U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–970 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 112–945 

NEW STATE VOTING LAWS III: PROTECTING 

VOTING RIGHTS IN THE HEARTLAND 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 7, 2012 

CLEVELAND, OHIO 

Serial No. J–112–74 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

DICK DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina, 

Ranking Member 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOSEPH ZOGBY, Democratic Chief Counsel 

WALT KUHN, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 7, 2012, 9:32 A.M. 

STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE MEMBER 

Page 

Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .............................. 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 33 

Arredondo, David G., Director, International Student Services, Lorain County 

Community College, Elyria, Ohio ....................................................................... 13 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Davis, Carrie L., Executive Director, League of Women Voters of Ohio, 

Columbus, Ohio .................................................................................................... 15 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Fellows, Dale, Republican State Central Committeeman, Lake County Republican Party, and Executive Committee Member, Willoughby Hills, Ohio ....... 17 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Ohio ....................................................................................................................... 7 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Moore, Gregory T., Campaign Director, Fair Elections Ohio, Cleveland, Ohio .. 18 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Tokaji, Daniel P., Professor of Law, The Ohio State University, Moritz College 

of Law, Columbus, Ohio ...................................................................................... 12 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted to Dale Fellows by Chairman Durbin ................................ 83 

ANSWERS 

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses 

from Dale Fellows.] 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Advancement Project, Donita Judge, Esq., Lead Voter Protection Attorney 

for Ohio, statement .............................................................................................. 159 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Laughlin McDonald, Director, ACLU 

Voting Rights Project, May 7, 2012, letter ......................................................... 84 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Attachment: Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction in the case of Frank v. Walker, April 23, 2012, 

legal document ..................................................................................................... 95 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio, Christine Link, Executive 

Director, and Mike Brickner, Director, Communications and Public Policy, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 86 

American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL– 

CIO)—Ohio, Pierrette ‘‘Petee’’ Talley, Secretary Treasurer, statement .......... 164 

Asian Services In Action, Inc. (ASIA), Deborah Wang, Communications and 

Policy Consultant, statement .............................................................................. 166 

Block, Rabbi Richard A., The Temple—Tifereth Israel, statement ..................... 214 
Page

IV 

Brown, Hon. Sherrod, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ............................. 4 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

Brunner, Jennifer, Co-Chair, Fair Elections Ohio, and former Secretary of 

State of Ohio, statement ...................................................................................... 170 

City of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, Hon. Gary D. Leitzell, Mayor, Matt Joseph, 

City Commissioner, Dean Lovelace, City Commissioner, Nan Whaley, City 

Commissioner, and Joey D. Williams, City Commissioner, statement ............ 168 

Eisner, Adele, Election Integrity Activist, Cleveland, Ohio, statement .............. 150 

Garson, Stuart I., Chair, Cuyahoga County Democratic Party, statement ........ 232 

Heard, Hon. Tracy Maxwell, Ohio House of Representatives, Minority Whip, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 227 

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, statement 234 

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The, Wade Henderson, 

President and Chief Executive Officer, statement ............................................ 247 

Leiken, Hon. Earl, Mayor, City of Shaker Heights, statement ............................ 183 

Linking Employment, Abilities and Potential (LEAP), Deborah Nebel, Director, Public Policy, statement ............................................................................... 181 

Miller, Rev. Stanley R., Shaffer Memorial United Methodist Church, statement ...................................................................................................................... 218 

National Action Network (NAN), Rev. Al Sharpton, President and Founder, 

Rev. Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, Chairman, and Tamika Mallory, National Executive Director, statement .................................................................. 184 

Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless (NEOCH), Brian Davis, Director 

of Community Organizing, statement ................................................................ 188 

Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates (NOVA), Norman Robbins, Research Director, statement ....................................................................................................... 194 

Nosanchuk, Rabbi Robert A., Anshe Chesed Fairmount Temple, statement ..... 215 

Ohio Education Association (OEA), Patricia Frost-Brooks, President, statement ...................................................................................................................... 202 

Ohio Women with Disabilities Network (OWDN), Karla Lortz, President, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 204 

Pipe Fitters Local Union 120, Terence M. McCafferty, Business Manager/ 

Financial Secretary-Treasurer, statement ......................................................... 206 

Policy Matters Ohio, Pamela Rosado, Outreach Coordinator, and Greater 

Cleveland Voter Coalition, statement ................................................................ 208 

ProgressOhio, Columbus, Ohio, statement ............................................................ 210 

Project Vote, Washington, DC, statement ............................................................. 212 

Reece, Hon. Alicia, Ohio House of Representatives, statement ........................... 220 

Stinziano, Hon. Michael, Ohio House of Representatives, statement ................. 225 

Turner, Hon. Nina, Ohio Senate, Minority Whip, statement .............................. 230 

We Are Ohio, Courtney Johnson, Teacher, Ironton, Ohio, and Doug Stern, 

Firefighter, Cincinnati, Ohio, statement ............................................................ 251 

Williams, Sandra, Ohio House of Representatives, letter to Hon. Dick Durbin, 

a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, May 1, 2012 ..................................... 253 
(1) 

NEW STATE VOTING LAWS III: PROTECTING 

VOTING RIGHTS IN THE HEARTLAND 

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012 

UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS

AND HUMAN RIGHTS, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., at the 

Carl B. Stokes United States Court House, 801 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, Hon. Dick Durbin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Durbin. 

Also present: Senator Brown of Ohio. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DICK DURBIN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Chairman DURBIN. This hearing of the U.S. Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights 

will come to order. The hearing today is entitled ‘‘New State Voting 

Laws III: Protecting Voting Rights in the Heartland.’’ 

This hearing will assess the current state of voting laws recently 

passed throughout the country and examine the potential impact of 

HB 194, Ohio’s new voting law. 

Good morning. My name is Dick Durbin. I am a United States 

Senator from Illinois, Chairman of this Subcommittee. For those 

who are attending their first congressional hearing, let me explain 

how we are going to proceed. 

I will deliver a brief opening statement and recognize my colleagues Senator Sherrod Brown and Congresswoman Marcia Fudge 

for their opening statements. We will then turn to our other witnesses for their opening statements, and after that, Senator Brown 

and I will have some questions for the witnesses. 

There is perhaps no right in America more essential to our democracy than the right to vote. Show me a person who cannot express their preference at the ballot box, and I will show you a person likely to be ignored by those in power. At its best, our great 

country is one with open and vigorous political debates, followed by 

fair and transparent elections where all eligible citizens have unobstructed access to the ballot box. 

I do not need to remind anyone in this room that our democracy 

has not always extended the right to vote fairly nor equally to all 

citizens. For generations, women, African Americans, and even 

those without property were denied the right to vote. Even after 
2 

the right to vote was legally expanded, for close to a century there 

was a well-organized, sometimes violent, racist campaign that successfully prevented many African Americans from exercising the 

right to vote. 

It took six constitutional amendments, civil disobedience, bloodshed, and the loss of too many lives, but—over time—America 

learned from our mistakes and guaranteed the right to vote, regardless of race, sex, class, income, physical ability, or State of residency. 

All of us who now celebrate that progress have a responsibility 

in our generation to remain vigilant in ensuring that America’s 

hard-fought progress on voting rights is not reversed on our watch. 

That is why we are here today. 

Ohio’s new law, HB 194, threatens to make it harder for tens of 

thousands of Ohioans to vote. Unfortunately, Ohio is only one of 

more than 30 States that, in the last 2 years, have introduced bills 

or enacted new laws to restrict access to the voting place. 

Last September, this Subcommittee held its first hearing to examine the rash of new voting laws passed in States which include 

Wisconsin, Texas, Kansas, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, South 

Carolina, and right here in Ohio. These laws may have different 

provisions in each State, but together they threaten to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters in the next election. Let me give 

you some examples. 

States like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Texas, Alabama, Kansas, 

and South Carolina have passed restrictive photo ID laws. These 

States acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of their own residents—who are already registered to vote—do not currently have 

a photo ID that would satisfy the new ID requirements. Nationwide, the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice estimates that 

laws like these will prevent more than 5 million people from voting 

in November. 

Other States, like Texas and Florida, are subjecting volunteers 

and nonpartisan organizations, such as the Boy Scouts and Rock 

the Vote, that register voters to onerous fines if they fail to comply 

with unnecessary administrative burdens. These volunteer organizations are the primary way that many African Americans, 

Latinos, low-income, first-time, and new resident voters register. 

New laws like those in Florida and Texas have led organizations 

like the League of Women Voters to suspend all voter registration 

activity. 

In January, our Subcommittee conducted its first field hearing in 

Tampa, Florida, to examine Florida’s new voting law, which will 

lead to widespread disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of Floridians. We received testimony at that hearing from the League of 

Women Voters in Florida that under Florida’s new restrictive voting laws, they will not participate in voter registration in this election. 

Ohio has joined Florida in rolling back early voting by eliminating about half of the early voting period. Across the country, 

early voting has become popular. People vote early because they 

may not be able to take time off work or they need child care or 

they may need assistance getting to the polls. In 2008, the last 

Presidential election, 30 percent—almost a third—of all votes were 
3 

cast before election day. Drastically reducing the early voting period will lead to longer lines on election day, and, sadly, many people will just not vote. 

I am pleased that the Department of Justice has already objected 

to the new laws in South Carolina and Texas and that it is challenging Florida’s law in court, but we must remain vigilant. 

It is not a coincidence that these new voting laws swept the 

country after change in political control in many State houses and 

Governors’ offices. The American Legislative Exchange Council 

(ALEC), a conservative advocacy group that is funded, in part, by 

the billionaire Koch brothers, has provided guidance to State legislators on voter ID legislation and encouraged its passage. 

One need look no further than one of ALEC’s founders, Paul 

Weyrich, to understand why ALEC and other conservative activists 

are so aggressively pursuing these laws. 

In a moment of candor, Mr. Weyrich said to supporters, and I 

quote: ‘‘I do not want everybody to vote . . . . As a matter of fact, 

our leverage in elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.’’ 

If the goal is to drive down turnout by causing confusion and creating barriers to the ballot, then HB 194 is going to accomplish 

that goal in Ohio. 

Four of the most worrisome provisions of HB 194 include: cutting 

the early voting period in half, from 35 days to 17 days; eliminating 

the weekend before election day from the early voting period; eliminating the requirement that poll workers direct voters to the correct precinct; preventing counties from mailing applications for absentee ballots to all registered voters. 

Unlike voters in some other States, Ohioans are fortunate: You 

have the last word on HB 194. 

Many of the groups and people here today gathered more than 

500,000 signatures to place a measure on the November ballot that 

would repeal HB 194. 

And the outcry from across Ohio that led to the ballot measure 

on HB 194 has persuaded the legislature to consider repealing it 

in full. Senator Brown and I call on the legislature to do just that. 

