```

[House Report 110-101]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-101

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

 
   DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND VOTER INTIMIDATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2007

                                _______
                                

 April 18, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1281]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1281) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
prohibit certain deceptive practices in Federal elections, 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
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     4
Committee Votes..................................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     6
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     6
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     8
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     8
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     8
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     8
Additional Views.................................................    10

                             The Amendment

  The amendment (stated in terms of the page and line numbers 
of the introduced bill) is as follows:

  Page 2, line 10, strike ``within 60 days''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1281, the ``Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation 
Prevention Act of 2007,'' will prohibit and punish deceptive 
practices committed with the intent to prevent another person 
from voting. The bill increases monetary and criminal penalties 
for deceptive practices and voter intimidation in Federal 
elections. Significantly, H.R. 1281 requires the Attorney 
General to respond appropriately to practices that deceive and 
intimidate voters, such as by ensuring that accurate 
information is provided to voters to counter any such 
practices, and referring evidence of such practices to the 
appropriate Federal and State authorities for prosecution or 
civil action after the election.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    At the core of our democracy is the right to vote. 
Historically, however, the right to vote has been denied on the 
basis of race, color, gender, and other characteristics. Voting 
rights have been extended through the 15th, 19th, and 24th 
amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Voting 
Rights Act. \1\ Unfortunately, voter suppression schemes still 
interfere with the exercise of those rights. By increasing 
monetary and criminal penalties, and directing the Attorney 
General to respond appropriately, H.R. 1281 will help deter 
voter suppression schemes, an important step in ensuring 
overall integrity of our election system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. Sec. 1973 et. seq. (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Instances of deceptive practices and voter intimidation in 
recent election cycles are well documented. \2\ Among them: In 
2002, flyers stating voters could cast their ballots 3 days 
after the election ``if the weather is bad'' were distributed 
in New Orleans public housing complexes. \3\ In 2004, just 
weeks before the presidential election, some Lake County voters 
in Ohio received letters, printed on falsified Lake County 
Board of Elections letterhead, informing them that their 
registrations were illegal and that they would be unable to 
vote. \4\ Also in 2004, voters in Milwaukee's African American 
neighborhoods received flyers from the fictional ``Milwaukee 
Black Voters League'' falsely claiming that individuals could 
be found ineligible to vote due to traffic violations, the 
criminal records of family members, or voting in a previous 
election during the year. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See e.g., People For the American Way & National Association 
for the Advancement of Colored People, The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: 
Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today (Dec. 2004), 
available at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file--462.pdf; Demos, 
Challenges to Fair Elections: Voter Intimidation and Vote Suppression, 
(Nov. 2006), available at http://www.demos.org/pubs/CFE--
votersuppress--110106.pdf.
    \3\ Lee Hockstader & Adam Nossiter, GOP Outmaneuvered in La. 
Runoff, Wash. Post, Dec. 9, 2002, at A4.
    \4\ Jeff Maynor, Phony Letters Tell People They Cannot Vote, WKYC-
TV, Oct. 28, 2004, available at http://www.wkyc.com/news/news--
print.asp?id=25556.
    \5\ Jo Becker & David Finkel, Now They're Registered, Now They're 
Not, Wash. Post, Oct. 31, 2004, at A22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The civil rights and voting rights communities are rightly 
concerned about these continued efforts to disenfranchise 
eligible voters. Hilary Shelton, Director of the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 
Washington Bureau has noted that ``some people are still so 
desperate to win elections . . . that they resort to deceptive 
practices, misinformation and lies.'' \6\ Ralph Neas, President 
and CEO, People for the American Way, has observed that ``[t]he 
complexity and sophistication of voter intimidation and 
suppression tactics has grown'' and that ``[t]he 2006 elections 
provided prime examples of these new forms of suppression 
techniques, and dirty tricks were as pervasive and brazen as 
ever.'' \7\ Barbara Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyer's 
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, agreed that ``[s]ince the 
2000 election cycle, it has become clear that deceptive 
practices and voter intimidation remain a key civil rights 
issue because these cynical attempts to influence election 
results are primarily targeted at traditionally disenfranchised 
voters.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Protecting the Right to Vote: Election Deception and 
Irregularities in Recent Federal Elections: Hearing Before the H. Comm. 
on Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2007) [hereinafter House Hearing] (statement 
of Hilary Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau).
    \7\ Id. (statement of Ralph Neas, President and CEO, People for the 
American Way).
