The House
of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen
every second Year by the People of the several States,
and the Electors in each State shall have the
Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most
numerous Branch of the State Legislature.''\72\ This
clause informs Congress that the general authority to
establish voter qualifications for the U.S. House rests
with the States and not with the Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4--``To
establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, . . .
throughout the United States;''\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article IV, Section 4--``The United States
shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each
of them against Invasion; . . .''\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\U.S. Const. art. IV, Sec. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18--``To make
all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any Department
or Officer thereof.''\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2--``Each
State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the
whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which
the State may be entitled in the Congress: . . .''\76\
This clause informs the Congress that the authority to
name presidential and vice presidential electors rests
with States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth,
and Twenty-sixth Amendments--``The right of citizens of
the United States to vote . . .''\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\See U.S. Const. Amend. XV; U.S. Const. Amend. XIX; U.S. Const.
Amend. XXIV; U.S. Const. Amend. XXVI (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Seventeenth Amendment--``The Senate of
the United States shall be composed of two Senators
from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six
years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The
electors in each State shall have the qualifications
requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of
the State legislatures. . . .''\78\ This clause informs
Congress that the general authority to establish voter
qualifications for the U.S. Senate rests with the
States and not with the Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\U.S. Const. Amend. XVII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the
Committee advises 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.
Statement of Budget Authority and Related Items
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives and section 308(a)(I) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following opinion and estimate with respect to new budget
authority, entitlement authority, and tax expenditures. The
Committee believes that there will be no additional costs
attributable to H.R. 4316.
Congressional Budget Office Estimate
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, a cost
estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant
to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not
made available to the Committee in time for the filing of this
report. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such an
estimate to be printed in the Congressional Record if it is
received by the Committee.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The performance goals and objectives of H.R. 4316 are to
overturn Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc.\79\ and
its progeny in order to recognize the authority of States,
consistent with the Constitution, to include a documentary
proof of citizenship requirement on the national mail voter
registration form provided for by the National Voter
Registration Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\133 S.Ct. 2247 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision
of H.R. 4316 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.R. 4316
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House rule XXI.
Federal Mandates Statement
An estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman
of the Committee shall cause such an estimate to be printed in
the Congressional Record if it is received by the Committee.
Advisory Committee Statement
H.R. 4316 does not establish or authorize any new advisory
committees.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
The section provides the short title of the bill, the
Citizen Ballot Protection Act.
Section 2. Contents of State mail Voter registration form
Section 2(a) amends Section 6 of the National Voter
Registration Act to allow States to require applicants to
provide proof that they are a citizen of the United States on
the national voter registration application form. It also makes
a technical change replacing Federal Election Commission with
Election Assistance Commission.
Section 2(b) provides that the legislation becomes
effective the day it is enacted.
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 italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993
* * * * * * *
SEC. 6. MAIL REGISTRATION.
(a) Form.--(1) Each State shall accept and use the mail voter
registration application form prescribed by the [Federal
Election Commission] Election Assistance Commission pursuant to
section 9(a)(2) for the registration of voters in elections for
Federal office, except that a State may, in addition to the
criteria stated in section 9(b), require that an applicant
provide proof that the applicant is a citizen of the United
States.
(2) In addition to accepting and using the form described in
paragraph (1), a State may develop and use a mail voter
registration form that meets all of the criteria stated in
section 9(b) for the registration of voters in elections for
Federal office and such form may include a requirement that the
applicant provide proof that the applicant is a citizen of the
United States.
(3) A form described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be
accepted and used for notification of a registrant's change of
address.
(b) Availability of Forms.--The chief State election official
of a State shall make the forms described in subsection (a)
available for distribution through governmental and private
entities, with particular emphasis on making them available for
organized voter registration programs.
(c) First-Time Voters.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a State
may by law require a person to vote in person if--
(A) the person was registered to vote in a
jurisdiction by mail; and
(B) the person has not previously voted in that
jurisdiction.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply in the case of a person--
(A) who is entitled to vote by absentee ballot under
the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
(42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1 et seq.);
(B) who is provided the right to vote otherwise than
in person under section 3(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42
U.S.C. 1973ee-1(b)(2)(B)(ii)); or
(C) who is entitled to vote otherwise than in person
under any other Federal law.
(d) Undelivered Notices.--If a notice of the disposition of a
mail voter registration application under section 8(a)(2) is
sent by nonforwardable mail and is returned undelivered, the
registrar may proceed in accordance with section 8(d).