As we will learn from our witnesses today, HB 194 threatens to 

disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters if it is not fully repealed. 

In such an important State, a battleground State for both political 

parties, a State that may decide the next President of the United 

States, the election could be decided by a relatively small number 

of people. Every vote counts. Every vote should be counted. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Dick Durbin appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

I am very pleased to be joined on the dais today by the senior 

Senator from Ohio, my friend Senator Sherrod Brown. Senator 

Brown has been concerned about the disenfranchising voting laws 

that have swept the country in the past 2 years, particularly in his 

home State of Ohio. As Ohio’s former Secretary of State, he provided invaluable testimony and insight at the first congressional 

hearing on this issue, which I chaired in the Constitution Subcommittee. He urged the Constitution Subcommittee to come to 

Ohio to conduct this hearing and investigate HB 194, and I am 

pleased we could accommodate his request. 
4 

Before I recognize him, I would like to say two things: 

First, under the rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the 

Ranking Republican Member of this Subcommittee, Senator 

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, was given the freedom to 

choose two witnesses to appear here today and, of course, to attend. 

He could not because of a conflict in his schedule, but he chose the 

witnesses who will appear on behalf of his point of view, and they 

will be part of our witness panel. 

I also want to ask unanimous consent for Senator Brown to join 

me in participating in the hearing. Hearing no objection, I will now 

turn to Senator Brown. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator, the floor is yours. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHERROD BROWN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator BROWN. That is the way the Senate does things, by the 

way. 

Senator Durbin, thank you. It means so much to me and to all 

of us in this room and to hundreds of thousands of Ohioans that 

you are here. I know that Congresswoman Fudge, when she and 

I talked about this—and she and I have been involved in this issue 

for really ever since the legislature began to concern itself with HB 

194 and other pieces of legislation, and I appreciate her involvement today and her urging Senator Durbin also to join us. I thank 

Judge Oliver for opening up this beautiful courtroom to us so that 

so many people could join us and be part of this. 

We will hear from witnesses today. I thank them for joining us, 

and as we hear from them, there have been numerous recent efforts, as we know, to erect needless barriers to voting in Ohio. 

These efforts under the guise of preventing fraud and cutting 

spending—those seem to be the two reasons we hear—are part of 

a cynical effort to impede access to the ballot. Specifically, HB 194, 

as Senator Durbin has said, dismantles a number of common-sense, 

effectiveness, and, I underscore, bipartisan measures that assist 

people with voting. More on that in a second. 

I am here today not only as Senator of a State often at the center 

of our national elections but also as a two-term, 8-year Secretary 

of State of Ohio charged with administering elections from 1983 to 

1990. So I understand what goes into ensuring the fundamental 

right to vote. Inherent in that responsibility is ensuring that voting 

is accessible and free of intimidation and road blocks. 

As a State, over a period of decades, Ohio legislators undertook 

a bipartisan effort to help Ohioans vote more easily. When I was 

Secretary of State and I would go to the legislature about expanding access to registration and to the ballot, Democrats and Republicans more often than not worked together to make voting laws 

work for large numbers of people. When I was Secretary of State, 

we understood that civic-minded Ohioans had many priorities pulling them in many directions, so we sought to make voting and registration a bit easier. 

As Secretary of State, I asked businesses to help out Ohio’s utility companies cooperate by including registration forms in utility 

bill statements. Driver’s license bureaus registered people to vote 
5 

as the old Ohio Bureau of Employment Services did. One company 

housed in the Chairman’s State of Illinois, the McDonald’s Corporation, at our request printed 1 million tray liners with—voter registration form tray liners that were put in McDonald’s restaurants 

all over Ohio. People could register to vote on their tray liners, so 

occasionally someone turned in registration forms with ketchup 

and mustard stains. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BROWN. We accepted them, and I assume some of them 

still exist in Boards of Elections around the State as official voter 

registration forms. 

Today, instead of protecting the right to vote, we have seen 

shameless attempts to undermine it. In those days before, there 

was a bipartisan recognition that democracy was stronger and 

more vibrant and more representative of all of us if we worked to 

expand access to the vote. We are being told that HB 194 and laws 

like it which significantly reduce the number of early voting days 

and make it more difficult for Ohioans to exercise their right to 

vote, they say it will reduce costs and reduce the risk of fraud. The 

overwhelming evidence, however, indicates that voter fraud is virtually non-existent and that these new laws will make it harder 

and more costly for hundreds of thousands of Ohioans to exercise 

their right to vote. 

It is symbolically significant that Senator Durbin is holding his 

second field hearing in Ohio following the hearing that Senator 

Durbin did in Florida. During the 2004 Presidential race, Ohio saw 

a bit of a rerun of Florida in 2000, a dysfunctional election marred 

by electronic voting machines improperly tallying votes, and Ohioans waiting in line for hours in some cases. 

My wife and I went to Oberlin College, then in my congressional 

district, where voters, most of them young, waited for 6 hours to 

vote. At Kenyon College, an hour and a half south of here, not far 

from where I grew up, voters waited 9 hours to vote. This was not 

a question of voter fraud, individual voter fraud, or individuals trying to game the system. This was not a question of an individual 

voting multiple times. People almost never, ever do that. Voters are 

not going to try to do that. There is nothing in it for a voter to try 

to vote five times and change an election. 

The clouds over the 2004 election in Ohio were caused by process, not by individual voters. 

I will say that again. The clouds over the 2004 election were 

caused by process, not by individual voters. 

Now, 7 years later, we see a continuation of the efforts to undo 

a model election system created by Republican and Democratic 

members of the legislature, a bill signed by a Republican Governor, 

as Ohio returns to the headlines again for the wrong reasons. The 

new election law undermines Ohio efforts to ensure that all votes 

are counted. The law dismantles those earlier laws I was talking 

about, voting laws passed by both parties and signed by then-Governor Taft several years ago. 

That is what is disturbing. There was consensus—there was consensus in Ohio about voting—and now there is an effort by one political party to undercut that consensus. 
6 

HB 194 undermines an Ohioan’s ability to vote in a number of 

ways. I will focus on two of them in the interest of time. 

First, the bill significantly reduces the early voting window. As 

Senator Durbin said, the bill no longer requires election workers— 

the second point—to redirect voters who arrive at the wrong precinct to the correct precinct. Let me address them in turn. 

In a seemingly innocuous manner, HB 194 eliminates early voting on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday prior to the election—the 

three busiest days of early voting. This reduction was made despite 

the fact that in 2008, 19 percent of those who cast early ballots 

voted those early ballots on that weekend preceding the election. 

This significant reduction in early voting was made despite the fact 

that evidence overwhelmingly indicates that limiting early voting 

will cost money and disrupt efficiency. This reduction in early voting was made without any evidence of fraud and despite the fact 

that only a few years prior, both parties thought it was a good idea. 

HB 194 eliminates Sunday early voting. Make no mistake. Cutting Sunday voting was intentional and it was intended to suppress 

voting. On the Sunday before the election, particularly in communities of color, Ohioans who work long hours during the week go 

to the polls, fulfilling their civic and their spiritual obligations on 

the same day. There is no justification for this. For no good reason, 

now HB 194 limits Boards of Elections’ options and increases their 

costs by mandating that they close shop on that Sunday when people are coming from church. 

By ending early voting, the lines outside polling stations will 

only get longer, and costs will only increase. This adds to frustration and surely it limits voting. Single parents, shift workers, and 

busy professionals who work during the week will have unnecessary additional pressures that may prevent them from being able 

to cast a vote. Exercising one’s right to vote is a sacred duty. It 

should not be riddled with additional burdens making it harder. 

Another burden—and then I will close with this—posed by HB 

194 is that it discourages poll workers from performing one of their 

most basic functions: helping voters find their right precinct. This 

piece of legislation no longer requires that poll workers assist the 

confused or elderly or disabled or young voter in getting to their 

correct precinct. In essence, Ohio law discourages neighbors from 

helping neighbors. This phenomenon is so common that it has a 

name: right church, wrong pew. 

Given the current consolidation of polling places and fewer voting 

locations, we know that to save money the State, probably rightly, 

has begun to consolidate polling places, and as a result, there is a 

great deal of confusion. In Akron, for instance, it is extremely likely 

that voters will increasingly come to the correct building to vote, 

but then they may end up in the incorrect precinct in that building. 

By removing the requirement that poll workers direct voters to 

their correct precinct, it has made it difficult for law-abiding Ohioans whose only crime is they were not sure which precinct number 

they were in—it makes it extremely difficult for them to cast their 

ballot. 

Mr. Chairman, I conclude with saying that this is a solution in 

search of a problem. It is a solution in search of a problem. It is 

not something we need to do. There was consensus in Ohio. The 
7 

changes which were enacted after the 2004 election, the problems 

then, they were corrected. The changes that were enacted in 2006, 

I repeat, by a Republican legislature with a Republican Governor, 

led to shorter lines, more clarity, and less frustration for voters. 

While none of the changes I have mentioned today make it impossible to vote, as a practical matter they install burdens to voting, 

burdens that simply have no good reason to exist. Ohio deserves 

better when it comes to protecting their fundamental constitutional 

right to cast a ballot. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Sherrod Brown appears as 

a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. 

We invited the entire Ohio congressional delegation to join us 

today, and I am happy that we have with us our colleague Congresswoman Marcia Fudge. Since 2008, Congresswoman Fudge has 

represented Ohio’s 11th District, which includes much of Cleveland 

and 22 suburbs. She was one of the first Members of Congress to 

speak out about the rash of new State voter suppression laws. She 

led more than 100 Members of Congress in urging the Justice Department to review all new State voting laws that have the potential to disenfranchise voters. Congresswoman Fudge has hosted national press conferences, educational briefings, and meetings with 

Department of Justice officials and worked with activists here in 

Ohio to place the referendum on the ballot on HB 194. She introduced the Voter Protection Hotline Act, which would establish a 

national hotline to provide voters with information and the opportunity to report intimidation and other deceptive practices. 

Congresswoman Fudge, thank you for hosting us in your district 

today, and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARCIA L. FUDGE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Representative FUDGE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would also like to thank our 

senior Senator, Senator Sherrod Brown. I want to as well thank all 

of those who are in attendance today, especially our community 

leaders, our elected officials, our clergy, our civil rights community, 

and our labor community. Thank you very much for being here. 

And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very 

timely and important field hearing today, in particular because this 

district is a district that will be most affected by the laws that are 

in effect today. 

Mr. Chairman, the people of Ohio have spoken. Last year, a coalition of voting rights advocates delivered more than 300,000 valid 

signatures in opposition to House Bill 194. This action, as carried 

out by the people of Ohio, satisfied the requirement necessary to 

place a referendum on the November 2012 ballot to repeal House 

Bill 194. 