    \8\ Press Release, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 
Lawyers' Committee Strongly Supports Bill to Prevent Voter Intimidation 
and Deceptive Practices (Jan. 31, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         2006 MIDTERM ELECTION

    At the time of the 2006 election, some voters in Virginia 
received messages from callers on behalf of the non-existent 
``Virginia Elections Commission.'' The callers gave incorrect 
voter registration information, and told the voters that they 
might be ineligible to vote. \9\ Some Virginians also received 
phone calls instructing them to vote by phone. Call recipients 
were told to indicate their candidate of choice by pressing a 
number and the call ended with a message that voting was 
complete and there was no need to go to the polls. \10\ 
Deceptive practices involving ``information regarding a voter's 
registration status and eligibility'' and ``the time, place, or 
manner of conducting the election'' are prohibited under H.R. 
1281. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Kelli Arena & Ronni Berke, FBI launches probe of Virginia pre-
election calls, CNN, Nov. 7, 2006, available at http:www.cnn.com/2006/
POLITICS//11/07/deceptivecalls.va/index/html.
    \10\ House Hearing, supra note 6 (statement of Hilary Shelton, 
Director, NAACP Washington Bureau).
    \11\ H.R. 1281, 110th Cong. (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Also in 2006, eligible Latino voters in Orange County, 
California, received mailings from the ``California Coalition 
for Immigration Reform,'' falsely warning them in Spanish that 
``if you are an immigrant, voting in a Federal election is a 
crime that can result in incarceration.'' \12\ Congresswoman 
Loretta Sanchez, whose constituents received such letters, told 
the Committee that ``[f]amilies were afraid that their personal 
information would be shared with anti-immigration groups if 
they voted. They were afraid of retaliation for casting their 
vote.'' \13\ Deceptive practices involving false information 
regarding ``any criminal penalties associated with voting in 
the election'' are prohibited under H.R. 1281. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Sonya Geis, Calif. Campaign in Turmoil Over Letters, Wash. 
Post, Oct. 20, 2006, at A4.
    \13\ House Hearing, supra note 6 (statement of Congresswoman 
Loretta Sanchez).
    \14\ H.R. 1281, 110th Cong. (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Also in 2006, certain candidates in Maryland distributed 
fliers in predominantly African-American neighborhoods that 
falsely claimed that the candidates had been endorsed by their 
opponents' party and by prominent African American figures. 
\15\ Senator Ben Cardin testified that such literature was 
``clearly designed to mislead African American voters, who have 
a legal right to vote and pick the candidate of their choice,'' 
and therefore that it ``was rightfully denounced by civil 
rights groups as a voter suppression and intimidation effort.'' 
\16\ Deceptive practices involving ``the explicit endorsement 
by any person or organization of a candidate running for any 
office voted on in the election'' are prohibited under H.R. 
1281. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Ernesto Londono, Sample Ballots in Pr. George's Misidentify 
Candidates, Wash. Post, Nov. 7, 2006.
    \16\ House Hearing, supra note 6 (statement of U.S. Senator Ben 
Cardin).
    \17\ H.R. 1281, 110th Cong. (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    The full Committee on the Judiciary held 1 day of hearings 
on H.R. 1281 on March 7, 2007. Testimony was received from the 
Honorable Barack Obama, U.S. Senator from Illinois; the 
Honorable Benjamin Cardin, U.S. Senator from Maryland; the 
Honorable Loretta Sanchez, U.S. Representative for the 47th 
Congressional District of California; the Honorable Brian 
Bilbray, U.S. Representative for the 50th Congressional 
District of California; the Honorable Steve King, U.S. 
Representative for the 5th Congressional District of Iowa; the 
Honorable Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Representative for the 5th 
Congressional District of Illinois; Donna L. Brazile, 
Democratic National Committee Voting Rights Institute Chair and 
Georgetown University Adjunct Professor; Eve Sandberg, Oberlin 
College Associate Professor of Politics; Ralph G. Neas, People 
for the American Way President and CEO; and a written statement 
was received from John Fund, columnist at the Wall Street 
Journal.

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 29, 2007, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R. 1281 favorably reported, as amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 1281.
    1. An amendment offered by Mr. Smith on behalf of Mr. 
Chabot, prohibiting deceptive practices that prevent another 
person from ``effectively'' exercising the right to vote. The 
amendment failed by a vote of 9 to 17.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Ellison.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              9              17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. A motion to table the challenge to the Chairman's ruling 
that an amendment regarding non-citizens voting offered by Mr. 
Forbes was non-germane. The motion to table passed by a vote of 
13 to 10.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Ellison.....................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan......................................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             13              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, 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.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 1281, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, April 11, 2007.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1281, the 
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 
2007.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                           Peter R. Orszag,
                                                  Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable Lamar S. Smith.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 1281--Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 
        2007.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1281 would cost less 
than $500,000 annually from appropriated funds. Enacting the 
bill could affect direct spending and revenues, but CBO 
estimates that any such effects would not be significant.
    Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from 
the application of the act any legislative provisions that 
enforce the constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has 
determined that H.R. 1281 would fall within that exclusion 
because it would protect voting rights. Therefore, CBO has not 
reviewed the bill for mandates.
