[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.