According to its proponents, the bill ‘‘makes numerous efforts to 

ensure the integrity of the elections process and to simplify the 

process.’’ This statement could be no further from the truth. 
8 

Ohio House Bill 194 represents a reversal of voting rights in the 

State of Ohio. It represents confusion and it represents disenfranchisement. 

If Ohio House Bill 194 officially becomes law, it would reduce access to voting by shortening the early voting period. It would decrease the responsibility of poll workers to direct confused voters 

to their correct precincts. This bill would make it more difficult for 

citizens to cast absentee ballots and complicate provisional voting. 

House Bill 194 even eliminates the incredibly popular and effective 

early voting on Sundays. 

After House Bill 194 was signed by the Ohio Governor, House 

Bill 224 was passed by both Houses of the Ohio General Assembly. 

House Bill 224 is a bill that aims to improve voting for our servicemen and -women and overseas voters—something that is wonderful 

and that we agree with. But, also, it amends parts of House Bill 

194, and one of those amendments eliminates in-person voting the 

weekend before an election, thus adding to the problem facing Ohio 

voters. 

Recently, the Ohio General Assembly reached a crossroads of 

sorts. The legislature introduced Senate Bill 295 to repeal House 

Bill 194. There are two very significant problems with Senate Bill 

295. First, it is an attempt to remove the referendum from the ballot and, thus, override the constitutional right of voters to decide 

the fate of House Bill 194 in November. Second, this bill would not 

completely repeal House Bill 194. It would not fully restore early 

in-person voting because of a subsequent amendment made to 

House Bill 194. 

Today many questions still remain. How will the Ohio Legislature untangle this mess? How will Ohio ensure that the confusion 

already created will not manifest itself before and on election day 

in November? What must be done to ensure that the constitutionally guaranteed right afforded by the referendum process is 

protected? 

Ohioans and every citizen across this Nation need to know there 

is a concerted effort underway to limit, suppress, and undo the uninhibited right to vote. This sophisticated, organized, and wellfunded effort is sweeping across America. From Ohio to Wisconsin, 

down to Florida and across to Texas, the franchise is under attack. 

The plan is clear: Prevent certain predetermined segments of the 

population from exercising their right to vote. Students, the elderly, 

the disabled, minorities, and low-income voters are all targets. 

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 41 States have introduced 176 restrictive voting bills since the beginning of 2011. A 

total of 74 bills are pending in 24 States. The franchise is under 

attack. 

The tactics being used today are not new. What we called the 

poll tax 50 years ago is now voter photo ID laws. Instead of the 

physical threats of the 1950s and 1960s, meaning the billy clubs 

and the dogs, unnecessary and confusing laws are being used to 

prevent turnout in targeted communities. 

The Election Protection Coalition reported disturbing examples of 

recent deceptive tactics and voter intimidation. In Milwaukee, flyers were distributed telling voters they cannot vote if they have not 

paid their parking tickets. Reports of armed gunmen intimidating, 
9 

mocking, and misinforming voters at heavily Latino precincts were 

reported in Arizona. And right here in Ohio, there were reports of 

flyers falsely providing that Republicans vote 1 day and Democrats 

vote the next day. 

Mr. Chairman, the franchise is under attack. Suppressive State 

laws only perpetuate these deceptive tactics. The men and women 

elected to represent voters are only adding to the confusion with 

bills like Ohio Senate Bill 295 and House Bills 194 and 224. 

The right to vote is among the most important rights we enjoy 

as Americans. As said best by my friend Congressman John Lewis, 

This right is almost sacred. Because of its importance, because of 

the power behind the vote, it is the one right most often compromised. And for the same reasons, it is the right we cannot allow 

to be denied. 

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, and I quote: ‘‘The ultimate measure of man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge 

and controversy.’’ 

We are living in a time of great challenge and controversy. The 

most vulnerable among us are once again under attack. 

Chairman Durbin and Senator Brown, again, I thank you for 

holding this hearing today. I thank you for your efforts to protect 

the franchise. I stand with you. And to those who would disenfranchise us, shame on you who would restrict our voting rights. We 

must continue to protect the right to vote. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Marcia L. Fudge appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Congresswoman Fudge, thank you for your 

testimony. 

I am going to ask you a question, the first question I asked at 

the field hearing in Florida. I related it to their law which we were 

taking a look at. I will ask it in the context of Ohio. 

Supporters of HB 194 argue that they are trying to suppress 

fraud, those who are trying to vote who are not eligible to vote. 

Critics of HB 194 say that, in fact, what they are doing is just suppressing the vote, that the fraud, if there is some—and there may 

be some in every election—is not addressed by the law itself. 

So I would like to ask you: Was there evidence of fraud in early 

voting, particularly on the weekend before the election, in your congressional district, in Ohio, that might give rise to this effort to reduce the opportunity for people to vote early across the State of 

Ohio? 

Representative FUDGE. Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, the answer 

is no. There has been no fraud. I believe that the number is maybe 

four cases of fraud in the State of Ohio over the last 10 years. It 

is minuscule, if it exists at all. And there is some belief that there 

has been no reported incidences of fraud. 

Chairman DURBIN. Let me ask you this question. I am trying to 

figure out how they could reason that failing to direct a voter to 

the proper precinct to vote will somehow lessen fraud. It clearly 

would lessen the vote if the person walks into a polling place and 

ends up at the wrong precinct table in a high school gymnasium, 

for example. So when it comes to directing people to the right pre-
10 

cinct, as Senator Sherrod Brown said, the right church and the 

right pew, how can that possibly have anything to do with voter 

fraud? 

Representative FUDGE. The only reason for something like that 

is, again, to continue to confuse the electorate and to stop people 

from voting, because the other thing it does, if a person wants to 

file a provisional ballot, they think they are at the wrong place, it 

also creates an additional problem with the provisional ballot. And 

so they have now in two different ways stopped a person from voting or that vote from counting. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. I have one question, Congresswoman Fudge. 

Thank you for joining us. It is along the lines of what Senator Durbin said. 

There is a week created, so-called the Golden Week, created by 

the Republican legislature in a bipartisan vote, signed by the Republican Governor, where voter registration overlaps, if you will, 

with early voting so that voters may actually register and vote at 

the same time, as they are allowed to in some States. Along the 

lines of Senator Durbin’s question, have you seen any evidence in 

your travels around the State, but especially in your congressional 

district, of any even accusations of fraud during that week or any 

evidence of fraud? 

Representative FUDGE. No, Senator, and let me just suggest to 

you this: I do not know of any single person who would take a piece 

of identification that is not valid in person to a polling place and 

try to vote. It is the most ridiculous and ludicrous thing I have ever 

heard. 

If there is any fraud, the fraud is in the absentee balloting, 

which is what they did not address because most people of means 

and most people who are not Democrats vote absentee. If there is 

going to be any fraud, it is before people come to the polls, because 

that is the point at which we cannot verify who is voting. But that 

is the one place that they did not even address. So they clearly cannot be trying to address fraud because they did not address the 

area where the fraud could occur. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Congresswoman Fudge, that is exactly the 

point that was made at the closing of the Florida hearing, that if 

the object is to lessen fraud, to reduce the number of ineligible voters who cast a ballot, why aren’t these State legislatures addressing the absentee ballot provisions? Which, of course, could give rise 

to fraud as well as any other provision in the law. 

Thank you for your clear testimony and staying within the time 

limit. It is so rare on Capitol Hill. 

[Laughter.] 

Representative FUDGE. I thank you. Thank you so very much, 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having me. 

Chairman DURBIN. We appreciate it. 

Our second panel is going to consist of several witnesses, and I 

will introduce them as we are setting up the table here and ask 

them to step forward, if they would, please. 
11 

By way of introduction, Daniel Tokaji is a distinguished professor 

of law at Ohio—at The Ohio State University—I have learned 

that—Moritz College of Law, and a leading authority on election 

law and voting rights. Professor Tokaji has published numerous articles in the Nation’s most respected law reviews, co-authored the 

casebook ‘‘Election Law.’’ A graduate of Harvard College and Yale 

Law School, Professor Tokaji clerked for Judge Stephen Reinhardt 

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He has litigated 

many civil rights and election law cases, including serving as counsel in cases that kept open ‘‘Golden Week,’’ as referred to by Senator Brown, for simultaneously registration and voting in Ohio’s 

2008 general election. 

After him, David Arredondo, the director of international student 

services at Lorain County Community College. Mr. Arredondo is 

the vice chairman of the Lorain County Republican Party Executive Committee and Lorain County chairman of the Romney for 

President Campaign. He has worked in education for 30 years as 

an admissions adviser, administrator, writer, and adjunct professor. He is a radio news commentator and political pundit who 

appears on local radio shows, expressing opinions about various political issues and speaking on behalf of Republican candidates. He 

is a graduate of Miami University, where he was a Mexican Government scholar. 

Carrie Davis is executive director of the League of Women Voters 

of Ohio. Ms. Davis has been an outspoken advocate against 

changes to Ohio’s election laws that could disenfranchise voters. 

She recently testified at hearings before the Ohio General Assembly urging legislators to vote against HB 194. Ms. Davis also 

served as counsel in a number of high-profile Ohio election law 

cases, including Project Vote v. Brunner and Boustani v. Blackwell. Prior to joining the League of Women Voters of Ohio, Ms. Davis 

served as staff counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of 

Ohio, focusing on voting rights and good government. She graduated from Albion College and Case Western Reserve University 

School of Law. 

Dale Fellows is an executive committee member of the Lake 

County Republican Party and a member of the Republican State 

Central Committee. Among his extensive public and community 

service, Mr. Fellows previously served as Lake County Commissioner and has been a member of the Lake County Board of Elections for 18 years. He is president and co-owner of Morgan Litho, 

Inc. and Eagle Advertising. Mr. Fellows is a graduate of Kent State 

University and Lakeland Community College. 

I will note for the record that we received his testimony quite 

late last night, and we did not have the time to go through it in 

the kind of detail we would have liked to. 

Gregory Moore, Sr., is the campaign director for Fair Elections 

Ohio, a nonpartisan advocacy group that developed and implemented the statewide campaign to repeal HB 194. Among several 

other previous posts, Mr. Moore was executive director of the 

NAACP National Voter Fund, where he coordinated national programs designed to promote voter rights, election reform, voter education, and minority participation. During his tenure the organization registered 425,000 new voters. Mr. Moore founded the Ohio 
12 

Voter Fund, a statewide organization promoting voting rights and 

civic education. He is no stranger to the Judiciary Committee. He 

served as chief of staff and legislative director for Congressman 

John Conyers of Michigan when Congressman Conyers was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives. 

Now, as is the practice and tradition of this Subcommittee, I will 

swear in the witnesses and ask you each to please stand and raise 

your right hand. Do you affirm that the testimony you are about 

to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, 

and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. ARREDONDO. I do. 