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
Committee Democrats strongly oppose H.R. 4316. This bill
seeks to amend Section 6 of the National Voter Registration Act
(``NVRA'')\1\ to allow states to require voter registration
applicants to provide proof of citizenship when registering to
vote using the National Mail Voter Registration Form (the
``Federal Form''). H.R. 4316, which is merely a recycled
provision from the extreme partisan ACE Act, is nothing more
than a blatant attempt to disenfranchise voters that
Republicans disfavor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\52 U.S.C. Sec. 20505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 4316 would do serious harm to the American people.
Indeed, requiring voter registration applicants to provide
proof of citizenship with their voter registration application
prevents eligible citizens from registering to vote at alarming
rates.\2\ This is because millions of Americans lack the most
common types of documents used to prove citizenship, including
a passport or birth certificate.\3\ And for those who never had
or lost access to these documents, securing proof of
citizenship is a costly and lengthy process that, for many,
proves impossible.\4\ Moreover, because few Americans carry
around proof of citizenship, proof of citizenship requirements
also hamper voter registration drives, which are a critically
important tool to engage eligible voters in civic
participation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See Ian Vandewalker, Brennan Center for Justice, Analysis: The
Effects of Requiring Documentary Proof of Citizenship to Register to
Vote 1 (Jul. 19, 2017), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
research-reports/effects-requiring-documentary-proof-
citizenship.
\3\Id. at 3-4; Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens Without Proof:
A Survey of Americans' Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship
and Photo Identification 2 (Nov. 2006), https://www.brennancenter.org/
sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf; Robert
Greenstein, Leighton Ku, and Stacy Dean, Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities Survey Indicates House Bill Could Deny Voting Rights to
Millions of U.S. Citizens (Sept. 22, 2006), https://www.cbpp.org/
research/survey-indicates-house-bill-could-deny-voting-rights-to-
millions-of-us-
citizens.
\4\See Vandewalker supra note 2 at 4; Kansas Advisory Committee to
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 16 (Mar. 2017) [hereinafter ``USCCR
Report''].
\5\Vandewalker supra note 2 at 4-5; see also USCCR Report supra
note 4 at 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans know this.
In fact, several states have attempted to require voters to
provide documentary proof of citizenship at the time of
registration and it did not go well. In 2013, Kansas
implemented a law requiring voter registration applicants to
submit documentary proof of citizenship along with their
application.\6\ In the few years after the law took effect,
tens of thousands of eligible citizens--or as many as 14
percent of voter registration applicants by one estimate\7\--
had their applications blocked at least temporarily because the
applications were submitted without proof of citizenship.\8\
The overwhelming evidence confirms that almost all of the
blocked applicants were indeed U.S. citizens and eligible to
vote in Kansas.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Secure and Fair Elections (``SAFE'') Act, ch. 56,
Sec. Sec. 8(l), 8(u), 2011 Kan. Sess. Laws 795, 806, 809-11, 812
(codified at Kan. Stat. Ann. Sec. 25-2309(l)); see also Fish v. Kobach,
840 F.3d 710, 717 (10th Cir. 2016).
\7\Expert Report of Dr. Michael P. McDonald, ECF No. 20-1, Fish v.
Kobach, No. 2:16-cv-02105 (Feb. 26, 2016).
\8\See, e.g., Fish, 840 F.3d at 752-53; Vandewalker supra note 2 at
1-2; USCCR Report supra note 4 at 15-19, 23.
\9\Vandewalker supra note 2 at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona saw similar results when it implemented its
documentary proof of citizenship law. Like in Kansas, tens of
thousands of voter registration applicants were blocked from
registering to vote in the immediate aftermath of the proof of
citizenship law taking effect.\10\ In Arizona's three most
populous counties, nearly a third of new voter registration
applicants were blocked in the year following the law taking
effect, and in following year, 16 percent were blocked in
Maricopa County.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Vandewalker supra note 2 at 3.
\11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, the rejections are not spread equally across the
eligible voter population. Instead, adding a proof of
citizenship requirement disproportionately prevents otherwise
eligible voters of color, young voters, low-income voters,
elderly voters, voters without stable housing, and women who
have changed their name after getting married from registering
to vote.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\See id. at 3-4; Brennan Center for Justice supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 4316 also strikes directly against the purpose of the
NVRA. The NVRA is a seminal piece of legislation designed to
expand access to voter registration for all eligible Americans
and improve civic participation.\13\ By permitting states to
engage in a practice known to disenfranchise thousands of
eligible voters, H.R. 4316 would do just the opposite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\See 52 U.S.C. Sec. 20501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, in 1993 when the NVRA was passed, Congress
considered the very question of whether to add a proof of
citizenship requirement to the Federal Form and rejected the
idea. The bill then passed with bipartisan support, including
from Republicans representing the same states that many members
of this Committee represent today.
Committee Democrats are committed to upholding the goals of
the NVRA and therefore strongly oppose H.R. 4316.
Joseph D. Morelle,
Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration.