U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

71–326 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–160 

NEW STATE VOTING LAWS: BARRIERS TO THE 

BALLOT? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–39 

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 

RICHARD DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. 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 

RICHARD DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOSEPH ZOGBY, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

WALT KUHN, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 4 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 137 

Durbin, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 143 

Graham, Hon. Lindsey, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina ......... 3 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

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

WITNESSES 

Brown, Hon. Sherrod, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ............................. 7 

Browne Dianis, Judith A., Co-Director, Advancement Project, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 17

Cleaver, Hon. Emanuel, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri, and Chairman Congressional Black Caucus ..................................... 12 

Gonzalez, Hon. Charles, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, and Chairman Congressional Hispanic Caucus .................................... 10 

Levitt, Justin, Associate Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, 

California .............................................................................................................. 21 

Nelson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida ................................ 5 

Rokita, Hon. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana .... 14 

von Spakovsky, Hans A., The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC ............... 19 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

AARP, Washington, DC, statement ....................................................................... 35 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Laura W. Murphy, Director, and 

Deborah J. Bagins, Senior Legislative Counsel, Washington, DC, joint statement ...................................................................................................................... 41 

AFL–CIO, Washington, DC, statement ................................................................. 56 

Angela Peoples and Tobin Van Ostern, Campus Progress, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Washington, DC, statement .................................. 62 

Baker, Rob ‘‘Biko’’, Executive Director, League of Young Voters, Brooklyn, 

New York, statement ........................................................................................... 68 

Brennan Center for Justice, New York University, School of Law, New York, 

New York, statement and attachment ............................................................... 70 

Brown, Hon. Sherrod, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ............................. 98 

Browne Dianis, Judith A., Co-Director, Advancement Project, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 102 

Campbell, Melanie, President & CEO, National Coalition on Black Civic 

Participation Convener, Black Women’s Roundtable, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 122 

Cleaver, Hon. Emanuel, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri, and Chairman Congressional Black Caucus, statement .................. 125 

Coggs, Milele A., 6th District Alderwoman, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, statement 130 

Constitutional Accountability Center, David H. Gans, Director of the Human 

Rights, Civil Rights Citizenship Program, Douglas Kendall, Founder and 

President, Constitutional Accountability Center, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 133 

De ̃mos, New York, New York, statement .............................................................. 138 

Fair Elections Legal Network (FELN), Washington, DC, statement .................. 146 

Page

IV 

Gonzalez, Hon. Charles, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, and Chairman Congressional Hispanic Caucus, statement ................. 153 

Harris, Nikiya Q., Milwaukee County, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, statement ........ 165 

Haygood, Ryan P., Director, Political Participation Group, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., statement ....................................................... 167 

Ingram, Janaye, DC Bureau Chief, National Action Network, Washington, 

DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 180 

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, statement 182 

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Wade Henderson, President & CEO, Washington, DC, statement ......................................................... 198 

Levitt, Justin, Associate Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, 

California, statement ........................................................................................... 206 

Lewis, John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, statement ...................................................................................................................... 234 

National Coalition for the Homeless, Neil Donovan, Executive Director, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 237 

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 240 

New York Times, August 26, 2011, article ............................................................ 245 

Project Vote, Washington, DC, statement ............................................................. 247 

Republican National Lawyers Association, Washington, DC, statement ............ 256 

Rock the Vote, Heather Smith, President, Washington, DC, statement ............. 257 

Rokita, Hon. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana .... 264 

Sa ́nchez, Vı ́ctor George Jr., President, United States Student Association, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 268 

Sentencing Project, Research and Advocacy for Reform, Washington, DC, 

September 8, 2011, letter .................................................................................... 273 

South Carolina Progressive Network, Brett Bursey, Executive Director, Columbia, South Carolina, statement ..................................................................... 275 

von Spakovsky, Hans A., The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 280 

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

of Law, Columbus, Ohio, statement ................................................................... 290 

(1) 

NEW STATE VOTING LAWS: BARRIERS TO THE 

BALLOT? 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Durbin, Franken, Coons, Graham, and Cornyn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Chairman DURBIN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights will come to order. 

Today’s hearing will examine whether a number of new State voting laws imperil the right to vote. 

This year we have watched young people in places like Egypt 

and Tunisia take to the streets to fight for what we in America 

often take for granted: the right to elect our leaders. In our country, regardless of how big the disagreement, how intense the debate, we settle our political differences at the ballot box. We have 

enshrined the right to vote as one of the major rights that every 

American citizen has. But over the course of history, we know that 

that right has often been honored in the breach. 

Only in the last century did Americans win the right to directly 

elect their United States Senators. And for more than half of the 

life of our Republic, a majority of the adult population—the women 

of America—were not allowed to vote. Even after the franchise was 

legally expanded for close to a century, a well-organized, violent, 

often racist campaign successfully prevented many African-Americans from exercising their right to vote. Fortunately, our country 

over time corrected and learned from these mistakes. 

In fact, our Constitution has been amended more to expand and 

protect the right to vote than for any other issue. Six constitutional 

amendments—the 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th—ratified 

over the course of 100 years, underscore our Nation’s commitment 

to ensure that all adult citizens enjoy free and full access to the 

ballot. Courageous Americans fought for these constitutional 

amendments in order to guarantee the right to vote for all citizens, 

regardless of their race, sex, class, income, or State of residency. 

2 

We must be constantly vigilant against threats to those hardfought victories. 

That is why earlier this year I held a hearing on what I consider 

a threat to our democracy posed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens 

United decision and the flood of special interest cash into elections 

and the need to fundamentally reform the way we finance our campaigns. 

Today we are going to examine another potential threat to our 

democracy: recently passed State voting laws designed to restrict 

voting. I am deeply concerned by this coordinated, well-funded effort to pass laws that would have the impact of suppressing votes 

in States like Wisconsin, Texas, Florida, Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina. 

Regardless of the stated intention or goals, many analysts believe 

these laws will cause widespread voter suppression and disenfranchisement by making it more difficult for millions of disabled, 

young, minority, rural, elderly, homeless, and low-income Americans to vote. Let us take a moment to consider some of the new 

restrictions on voting we will discuss today. 

Since the beginning of this year, seven States have passed laws 

requiring certain forms of photo identification prior to voting. At 

first blush, it might appear that ID requirements are reasonable. 

After all, who cannot produce an ID? Well, there is an old saying 

that applies here: The devil is in the details. 

The way these laws are written, not just any ID will do. According to numerous studies, millions of Americans who are currently 

eligible to vote do not have an ID that would satisfy these new restrictive laws, and these individuals are disproportionately young, 

low-income, senior citizens, African Americans, and Latinos. It is 

unclear what, if any, efforts are being made to make sure that 

those who do not have the required IDs will be able to obtain them 

before the next election. 

Some States have also passed laws drastically reducing the early 

voting period. Early voting is primarily used by our fellow citizens 

who cannot get to the polls on election day for a variety of reasons. 

They may not have reliable transportation. They may work at a job 

that does not allow them to take time off. They may have trouble 

finding child care. If they are disabled or elderly, they may not be 

able to count on receiving the assistance they need to get to the 

polls on election day. 

For these reasons and many others, the number of people voting 

early has increased with each election. In 2008, for example, 30 

percent of all votes were cast before election day, which causes one 

to ask: Why are some States reducing the early voting period when 

the number of early voters is clearly on the rise? 

Finally, there are two States—Florida, Senator Bill Nelson’s 

State; and Texas—that have enacted laws that threaten to end 

voter registration drives by nonpartisan groups. The Florida law 

places onerous administrative burdens on volunteers who sign up 

to help their neighbors register to vote. If a volunteer fails to meet 

a series of administrative requirements, they could be prosecuted 

and fined. This law is so bad that for the first time ever the League 

of Women Voters, a highly respected, nonpartisan organization, indefinitely suspended all voter registration drives in Florida. 

3 

These are just three examples of laws that could seriously impede voting rights in America. The proponents of these new restrictive State laws argue that they are all about reducing fraud. Yet, 

as Professor Levitt, a witness on our second panel, has demonstrated, the incidence of voter fraud in America is minimal, and 

the reported fraud is often anecdotal, unsubstantiated, and contrived. 

I am particularly concerned that the States where these laws 

were passed have not taken adequate measures to ensure that affected individuals will, in fact, have the ability to vote. That is why 

today I am sending a letter to the Governors in three of these 

States—Florida, Wisconsin, and Tennessee—asking them to inform 

the Subcommittee of their plans for ensuring that the laws they 

have enacted will not disenfranchise the citizens of their State. 

Protecting the right of every citizen to vote and ensuring our 

elections are fair and transparent are not Democratic or Republican values. They are American values. 

Now I want to recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Senator Graham, for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, I have 

a different view on this. My State just passed a voter ID law, and 

I want to congratulate the legislature in South Carolina. In the future, if the Justice Department approves this program, you will 

have to have a driver’s license or a DMV ID card. And what we 

have done in South Carolina is if you do not have a driver’s license, 

you can go to a Department of Transportation facility and get an 

ID card that will allow you to vote and do anything else you need 

an ID for, and we will give you a ride there. A passport, a military 

ID, we are going to come up with a voter registration card, which 

I think is a really good idea, that is going to have a photo on it. 