Ms. DAVIS. I do. 

Mr. FELLOWS. I do. 

Mr. MOORE. I do. 

Professor TOKAJI. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all of 

the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Professor Tokaji, you are the first to testify. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. TOKAJI, PROFESSOR OF LAW, THE 

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW, 

COLUMBUS, OHIO 

Professor TOKAJI. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Brown. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. I 

am the Robert M. Duncan/Jones Day Designated Professor of Law 

at The Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law. I want to 

emphasize that the remarks I make today are on my own behalf 

and not on behalf of The Ohio State University. 

As this Subcommittee is aware, the voting rules around the country have engendered a great deal of attention around the country 

in the past decade, no more so than in Ohio. We have seen more 

than our share of voting controversies, particularly since 2004. And 

we have learned something, I think, from these controversies. 

We have learned that the right to vote is not something that can 

be taken for granted, that it is not merely a right but also a responsibility, and that the responsibility extends not merely to exercising our right to vote but to taking affirmative steps to protect 

that right. This is why I am so glad that this Subcommittee is paying attention to this issue and why I am so glad that you are here 

in Ohio today. 

We must never forget that democracy exists not for the benefit 

of elected officials or election officials, but for the benefit of all of 

us, we the people of this country. And we must take care to ensure 

that access and equality prevail when it comes to our voting rules. 

Now, I have provided very detailed written testimony about 

issues around the country and here in Ohio. I want to focus on just 

a couple of things, Mr. Chairman, in my testimony today. 

The first is this: We have had really serious problems with laws 

and practices that prevent people from exercising their right to 

vote in this State. Those of us who have been here for a while remember former Secretary of State Blackwell’s order, which prohibited registration forms from being accepted unless they were on 80- 

pound paper weight. 
13 

Now, since 2004, I think it is fair to say things have gotten better. We have seen some improvements. We have seen some degree 

of stability in our system. Unfortunately, HB 194 and related 

changes in our voting system take us in the wrong direction. 

Now, I want to focus in the remainder of my testimony on three 

things that I view as particularly problematic. One has already 

been mentioned: the limitations on early voting, going from a total 

of 35 days to a total of just 12 days, limiting early voting on Saturdays, and eliminating it entirely on Sundays; and as you mentioned 

earlier, eliminating it on the last 3 days prior to election, this will 

affect somewhere in the neighborhood of 105,000 people. 

Why is it so significant, this elimination of early voting on Sundays? Well, research has shown that people of color, in particular 

African Americans and Latinos, are more likely to turn out to vote 

early on Sundays. 

Second, the issue that Senator Brown mentioned in his opening 

remarks, this one-word change in Ohio law, but a very significant 

one. Our present law requires that poll workers direct voters to the 

proper polling location if they appear at the wrong one. HB 194 

would eliminate this requirement. Mr. Chairman, Senator Brown, 

this is essentially giving poll workers discretion to discriminate. 

Third, provisional ballots. We have a lot of provisional ballots. 

Most of them get counted, but a lot of them do not, approximately 

40,000 in 2008. HB 194 will make this problem worse. Fortunately, 

we have a Federal consent decree in effect which requires that 

provisionals be counted if cast in the wrong precinct due to poll 

worker error. But that consent decree is now under attack in a lawsuit that has been filed, amazingly, by our State legislative leaders. 

For all the complexity of our voting laws—and I realize my time 

has expired—the bottom line here is quite simple: We should be 

making it easier for eligible citizens to vote, not more difficult. And, 

unfortunately, our legislative leaders in Ohio seem to be intent on 

taking us in exactly the opposite direction. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Prof. Daniel P. Tokaji appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Arredondo. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID G. ARREDONDO, DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT SERVICES, LORAIN COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE, ELYRIA, OHIO 

Mr. ARREDONDO. Senator Durbin, Senator Brown, good morning 

to everyone. Today I come before you to speak in favor of supporting fair and honest elections for all American citizens. It is our 

civic duty to ensure the integrity of our electoral process at the 

Federal and State levels. Voting is a privilege and a responsibility. 

Our current system is actually a composite of 50 systems that 

vary from State to State. Some require photo identification; others 

do not. Some allow for no-fault absentee voting; others do not. 

Some allow for early voting or Internet voting. Currently, 16 different States have enacted a photo ID mandate. Fifteen States, including Ohio, require voters to show some form of personal identification such as a utility bill or a bank statement. 
14 

It would be helpful if we had a more uniform system of voting, 

especially when Federal elections like the election of a President 

are concerned. However, only Congress and the Senate can make 

such a change. In an effort to make voting easier and more accessible, Congress and State legislatures have lowered the bar for 

voter registration and the casting of ballots. Some proponents 

would have you believe that any law regulating elections is an attack on their constituents’ rights. Using that logic, voting should be 

extended unconditionally, year-round, 24/7, to ensure that their 

candidates win. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans do not 

agree with this premise. 

At one time, America did have a voting system that could be 

above suspicion of fraudulent registration and voting. But that system went out the door with the motor voter law of 1993, enacted 

by a Democratic majority Congress and signed by President Bill 

Clinton. Through motor voter, it is possible for foreign nationals to 

vote. I was recently made aware that a former foreign student of 

mine was registered to vote in Lorain County. This he was able to 

do when he happened to renew his driver’s license and was offered 

the opportunity to register to vote. No proof of citizenship was required. Fortunately, he has never attempted to vote. American college students have the opportunity to hold multiple voting registrations in their home State as well as the State where they attend 

school. There is no way of cross-checking these. 

Allow me to share with you how it is possible to reform a onetime, pathologically corrupt voting system, that of Mexico’s. By no 

means do I suggest that our electoral system is as corrupt as Mexico’s was prior to 1996. I do, however, advocate a major reform of 

our current system. 

Following the widespread corruption of the 1988 Presidential 

race, all major parties agreed to the formation of a nonpartisan, 

nongovernmental electoral commission that would conduct the voting process and ensure fair and honest elections. This resulted in 

the creation of the Federal Electoral Institute that set about the 

task of developing a system for Federal and State elections through 

hard-fought reforms enacted in 1992, 1993, and 1994. The first 

Presidential election under the new system in 2000 resulted in the 

election of the first non-Institutional Revolutionary Party candidate 

elected president since 1928 in probably the cleanest Presidential 

election in Mexican history up to that time. 

The electoral system created by Federal Electoral Institute is 

open and transparent. Every eligible Mexican citizen has a tamperproof photo ID card with a thumbprint and an embossed hologram. 

All voters are required to vote in their neighborhoods. All elections 

are held on Sundays in Mexico. Mexico is a relatively poor country 

yet does not lower standards to allow for the poor to register and 

vote as is done in America. No excuses are made while setting a 

high standard for all with no discernible drop in voter participation. In 1994, voter registration stood at 45 million. In 2009, registration was 72 million. 

Countries like Haiti and Iraq have adopted certain aspects of the 

Mexican electoral system to various degrees. The purple thumbs 

shown by Iraqi voters in their first free elections is a practice first 

employed in Mexico. 
15 

In conclusion, Americans need elections that are above question 

and reproach and should not settle for a current system that casts 

doubt on the outcome, regardless of whether the result is close or 

not. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of David G. Arredondo appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much. 

And now we recognize Ms. Carrie Davis, executive director of the 

League of Women Voters of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF CARRIE L. DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO, COLUMBUS, OHIO 

Ms. DAVIS. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Senator 

Graham, and also thank you to Ranking Member—or to Chairman 

Durbin, Senator Brown, and thanks also to Ranking Member 

Graham and Members of the Subcommittee for holding this field 

hearing today to help focus our Nation’s attention on this problem 

of voter suppression legislation that is sweeping this country. I am 

honored to be here today on behalf of the League of Women Voters 

and the League of Women Voters of Ohio. 

As many are aware, the league was founded in 1920 by a group 

of suffragettes who had successfully fought for the right to vote, 

but recognized that that was only the start of the battle, not the 

end, and that we had to be vigilant to hold onto that right to vote 

and preserve it for every eligible voter. 

During the last year and a half, we have experienced an unprecedented attack on voting rights. As we have heard from many prior 

witnesses, there has been a wealth of bills introduced and in many 

cases passed around the country, and our sister leagues have felt 

the sting of these voter suppression bills from one end of the country to the other. 

Just two examples: In Wisconsin, they passed a strict voter ID 

bill and also made it difficult for organizations like the league to 

register new voters. In the State of Florida, they passed onerous 

new restrictions on organizations that want to conduct voter registration drives so that our sister leagues there would have faced 

potential penalties, including fines up to $5,000 and a third-class 

felony, for registering eligible voters. 

Not surprisingly, many of these battles over voting rights are 

happening in States where close vote counts will have a dramatic 

impact. And if the votes are close and there are disputes over implementation of these confusing new laws, there is a real risk that 

our Nation could face a repeat of disputed election results being 

tied up in lengthy and complicated litigation and throwing doubt 

on the legitimacy of the election results. In short, we do not want 

to return to the problems of 2000 and 2004. We want to move forward, not backward. 

The League of Women Voters of Ohio and its many coalition 

partners have been actively engaged for the last 2 years in fighting 

off a wealth of attacks on voting rights in the State of Ohio that 

run the risk of returning us to the problems we saw in 2004. My 

written testimony details all the numerous bills dealing with, for 

example, restrictive voter ID, the many changes made in House 
16 

Bill 194, the changes made a short 3 weeks later in House Bill 224, 

and the current effort in Senate Bill 295 to repeal HB 194. And if 

you are confused already, you are in good company because many 

people across the State of Ohio are likewise confused about all 

these many changes. Yet what is strikingly absent from all of these 

many proposed bills is any provision for voter education or poll 

worker training and recruitment to help alleviate all the confusion 

caused and to make sure that we are able to run as smooth and 

effective an election this fall and in future years. 

Many nonpartisan organizations cautioned the Ohio Legislature 

against this legislation, including the League, the Miami Valley 

Voter Protection Coalition, Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates, the 

NAACP, Common Cause Ohio, the Coalition on Homelessness and 

Housing, the ACLU of Ohio, the Women with Disabilities Network, 

and numerous other State and national experts and academic experts who pointed out the flaws of this legislation. 

As we have heard from other witnesses, there would be significant cuts to the time period and availability of early and absentee 

voting. One thing that I would like to add is that this, in fact, carries more risks and goes back on progress. Because there was such 

a groundswell of interest by voters in voting early and absentee, 

many counties were able to consolidate precincts at a significant 

cost savings because they had fewer voters demanding to vote on 

election day and instead voting early. 

One of those election officials from Montgomery County testified 

on HB 194 and said, ‘‘They consolidated precincts and saved 

money. If these cuts to early and absentee voting went through, 

they would have to either un-consolidate those precincts or face the 

risk of having the long lines that we saw in 2004. We do not need 

that. That is moving us in the wrong direction.’’ 

In addition, both HB 194 and a recent Secretary of State directive restrict the hands of counties to send out absentee ballot applications to all voters. This was hugely successful, and that option 

has now been taken away. 

There are also concerns about ‘‘right church, wrong pew’’ and voters no longer being required to be directed to the proper precinct. 

In short, gentlemen and Senators and guests who are here today, 

House Bill 194 moves us in the wrong direction. It includes many 

provisions that, if they were to go into effect, would harm Ohio 

elections. If Ohio legislators really want to help improve the system, instead of imposing onerous new restrictions, they need to 

focus on improved voter education, poll worker recruitment, and 

poll worker training to make sure that the rules we have are implemented fairly and that all voters have a chance to have their 

ballot cast and counted. 

[The prepared statement of Carrie L. Davis appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Fellows, the floor is yours. 
17 

STATEMENT OF DALE FELLOWS, REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEEMAN, LAKE COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY, 

AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER, WILLOUGHBY 

HILLS, OHIO 

Mr. FELLOWS. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Senator Brown. 

It is good to see Senator Brown again. I was sworn in by Senator 

Brown the first time I took office as an elections official in the 

State, so I have a fondness for the Senator for that reason. 

I will apologize for the lateness of my testimony. I was actually 

on a family vacation when I was contacted in the middle of the 

week: ‘‘Would you like to do this?’’ I said, ‘‘Okay, sure.’’ 

Chairman DURBIN. That is a legitimate excuse. 

Mr. FELLOWS. So I was trying to carve out some time to send it. 

I apologize for that. 

I also have to apologize and hope you will indulge me on this. 

I was under the impression we were going to talk about the voter 

ID law in Ohio, so I had my testimony geared toward that. I did 

not realize we were going to talk about HB 194. So if you would 

indulge me, I will talk about HB 194, and it might be a little disjointed because I did hear some of the comments today, and I know 

a little bit about it, being immediate past president of the Association of Election Officials here in Ohio that dealt with this. We 

worked on this for 3 years with Secretary Brunner and then Secretary Jon Husted. 

There is in that bill, as a matter of fact, over 100-some changes 

to the elections law, as my colleagues in the elections world have 

noted, and only a few that are actually controversial, if you will. 

And the whole thing will be repealed and is on hold now because 

of the repeal. And those bills go back, again, to HB 260 and Senate 

Bill 8. 

Let me address some of the things that were mentioned. The eligibility and voters’ rights, amen, absolutely amen on voters’ rights. 

But it is also the voter’s right that does not disenfranchise that 

voter that made a legitimate vote. When voter ID laws were first 

implemented, I was shocked at how many people came to me and 

said, ‘‘It is about time we have some voter ID laws in Ohio,’’ because they felt that people were voting who were not actually eligible. There is, of course, instances of voter fraud and attempts to defraud the system in Ohio, and I can give you all sorts of instances 

of that. 

But let us talk about cutting the early voting period at a cost in 

that. That was an initiative by the bipartisan Ohio elections officials back in 2010 to stop the in-house voting as of after Friday or 

Saturday of the election because we have to conduct an election. 

Most counties cannot afford the resources, both monetarily and 

people-wise, because most counties in Ohio are very small and they 

may only have two people that actually work those elections. The 

same with working on Saturdays and Sundays when you only have 

a staff of two people, the director and deputy director. 

Correcting the voting location, it is not a requirement that they 

do not it. They can do it. Our poll workers are asked to do that. 

But it was a liability issue, too, if they happen to be drawn into 

court, as they have been over the years. 
18 

The task force, as I mentioned, was the one that we—and I go 

back to our bipartisan election officials association. If there is 

somebody that should write those laws, maybe it should be us because most of those things in there were our initiatives that would 

better the system in Ohio. 

I also challenge everyone here, those on the panel who have not 

already done it and anyone else, to volunteer as an election day 

poll worker. Walk in the shoes of an election day board member, 

Board of Elections worker, because, one, we need you, we need 

those volunteers. 

When I hear about suppressing the vote, again, this is going to 

be something that I did not know we were going to talk about, but 

let me talk to you about that. The long lines on election day in 

2008 were actually before the election, not on the election. We had 

4-hour lines in our little county of Lake County. We had tons of 

hype throughout the State about the election and everybody getting 

out to vote, and, in fact, the final results were less than 17,000 

more voters in the Presidential election between the two primary 

elections—or candidates from 2004 where there was no early, as we 

call it—people call it ‘‘early voting’’ versus 2008 out of over 5 million in each of those elections. 

The voting period, cutting the—deleting the voting period for inhouse, I talked about that. The cost of cutting—I mean, it is—anyway, I apologize for being a little bit disjointed because I was not 

prepared to talk about this, but let me end with one comment. 

Voting is a right, a privilege, and a responsibility that we should 

all take very seriously. It is the essence of our democracy. I believe, 

Senator Durbin, you said that in your opening comments. Election 

officials, legislators, and voters should fight every day to protect 

that right, that privilege, and that responsibility with all the fervor 

we can muster. And we must help protect every voter’s rights as 

well as never compromise the integrity of the system so that there 

is the utmost confidence that every election is fair and honest. 

Voter ID laws can and should accomplish just that. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, Senator Brown, and other Members 

of the Committee who are not here, it has been an honor and a 

privilege to present this testimony today, and I look forward to any 

questions and comments you may have of me. 

[The prepared statement of Dale Fellows appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Fellows. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Moore. You have the floor. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY T. MOORE, CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, 

FAIR ELECTIONS OHIO, CLEVELAND, OHIO 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Durbin, Senator Sherrod Brown, who I have known for several years, and Congresswoman Fudge, we have worked together over the years. My 

name is Greg Moore. I am the campaign director of Fair Elections 

Ohio. I am also here representing the many coalitions who came 

together to put together the campaign which gathered over 

500,000, half a million, signatures from across the State. We are 

also joined by the co-chair of Fair Elections Ohio, who I must acknowledge, Reverend Otis Moss, Jr. There are also several mem-
19 

bers of our allies and friends in organized labor and within the 

clergy who are here. Those clergy who helped us get those signatures were the bulk of the volunteer effort, and it demonstrates 

how important the issue of the weekend voting is to them. And 

many of them are in this room, and I want to say thank you to all 

of them, particularly Bishop Clark and Bishop Perry and many others who have been working throughout the years in support of voting rights. 

We are at a crossroads right now, Mr. Chairman, because there 

are a couple things happening, and my comments and prepared 

testimony goes into great detail about this. We have a ballot initiative that is pending on the November ballot. We have a piece of 

legislation, SB 295, that seeks to repeal it. But we also have provisions in that bill that take away those rights of the voters who 

have been standing in long lines over the years. 

Mr. Fellows mentioned those long lines. Those lines were, in fact, 

on Sunday and on Saturday in 2008, and that is why we are fighting so hard for that provision to stay there. 

The members of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus, chaired by 

Representative Sandra Williams, have been working with us and 

members of both chambers, including Senate Minority Leader Eric 

Kearney, who is one of our committee petition members, and Senator Nina Turner, to try and fashion whatever legislation there is 

pending now into something that would represent a full repeal of 

HB 194. But, of course, we have not reached that point yet. 

So I am here basically to lend my voice to all those voter rights 

activists in this room who fought so hard to put this on the ballot. 

The key to all of this is that many of us are quarreling over 

whether or not the Republican majority has the authority to remove this issue from the ballot, and that is certainly something we 

can continue to debate and may even have to go through litigation 

to resolve. But the fact remains that it represents one of the few 

instances, if not the only instance in the U.S., where the legislature 

is in full retreat and seeking to repeal voter suppression legislation. In fact, there are very few cases where we are able to stop 

the law from becoming implemented. 

In fact, in 2011, we had only 61⁄2 weeks to collect the 231,000 

plus signatures. Had we not collected those signatures by September 29th, all these provisions of HB 194 would have taken effect on September 30, 2011. And the election that we just had to 

repeal Senate Bill 5 (Issue No. 2 on the ballot) would have been 

impacted. I would even venture to guess it may not have even been 

the same outcome. 

So we have been able to stop the law from becoming impactful 

both for that election and to have stopped it from taking effect for 

this important 2012 election. In addition to that, people circulating 

petitions now for the repeal of our redistricting laws are operating 

under the current existing laws that, again, would have been rolled 

back had we not stopped this effort. 

Now, by all accounts, we will have a vote tomorrow in the House 

of the Ohio Legislature that would determine whether or not SB 

295 becomes the law. What we are saying—and time goes by so 

quickly—is that today it no longer appears to be a question of 

whether 194 will be repealed. It is now, rather, a question of how 
20 

and a question of when. This speaks to the power of the citizens’ 

veto, which we were able to move to the highest level just as our 

friends in organized labor were able to do in 2011. In 2012, the citizens’ veto is still standing strong. And so tomorrow the House of 

Representatives will be taking this issue up. They can restore the 

provisions of 194—they can restore the provisions that brings the 

law back to the way they were before 194 was enacted. There will 

be allies in the House offering amendments to 295 that will seek 

to restore the 3-day weekend. We want to take this opportunity to 

urge the legislature—in fact, this may be our final appeal to the 

legislature publicly—to please listen to the voices of the people of 

Ohio, 500,000 people or more have signed the petition, the people 

have spoken. We have seen the law. They want it repealed, not 

partially but fully. They want it repealed not next month but tomorrow. And they want it all repealed now, or we will repeal it 

ourselves on November 6th. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Gregory T. Moore appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Moore. 

I am going to ask the panel, all of you, a collective question. Anyone can respond if they wish. 

As I mentioned with Congresswoman Fudge, the first question I 

ask at each of these hearings is that the critics of the new law in 

Ohio argue that it is designed to suppress the vote of people who 

would otherwise vote—the poor, minorities, elderly, disabled, and 

the like. The supporters of the law say, no, it is designed to suppress voter fraud. 

So what history of voter fraud do you have in Ohio that would 

be addressed by HB 194? 

Mr. FELLOWS. Senator, if we were to talk to pretty much most 

counties in the State, you will have some kind of situation that 

may have occurred. Certainly prior to having voter ID laws, you 

had folks who would come—— 

Chairman DURBIN. Excuse me, sir. We have got to stick with the 

law, not voter ID. 

Mr. FELLOWS. Oh, I am sorry. 

Chairman DURBIN. It is about early—— 

Mr. FELLOWS. It is 194. 

Chairman DURBIN. So what I am trying to say is beyond anecdotal evidence and things that people may talk about on talk radio, 

I would like to get into the real—— 

Mr. FELLOWS. I do not want to talk about that—— 

Chairman DURBIN. The real examples of, for example, prosecutions for voter fraud in Ohio relative to early voting periods that 

led the legislature to say, ‘‘We are going to restrict these early voting periods.’’ So is there a history of that that you can point to? 

How many prosecutions have you had for voter fraud in Ohio during the early voting period out of the millions of votes that have 

been cast? Does anybody have any idea? 

Professor TOKAJI. I do not have a precise number, Mr. Chairman, 

but it is no more than a handful. And the reality of the situation, 

contrary to the myth, is that voter fraud is extremely rare in this 

State and in this country. At the time that the ID bill was being 
21 

debated, I went and I looked for any cases I could find of the kind 

of fraud that the voter ID bill would prevent, voter impersonation 

fraud—— 

Chairman DURBIN. Mr. Arredondo, do you have examples of—— 

Professor TOKAJI [continuing]. And I could find not a single instance of in-person impersonation. 

Chairman DURBIN. Any examples of prosecutions for voter fraud? 

Mr. ARREDONDO. I do know that in Lorain County in the past 

there have been a few cases of voter fraud, and the county prosecutor has chosen not to prosecute them. I am also aware that in 

other counties throughout Ohio there have been a small similar situation of voter fraud, and the prosecution has refused to prosecute 

them. 

Something else that—— 

Chairman DURBIN. Excuse me, but I am going to hold you to that 

for a second because I have some other questions. The point I am 

getting to here, in this hearing and others, if you are going to 

change the law that allowed 105,000 Ohio citizens to vote in the 

weekend before the election, you clearly need a motive. If the motive is to suppress the fraud that is going on during that weekend, 

case made. But if you cannot even point to a prosecution of more 

than a handful of people, then I think it argues that it is about 

suppressing the vote rather than suppressing fraud. 

Mr. Arredondo, I have a question to ask you. You speak glowingly about Mexican electoral reform, and one of the things that 

you pointed to was that in Mexico you were allowed to vote on Sunday. So if it is a good idea for Mexicans to vote on Sunday, why 

is it a bad idea for people in Ohio to vote on Sunday? 

Mr. ARREDONDO. Well, first of all, let me point out that there is 

no such thing as absentee or early voting in Mexico. Everybody 

votes on the same day, which happens to be Sunday. I would be 

in favor of such a change in our electoral system for that kind of 

a process. 

Chairman DURBIN. Why do you think Sunday is a better day to 

vote? 

Mr. ARREDONDO. Well, first of all, it is not a work day so we do 

not give people an excuse to say, ‘‘I am sorry. I am working Monday through Friday. Saturday would be fine, Sunday would be 

fine.’’ 

Chairman DURBIN. That is the point of early voting on Sunday 

before the election, which is being eliminated by HB 194. 

The second point that you raise is about the motor voter law that 

was passed during President Clinton’s administration and approved by Congress, and you use an example, you say foreign nationals are allowed to vote under motor voter law. I am sure you 

have read that law, and you talked about a student who was given 

an invitation to vote. Any person under the motor voter law who 

wishes to vote has to attest under penalty of perjury that they are 

American citizens, and the penalty is not only a fine but up to 5 

years in prison. So it may not be a casual decision to just go ahead 

and be a foreign national and vote under the motor voter law. 

Would you agree with that? 

Mr. ARREDONDO. I do, but in the case of my student, in talking 

with him, he was oblivious to what it was that he was signing. 
22 

Chairman DURBIN. He would have been handed an attestation, 

and on the attestation he would have been asked if he was an 

American citizen. If he signed that and lied about it, he was subjected to a potential of 5 years in prison. 

Mr. ARREDONDO. We understand that, yes. 

Chairman DURBIN. So to suggest that we have loosened the laws 

and made it casual, 5 years in a Federal prison is a pretty serious 

penalty. 

Mr. ARREDONDO. Myself, I would prefer that someone prove that 

they are an American citizen with a birth certificate or with a naturalization paper. 

Chairman DURBIN. I would say to you that the laws as they exist 

establish these attestations before one can be allowed to vote, and 

if there was an abuse of this, I would suppose there would be a few 

prosecutions you could point to in the State of Ohio. Can you? 

Mr. ARREDONDO. As I said, prosecutions tend to be very, very lax 

on voter fraud. May I—one thing about the early voting, may I answer? 

Chairman DURBIN. Of course. 

Mr. ARREDONDO. Because you were bringing up particularly the 

weekend before. As my colleague Mr. Fellows pointed out before, 

these laws, whether they are done at the Federal or State level, 

really should involve those who are part of the system, that is to 

say, our poll workers, our registrars, and they will tell you that the 

weekend before the election is one that is so frenzied and one that 

occupies them with much detail of deploying voting machines and 

setting up the process so that it is done in an absolutely flawless 

manner, and that they would prefer to have those 3 days in order 

to make sure that election day is run without any difficulty. 

Chairman DURBIN. Mr. Arredondo, let me just say this: I understand that it is extra work. Early voting is extra work. By eliminating the opportunity for early voting on the weekend before, you 

are now going to move more of those voters to election day. Mr. 

Fellows talked about some sympathy for these election officials. I 

have it. That is a hard job. In Illinois, it is a 12-hour run of responsibility. And they do not get paid a heck of a lot of money to do 

it. But now, by eliminating the early voting opportunity, you are 

shifting more burden to the actual election day. They may be lucky 

in some places to get out in 12 hours. 

Senator Brown. 

Mr. FELLOWS. Mr. Durbin, could I address that real quick? I am 

sorry. 

Chairman DURBIN. Of course, please. 

Mr. FELLOWS. One of the things is election fraud is hard to prosecute because usually you cannot catch the person that has done 

it. But when the voter comes into the polls and wants to vote and 

their vote has already been cast and they are told, ‘‘You cannot 

now vote,’’ what do you do with that person? You cannot even catch 

that person. And that is documented in our laws. And what I say 

to those things is thanking elections officials and professionals for 

the fact that these do not happen so often. 

But to your point about election day, your folks on election day, 

that election weekend, in 2008 our professional staff was up 42 out 

of 48 straight hours. I am not even sure that that is legal under 
23 

the Federal labor laws. And we were not unusual. There were some 

that never slept for 48—because you have got to administrate that 

law. And we were there in our little county of Lake County until 

10 o’clock with voters because you want them all to vote the day 

before the election. Then we had to run our lists to let folks know 

at the polling locations, the 157 presiding judges, who had voted 

already so that—because we always on election day have people 

come in who have applied for or taken an absentee vote or voted 

in-house and then come to the polls, forgetting that they had already voted, or had said, ‘‘Oh, well, I did not vote my mail-in ballot, 

so I can just come to vote.’’ Well, we do not know if you have already voted that or not. 

So those lists have to go to the presiding judge, so we had to use 

deputy sheriffs to deliver these to 157 people when they had to be 

down at the polls at 6 a.m. 

Chairman DURBIN. There is no argument here. The people—— 

Mr. FELLOWS. Right. That is the process. 

Chairman DURBIN. The people working the election offices and 

the polling places really put in the hours, and we thank them for 

it. We can never compensate them enough for that. The question, 

though, is whether or not we want to deny an opportunity to vote 

for those who have similar hardships and inconveniences. And the 

Ohio law, unfortunately, restricts that opportunity in early voting. 

I am going to turn it over to Senator Brown. We will come back 

for a second round of questions. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Chairman Durbin. 

Mr. Fellows, thank you for your advertising for more poll workers. 

Mr. FELLOWS. Yes. 

Senator BROWN. That was an ongoing problem. Unlike Illinois, 

where they only work 12 hours, the harder-working people of Ohio 

work 13 hours at the polls, from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., I believe 

still, right? And we all appreciate that. We also know there is a 

continuing shortage of poll workers. It is hard to get people to do 

that for the little bit of pay and the long hours, and to my mind, 

that is another argument for Sunday voting, that we can get more 

people into the polling place earlier. 

I will start with you, Professor Tokaji. In 2004, there were serious problems. The legislature fixed those problems in 2006. The 

legislature, bipartisan, reacted to the problems of 2004 election 

day, which probably everybody in this room is familiar with. In 

2010, there was an election, and the legislature responded by tightening and changing dramatically election laws. Did something happen in 2010 that caused the legislature to do that? I do not mean 

the outcome of the election, but were there problems in the machinery and efficiency and fairness of the election? Were there fraudulent activities in 2010 that caused the legislature to need to do 

this? 

Professor TOKAJI. Not at all. In fact, I would say that at least 

here in Ohio, 2010 was the least eventful election that we have had 

in a long time from the standpoint of election administration problems. And this is largely because we in the State—and that means 

voters, poll workers, and election officials—have largely gotten ac-
24 

customed to, we have absorbed the many changes in our election 

system that have occurred in the past decade. 

So we have now got this level of stability which would be disrupted by HB 194, and going back to part of your question, there 

is really no explanation for what has happened here and in other 

States other than changes in the composition of State legislative 

bodies. 

Senator BROWN. As an observer in 2004 of the elections, one of 

the biggest concerns I had was sort of the changing rules and directives that the Secretary of State sent out, to the point where I and, 

I assume, many, many others were confused on election day what 

exactly the laws were. You know, there were poll watchers. There 

were lawyers that came in from out of State on both sides to watch 

and make sure all this was done right. You know, I fear that is 

happening right now with the uncertainty that Ms. Davis has 

talked about. 

Mr. Arredondo, one question for you. You talked about lowering 

the bar for voters and your concerns about fraud. What does 194 

do to resolve the issue of lowering the bar, as you describe it? Can 

you give me two or three specifics how it resolves the issue of our 

lowering the bar and letting voters in? 

Mr. FELLOWS. HB 194 specifically does not do anything that is 

going to really address that other than the—well, it is going to 

eliminate the Golden Week, and certainly it is going to give relief 

to election workers who, as I pointed out before, are compelled to 

provide service above and beyond the call of duty in order to prepare for a well-run election on election day. So this is—and not the 

least of which, 194 is designed to save for our counties money that 

have been strapped for increased costs on added days of voting, 

particularly on weekends. 

Senator BROWN. When poll workers direct confused voters to the 

correct precinct, is that lowering the bar? 

Mr. ARREDONDO. You know, first of all, I am not a member of the 

Ohio Legislature, and I am not so sure that I understand all of the 

ramifications of 194, particularly the one about not being able to 

direct voters to proper precincts. That one is really beyond my, you 

know, imagination. 

Senator BROWN. Does Sunday voting lower the bar? 

Mr. ARREDONDO. I am sorry? 

Senator BROWN. Does Sunday voting lower the bar? 

Mr. ARREDONDO. As I said before, I would like to see a uniform 

day of voting that we could all vote on the same day, as is done 

in Mexico. If that happens to be Sunday, I would like that to happen. 

Senator BROWN. So there should be no early voting at all? 