    H.R. 1281 would establish a new crime for attempting to 
deceive voters in federal elections and would require the 
Department of Justice to issue regulations and prepare reports 
relating to implementation of the bill's provisions. Because 
the legislation would establish a new offense, the government 
would be able to pursue cases that it otherwise would not be 
able to prosecute. CBO expects that H.R. 1281 would apply to a 
relatively small number of offenders, however, so any increase 
in costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison 
operations would not be significant. We estimate that it would 
cost less than $500,000 annually to implement this legislation, 
including costs to prepare the reports and regulations required 
by the bill. Any such costs would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.
    Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 1281 
could be subject to criminal fines, the federal government 
might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted. 
Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, then deposited in the 
Crime Victims Fund and later spent. CBO expects that any 
additional revenues and direct spending would not be 
significant because of the small number of cases likely to be 
affected.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz, 
who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by 
Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
1281, will provide the District of Columbia with full 
representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, section 4, clause 1.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 1281 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Section 1. Short Title. Section 1 sets forth the short 
title of the Act as the ``Deceptive Practices and Voter 
Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007.''
    Section 2. Prohibition on Deceptive Practices in Federal 
Elections. Section 2 defines deceptive practices as knowingly 
communicating false information with the intent to prevent 
another from voting. It also prohibits such deceptive practices 
as felonies subject to fines up to $250,000, 5 years 
imprisonment, or both.
    Section 3. Modification of Penalty for Voter Intimidation. 
Section 3 amends title 18 of the United States Code to increase 
the maximum prison term for voter intimidation from 1 year to 5 
years.
    Section 4. Sentencing Guidelines. Section 4 directs the 
United States Sentencing Commission to review and amend the 
Federal sentencing guidelines in accordance with the new 
criminal penalty for deceptive practices.
    Section 5. Reporting Violations and Remedial Action. 
Section 5 directs the Attorney General to correct specific 
instances of deceptive practices by providing voters with 
accurate election information, and specifies that the Attorney 
General should work with interested entities to determine how 
to best take such corrective actions. Section 5 also directs 
the Attorney General to refer deceptive practice violations to 
State and Federal authorities for criminal or civil action 
after the election; requires the Attorney General, the Federal 
Communications Commission, and the Elections Assistance 
Commission to study the feasibility of using public broadcast 
systems to provide corrective election information; requires 
the Attorney General, after each Federal election, to report to 
Congress on allegations of deceptive practices, the actions 
taken to correct deceptive practices, and any prosecutions 
resulting from such allegations; and authorizes the Attorney 
General to establish a Voting Integrity Task Force to which the 
Attorney General may delegate his or her responsibilities under 
this section.

         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, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

               CHAPTER 29 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

             CHAPTER 29--ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

Sec.
592.    Troops at polls.
     * * * * * * *
618.    Deceptive practices in Federal elections.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 594. Intimidation of voters

    Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to 
intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the 
purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to 
vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other 
person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the 
office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, 
Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, 
Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident 
Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the 
purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this 
title or imprisoned not more than [one year] 5 years, or both.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 618. Deceptive practices in Federal elections

    (a) Whoever, before a Federal election, knowingly 
communicates false election-related information about that 
election, with intent to prevent another person from exercising 
the right to vote in that election, or attempts to do so, shall 
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, 
or both.
    (b) As used in this section--
            (1) the term ``Federal election'' means any 
        general, primary, run-off, or special election for the 
        office of President, Vice President, presidential 
        elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of 
        Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner from a 
        territory or possession; and
            (2) the term ``election related information'' means 
        information regarding--
                    (A) the time, place, or manner of 
                conducting the election;
                    (B) the qualifications for or restrictions 
                on voter eligibility for the election, 
                including--
                            (i) any criminal penalties 
                        associated with voting in the election 
                        by ineligible voters; or
                            (ii) information regarding a 
                        voter's registration status or 
                        eligibility;
                    (C) with respect to a closed primary 
                election, the political party affiliation of 
                any candidate for office, if the communication 
                of the information also contains false 
                information described in subparagraph (A) or 
                (B); or
                    (D) the explicit endorsement by any person 
                or organization of a candidate running for any 
                office voted on in the election.

                            Additional Views

    We support this bill as far as it goes. We want to stamp 
out voter fraud as much as the sponsors of the bill. However, 
we are disappointed that the Democrats on the Committee 
repeatedly opposed efforts to strengthen the bill.

                           NONCITIZEN VOTING

    It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. 
Yet Rep. Brian Bilbray's election opponent last November made 
national news when she was asked by someone, ``I want to help, 
but I don't have papers,'' and she replied ``Everybody can 
help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don't need papers 
for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help.'' 
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Dani Dodge, ``Busby on Defense, Says She Misspoke,'' San Diego 
Union-Tribune (June 3, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The illegal population in America is likely around 12 to 20 
million illegal aliens, but the number could certainly be 
higher. In addition to the illegal aliens already in the 
country, the Census Bureau estimates that the illegal alien 
population is growing by a minimum of 500,000 per year. 
Combining the number of legal and illegal aliens, there are 
likely at least 26 million non-U.S. citizens in the United 
States at any given time, and the majority of them are legal 
and illegal residents.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Written Testimony of Dan Stein, President, Federation for 
American Immigration Reform, on ``Non-Citizen Voting and ID 
Requirements for Elections,'' before the Committee on House 
Administration (June 23, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 
1993 (NVRA), known as the ``Motor-Voter Law,'' the process of 
registering to vote became nearly automatic for anyone applying 
for a state driver's license. Under that law, the information 
supplied by the applicant for a license doubles as information 
for voter registration unless the applicant indicates they do 
not want to be registered to vote. In 1996, Congress enacted 
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
Act, making it a federal crime for noncitizens to vote in any 
federal election (or any state election, unless authorized by 
state law). As a penalty, ineligible noncitizens who knowingly 
vote may be deported.\3\ Additionally, a noncitizen who falsely 
claims to be a United States citizen is in violation of this 
law. Still, despite these provisions, there have been many 
documented reports of illegal noncitizen voting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227 provides that:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (6) Unlawful voters

      (A) In general

      Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State, 
      or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or 
      regulation is deportable.

      (B) Exception

      In the case of an alien who voted in a Federal, State, or 
      local election (including an initiative, recall, or 
      referendum) in violation of a lawful restriction of voting 
      to citizens, if each natural parent of the alien (or, in 
      the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the 
      alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or 
      naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the 
      United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the 
      alien reasonably believed at the time of such violation 
      that he or she was a citizen, the alien shall not be 
      considered to be deportable under any provision of this 
      subsection based on such violation.
    Last Congress, the House Administration Committee reported 
out H.R. 4844, the ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006.'' 
In House Report 109-666, the House Administration Committee 
reported as follows:

        The U.S. Census Bureau estimated 8.7 million illegal 
        aliens were in the U.S. in 2000. Immigration officials 
        estimate that the illegal alien population grows by as 
        many as 500,000 every year. These non-citizen 
        population growth rates increase the potential for non-
        citizens to exploit and manipulate the outcome of 
        elections.

        In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
        Responsibility Act was enacted, making it a federal 
        crime for non-citizens to vote in any federal election. 
        Enforcement of the statute is hampered by the 
        difficulty involved in detecting violations. As no 
        proof of citizenship is required prior to voting, 
        violations by persons falsely presenting themselves as 
        citizens can go unnoticed. Even when evidence of a 
        violation presents itself, finding the perpetrators and 
        gathering sufficient evidence to prosecute them is very 
        difficult.

        Despite the law that prohibits it, documented reports 
        of non-citizen voting have increased. During the June 
        22, hearing before this Committee, Dan Stein, President 
        of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, 
        presented the following documented cases of illegal 
        voting: (1) In the 2000 election, `election observers 
        reported that a `sizable number' of votes may have been 
        cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants, and non-
        citizens' in Florida; (2) In Utah, Legislative Auditor 
        General John Schaff said in a February 8, 2005 report 
        to the President of the Utah Senate that more than 
        58,000 illegal immigrants had Utah drivers' licenses, 
        nearly 400 of them used their license to register to 
        vote in Utah, and a sampling of that group revealed at 
        least 14 actually voted in an election; and (3) 
        Hawaiian election officials found 543 Oahu residents 
        who were not U.S. citizens had registered to vote. 
        Moreover, an investigation by the Immigration and 
        Naturalization Service into alleged fraud in a 1996 
        Orange County, California congressional race revealed 
        that non-citizens were registered to vote in the 46th 
        Congressional District in the disputed election between 
        Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta Sanchez. 
        The Task Force established by the Committee on House 
        Oversight found clear and convincing evidence that 748 
        invalid votes were cast in that election.\4\ Further, 
        state officials found that over 300 non-citizens 
        illegally voted in that contest. These figures did not 
        exceed the margin of victory, but they clearly 
        demonstrate this problem is real and can impact the 
        outcome in a close election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ U.S. House of Representatives Report 105-416 ``Dismissing the 
Election Contest Against Loretta Sanchez,'' 105th Congress 2d Session, 
February 12, 1998.

        Patrick Rogers, a New Mexico attorney, proffered 
        compelling examples of illegal and fraudulent voting at 
        the Committee's hearing on June 22, 2006. In support of 
        this testimony, Mr. Rogers presented to the Committee 
        the voter identification card of a woman holding a 
        green card, who claimed she was pressured to register 
        while standing in line to receive government services. 
        Mr. Rogers also provided the Committee with several 
        documented examples of illegal voting by non-citizens 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        in the United States as follows:

            L(1) In Maryland, a 2006 e-mail from a member of 
        the Montgomery County Board of Elections in Montgomery 
        County, Maryland was made public indicating he was 
        going to register people to vote `regardless of 
        status.' (2) Donna Hope, a non-citizen immigrant from 
        Barbados who resides in Philadelphia, was told by a 
        representative of the voter registration group `Voting 
        is Power,' the voter mobilization arm of the Muslim 
        American Society, that she could register to vote if 
        she has been in the United States at least 7 years. Ms. 
        Hope completed the registration form and was added to 
        the voting rolls. In November of 2004, Ms. Hope did not 
        vote because she was not a citizen, but someone 
        illegally cast a ballot in her name. (3) In 1998, 
        California Secretary of State Bill Jones referred to 
        the INS claims by nearly 450 people called for jury 
        duty in Orange County, California who claimed they were 
        exempt from jury duty because they were non-citizens. 
        The jury duty lists are pulled from driver's license 
        and registered voter files.

        The Committee's field briefing in Arizona also revealed 
        accounts of voter fraud perpetrated by non-citizens. 
        The Honorable Andrew Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney, 
        advised the Committee of indictments of ten individuals 
        who were non-citizens who nevertheless registered to 
        vote. His testimony states in relevant part:

            LThey were charged with filing false documents, a 
        class 6 felony. Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell 
        referred these matters to the County Attorney's Office 
        after her office received jury questionnaire forms from 
        the county jury commissioner. These forms were filled 
        out by potential jurors who claimed they were unable to 
        serve on a jury because they were not citizens. The 
        county recorder's office found that they had claimed to 
        be citizens when they filled out a voter registration 
        form. Four of these defendants voted in at least one 
        election. In addition to the ten charged defendants, 
        the County Attorney is reviewing 149 other cases in 
        which non-citizens have allegedly illegally registered 
        to vote.

            LThe county recorder has received inquiries from 
        people seeking to become U.S. citizens who have been 
        told by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to obtain a 
        letter from her office confirming they have neither 
        registered to vote nor voted. To date, a review of 
        these matters has turned up 37 non-citizens who have 
        registered to vote. Fifteen of these individuals have 
        voted. And these numbers come from a relatively small 
        universe of individuals--legal immigrants who seek to 
        become citizens. These numbers do not tell us how many 
        illegal immigrants have registered and voted.

        The United States Department of Justice has also 
        investigated and prosecuted several cases of non-
        citizen voting.\5\ In Colorado, U.S. Attorneys 
        convicted an individual of providing false information 
        concerning U.S. citizenship for voter registration 
        purposes.\6\ In Alaska, a non-citizen was charged and 
        found guilty of voting in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 
        elections in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 611.\7\ 
        Additionally, 15 non-citizens were charged and 10 were 
        convicted of voting in Federal elections conducted in 
        counties located in South Florida.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Election Fraud Prosecutions & Convictions Ballot Access & 
Voting Integrity Initiative, Criminal Division, Public Integrity 
Division, United States Department of Justice, October 2002-September 
2005.
    \6\ United States v. Shah, Case No. 04-CR-00458.
    \7\ United States v. Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, Case No. 05-CR-074.
    \8\ United States v. McKenzie, Case No. 04-CR-60160; United States 
v. Francois, No. 04-CR-60159; United States v. Exavier, No. 04-CR-
60161; United States v. Lloyd Palmer, No. 04-CR-60159; United States v. 
Velrine Palmer, No. 04-CR-60162; United States v. Shivdayal, No. 04-CR-
60164; United States v. Rickman, No. 04-CR-20491; United States v. 
Knight, No. 04-CR-20490; United States v. Sweeting, No. 04-CR-20489; 
United States v. Lubin, No. 04-CR-60163; United States v. Bennett, No. 
04-CR-14048; United States v. O'Neil, No. 04-CR-60165; United States v. 
Torres-Perez, No. 04-CR-14046; United States v. Phillip, No. 04-CR-
80103; United States v. Bain Knight, No. 04-CR-14047.

        While these examples demonstrate the need for 
        additional protections to ensure only citizens are 
        voting, the facts also reveal that eligible citizens 
        are able to prove their eligibility and are not 
        dissuaded from voting if required to do so. States that 
        have implemented an identification requirement for 
        voting have experienced positive results. At the 
        Committee's field briefing in Arizona, Secretary of 
        State Jan Brewer discussed the effects of the newly 
        enacted identification law known as Proposition 200. 
        Under Proposition 200, all voters are required to 
        present identification at the polls before casting a 
        ballot and all new voter registration applications must 
        be accompanied by sufficient proof of citizenship. 
        While identification is required in all Arizona 
        jurisdictions, 15 jurisdictions have successfully 
        implemented a proof of citizenship requirement. 
        Secretary Brewer testified that Arizona has experienced 
        a 15.4 percent increase in voter registration since the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        requirements of Proposition 200 went into effect.

        Currently, state and local governments do not have any 
        effective way to prevent non-citizens from registering 
        to vote and voting. Section 303(b)(4)(A) of HAVA 
        requires inclusion of a citizenship box on the National 
        Voter Registration Form. When applying to register to 
        vote, individuals must check the box affirming their 
        citizenship. The law provides that registration forms 
        that do not have the box checked should be rejected and 
        returned to the individual. However, some states are 
        not enforcing this requirement. Even in states that do 
        enforce the citizenship requirement, it is still done 
        on an honor system that relies on the truthful response 
        of the registrant. While the present state of the law 
        leaves the system open to abuse, H.R. 4844's 
        identification and proof of citizenship requirement 
        will ensure that only eligible citizens are voting.

        While there may be disputes about the nature and extent 
        of voter fraud, there can be no dispute that it occurs. 
        In close elections, even a small amount of fraud can 
        affect the outcome. More importantly, reports of fraud 
        can cause people to lose confidence in the integrity of 
        the system and thereby discourage participation. People 
        must be encouraged to vote with confidence that their 
        vote will be counted and will not be cancelled out by 
        an illegal vote.

    In North Carolina, recent investigations into illegal 
noncitizen voting led one resident agent in charge of the 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's local office to 
say ``It goes to the integrity of the entire democratic system 
when we have . . . aliens registering to vote.'' \9\ As the 
Charlotte News and Observer reported:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Jessica Rocha, ``Voter Rolls Risky for Aliens,'' The Charlotte 
News and Observer (December 7, 2006).

        Voter registration laws in most parts of the country 
        don't require written proof of citizenship . . . It is 
        so easy to register that Attracta Kelly of the 
        Immigrant Legal Assistance Project at the N.C. Justice 
        Center warns clients against even taking the form when 
        going to the Division of Motor Vehicles office because 
        it could hurt their chances of ever getting 
        citizenship. ``Especially if they don't speak English 
        very well. They just think it's a part of their 
        [driver's license] test,'' she said. ``It's handed 
        oftentimes to people who are just legal residents.'' 
        \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Jessica Rocha, ``Voter Rolls Risky for Aliens,'' The Charlotte 
News and Observer (December 7, 2006).

    Patrick Rogers, the attorney in New Mexico, testified as 
follows before the House Administration Committee on June 22, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006:

        Voting by illegal immigrants is one of the toughest 
        issues to study in the election and voting area. This 
        is because there is no centralized or accessible list 
        of illegal immigrants that can be compared to voter 
        registration lists or lists of persons who actually 
        cast ballots. The closest ``list'' I am aware of that 
        could be used as a basis for systematic research is a 
        list maintained by the Bureau of Immigration and 
        Customs Enforcement (``ICE'') at the Department of 
        Homeland Security. This is a list of those illegal 
        immigrants who have overstayed their Visas or are 
        ``deportable.'' But the list is not available to 
        election officials to check or validate voter 
        registration rolls . . . A Congressional Research 
        Service report from September of 2005 indicated that 
        more than 25 states did not require proof of legal 
        presence in the United States in order to apply for and 
        obtain a driver's license.

    The essential problem is that there is no national 
citizenship registry, so state and local officials are unable 
to confirm citizenship, and no jurisdiction requires voters to 
show proof of citizenship at the polls. ``There is no way of 
checking,'' said Maryland State Board of Elections 
Administrator Linda H. Lamone. ``We have no way of doing that. 
We have no access to any information about who is in the United 
States legally or otherwise.'' \11\ The REAL ID Act does not 
require proof of citizenship. It requires proof of lawful 
presence, as there is no prohibition from issuing driver's 
licenses to foreign visitors, legal immigrants, or even illegal 
immigrants, although the REAL ID Act does limit states to 
issuing only temporary licenses of no longer than one year's 
duration and state ID cards to illegal immigrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Christina Bellantoni, ``Little to Stop Illegal Aliens from 
Voting,'' The Washington Times (September 24, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2005, a prominent group of bipartisan leaders and 
scholars, led by former President Carter and Secretary of State 
James Baker, III, issued a very influential report.\12\ One of 
the chief recommendations of the bipartisan Carter-Baker 
Commission on Voting was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ ``Building Confidence in U.S. Elections: Report of the 
Commission on Federal Election Reform'' (September 2005) (the ``Carter-
Baker Report'').

        Instead of creating a new card, the Commission 
        recommends that states use ``REAL ID'' cards for voting 
        purposes. The REAL ID Act, signed into law in May 2005, 
        requires states to verify each individual's full legal 
        name, date of birth, address, Social Security number, 
        and U.S. citizenship before the individual is issued a 
        driver's license or personal ID card. The REAL ID is a 
        logical vehicle because the National Voter Registration 
        Act established a connection between obtaining a 
        driver's license and registering to vote. The REAL ID 
        card adds two critical elements for voting--proof of 
        citizenship and verification by using the full Social 
        Security number. The REAL ID Act does not require that 
        the card indicates citizenship, but that would need to 
        be done if the card is to be used for voting 
        purposes.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Carter-Baker Report, at 19 (emphasis added). The card mandated 
by the REAL ID Act includes a person's full legal name, date of birth, 
a signature captured as a digital image, a photograph, and a person's 
Social Security number. We are bemused by the statement of Rep. Jerrold 
Nadler at the markup that ``The Carter-Baker Commission was grossly 
mistaken in many of its findings and should not be given any credence 
in the area of voting fraud.'' Members of the Carter-Baker Commission 
on Federal Election Reform included former President Jimmy Carter, 
former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and former 
Democratic House Member Lee Hamilton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               HOW H.R. 1281 ADDRESSES NONCITIZEN VOTING

    We believe that H.R. 1281 does address noncitizen voting in 
an indirect way. We explain that reasoning below.
    H.R. 1281 provides that whoever ``knowingly communicates 
false election-related information about that election, with 
intent to prevent another person from exercising the right to 
vote in that election, or attempts to do so, shall be fined 
under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or 
both.'' \14\ The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 \15\ 
requires that a person registering to vote affirm that they are 
a U.S. citizen.\16\ If a noncitizen signs, or attempts to sign, 
any form that can be used for voting purposes--including a 
voting registration form--and that form states that they are a 
citizen when they are not a citizen, then that is a false 
statement. The bill also specifically defines ``election 
related information'' to include ``information regarding a 
voter's registration status or eligibility.'' \17\ If such a 
noncitizen who makes a false statement on a voting registration 
form is consequently allowed to vote, and they vote for, say, 
Candidate Brown, they will necessarily negate the legitimate 
vote of someone else who was a citizen and voted for rival 
Candidate Jones. If someone votes illegally and negates a legal 
voter's vote, the illegal vote has effectively denied the legal 
vote's right to vote. In the landmark case of Reynolds v. Sims, 
the Supreme Court stated ``the right of suffrage can be denied 
by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote 
just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise 
of the franchise.'' \18\ So an illegally voting noncitizen in 
that case would violate the clear terms of H.R. 1281 and be 
subject to up to five years in jail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Sec. 2(a) of H.R. 1281.
    \15\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973gg.
    \16\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973gg-3(a)(2)(C)(i).
    \17\ Sec. 2(a) of H.R. 1281.
    \18\ Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill also provides that ``[i]mmediately after receiving 
a report [of a violation of the bill], the Attorney General 
shall consider and review such report and, if the Attorney 
General determines that there is a reasonable basis to find 
that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General shall . . . 
undertake all effective measures necessary to provide correct 
information to voters affected by the false information.'' \19\ 
``All effective measures necessary to provide correct 
information'' to the voting public affected by illegal 
noncitizen voting includes the creation of a citizenship 
registry that will prevent voting fraud and ensure that only 
citizens can vote in Federal elections. In the absence of a 
database that ensures only citizens are voting, it would not be 
truthful to keep telling voters that their legal votes will be 
counted, and not be negated by an illegally cast vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Sec. 5(b)(1) of H.R. 1281.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regarding the issue of intent, Blacks's Law Dictionary 
defines ``constructive intent'' as ``A legal principle that 
actual intent will be presumed when an act leading to the 
result could have been reasonably expected to cause that 
result.'' Further, Professors LaFave and Scott, in their 
authoritative treatise on criminal law, write, ``The meaning of 
the word `intent' in the criminal law has always been rather 
obscure, largely as a result of its use in such phrases as 
`criminal intent,' `general intent,' `specific intent,' 
`constructive intent,' and `presumed intent.'' \20\ If someone 
knows they are not a citizen, but they sign a voter 
registration form that states they are a citizen, and then that 
person votes illegally, and knows they are voting illegally, 
then they obviously know that their illegal vote is going to 
cancel out the vote of another, legally voting citizen. That 
knowledge would constitute an intent to deny another voter 
their right to exercise their vote. Intent can be read at least 
that expansively in the criminal context, and it can be read 
even more expansively in the civil context where large monetary 
fines are at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ W. Lafave & A. Scott, Criminal Law Sec. 3.5, at 216 (2d ed. 
1986), and most recent 2007 update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reading those concepts together, we believe this bill does 
prohibit false claims of citizenship that are made to register 
to vote. But we also think that concept could have been made 
clearer.