You know, illegal immigration is something that bedevils the 

country, and the reason most people come here is to find work in 

America that they cannot find in their native country because of 

corruption and lack of employment. So I understand why people 

come. But from an employer’s point of view, it is hard to verify employment. So I, along with Senator Schumer, have suggested that 

we take our Social Security cards and make them biometric, a 

photo, something that is tamper-proof so that when you get a job 

the employer will know you are who you say you are. When you 

get on an airplane, you have to have some form of ID because we 

want to make sure that you are who you say you are because of 

the threats we face. And when it comes to voting, I do not think 

it is too much of a stretch to say you have to prove that you are 

who you say you are, and we will find accommodating ways to get 

there. 

But I just have a different view. I think what South Carolina did 

makes eminent sense to me, and the law of the law, as I understand it, is the Indiana system has been upheld, and you will see 

more of this, Mr. Chairman, not less. Thirty States have some form 

of voter ID requirement. So I think this is the future of the counVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 071326 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71326.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
4 

try, something we should embrace at the Federal level, because 

elections do matter. 

Casting a vote should be as easy as possible. It should require 

some participation. And I would end with this thought: Democracy 

is a fragile thing. We all have to work to make sure it survives. 

If you want to control illegal immigration, are you willing to do 

your part? Would you be willing to take your Social Security card, 

which can be duplicated by midnight as a piece of paper, and turn 

it into a bioimetric document to help the country secure employment? Are you willing to show your ID card to get on a plane just 

because we are threatened by people in the world and we need to 

know who they are? And all the hijackers had five or six fake driver’s licenses. So I think sanctifying the voting process in a way that 

makes sense to make sure that we are electing people based on 

registered voters is a goal that we should all be concerned about 

and want to achieve. And from a South Carolina perspective, I 

have no desire to suppress people from voting. I want as many people as possible to vote and all of them to vote for me. And I know 

that is not realistic. And if you do not vote for me, that is okay. 

I want you to be able to vote, but I want to make sure that we do 

it in a way that preserves the integrity of elections, not just mine 

but everyone else’s. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized for a brief 

unanimous consent request? 

Chairman DURBIN. Sure, the Senator from Texas. 

Senator CORNYN. And a brief statement. 

Chairman DURBIN. Of course. 

TATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. I appreciate the Chairman’s consideration. 

Due to a conflict, I am not going to be able to stay for the hearing, but I do have a statement that I would ask unanimous consent 

be made part of the record. It speaks really to the voter ID issue 

that has already been previously discussed, but also I am glad to 

see Mr. von Spakovsky here who I think is going to talk about the 

bipartisan legislation that we enacted last year. Senator Schumer 

and I were among the principal cosponsors, enhancing the rights 

of military voters to vote absentee, which resulted in some significant changes across State laws to facilitate, but which we still have 

some challenges to meet. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me that 

brief statement. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

Our first panel consists of colleagues from the Senate, and I see 

our colleague from the House, Congressman Gonzalez, who is welcome to join us at the table here as well. We will get the proper 

nameplate up for you in just a moment. 

Our first witness is Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, currently 

serving his second term. He served as Florida’s State treasurer, inVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 071326 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71326.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5 

surance commissioner, and fire marshall; six terms in the U.S. 

House; three terms in the Florida State Legislature. 

Senator Nelson, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, A UNITED STATES 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Graham. The ID problem in my State of Florida is not a problem. We 

have a different problem, and it is simply not right when the laws 

are changed in a State to make it harder to vote. And that is what 

has happened in Florida. And of all places, you will recall the experience that we went through in 2000 when there were votes that 

were cast in error because of the construction of the ballot, when 

there were votes that were lost, when a lot of the military votes 

were either counted or not counted that did not comply with the 

law, and there had been substantial changes there. 

It was a painful experience, and because of that the State legislature set about on a series of reforms. They made it easier to vote, 

they made it easier to register to vote, and they made it easier that 

someone would have the confidence that their vote was going to be 

counted as they intended. That has suddenly been reversed in the 

State of Florida by the election law that has been passed and 

signed into law by the Governor. 

In the first place, Mr. Chairman, what you mentioned, the 

League of Women Voters, which has been registering people as a 

civic project for decades, under law in Florida that had been on the 

books for decades, to register a voter you want to get those names 

turned in to the supervisor of elections in that county on a timely 

basis. They had 10 days. That has been on the books for years. It 

has now been constricted to 48 hours with the person obtaining the 

signatures and turning them in subject to a fine of up to $1,000 

if it is not turned in within 48 hours. 

Now, what is that intended to do? It ends up doing exactly what 

the League of Women Voters has done, and they have said they are 

not going to take the chance that their members are going to have 

those kinds of fines. And, therefore, an organization which was constantly over the years trying to get people to participate in our democracy by registering voters is not going to. 

All right. Let me give you another example. Mr. Chairman, you 

talked about early voting. On the basis of the experience, the awful 

experience that we had in the Presidential election of 2000, it was 

in a State particularly that has a lot of senior citizens, want to 

make it easier to vote. By the way, early voting, the supervisors of 

election love it because everybody does not pile in on 1 day, but 

they can spread that out. And we have had early voting for 2 

weeks. But what did the legislature do? They constricted that back 

to 8 days, and they put the fiction that, oh, the same number of 

hours of early voting are going to be as the previous law because 

at the option of the supervisor of election that they can extend from 

6 hours a day, they can go all the way up to 12 hours a day. But 

you know what? If they do, supervisors of election have to pay overtime pay, and what do you think has happened to the budgets of 

those statewide institutions, in this case each supervisor in each of 

6 

Florida’s 67 counties? They are not going to be able to afford it. 

And, therefore, the constriction of early voting has occurred. 

And, oh, another interesting thing happened, Mr. Chairman. The 

early voting used to go up through the Sunday before the Tuesday 

election. That has been changed. It now will only go up through the 

Saturday before the Tuesday election. Does it cause anyone to suspicion that there is a certain number of voters on Sunday after 

church that go to vote? Again, cutting back on the people’s opportunity to express their will through a free and fair ballot access 

process. 

‘‘Ther is a provision in the new law that says if a voter moves 

from outside of the county or from outside of the state and they 

have not changed their voter registration address and they go to 

their new polloing location to vote, they must vote a provisional 

ballot. For 42 years, we allowed them to change their address at 

their polling location and then they could vote a regular ballot.’’ 

And, oh, by the way, what is the experience of provisional ballots? I would merely take you to the last Presidential election. The 

2008 Presidential election in Florida, one-half of the provisional 

ballots when attempted to be counted were disqualified. 

Mr. Chairman, we ought to be encouraging people to vote and 

making it easier for them to register to vote, to have their vote 

counted as they are intended and to be able to vote. 

This matter is hopefully going to be under judicial review. Organizations such as the League of Women Voters, I am told, intend 

to file suit in court. There are also some Federal suits that are already in the courts. It is yet to be determined what the Department of Justice is going to do. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 

there are still five counties on the watch list out of Florida’s 67 

that have to have pre-clearance with regard to the voting rights of 

those people being upheld. The Justice Department has already 

cleared those five counties with regard to non-controversial items. 

The question is: Will they examine it since the State of Florida did 

not appeal to the Justice Department on these controversial items 

of having your vote counted? 

Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope you will pick up this banner. 

And, Senator Graham, you and I want the same thing at the end 

of the day. We want more people to vote, and we want them to be 

able to have that vote counted like they intended. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Nelson. We appreciate your 

being here. 

Congressman Cleaver, come on up and join us here. We will pull 

up a chair to the table. We are honored that you would come across 

the Rotunda and join us. 

I would like to next introduce Senator Sherrod Brown, who has 

been a Member of the Senate since January of 2007, served seven 

terms in the House before, also two terms as Ohio Secretary of 

State, which is the chief election officer of the State; four terms in 

the Ohio General Assembly; and he taught at Ohio public schools 

and at The Ohio State University. 

Senator BROWN. The Ohio State University. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Brown. 

7 

Senator BROWN. I do not know why they say that, but they do, 

Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHERROD BROWN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator BROWN. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be 

here. Ranking Member Senator Graham, Senator Franken, thank 

you also for joining us. I am pleased to sit with two of my former 

colleagues in the House, Charlie Gonzalez and Emanuel Cleaver, 

both leaders in many ways, and especially on voting issues, and I 

appreciate the work that they do. 

I testify, as Chairman Durbin said, not only as a Senator of a 

State often at the center of our National elections; I testify as an 

8-year, 2-term former Secretary of State of Ohio charged with administering those elections from 1983 to 1990. 