Mr. ARREDONDO. I am sorry? 

Senator BROWN. Would you prefer we had Sunday voting one 

Sunday in November, presumably, and no absentee, no early voting 

at all? 

Mr. ARREDONDO. That is correct. 

Senator BROWN. That is what you would prefer. 

Mr. ARREDONDO. We pointed out before that—and I believe either you or Senator Durbin mentioned that absentee voting certainly opens up the door to fraud. 
25 

Senator BROWN. Except none of you on this panel could really 

point to anybody prosecuted for voting—I mean, it just strains 

credibility to think that some person out there is going to vote— 

is going to start voting early in the morning, vote in Cuyahoga 

County, then go to Medina, then go to Richland, then go to Morrow, then go to Huron County, cast six votes to try to change an 

election when the chances of getting caught exist—I do not know 

how high they are—and the chances of going to prison if you do get 

caught are very high and your chances of changing an election with 

those six votes that day are almost infinitesimal. 

Mr. ARREDONDO. Let me answer that one of the easiest ways to 

cause fraud by absentee is by college students who are from out of 

State who have the opportunity to register in their home State as 

well as the State where they are attending school. And you mentioned Oberlin before as a case in point. 

There are, I believe, 7,000 to 8,000 registered voters in the city 

of Oberlin, yet the population of Oberlin is probably about 8,000. 

So this is evidence of the fact that there are a number of students 

who no longer live in Oberlin who have gone elsewhere and are 

still able to ask for an absentee ballot in Lorain County and one 

in wherever they are now residing. And there is no way that we 

have any kind of a monitoring of that kind of a process. 

Senator BROWN. I do not agree with that. There are plenty of 

ways, if you are a local election official in that county—and I believe you actually live in Oberlin, right? 

Mr. ARREDONDO. I am in Lorain. 

Senator BROWN. Okay. You live in Lorain. I am sorry. 

Ms. Davis, do you want to address that? 

Ms. DAVIS. Yes, thank you, Senator Brown. The question that 

both of you have asked about the number of prosecutions for fraud 

in Ohio was asked during all the legislative hearings in both the 

Ohio House and the Ohio Senate on House Bill 194 and all the 

other bills that have been introduced on election issues in the last 

year and a half. No one there was able to answer that question either because we have not had this rash of prosecutions in the State 

of Ohio for voter fraud, although we do know where the investigations for fraud are happening. And just to give you one example 

from the 2008 election dealing with this so-called Golden Week, 

where we have the start of early voting 35 days before election day 

and the close of registration 30 days before, so we have this 5-day 

window. 

In 2008, there was a lot of excitement about this overlap period. 

It was litigated in the Federal court for the Northern District, the 

Southern District of Ohio, and the Ohio Supreme Court, all of 

whom concluded that under Ohio law that has to be followed. It is 

not unconstitutional. It does not violate any laws. That is perfectly 

to do. And just in the spirit of full disclosure, I was counsel, direct 

counsel on one of those cases and amicus counsel on the other two. 

That overlap week was upheld by numerous courts. 

But we do know where the investigations were occurring, and 

just one example of that in 2008, in Greene County, which is in the 

southern portion of Ohio, and also happens to include a number of 

Ohio’s historically black colleges, there a public records request was 

made of the Greene County Board of Elections for the number of 
26 

voters who registered during that time and requested an absentee 

ballot. And due to public pressure from all the people questioning 

why that county and why those college communities, that public 

records request was withdrawn. But we know just anecdotally from 

instances like that where the investigations are happening, even 

though it was perfectly lawful, as decided by three courts for people 

to register and request an absentee ballot during that time. 

Chairman DURBIN. Ms. Davis, I was going to followup on that 

question, too, because it gets back to the basic point here. Anyone 

who falsifies their application for an absentee ballot is subject in 

most States to a criminal penalty. Is that the case here? 

Ms. DAVIS. Chairman Durbin, yes, that is true. Under Section 

3599 of the Ohio Revised Code, if you were to falsify any of those 

election documents, it is, in fact, a crime, and they can be prosecuted and punished. 

Chairman DURBIN. Going back to Senator Brown’s point, to think 

that you would hopscotch from county to county, vote at your college and then vote back home, and run the risk of going to prison 

every time you did, seems incredible. And I would just go on to say 

that I am not surprised to hear that when your legislature asked 

the same question, where is the voter fraud, no one could produce 

the evidence. It draws you to the other conclusion. If it is not about 

suppressing fraud, it is about suppressing votes. 

Mr. Moore, I want to bring you into this conversation. We are 

talking about 105,000 people who voted, or did in one of the last 

elections in Ohio in the early voting. So 105,000 ballots, what impact could that have on elections that you have witnessed in your 

time? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, we do know in 2004 the election was decided 

by the failure to count a lot of those ballots that were provisional. 

So we know that if you have the last weekend voting and a lot of 

those people are coming in that have not voted for a while, you 

could get a number of provisionals during that time period. So that 

93,000 plus would be an extremely important number of people to 

leave out of the equation, especially when this election in Ohio was 

decided only by less than 100,000 votes, literally, in 2004. 

Chairman DURBIN. Professor Tokaji made an earlier point about 

the likelihood that minority voters would vote on the closing weekend, ‘‘souls to the polls’’ efforts and the like. So could you testify 

for the record, if you know, what impact this has on the minority 

vote in terms of eliminating the last weekend? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, Senator. I think the problems that we have 

around this issue of the lines is mostly an urban problem and a college campus problem, because that is where there are large concentrations of voters trying to fit into a small limited number of 

precincts. And when there is a high demand for voting, the lines 

are longer, and there are more people who are trying to get access. 

It is very difficult for a student to try to vote when he or she has 

class or a working mother to try to vote when they have day-care 

issues. So that would have a major impact on the ability of people 

to be bale to vote in this election. 

If I could just say one more thing, Mr. Chairman, I worked for 

5 years on the motor voter bill, 4 years as an advocate and 1 year 

as legislative director to Congressman John Conyers, Jr., the Rank-
27 

ing Member on the House Judiciary Committee. It took us a long 

time to get that provision together, so I do not want anybody to 

leave this room thinking that the motor voter bill, the National 

Voter Registration Act, created any opportunity for people to vote 

fraudulently. It only creates an opportunity for people to register. All the voting happens much longer after they have done that. 

A final point that was in my statement which I did not get to 

say: If we use the same logic of shutting down the last weekend 

(the last 3 days), it would be like shutting down department stores 

the last 3 days before Christmas because too many people are shopping. It just would make no sense at all because you would basically stop the shopping at the highest point of demand. And so giving us those 3 days is not just an academic argument. The demand 

is highest right before the election, and so to close the doors down 

and put a padlock on the right to vote during those 3 days, after 

you’ve given them 35 days before, is voter suppression because it 

suppresses the ability of people, especially those 100,000 you mentioned, to actually vote. 

Chairman DURBIN. You could probably get away with that because shopping is a privilege and not a right. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Professor Tokaji, let me ask you, could you 

respond to Mr. Fellows’ point on this directing to the proper precinct issue? And he raised a question of the liability of a poll worker. And as I understand the change in the law, first there was 

mandatory language that said the polling official shall direct the 

person to the right precinct. 

Professor TOKAJI. Right. 

Chairman DURBIN. Now the language is permissive and it opens 

up a possibility raised by one of the witnesses here that a poll 

worker would pick and choose those that he would direct to the 

right precinct for whatever reason. But the question raised by Mr. 

Fellows whether the poll worker assumed some liability under the 

law, and I think he said may be sued for failing to direct a voter 

to the correct precinct. First, do you know if that has ever happened? 

Professor TOKAJI. No, and I also teach Federal courts law, and 

I would say that that poll worker would almost surely enjoy qualified immunity. The only exception I could imagine is let us say a 

poll worker intentionally was refusing to direct African Americans 

to the proper precinct but was directing white voters, for example. 

If a poll worker was intentionally doing that, then conceivably they 

might be, but you would have to have that level of conduct for anyone to be personally liable. And, in fact, by eliminating this requirement, it is opening the door to new litigation of the kind that 

materialized in Florida back in 2010—in 2000, rather. 

Chairman DURBIN. I will ask Ms. Davis, who apparently has witnessed some of the testimony about HB 194. Was there evidence 

that poll workers were being sued for failing to direct people to the 

right precinct? 

Ms. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge, there has not been 

situations where poll workers individually were sued, but there 

may have been occasions where they were called as witnesses to 

testify in cases where a county board of elections was sued. And 
28 

this goes to reinforce the point of why this change in the law is so 

irrational. Right now, poll workers are required to direct voters to 

the proper precinct, and if they are not in the proper precinct, then 

those votes do not count. HB 194 makes that discretionary, which 

actually increases the legal problems of equal protection. There is 

unbridled discretion of the poll worker to pick and choose if they 

want to help someone or not, so that raises the possibility of more 

litigation. 

But what would actually be helpful, instead of making it discretionary, if they want to reduce the chances of litigation, improve 

poll worker training, give those poll workers the tools they need to 

help direct voters to the right precinct. That would be a solution 

that would actually solve a problem rather than—— 

Chairman DURBIN. Mr. Fellows, let me give you the last word. 

Mr. FELLOWS. Thank you. I appreciate it. I apologize if I—I do 

not think I used the word ‘‘sued’’ in there because—I hope I did not 

because that is not—they have been dragged into court. 

Chairman DURBIN. You said it is a liability issue, they have been 

drawn into court over the years. 

Mr. FELLOWS. That is correct. That is exactly what I meant. They 

have been drawn into court numerous times. Hamilton County was 

the big one. 

Chairman DURBIN. As witnesses? 

Mr. FELLOWS. Yes, correct. And then what it does is it makes 

us—we had a situation in my community, too, where they got— 

then we cannot find poll workers. No one wants to be dragged into 

court just to work for 1 day a year. So it was not—that was one 

of the issues that it just intimidates people from—— 

Chairman DURBIN. Does it happen frequently? 

Mr. FELLOWS. It keeps—what? 

Chairman DURBIN. Did it happen frequently? 

Mr. FELLOWS. Not frequently, but it happened large-scale in 

Hamilton County, and that is when, again, the Association of Elections Officials, the bipartisan group, asked the legislature to do 

this. If we go back to 2010 to that task force report on numerous 

things about absentee voting, I think that that would solve a lot 

of the issues, because it was a bipartisan approach. Senator Brown 

is well aware of that organization. 

I do want to ask just real quick, mailing absentee applications 

has been resolved. It is going to be mailed throughout the State of 

Ohio this year. 

Chairman DURBIN. That was a decision by your Republican Secretary of State? 

Mr. FELLOWS. Correct. And one of the issues that we have as 

elections officials is inconsistency in the process when we are talking about voting or having polls open on Saturdays and Sundays. 