                         REPUBLICAN AMENDMENTS

    First, we are glad that Ranking Member Smith's amendment 
was adopted at committee. It struck the part of the bill that 
limits the prohibition on voting fraud to fraud committed 
``within 60 days'' of a federal election. Illegal voting by 
non-citizens can occur when voting registration forms are 
filled out more than 60 days before a federal election. Nothing 
the Supreme Court has said indicates that there is any 
constitutional problem with Congress's prohibiting lying on 
voting registration forms at all times, not just 60 days before 
an election. Voting fraud is voting fraud, regardless of what 
page of the calendar it occurs on.
    However, we made several attempts to make it clearer that 
the bill addresses the serious problem of noncitizen voting. We 
wanted to broaden the bill to make it clear that the bill 
covers not only fraud that directly denies the right to vote, 
but also fraud that has the effect of denying the right to 
vote. We are disappointed that the Democratic majority, on a 
party line vote, opposed Mr. Chabot's amendment to the bill 
that would have simply added the word ``effectively'' before 
the words ``exercising the right to vote'' in H.R. 1281 as 
introduced, such that the bill would prohibit people from 
preventing other people from ``effectively exercising the right 
to vote.''
    Clearly, the right to vote means nothing if it cannot be 
effectively exercised. Again, in the landmark case of Reynolds 
v. Sims, the Supreme Court stated ``the right of suffrage can 
be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a 
citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the 
free exercise of the franchise.'' \21\ And in Williams v. 
Rhodes, the Supreme Court struck down a law because it 
infringed on ``the right of qualified voters . . . to cast 
their votes effectively.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).
    \22\ 393 U.S. 23, 30 (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Nadler of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties stated in the first sentence 
of his opening statement on this bill at the Judiciary 
Committee markup that ``[t]he right to vote and the right to 
cast an effective vote in a free and fair election is the 
fundamental pillar of any democratic country.'' \23\ At the 
markup of H.R. 1281, Chairman Conyers said, ``by inserting the 
word `effectively,' it would add vagueness creating 
constitutional due process questions in a criminal context.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ House Judiciary Committee Markup of H.R. 1281 (March 29, 2007) 
(remarks of Rep. Nadler).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But the Supreme Court itself has used the term 
``effectively'' to describe ``the right of qualified voters . . 
. to cast their votes effectively.'' \24\ Clearly the Supreme 
Court does not find that word unconstitutionally vague. Mr. 
Chabot's amendment would have made it a crime to communicate 
false election related information with the intent to 
effectively deny someone else's right to vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ 393 U.S. 23, 30 (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the markup, Mr. Davis said ``[t]he principal concern 
with [the] amendment is that I believe it would shift the focus 
of prosecution from the intent to the effect of the wrongful 
action.'' That statement does not withstand examination. If the 
bill's subject were people who act ``with intent to prevent 
another person from effectively exercising the right to vote,'' 
anyone with the intent to effectively deny the right to vote 
would be subject to prosecution. The amendment would not alter 
the requirement that intent be present. We do not understand 
why anyone would oppose an amendment prohibiting people from 
acting ``with intent to prevent another person from effectively 
exercising the right to vote.'' If someone communicates false 
election related information with the intent to effectively 
negate someone else's legal vote, they should also be punished 
with up to five years in prison.
    The Fifteenth Amendment itself states that ``The right of 
citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or 
abridged . . . on account of race.'' \25\ One of the most 
respected law professors in the country, John Hart Ely, has 
written that he was unable ``to read the Fifteenth Amendment as 
meaning anything other than that no one person's vote is to be 
intentionally made less effective than another's because of his 
race or color.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ U.S. Const. Amendment XV.
    \26\ John Hart Ely, ``Gerrymanders: The Good, the Bad, and the 
Ugly,'' 50 Stan. L. Rev. 607, 632 (1998) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Conyers ruled several other amendments non-
germane, including an amendment offered by Mr. Forbes that 
would have provided that ``If the offense results in voting in 
a Federal election by more than 10 persons who are not citizens 
of the United States, the offender shall be fined under this 
title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'' Other 
amendments Chairman Conyers ruled non-germane included an 
amendment offered by Mr. Feeney that would have created a 
uniform system of voting eligibility verification and an 
amendment offered by Mr. King that would have required the 
Department of Justice to conduct a study on the feasibility of 
the creation of a national citizenship database for use in 
verifying voting eligibility and preventing voting fraud. We 
believe that all of these amendments were germane. They would 
have improved the bill by addressing the serious problem of 
noncitizen voting more directly and comprehensively. We all 
want to eliminate the problem of voter fraud and we are 
disappointed that the Democrats opposed our efforts to 
strengthen this bill.

                                   Lamar Smith.
                                   Steve Chabot.
                                   Ric Keller.
                                   Tom Feeney.
                                   Trent Franks.

                                 

```