I can remember in my re-election in 1990, my then-6- year-old 

daughter, the election I actually lost running against a fellow by 

the name of Bob Taft, and my daughter, who was 6, 1 day we are 

getting out of the car, and she said, ‘‘Dad, let me make sure I understand now. You count the votes in this election.’’ I said, ‘‘Yeah.’’ 

And she said, ‘‘Well, what is the problem? ’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BROWN. It did not work out quite so well. She has become a bit more cynical since then, Mr. Chairman. 

So I understand the burdens of the costs and resources in ensuring the fundamental right to vote is exercised. 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’s legislators undertook 

a bipartisan—and I would underline bipartisan—effort to help 

Ohioans vote more easily. When I was Secretary of State, we had 

major assistance and input from Republicans as we made voting 

laws work for huge numbers of people. As Secretary of State, I 

asked, and people cooperating, utility companies cooperated by including voter registration forms in utility bills. Driver’s license bureaus registered people to vote. Various social service agencies, various local businesses, and one company housed in the Chairman’s 

State, McDonald’s Corporation, at our request printed 1 million 

tray liners that were put in McDonald’s restaurants all over my 

State that people could register to vote on their tray liner so that 

occasionally someone turned in registration forms with ketchup 

and mustard stains, but accepted by—and still I assume some of 

them are still in boards of elections around the State. 

That was bipartisan in those days, but rather than protecting the 

right to vote, we are seeing brazen attempts around the country to 

undermine it. Today there is a concentrated campaign sweeping 

the Nation in far too many State legislatures across the country— 

Texas, Florida, and Ohio are three of the most notable—undercutting the very protections that I believe are enshrined in our Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

These new State voting laws are a result of an organized effort 

to limit voting rights. It does so in three primary ways: it implements strict voter ID laws; it requires showing limited forms of 

voter ID before voting. The Ohio Legislature—I will get to a speVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 071326 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71326.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
8 

cific in Ohio in a moment—has decided to sort of bifurcate their efforts. One of their proposals, which has not yet become law but 

might this month, does not allow State university IDs to count, for 

instance, so it is restrictive in many ways that I think do not make 

much sense. 

Second, it significantly reduces early voting or the availability of 

absentee ballots, as Senator Nelson pointed out in Florida, and it 

limits voter registration efforts. 

This hearing will examine several of these laws and what I think 

is an ideological campaign underpinning them. I will focus on Ohio 

for a moment. 

During the 2004 Presidential election, Ohio saw in some sense a 

bit of a rerun of Florida 2000: a dysfunctional election marred by 

electronic voting machines improperly tallying votes and Ohioans 

waiting in line for as long as hours. I was at Oberlin College then 

in my Congressional district where young voters waited for 6 hours 

to vote. Kenyon College, just an hour south nor far from where I 

grew up, voters waited 9 hours to vote. This was not a question of 

voter fraud, of individuals trying to game the system. This was a 

question of an individual voting multiple times. 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 problems are elsewhere 

but not by the voters. The clouds over the 2004 election in Ohio 

were all caused by process, not by individual voters. 

Now, 7 years later, after we were a national model, what the Republican and Democratic members of the legislature did and what 

I tried to do administratively as Secretary of State, partnering with 

all kinds of people and businesses, that national model is—Ohio is 

poised to return to the headlines again for the wrong reasons. The 

new election law, which was signed into law by Governor Kasich— 

it may be subject to a ballot challenge, so it may not take effect 

yet—does little to fix the problems of the process. It only exacerbates it. Among the most pernicious elements, again, this is a repeal of legislation that mostly a Republican legislature and a Republican Governor enacted in the decade before since I was there, 

but in the early part of the 21st century. So there was consensus— 

and that is what is disturbing. There was consensus in America 

about voting rights, and there was consensus in Ohio about what 

works best, changes at the margin, but now there is a direct attack 

undermining so much of what I thought we all believed in in this 

country. 

This new law in Ohio shortened significantly the early voting 

window. It eliminates, as it does in Florida—you can see this pattern—early voting on the Saturday, Sunday, and Monday prior to 

the election, the three busiest days of early voting. I know that limiting—as Senator Nelson said, limiting early voting will only cost 

more money. The election system, the administrators in Ohio, very 

bipartisan, equal number of Republicans and Democrats, that is 

our State law, working in boards of elections, they like it this way 

because it spreads out the sort of bursting chaos of an election, and 

it saves money ultimately for the election system. 

Parents with children in tow, shift workers heading to work, 

busy professionals who have trouble—you know, it is not so hard 

for us, but, you know, a single parent taking a child, has got a kid 

9 

in tow and has got to get home and fix dinner, they have to stand 

in line on election day for 2 or 3 hours. Some of them go home. Of 

course they do, because the most important thing in their life is 

their kid and feeding their kid and getting ready for school and 

doing all the things that people do in their regular lives. 

Ohio’s new law also prevents counties from mailing absentee ballots to eligible voters. There was an agreement, which I am heartened by, between the Democratic county executive in Cuyahoga, 

our State’s largest county, and the Republican Secretary of State, 

who has, frankly, been much more reasonable about all these reforms than some of his colleagues, former colleagues when he was 

Speaker of the House in the legislature. They have worked out 

some arrangements and some agreements there that will make this 

a little bit better. 

The absurdity of this bill, Mr. Chairman, in part is that it prevents poll workers by law from even assisting some voters when 

they are asking questions when they come in. I mean, how absurd 

is that? Any fraud is too much, but proposed voter ID solutions are 

worse than the cure. In Indiana, more nuns were banned from voting because as elderly residents of their convent they did not have 

photo IDs than there are cases of documented voter fraud in the 

State. Yet the conservative Roberts Court watered down voting 

rights in Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections even with 

the unproven basis of voter fraud. 

Though most Americans have Government-issued photo IDs, as 

Senator Graham suggested, studies as recently as May of this year 

show that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters nationwide do 

not. If they cannot find a birth certificate, can they get a Government-issued ID in Ohio? Not clear. Who pays the $10 for the voter 

ID? Why do we put this burden on people that have voted religiously and regularly year after year after year? And do many of 

them just give up? Perhaps some in the legislature hope they do, 

but it is not good for our country. 

If this law were to pass in my home State, nearly 890,000 Ohioans over age 18—890,000 Ohioans over 18—who lack driver’s licenses could be disenfranchised. This includes especially the elderly, especially people in rural communities, and a number of Ohioans on college campuses. 

Proponents assert that voter fraud is prevalent and needs to be 

addressed by sweeping elections reforms. In 2002 and 2004 Ohio 

elections, there were only four instances of ineligible individuals 

voting or attempting to vote out of 9 million voters in those two 

elections. That is 0.00004 percent of voters. The nationally renowned bipartisan Brennan Center said the numbers are so staggeringly small that an individual has a better chance of being 

killed by lightning than the chance of an individual impersonating 

another at the polls. That sort of says it all. 

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude with just saying this was consensus in our country until a group of radical proposals came in my 

legislature and other legislatures across the country. In a nutshell, 

this is a solution in search of a problem. It is not something we 

need to do. The voting system has worked in this country, and it 

has gotten increasingly better from the days of the 1957 Civil 

Rights Act to the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the 1965 Voting Rights 

10 

Act. We know that we have made progress in this country. Why 

should we go back? It really is a solution in search of a problem. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. 

Congressman Rokita, thank you for joining us, and we are going 

to find a seat for you at the table here as quickly as our staff can 

slide a chair over—in fact, Senator Brown’s chair, all warmed up. 

Next up is Congressman Charles Gonzalez, serving your seventh 

term representing the 20th Congressional District of Texas and 

Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Prior to service in 

Congress, Representative Gonzalez was a Texas State court judge 

for more than a decade and a lawyer in private practice for 10 

years. 

Thanks for coming across the Rotunda joining us today. 

Congressman Gonzalez. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES GONZALEZ, A REPSENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND CHAIRMAN, 

CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS 

Representative GONZALEZ. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and, of course, Senator Franken as a member 

of the Subcommittee. Thank you very much for this opportunity to 

testify about a very troubling trend that is occurring in many of 

our States. 

We have seen a consolidated effort by States across the country 

to enact laws which will deny thousands if not millions of Americans of the constitutionally protected right to vote. While I will be 

speaking chiefly about the impact of Texas’s new law, the same effects will be seen in many other States since these laws have been 

linked to the model bill of a single partisan group seeking political 

advantage at any cost. 

Texas holds biannual legislative sessions, which means few surprises. Yet Governor Perry declared voter ID a legislative emergency, calling it necessary to combat rampant voter fraud. 

Now, that is a common claim, but it is made without a shred of 

evidence. We have all heard stories of dead people voting, but when 

they are investigated, we find them alive and, well, quite a bit surprised. I would refer you to some cases, but I cannot because even 

the Texas Attorney General in 2006 in his press released, which 

was entitled ‘‘Let’s stamp out vote fraud in Texas,’’ could not name 

a single case of fraud that would have been stopped by voter ID. 

The law stops no actual problem. It just creates a burden that 

State and local governments will struggle to meet in spite of millions of Federal dollars in EAC grants, the very commission that 

is attempting to be eliminated on the House side. 

Now, those localities and States are going to need it. The list of 

acceptable forms of ID is so short that not even an ID from the Veterans Administration will be accepted in the State of Texas. Your 

Senate ID won’t count. My House of Representatives voting card 

with my identification and my picture will not count. The most 

common ID is a driver’s license, but 30 to 40 percent of Texas voters do not have one. 

So DPS, the Department of Public Safety, will have to handle 

hundreds of thousands of applications in just 35 days as this law 

11 

takes effect, and we have a March 6th primary, including weekends 

and holidays when the offices will be, presumably, closed. 

The State legislature provided zero dollars to handle the influx. 

They have no plans for special lines, extra staffing, or extended 

hours. Tens of thousands of Texans live more than 100 miles from 

the nearest Department of Motor Vehicles, because in Texas 100 

miles is not that far. But if you are elderly and have a hard time 

getting around, or if you are a minority and cannot take time off 

from work, it is a problem. And the wait at one San Antonio Department of Motor Vehicle office was nearly 90 minutes. This will 

not be a smooth process. 

The Department of Motor Vehicles will mail the applications to 

the Department of Public Safety headquarters in Austin, Texas. 

The current turnaround time is 2 weeks. But no one knows how 

the flood of new applications will slow the process. 

Voters who cannot get their ID in time or forget to bring it to 

the polls will have to vote provisionally at an average of 22 minutes per vote. I have already met with my election officials. That 

is how long it is going to take. So what does that mean? More poll 

workers, longer lines, and in neighborhoods like in the west side 

of San Antonio where voting can already take hours, this will only 

further discourage participation. I do not even want to tell you 

about the cure time. Once you vote provisionally, you have got 6 

days after the election to go to the main headquarters downtown, 

pay $6 to $10 parking if you have a car and you can get there. You 

did not have a driver’s license, so there is a good chance that you 

do not have a car. 

[Laughter.] 

Representative GONZALEZ. Members of Congress can take work— 

right? We can take time off from work to get an ID or even go to 

vote. But few working people have such flexibility. Once again, 

those already bearing the hardest and harshest burdens will be 

asked to take on the most. 

Of even more concern is the fact that these laws are not always 

enforced evenly, and that is an experience not just in Texas. My 

written testimony includes a few horror stories about how poor and 

minority voters already face more challenges at the polls than 

wealthy and White voters. We must each drawn our own conclusions about who benefits when poor and minority voters are 

disenfranchised. 

Since the founding of our country, constitutional amendments 

and laws have opened the voting process to minorities, women, and 

young citizens that we send into combat. In recent years, early voting and no-excuse absentee ballots have increased turnout and civic 

engagement. Yet Texas and other States are reversing this trend 

and curtailing the availability of both, driving hundreds of thousands of voters from the polls and creating a more disengaged citizenry. 

You have heard this often from our Republican colleagues: 

‘‘When we tax something, we get less of it.’’ So it will be no surprise 

if these de facto taxes on voters’ time and money drive down turnout. 

Voter ID laws do not stop fraud. They just suppress voting. The 

recently enacted Texas photo ID law is a prime example. In the 

12 

more serious examples of electoral fraud, it is not the voter who is 

at fault or perpetrating the fraud, but political operatives or corrupt Government officials; and voter ID laws will not stop them. 

But voter ID laws do have a disparate impact on the poor, the 

young, the elderly, and the disabled, and these groups are disproportionately minorities. And however much progress we have 

made, disparate treatment and discrimination against minorities 

remains a serious problem. 

We have made great progress in the past 235 years tearing down 

barriers that disenfranchise millions of Americans. We must not return to those dark days of the past. 

Thank you again. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much, Congressman Gonzalez. 

Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, from Kansas City, Missouri, is 

now serving his fourth term representing Missouri’s 5th Congressional District. He is Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus 

and previously served as a mayor and member of the City Council 

of Kansas City. 

Congressman Cleaver, please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CLEAVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI, AND 

CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS 

Representative CLEAVER. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and 

Ranking Member Graham. I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before you today on one of the most significant civil rights issues 

of this moment. 

I am pleased to be the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus 

during the 112th Congress and during the 40th anniversary of the 

CBC. On behalf of our membership, I can say that the issues surrounding voter suppression are particularly troubling to us. Many 

of us come from families who fought diligently to earn the right to 

vote, so it is a moral imperative for the members of the CBC to 

fight to protect the right to vote for all Americans. 

The Congressional Black Caucus was founded by and is often referred to as ‘‘the conscience of the Congress.’’ Today I am before 

you to express my steadfast commitment to protect the gains we 

have made throughout history. I am also here to express the deep 

and abiding concern the CBC has with this year’s onslaught of 

voter suppression laws, which have not ironically arrived in time 

for the 2012 elections. 

It is also not ironic that early voting days have been cut short, 

stiffer identification requirements have been implemented, and 

proof of citizenship required—all statistically proven to impact people of color disproportionately. 

I regret that as the Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial was recently unveiled in our Nation’s capital, I am here today to put you 

on notice that we are still fighting the battle to protect the right 

to vote—one of the causes Dr. King died for and reminiscent of the 

1960s. 

Additionally, we can appreciate the significance every time we 

see our colleague John Lewis. As you all know, Congressman Lewis 

is not only a proud member of the Congressional Black Caucus, he 

13 

is also a civil rights icon amongst us. My good friend Congressman 

Lewis nearly gave his life to protect our rights. He was a leader 

with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference President Martin Luther King in a peaceful march across the Edmund Pettus 

Bridge in Mississippi so that—in Alabama so that you and I could 

cast our votes. In fact, that bloody Sunday helped hasten the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Mr. Chairman, John Lewis could not be here. He is in Georgia 

on a family emergency, and I would like to introduce Congressman 

Lewis’ op-ed in the New York Times, August 26th, as part of the 

record, as well as a brief by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 

Chairman DURBIN. Without objection, they will both be made 

part of the permanent record. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Representative CLEAVER. Given the disproportionate impact the 

voter suppression laws will have on African-American voters, these 

laws are reminiscent of the poll taxes used in the Jim Crow South. 

The laws are solutions in search of problems, especially when it 

comes to voter ID, because there is basically no evidence of voter 

fraud. Requiring voters to provide a specifically narrowly defined 

piece of photo identification is unnecessary. The safeguards currently in place to verify voters’ identity actually work. That much 

is clear because there has been no evidence of substantial voter impersonation fraud. The only type of fraud requiring voters to provide a specific type of Government-issued ID guards against it. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, the fraud often used by proponents turns 

out not to be fraud at all. Absentee ballot fraud, felons voting, and 

other issues are not solved, as my colleague said, by requiring voter 

ID, and 23 States and the District of Columbia now allow voters 

to show both photo and non-photo IDs, such as a utility bill or a 

bank statement. 

After the Reconstruction Era ended in 1877, African-Americans 

ceased to hold significant political power in the South. In the 

1890s, the Populist Party attempted to merge the common economic interests of poor African-American and white farmers. The 

elite party in the South at the time, the Democratic Party, wanted 

to retain their power, so they worked diligently to disenfranchise 

African-Americans to ensure their continuity of power. 

I am doing some family research. I was born and raised in Texas 

and had the great pleasure of growing up with two great-grandfathers. One of them, Noel Albert Cleaver, who died at the age of 

103—I was married with children—we have not been able to find 

any proof that Grandpa ever voted. In the State of Texas, during 

most of his life, Grandpa had to pass a literacy test in Texas. An 

example of the questions: How many seeds are in a watermelon? 

How many bubbles are in a bar of soap? That is what Grandpa 

faced. To vote, African-Americans had to pay $3.50 in the State of 

Texas—Ellis County, Waxahachie, Texas. Grandpa in all likelihood 

lived in this country 103 years and never voted. 

He is not alone. There are many others who are in the same situation. I believe we have a modern-day poll tax. There is a cost for 

a State ID in every single State in the United States. 

14 

My father, now 89 years old, has no idea of his birthday. My 

grandma, Grandma Annie Mae, his mother, had two sons born in 

the month of July—one on the 15th, one on the 27th. She could not 

remember which one. African-Americans were not allowed to go to 

hospitals at that time, so when my father and his older brother became teenagers they just decided to choose a day: ‘‘You celebrate 

this day, I will celebrate this day.’’ And they have done it all of 

their lives. 

My father is 89 years old, in perfect health, still drives. But what 

happens if my father did not have a driver’s license? He has no 

birth certificate. He was born in Grandpa’s house in the kitchen. 

Why in the world are we doing things to make voting more difficult? It would seem to me in the United States of America in the 

21st century we would do everything conceivably possible to give 

everybody encouragement to vote. We are encouraging democracy 

in Iraq. Let us demand it at home and do away with anything that 

prevents any American from voting. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here before you. 

Chairman DURBIN. Congressman Cleaver, thank you very much. 

We are honored to have Representative Todd Rokita here. He is 

serving his first term representing Indiana’s 4th Congressional District. Like Senator Brown before him, prior to his service in Congress, Congressman Rokita served two terms as the Indiana Secretary of State. During his tenure he was president of the National 

Association of Secretaries of State. 

Congressman Rokita, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TODD ROKITA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA 

Representative ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased 

to know that as I visit here from the other side of the Rotunda, you 

all do not take as much adherence to the time clock as we do on 

our side. In light of that, I will not be more than 40 minutes or 

so. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM. Do not push your luck. 

Representative ROKITA. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member 

Graham, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share my experience with Indiana’s photo ID law. In light 

of the last bit of testimony, I would like to indeed bring us back 

to the 21st century. 

As you may know, I was the Secretary of State of Indiana for 8 

years, from 2003 to 2010, prior to coming here, and as Secretary 

of State I was also the chief election officer. When Indiana’s photo 

ID law was created—and I helped draft that specific bill with my 

State legislators—it became law, and then I had to oversee the 

legal challenges that followed as well as implementing the law. 

Governor Daniels signed Indiana’s voter ID law in the spring of 

2005. Indiana’s law requires that to vote in person a voter must 

present a valid photo ID issued by Indiana or the United States. 

That ID must have a photo of the voter and the expiration date. 

I imagine, as I listened to Representative Gonzalez’s testimony, 

that to the extent one of those photo ID examples that he menVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 071326 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71326.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
15 

tioned did not comply with the Texas law, it was because it did not 

have an expiration date. And there is a very logical reason why we 

have an expiration date in our law, and that was because people’s 

facial images change. They get older, for example. 

Now, it was not that our law was so strict—— 

Chairman DURBIN. Unless you are a Senator or a Congressman, 

the same photo will last for decades. 

[Laughter.] 

Representative ROKITA. I have forgotten where I am. Thank you, 

sir. 

It is not that we were so strict in Indiana as to say, well, the 

photo IDs had an expiration date of yesterday and today is election 

day, therefore you cannot vote. I mean, that is an example that I 

would agree with these gentlemen on. That would be unreasonable. 

Our face does not change that much in a day. So as an example 

of the reasonableness in Indiana’s law, we simply said, all right, 

you can vote on an expired ID up to 2 years. We did things like 

that all along the way to accommodate the arguments that I am 

again hearing today, but certainly we have not heard for the first 

time. And the bottom line is that, after 6 years’ worth of elections, 

Indiana’s photo ID law works. In fact, people that agree with the 

comments that I have heard already have been looking. They have 

looked—I think they have given up looking finally for problems 

with Indiana’s photo ID law. 

We have not been sued once. We have not even had allegations, 

legitimate allegations that anyone—Hispanic, black, woman, man, 

young, old, whoever—has been legitimately—or illegitimately 

disenfranchised by Indiana’s law, because it is reasonable. 

It is reasonable also because whether or not you agree that inperson voter fraud exists—and I will say that as 8 years being Indiana’s Secretary of State, it does exist. We have allegations made 

every election. That does not mean I am trying to denigrate Hoosiers. We are, I think, some of the most reasonable, common-sense, 

God-loving, patriotic people that this Nation knows. But if it is 

happening in Indiana, it is happening everywhere, from New York 

to California. 

Now, these gentlemen and others say, ‘‘Well, you cannot produce 

one case, you cannot produce one conviction; therefore, it does not 

exist.’’ The word ‘‘evidence’’ was used. Well, that is not true. There 

is a lot of evidence. There are several cases that I have presented 

to prosecutors who have not taken up the case—not because of a 

lack of evidence, but because think about the kind of fraud it is. 

Think about the kind of crime it is. It is something that happens 

in an instant and then it is gone. The witnesses dissipate. These 

are volunteer poll workers. It is not a domestic violence case. It is 

not something that leaves visible scars or blemishes or bruises. 

And so it is the kind of case, it is the kind of fraud that is very 

hard to prosecute. But that does not mean it does not exist. And 

the bottom line, it is not a matter of how many cases or convictions 

there are, gentlemen. It is a matter of confidence. 

In a free republic, you have got to have the personal responsibility to participate. Voting is one of the highest and best civic 

transactions we can undertake. 

16 

I have heard today that people have to leave their jobs to come 

and vote. Why make it harder? Well, I would take the opposite end 

of that. People leave their jobs, they leave their work, sometimes 

they leave their kids to go vote. Hopefully they take their kids with 

them. Hopefully they wait in a short line, as they do in Indiana. 

We have not seen extended long lines in Indiana after 6 years at 

all. It has not elongated the voting process. But you leave your dayto-day life to come vote. And then you get to the poll, you get to 

the poll clerk, you sign in, maybe, and you realize that the perception is that the people that are doing this process do not take it 

nearly as seriously as some of the other transactions that they partake in in day-to-day life. 

So I would argue it leaves the perception of a lack of confidence. 

These people did not even care enough to find out who I was, yet 

they ask me to leave my life and go vote. We want to instill confidence in the process to drive up turnout. And, in fact, in Indiana, 

since we have had the photo ID law, voter turnout has gone up 2 

percent. It was not enacted to increase voter turnout. It was not 

enacted to decrease voter turnout. But the effect was it has increased voter turnout. If you do it the right way, if you do it reasonably, you will instill confidence in our process, which is definitely needed, definitely a prerequisite to having a successful free 

republic and to allow this citizenry to participate and to grow the 

personal responsibility that is needed if we are going to maintain 

a free republic. 

So, with that, thank you for letting me come this afternoon, and 

I would like to enter my remarks for the record. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Congressman Rokita, and, of 

course, your remarks in their entirety will be part of the record, 

and the remaining 35 minutes that you were going to take will be 

published instead of transcribed. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rokita appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. I do not know if there are any questions of 

our guests from the House. If not, we are going to go to the second 

panel. We thank you very much for coming. 

I know Senator Graham has to go to another meeting, but thank 

you for joining us this afternoon. 

We are going to turn to our second panel of witnesses, and I will 

ask the witnesses to take their places at the table. Each witness 

is going to have 5 minutes for an opening statement, and their 

written statements will be included in the record. They include: 

Judith Browne Dianis, Hans von Spakovsky, and Justin Levitt. 

If they would please stand for just a moment, please, we have a 

tradition of administering an oath to our lay witnesses. 

If you would please raise your right hand, do you affirm 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? 

Ms. BROWNE DIANIS. I do. 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. I do. 

Mr. LEVITT. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Let the record reflect that all three witnesses 

have answered in the affirmative. 

17 

Our first witness is Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of Advancement Project, previously was an attorney with the NAACP 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Ms. Browne Dianis graduated from Columbia University School of Law, and was a recipient 

of the Skadden Fellowship. 

Ms. Browne Dianis, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF JUDITH A. BROWNE DIANIS, CO–DIRECTOR, 

ADVANCEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. BROWNE DIANIS. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, for inviting 

me to testify about new voting barriers. I respectfully request permission to enter my entire written testimony into the record. 

Chairman DURBIN. Without objection. 

Ms. BROWNE DIANIS. I am a civil rights litigator and co-director 

of Advancement Project, a national civil rights organization. Since 

2000 we have worked with local civic engagement groups and election officials to eliminate barriers to voting. 

Our country has not seen such widespread attempts to disenfranchise voters as we have seen this year in more than a century. Inclusive democracy is under attack. New barriers to voting may neutralize recent surges in black, Latino, and youth voter registration 

rates and record voter turnout. These laws may systemically disenfranchise already registered voters in these groups as well as 

limit voting of people who are poor, people who are elderly, and 

people with disabilities. 

The new barriers to voting include laws that place restrictions on 

the number and type of acceptable voter identification introduced 

in 24 States this year; laws to limit early voting, such as bills 

passed in Ohio, Tennessee, Georgia, West Virginia, and in Florida, 

where 30 percent of voters cast early ballots in 2008 with twice as 

many African-Americans doing so than whites; laws that place restrictions on nonpartisan voter registration efforts, such as that in 

Florida; African-Americans and Latinos are more than twice as 

likely as white voters to register through voter registration drives; 

laws such as that passed in Kansas and Alabama requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register; policies such as those in 

Florida, Iowa, and Virginia making it harder for people with criminal records to regain their voting rights, even after they have paid 

their debt to society; and, lastly, reactionaries have announced 

plans to place millions of challengers at the polls in 2012 to challenge voter eligibility in ways that may intimidate voters and disrupt polling place operations. 

Of all the barriers, the most pervasive new threat to voting 

rights has been voter identification restrictions. The issue is less 

about whether voters should be made to demonstrate their identity 

at the polls but, rather, how restrictive the forms of identification 

should be. 

Election officials realize these laws are budget busters, have gone 

too far, and will create election administration nightmares. As Ohio 

Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted, splitting from party 

ranks, explained, ‘‘I believe that if you have a Government-issued 

check, a utility bill in your name with your address on it, that no 

one made that up. They didn’t...establish utilities in their name to 

commit voter fraud. Let’s be clear about this. There are some other 

18 

forms that are legitimate.... What if I lose my ID on election day? 

Should there be no other alternative I can use to cast my ballot? 

I think that there should be.’’ 

In a trial run in Wisconsin on voter ID, the Madison County 

clerk explains, ‘‘Between showing ID and signing the poll book, the 

amount of time each voter needs to spend at the poll book has at 

least doubled. The minimum number of election officials needed at 

each polling place willincrease from five to nine. Election officials 

are very concerned about dealing with voter lines that could easily 

become 2 or 3 hours long.’’ 

Further implementing photo ID laws could cost cash-strapped States $20 million or more. Despite the myth that everyone has ID, 

many voters do not. In South Carolina, 178,000 registered voters 

lack a driver’s license or State identification. In Wisconsin, 23 percent of voters aged 65 and older lack State ID. Among young voters 

18 to 24, 78 percent of African-American men, 66 percent of African-American women, 59 percent of Latino men, and 46 percent of 

Latino women in Wisconsin lack the ID. 

The IDs are also hard to get. Nora Elze, 88, in Georgia, was told 

she needed to produce her 1946 marriage license to show her name 

changed to get an ID. She fears she will not be able to vote because 

of the difficulty of getting her marriage license. 

In Missouri, we represent Emmanuell Aziz in a lawsuit challenging the ballot initiative that, if passed, would require Stateissued photo ID. Mr. Aziz is a registered voter with an expired 

driver’s license and passport, which lapsed during his illness with 

multiple sclerosis. He is confined to a wheelchair. It will be nearly 

insurmountable for him to get his license renewed due to a lack of 

transportation and inability to pay for the supporting documents. 

The difficulty of obtaining ID is exacerbated further by budget 

cuts that have led to the closure and reduced hours of offices where 

IDs and underlying documents may be obtained. In Wisconsin, 

DMV offices are closed on weekends, and 25 percent of offices open 

less than 1 day a month. Similarly, in Texas, approximately 

500,000 Latinos and blacks live in counties without ready access to 

Department of Public Safety offices in their counties. Eighty counties have no office or closed it altogether. In Tennessee, only a third 

of the counties have DMV offices, and those in urban areas serving 

predominantly people of color have wait times up to 4 hours. 

Furthermore, the cost would-be voters must pay first for obtaining the underlying documents for ID, which is a certified birth certificate, et cetera, make these laws effectively poll taxes. In Texas, 

it would cost you $22 for a birth certificate, and a passport can cost 

up to $145. Thus, one must pay to vote. 

These new laws represent the largest legislative effort to roll 

back voting rights since post-Reconstruction Era. Collectively, they 

effectuate a trifecta of voter suppression, making it harder to register to vote, harder to cast a ballot, and harder to have a vote 

counting. And the impact is not evenly distributed and, indeed, is 

designed to effectuate political results. 

Americans should be outraged that across the country efforts are 

being undertaken to make voting harder and to silence some. After 

all, Election Day is the one great equalizer. Regardless of race, gender, religion, disability, or income, we all have the same amount of 

19 

power when we go into the voting booth. That is what makes this 

Nation great. We cannot go backwards. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Browne Dianis appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at 

the Heritage Foundation Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. He 

is also the manager of the Heritage Foundation’s Civil Justice Reform Initiative. Before this, Mr. von Spakovsky served 2 years as 

a member of the Federal Election Commission. Prior to that, he 

worked at the Justice Department as counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. He has also served on the Board 

of Advisers of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and on the 

Fulton County Board of Registrations and Elections. He is a member of the Fairfax County, Virginia, Electoral Board and the Virginia Advisory Board to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He 

obtained his law degree from Vanderbilt University School of Law 

and his bachelor’s degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

Mr. von Spakovsky, thank you for joining us and please proceed. 

If you would like to repeat the compliment, go ahead. 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Is it on now? Okay. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HANS A. VON SPAKOVSKY, THE HERITAGE 

FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Thank you, Senator Durbin. As we prepare 

for the 2012 election, it is critically important that States improve 

the security and integrity of our elections. One of the key principles 

in any fair election is ensuring that the person who casts a ballot 

is legally eligible to vote. The fairest way to do that is by requiring 

individuals to authenticate their citizenship when they register and 

their identity when they vote. Such measures also increase public 

confidence. 

As Governor Lincoln Chafee, an independent, said when he 

signed Rhode Island’s new voter ID law, sponsored by Democratic 

State legislators, ‘‘Requiring ID at the polling place is a reasonable 

request to ensure the accuracy and integrity of our elections.’’ 

The evidence from numerous academic studies and actual turnout in elections is overwhelming that, contrary to the claims of opponents, voter ID does not depress the turnout of voters. In fact, 

a study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska that looked at turnout across the country said the concerns 

about voter ID laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing. 

Voter fraud exists, and criminal penalties imposed after the fact 

are an insufficient deterrent. When Justice John Paul Stevens 

wrote the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court upholding 

Indiana’s voter ID law, he noted that examples of such fraud have 

been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists, and not only is the risk of voter fraud real, 

but it could affect the outcome of a close election. 

African American Senator Harold Metz, who cosponsored Rhode 

Island’s law, noted that very few adults lack one of the forms of 

20 

ID that will be accepted, and the rare person who does can get a 

free voter ID card, and that he would not have supported any obstacle to voting. 

Polls show overwhelming support for voter ID across all ethnic, 

racial, and party lines. That is no doubt because Americans have 

to use a photo ID to obtain a library card, drink a beer, cash a 

check, board an airplane, or check into a hotel. Those in the leadership of organizations opposed to such common-sense reforms are 

clearly not in touch with their constituents. 

Actual election results confirm voter ID does not hurt minority 

turnout. Voting in both Georgia and Indiana increased more dramatically in 2008 in the first Presidential elections held after their 

photo ID laws went into effect than in some States without photo 

ID. There was also an increase of over 7 percentage points in the 

turnout of registered black Georgians from the 2006 to the 2010 

midterm Congressional elections. The Georgia voter ID requirement was upheld in State and Federal court, including the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court. 

They held that such ID requirements are not discriminatory, do not 

violate the Constitution, or any Federal voting rights laws. After 

years of litigation, none of the plaintiffs, including the NAACP, 

could produce a single individual who did not have a photo ID or 

could not easily obtain one. 

In Indiana, the turnout of Democratic voters in 2008 increased 

by over 8 percentage points from 2004, the largest increase in 

Democratic turnout of any State in the Nation. According to the 

census, there was a 5-percent increase in the turnout of the black 

voting-age population in the 2008 election compared to 2004. Black 

turnout in Indiana in 2010 was even higher than black turnout in 

the 2008 election, which was a banner year for black turnout. 

The evidence is indisputable also that aliens are registering and 

voting. In 2005, the GAO issued a report finding that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. 

I recently received an order from a 2010 immigration case in Orlando, Florida, the Cuban immigrant who arrived in Florida in 

April of 2004, and then promptly registered and voted illegally in 

the November election. 

The only Americans really being disenfranchised as a large group 

today are overseas military voters. Only an anemic 4.6 percent of 

them cast an absentee ballot that was counted in the 2010 election, 

and that is something that does need to be taken care of. 

Three more quick points. 

The ability to travel freely within the U.S. is a basic right, yet 

there have been no claims that the Federal requirement to show 

a photo ID before boarding a plane is somehow discriminatory. No 

one can enter most Federal buildings to exercise the First Amendment right to petition the Government without a photo ID, and 

there have been no cries that this is Jim Crow. 

The right to work is just as important as the right to vote. Yet 

Federal law, passed by this Congress, mandates that no one can be 

employed without producing documentation authenticating their 

identity and U.S. citizenship or legal authorization to work. There 

are no claims that this Federal requirement is Jim Crow. States 

21 

are simply implementing a similar requirement to authenticate 

identity and citizenship for voting. 

As Rhode Island Democratic State Representative John Ryan 

said, ‘‘Voting is one of the most important rights and duties we 

have as Americans, and it should be treated accordingly.’’ 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. von Spakovsky appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much. 

Justin Levitt is our next and final witness on this panel, associate professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, previously counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law 

School, served in various capacities for several Presidential campaigns, including the National Voter Protection Counsel in 2008; 

graduated magna cum laude with a law degree and master’s degree 

in public administration from Harvard, where he was an articles 

editor for the Harvard Law Review; also earned a bachelor’s degree 

magna cum laude from Harvard College. 

Professor Levitt, thank you for coming all the way from Los Angeles. 

STATEMENT OF JUSTIN LEVITT, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF 

LAW, LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LEVITT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

having me here, Mr. Chairman, Senator Franken, and thank you 

as well for entering the full written testimony that I have submitted to you into the record. I very much appreciate that. 

I am a constitutional law and election law scholar at Loyola Law 

School in Los Angeles. My scholarship is based on careful research 

into the very real-world costs and benefits of election policies. I 

think it is very important to have a grounding in real facts, and 

so I appreciate this opportunity to share some of them with you 

here today. 

Unfortunately, 2011 has seen several States ignoring this balance, careful balance of costs and benefits, imposing real burdens 

on real Americans without real reasons. 

There are several categories of these new laws. I would like to 

take just a few moments of my opening statement to address three: 

First, voter registration. We have heard a lot about this today. 

The biggest cutback is in Florida, again. In 2005, Florida law shut 

down registration drives for the League of Women Voters for the 

first time in its 67-year Florida history. That law was struck down 

in court. Now the restrictions are back. The new law requires citizens to get Government permission before they touch a voter registration form from anyone other than their immediate family. This 

stops impromptu drives at bake sales, churches, and at actual tea 

parties. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LEVITT. In the campaign finance arena, conservative groups 

have vigorously challenged far less burdensome restrictions. These 

new restrictions limit participation far more than necessary to ensure that the voter registration process is both clean and smooth. 

Second, early voting. We have also heard about this today. Florida has also cut back here. The most significant cut, the Sunday 

22 

before election day. On this Sunday, particularly in minority communities and vastly disproportionately in minority communities, 

citizens who work long hours during the week go to the polls after 

church, fulfilling their civic obligations after their spiritual ones. 

Cutting this Sunday in particular makes no sense. That is, there 

is no justification for it at all. In Florida, each county could choose 

to offer voting on the final Sunday or not. Where it cost too much, 

counties declined. But ten counties opened the polls on that final 

Sunday because they thought they could better and more efficiently 

serve their constituents. As Senator Nelson said and as Senator 

Brown said, for no good reason the State now limits their options 

and increases their costs by mandating that they close shop on that 

final Sunday when people are coming from church. 

Finally, I would like to mention new restrictive ID laws. I have 

devoted extensive space to this in my written remarks in part because there is so much myth and misinformation out there, and I 

hope there is time to clarify in further questions if you have any. 

At the moment, six States stop citizens from casting a valid ballot at the polls if they do not have particular types of Governmentissued photo ID. They are the minority. All States have some process to make sure that people are who they say they are before they 

vote. The other 44 States offer options because they know there are 

real live eligible American citizens out there who simply do not 

have the ID required in the most restrictive States. I give specific 

examples of specific names of these real live eligible people in my 

written testimony. There are many more. Voting is a right for 

them, too. 

Now, everyone agrees that most citizens have photo ID. There is 

no dispute there. But a substantial number do not, and they have 

constitutional rights as well. It is tough to know exactly how many 

do not. There are good scientific studies and bad scientific studies. 

Unfortunately, I think Mr. von Spakovsky’s numbers would fail 

Statistics 101 at just about any college in the country. The best 

way to know who does not have the right ID is to ask them. And 

when you ask them, between 2, from the most conservative estimates, and 20 million—between 2 million and 20 million—American voting-age citizens raise their hands. They are disproportionately minorities, disproportionately poor, disproportionately young, 

disproportionately seniors. And if you do not have ID, it turns out 

that it is awfully tough to get ID. 

There is no good reason to close out these millions of people. As 

Senator Brown mentioned, Americans are killed by lightning more 

often than they are victimized by any sort of fraud that ID stops. 

Representative Rokita mentioned allegations of in-person impersonation fraud in Indiana. I would love to hear them. I have not 

yet seen any reports of any in-person impersonation fraud in Indiana, and I am not talking about prosecutions. Allegations—‘‘We 

think there has been a problem.’’ In fact, at the largest stage in the 

country, at the Supreme Court, there were a total of nine alleged 

votes nationwide since 2000 that might, if they were fraudulent at 

all, have been stopped by ID. Nine. There have already been many 

more than nine real Americans blocked by the new ID restrictions. 

Indiana’s law does work, but it works to keep people from voting 

a valid ballot. And there have already been elections, including a 

23 

school board election in 2010, decided by provisional ballots cast by 

individuals who did not have ID and could not prove, using Indiana’s new restrictive law, that they were who they said they were. 

We have amputated a foot to cure a potential hangnail. 

One word on airplanes. Mr. von Spakovsky is fond of saying that 

you need photo ID to board a plane. I wish he would add, ‘‘And I 

am George Clooney,’’ because neither one is true. To get to you 

today, I had to board a plane from Los Angeles. I never showed 

photo ID. While waiting in the terminal, I drank a beer while waiting for the flight, and quite enjoyed it. I never showed ID. To come 

testify before you today, I had to walk right in through this Federal 

building and never showed ID. In fact, I have not had photo ID in 

my wallet the entire week. 

Airlines, restaurants, and Federal buildings have figured out 

ways of accommodating real American citizens without restricting 

them to single ID cards. And as a fundamental constitutional right, 

so should all elections in the country. 

The airplane analogy is also beside the point. This is the last 

thing I will mention. Voting is in two articles of the Constitution 

and ten amendments of the Constitution, featured at the very 

heart of our constitutional order. Boarding a plane is nice. Drinking a beer is very nice. But outside of Prohibition, I do not see that 

in the Constitution. 

None of the laws that I have mentioned today, none of the laws 

here make it 100 percent impossible to vote. But for many, as a 

practical matter, they do make it very, very difficult for no good 

reason. We all deserve better when it comes to our most fundamental constitutional guarantees, and I thank you very much for 

investigating this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levitt appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much, Professor Levitt. I 

read your testimony in its entirety, and I know it is exhaustive in 

terms of the research you have done. I thank you for that very 

much. 

I found Congressman Rokita’s statement hard to rationalize 

when he said something along the lines of we should not really 

count the fact that people are not prosecuting voter fraud because, 

you know, it is not worth prosecuting. He talked about, you know, 

witnesses are hard to come by; and we should not be concerned 

that there is no evidence of prosecution of fraud. And yet State 

after State is being urged to change the laws and impose new burdens on innocent people all across the State because of allegations 

of fraud, which is ‘‘not worth prosecuting.’’ I do not think you can 

have it both ways. If this is clearly designed to stop some terrible 

miscarriage of justice at the polling place, then it ought to be prosecuted, and there ought to be a clear example to the people of this 

country that we just will not stand for this, wherever it might 

occur. 

Mr. von Spakovsky, let me go back to a movie whose name I cannot recall where the seminal phrase was ‘‘Show me the money.’’ Remember that one, Al? 

Senator FRANKEN. ‘‘Jerry Maguire.’’ 

Chairman DURBIN. Oh, I knew he would know that. 

24 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. ‘‘I will take Movies for $200.’’ 

I am sorry. ‘‘What was Jerry Maguire? ’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DURBIN. So let us follow the money in this debate for 

a moment. Let us see who is pushing for these changes in the law 

and where the money is coming from and see if it gives us any kind 

of an indication of a political motive behind this. 

Are you familiar with a group known as the American Legislative Exchange Council? 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Certainly, Senator. It is the equivalent of 

the National Conference of State Legislators. It is a similar trade 

organization for State legislators. 

Chairman DURBIN. And one of the founders, Paul Weyrich, are 

you familiar with this man? 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Certainly. He helped start the Heritage 

Foundation, too. 

Chairman DURBIN. And one of the preeminent conservative political spokesmen in America who said in a moment of candor, ‘‘I do 

not want everybody to vote. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the 

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

This quote comes from Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of the 

American Legislative Exchange Council. 

Then you take a look at where the money is coming from for this 

council to undertake these legislative efforts all across the United 

States, and you find a couple of brothers: David and Charles Koch, 

billionaire conservative financiers who have spent substantial sums 

of money, even before Citizens United, to promote a pretty conservative political agenda. 

Now take a look at the people most affected by these new laws. 

You have heard it said over and over again. I think you have said 

it in your testimony. I will just tell you as a sophomore student of 

political science, I would bet the people we are talking about are 

more likely than not to vote on the Democratic side. Not all of them 

by any means, but more likely than not. So is this a great leap to 

put these two things together, that these two financiers through 

this council spending millions of dollars promoting changes in State 

law that will restrict the outcome of elections when it comes to 

Democratic voters? 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Senator, you can do that with any subject 

in America. In fact, there is a famous Hollywood thing. I am seven 

stages removed from—which actor is it? 

Senator FRANKEN. It is—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN.—Kevin Bacon. It is not seven. It is six. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Six. Very good. 

I do not believe that the Democrats in Rhode Island who control 

the State I think four to one in the State legislature would agree 

with that. They are the ones who thought this bill was necessary. 

I read you some of the quotes from the legislators who were in 

favor of this. And the same thing—— 

Chairman DURBIN. But take—— 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. The same thing happened in Kansas. 

25 

Chairman DURBIN. Do you—— 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Democratic legislators also voted to approve 

this voter ID legislation. 

Chairman DURBIN. Do you dispute my premise that the American Legislative Exchange Council has played an active role in the 

promulgation of the State laws that we are discussing here today? 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Senator, they have a lot of model bills that 

they recommend to their State legislators. 

Chairman DURBIN. I will take that as a yes. 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Yes, and those are—those are approved by 

votes of their State legislators at their Committee meetings. 