As I mentioned, most of the counties in Ohio are very small. They 

cannot afford the staff to do that. Their staff may be only two. And 

now you have situations where you have multi-county districts, 

congressional district, State Senate district, appeals court districts, 

et cetera, that cross county lines. So now you have one set of voters 

having rules and open polls because those counties can afford it, 

but you have others that cannot afford it. So now you have 
29 

disenfranchised certain voters by doing that inconsistency. And 

that was one of the major issues with that. 

With the poll worker, I think we addressed the poll worker thing. 

And then when we go back to—I know you are very large on empirical data, and rightly so. There is no empirical data that shows 

between 2004 when we had the old style, where you had to have 

a reason to vote absentee, like you had to be a senior or out of the 

county, to where in 2008 you had the early voting, the empirical 

data shows that the total voter turnout was infinitesimal. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. Before I turn this over to Senator 

Brown, I have reflected on an earlier statement I would like to correct so I can return safely to my home State of Illinois. Our polls 

are open from 6 in the morning until 7 in the evening, so it is a 

13-hour day. The poll workers are there early and stay late, so it 

was not 12 hours. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FELLOWS. God bless the poll workers of our country. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. But our poll workers actually work harder during the 13 hours—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Fellows, the numbers between 2004 and 2008, we could 

argue this, are not quite infinitesimal. In 2004, 5.6 million voters 

voted; in 2008, 5.7. A hundred thousand is not—— 

Mr. FELLOWS. No, no, no. I do not know which numbers you 

have, but from the Secretary of State’s office, the total vote count 

was about, I want to say, a 52,000- to 57,000-vote difference. That 

is total voters. But if you just go to who voted for the two major 

political parties, the candidates, it would have been Senator Kerry 

and George W. Bush in 2004 and McCain and Barack Obama in 

2008. The difference was less than 17,000 votes difference out of 

over 5 million votes. 

Senator BROWN. But the issue is how many—okay, I will not belabor this. The issue is how many people actually voted, but that 

is not a big concern. 

One of the things, Mr. Fellows, that you were known for, I remember when I was Secretary of State, and that many of your colleagues are is a strong view of—strong advocates for local control 

in elections. And while we have State rules, we also want local 

elections officials to be empowered to do what they have to do to 

do this job fairly and efficiently. You had mentioned this for a moment the first time in the hearing about the local boards of elections have—prior to this new law had the discretion whether they 

wanted to mail absentee ballots—applications to anybody—to their 

whole county. 

Mr. FELLOWS. Correct. 

Senator BROWN. To all eligible voters—all registered voters in 

their counties. The legislature took away that discretion by HB 

194. I know that Secretary Husted, to his credit, has done the right 

thing and is going to open that up this year. Well, really he has 

got to follow the law of the fact that 194 is on the ballot to be challenged. But why do you want—why does this bill and do you support this bill wanting to take away that local control? Because no 
30 

longer can you at the Lake County Board or Mr. Arredondo at the 

Lorain County Board decide I want to—we have the money and we 

think it makes sense for us locally to make that decision? We are 

not—the law never told them they had to do it. Some counties did 

it, some did not. Why should we take away that local—— 

Mr. FELLOWS. Just so you know, I do not necessarily support everything in HB 194. What I support very adamantly is all the 

things that we as elections officials ask the legislature to do. We 

actually—our task force said to mail absentee applications to everybody in the State. It became a monetary issue, a cost issue to do 

it. But what we do call for, as all elections officials do because of 

my point on the multi-county district, is consistency. We cannot 

just have that—that autonomy would be great if the elections in all 

the district were contained into our own little counties and it did 

not affect anything else. But when we have so many districts that 

go outside of our county into neighboring counties and then we 

could not afford—— 

Senator BROWN. You would be including the congressional district that now goes from Cleveland to Toledo, for instance? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FELLOWS. Yes, that could be—or the ones that used to go 

down south all the way to the river district. But, yes, I mean, we— 

but there is more than just congressional. I mean, there is State 

Senate, there is appeals courts. It goes on and on, as you know. 

And so we as elections officials absolutely would love to see absentee applications go out to everybody, and that was our stance on 

it. 

Senator BROWN. It was the right stance. 

Mr. Moore, do you want to comment? 

Mr. MOORE. Just for clarification, Senator Brown, what we are 

asking for is for the law to be restored to the way it was before 

194 was passed. Under that system, counties had the discretion to 

extend the early voting period to fit the needs of their county. So 

if you have a county with a lot of long lines, a big urban community, and there is a known demand for more ballots and smaller 

precincts, I think it is proper to allow those counties to make that 

decision, because what happens in Belmont County may not—the 

rules in Belmont County may not be the same ones you need to 

have in Cuyahoga County where you have a much larger population, and that is when it goes back to Senator Durbin’s question. 

Minorities are impacted, young people are impacted, people who 

live in cities are more adversely impacted by this. 

So all we are saying is leave it to the discretion of the counties 

to fit the needs of that county, but not try to impose something 

that might work for Belmont County on Cuyahoga County, which 

draws abundant numbers. This throws us back in long lines, puts 

us back out in the rain. Let us restore the law back the way it was 

and give us the right to cast our vote without—— 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. 

Professor Tokaji, Ms. Davis mentioned the Golden Week, and it 

has been discussed from time to time during all this. Some saw the 

Golden Week as an opportunity for rampant fraud. You called the 

Golden Week once one of the best features of Ohio’s system. Tell 

me why you said that, and reassure all of us in this room, reassure 
31 

this Subcommittee, if you would, what systems are in place to 

make sure that this, for all intents and purposes, 5, 6 days of election day registration, that it is fairly done, efficiently done, and 

people’s right to vote is protected, but we are protecting against 

fraud at the same time? 

Professor TOKAJI. So as a matter of Ohio law, as you mentioned 

earlier, a law that passed a Republican State legislature and was 

signed by Governor Taft, we have no-excuse absentee voting, which 

means anyone is entitled to vote absentee, and that includes early 

voting. 

This is actually more secure than voting on election day because 

you have plenty of time to check whether the individual is, in fact, 

registered and eligible to vote before the ballot actually gets counted. It cannot as a matter of constitutional law get counted until 

election day. And the reason I said I think it is one of the best features of Ohio law is if we look at the data from around the country 

on the reforms that actually improve turnout, allowing one-stop 

shopping, allowing voters simultaneously to register and cast their 

ballots is the one reform that across jurisdictions over a long period 

of time has been shown to result in substantial increases in turnout. We need more eligible people voting, not fewer. 

Senator BROWN. So you are arguing that—this is a very important point, I think, to make. You are arguing that if you go in on 

October—what are the dates of the Golden Week this year? 

Mr. FELLOWS. Early and absentee starts October 2nd this year. 

Senator BROWN. Okay. So for those 5 days, 5, 6 days, if Carrie 

Davis goes in—you live in Franklin County. 

Ms. DAVIS. Yes. 

Senator BROWN. If Carrie Davis goes into her Franklin County 

Board of Elections and votes during—where I assume she is probably already registered, but if she is not, she goes and registers and 

votes that day, one of those days, the protections against fraud are 

actually better aimed at her, if you will, than they are if Carrie 

Davis registers prior to that and goes to vote back in her Columbus 

precinct on election day. 

Professor TOKAJI. That is precisely right, because you have plenty of time—at least 30 days before the ballot will actually be counted where you can actually check to make sure the person—— 

Senator BROWN. The ballot will be in an envelope with her name 

on it, and if somebody challenges it and she can be shown not to 

be a legitimate voter, they will set that ballot aside for challenge, 

but it will never be counted unless—it may not ever be counted because she might not have been a real voter. 

Professor TOKAJI. Yes, which almost never happens. And, by the 

way, I can count on no hands the number of incidents of fraud associated with this 5-day period, the so-called Golden Week. 

Senator BROWN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. I want to thank this panel. I want to thank 

Professor Tokaji, Mr. Arredondo, Ms. Davis, Mr. Fellows, and Mr. 

Moore for joining us here. I know it is a personal sacrifice. I am 

glad that we did not completely mess up your family vacation, Mr. 

Fellows. Thank you very much for being here, all of you, as part 

of this hearing. 
32 

This is not the last of these hearings. Unfortunately, we have a 

lot of other States facing the same basic question. I will continue 

to ask the same question of each panel: What is the incidence and 

experience of voter fraud that gave rise to the change in State law? 

We now have the answer in Ohio and the answer in Florida, and 

the answer is there is no evidence of fraud that gave rise to this 

change in the law. But we do know what the law will do. It will 

reduce the likelihood of voting for some Americans. It will make it 

inconvenient and a hardship when, in fact, we should make it as 

easy as legally possible for every American to vote. We are a 

stronger democracy when more people participate in this democracy. And we owe it to those who fought for these rights over the 

years and to the men and women in uniform today who still fight 

for those values that we should never, ever take for granted. 

And for those who say, ‘‘Well, it will not affect me; I get off on 

election day, and it is no big problem,’’ it does affect you because 

it affects this country that we live in, the values of the country that 

we live in, and the very basic concept of whether or not the right 

to vote for every American is worth fighting for, whether it is on 

a battlefield or in a hearing before a legislative committee. 

So I thank you for being here and being part of the record that 

we have made today. You are not alone in your interest in this 

issue. We have statements from dozens of organizations, including 

the former Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, Northeast 

Ohio Voter Advocates, Ohio Women with Disabilities Network, 

Project Vote, ACLU of Ohio, Advancement Project, AFL–CIO of 

Ohio, Mayor Earl Leiken of Shaker Heights, the National Action 

Network, Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, Ohio Education Association, Pipefitters Union, Rabbis Richard Block and 

Robert Nosanchuk, Reverend Stanley Miller, State Representative 

Michael Stinziano, Stuart Garson of the Cuyahoga County Democrats, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, the Leadership 

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Citizens Alliance for 

Secure Elections, and the Harvard Community Centers, and without objection, their statements will be entered into the record, and 

I thank them. 

[The information appears as submissions for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. For the witnesses who are here today, there 

is a possibility that you will be sent written questions by way of 

followup, and I hope that you can respond on a timely basis. 

I want to thank Senator Brown for inviting me here today, inviting the Committee, and if there are no further comments from our 

panel or colleagues, I thank our witnesses and everyone in attendance for their interest in this important issue. 

This hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 
(33) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
34 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARCIA L. FUDGE
35 
36 
37 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID G. ARREDONDO
38 
39 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARRIE L. DAVIS
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALE FELLOWS
51 
52 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGORY T. MOORE
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PROF. DANIEL P. TOKAJI
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DICK DURBIN
76 
77 
78 
79 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN
80 
81 
82 
83 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DALE FELLOWS BY CHAIRMAN DURBIN

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses from Dale Fellows.] 
84 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 

Æ