Chairman DURBIN. And do you also concede the fact that the 

Koch brothers are major financiers of conservative causes, including this council? 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. I have no idea, Senator. I do not keep track 

of major contributors to organizations like that. 

Chairman DURBIN. We do. And—— 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DURBIN. I would like to ask you as well, do you not 

note that the people we are talking about by and large, whether 

African American, poor, elderly, and such, are generally inclined toward voting on the Democratic side? Do you dispute that? 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. I do not dispute, Senator, that, for example, 

you know, probably upwards of 90 percent of African-Americans in 

this country vote Democratic. But what I am disputing is the idea 

that voter ID, for example, depresses their turnout. The actual 

numbers in elections in Georgia and Indiana since the voter ID 

laws have been passed show that that is not true. There have been 

significant increases in the turnout—— 

Chairman DURBIN. Well, let me ask—— 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY.—of African-American voters in those elections. And if—no. If the premise that is being made here were true, 

that, in fact, this suppressed their turnout, then that would have 

happened. It has not happened in those States. In fact, the University of Missouri did a study of Indiana shortly after the voter ID 

law went into place, and they found that there was no statistically 

significant showing that that was occurring. In fact, the only thing 

that came close to being statistically significant was the fact that 

turnout seemed to go up in predominantly Democratic counties. 

Chairman DURBIN. Professor Levitt, what is your response to the 

turnout defense? 

Mr. LEVITT. Well, this is where I pointed out the statistical flaws. 

There is a basic—and I mean basic—misconception here. It is 

called ‘‘the correlation-causation fallacy,’’ and anybody who has had 

statistics for a week can talk to you about it. Yes, so Mr. von 

Spakovsky and I agree on one thing, that the turnout studies do 

not show a great impact, but that is because they cannot. There are 

so many different factors that go into an election that when you 

only have two or three data points—Georgia before and after, Indiana before and after—you cannot draw any real conclusions about 

that. 

I will give you an example. Mr. von Spakovsky supports ID restrictions. I oppose them. Mr. von Spakovsky has no facial hair. I 

26 

have facial hair. But certainly opposition to photo ID does not 

cause facial hair to grow. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LEVITT. They are simply unrelated. The 2008 election in particular is a particularly bad example. Georgia and Indiana were 

battleground States for the first time in decades in a Presidential 

election, and minority turnout in those States would have been 

buoyed through the roof with a Presidential candidate at the top 

of the ticket for a major party who was himself a minority. Under 

any circumstance, in Georgia and Indiana in 2008, turnout should 

have shot up. And the fact that it went up in Georgia by about 19 

percent does not tell you anything about whether it would have 

gone up by 17 percent plus 2 percent for ID or 35 percent minus 

16 percent for ID. That is, you just cannot know what effect ID is 

having with such a massive, overwhelming output of minority voters like that. 

Chairman DURBIN. So let me ask you this question on early voting. It appears that consciously these legislatures are denying an 

opportunity for early voting on the Sunday before an election, and 

it has been stated by Ms. Browne Dianis and others—I think you 

may have stated it yourself—that in many minority communities 

people go to church and then proceed to vote early. So is the 

premise here that there is more fraud in early voting on Sunday 

than there is on another day of the week? I am trying to follow the 

logic of this effort to restrict early voting. 

Mr. LEVITT. It is tough to follow that logic because I am not sure 

I see any logic there. I have not heard it justified based on fraud, 

although I have heard just about anything else justified based on 

fraud. I have heard it justified based on cost, but the important 

thing to note is that this actually restricts flexibility. You heard 

from several members of the first panel that election administrators love opportunities when it is up to them to expand early voting 

because it helps smooth out the profile, because it helps get people 

in when they do not have to pay overtime, because it helps them 

actually process voters as voters want to come in, and because it 

helps them serve their constituents. And in Florida, election administrators had the flexibility—the law allowed them to offer 8 

hours of early voting over the weekend. They could choose to offer 

it on Saturday, or they could choose to offer it on Sunday. And in 

at least ten counties, including the most populous counties, election 

administrators thought they could best serve their constituents by 

offering it on Sunday. They no longer have that latitude. And the 

impact on the minority community is striking. 

In my written testimony, I have explained. In 2008, 13 percent 

of African-Americans were the total electorate; 31 percent of the 

final Sunday were African Americans. Latinos were 11 percent of 

the total electorate, 22 percent of the final Sunday—double the impact. And 2008 was a banner year for minority turnout. Look to 

2010, same pattern. Twelve percent of the electorate were African 

Americans; 23 percent of that final Sunday. And for Latinos, 9 percent of the electorate and 16 percent of the final Sunday. The minority communities come out to vote on that final Sunday, and now 

they cannot. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Franken. 

27 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I unfortunately 

have to go in about 5 minutes because I have an important call, 

so thanks. 

Professor Levitt, there is a lot of talk about this is a matter of 

confidence because whether or not there have been actual—because 

we cannot find any convictions in voter fraud, so this is a matter 

of confidence. Do you think that it erodes confidence when people 

allege voter fraud and there just does not seem to be any convictions for it and there is no—and who tends to allege voter fraud 

more in your experience in this field? 

Mr. LEVITT. Unfortunately, in my experience, every time a candidate loses, there are allegations of voter fraud. At least that is 

the most common. 

I do think it erodes confidence when people allege voter fraud 

that is not there, and, in fact, you will see election administrators 

really fighting very strongly allegations of voter fraud when they 

know they have run clean elections. And they later turn out, to explain that all of these allegations just disappear. They are easy to 

make just after elections, and then they vanish thereafter. 

I can also tell you that it is often asserted that we need ID laws 

in order to promote voter confidence, but here, too, I fall back on 

facts. It is a crutch I have. Professor Stephen Ansolabehere and 

Professor Nate Persily wrote an article in the Harvard Law Review 

examining the data, so they asked people, ‘‘How confident are you 

in the elections? ’’ And they looked at the photo ID laws in those 

States, and they found no correlation whatsoever. It turns out that 

if you believe the election is stolen, you believe it no matter what 

the legal regime is. And if you believe it was fair, you believe it 

no matter what the legal regime is. So it just does not have that 

effect. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. von Spakovsky, in 1982 this Congress amended the Voting 

Rights Act to prohibit not just voting practices with a discriminatory intent, but also those practices that disproportionately hurt 

minority voters regardless of intent. In 2006 the Senate reauthorized that law by 98-0. It was not a voice vote, either. It was 98- 

0. 

Mr. von Spakovsky, we have heard some very persuasive evidence from your fellow witnesses today that these laws from voter 

ID laws to restrictive registration laws disproportionately hurt minority voters. Do you think that they comply with the letter and 

the spirit of the Voting Rights Act as amended and overwhelmingly 

reauthorized by Congress? 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. I would agree with Judge Harold Murphy, 

who was a Federal judge in Georgia who found that, in fact, Georgia’s voter ID law was not discriminatory, and that is why he 

threw out all of the claims that had been made against it that it 

was discriminatory. And, in fact, that decision was upheld by the 

Eleventh Circuit. So you do not need my opinion. That is the opinion of a Federal judge who not only examined that law but held 

very detailed and very lengthy hearings and looked at all of the 

evidence that a number of groups tried to present in court, including the ACLU and the NAACP, to show that it would have a disVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 071326 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71326.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
28 

criminate impact. And the judge concluded that they were unable 

to prove that it did. 

Senator FRANKEN. Mr. Levitt, what do you have to say to that? 

Mr. LEVITT. It is true that the court did find that there was no 

violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. I will say that it 

did not credit much of the evidence of burden about going to get 

a photo ID for those who did not have that, and there are voters 

in Georgia for whom this is quite burdensome. 

There is a different provision of the Voting Rights Act, Section 

5 of the Voting Rights Act, that the court did not have a chance 

to address because the Department of Justice is the only entity 

that has a chance to address it if it signs off on the law. That was 

a very controversial pre-clearance exercise. I believe that there was 

a staff memo, not normally leaked but in this case leaked to the 

public, that came in recommending that the law not be precleared. And then the very next day, so a 70-some-page staff memo, 

the very next day the law was pre-cleared without objection. And 

that decision never got a second hearing in a court. There is no jurisdiction to give that decision a second hearing. 

Senator FRANKEN. I see. I wanted to go back. I know that Mr. 

Levitt talked about this, but this was the use of the number of additional votes in 2008 in Georgia’s black population. Mr. von 

Spakovsky, do you think that part of that might have been because 

Georgia was targeted as a battleground State and had not been for 

a long time? 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Well, let me make two points. First of all, 

Mr. Levitt said I was only talking about one or two data points. 

Well, that is untrue. There are a number of studies that have been 

done, including one by the Heritage Foundation, that looked at 

turnout over more than one election in all 50 States, including a 

study that I looked at earlier—I mentioned earlier, the University 

of Delaware and University of Nebraska. They looked at turnout 

in, I think, the 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections, and all concluded 

that it did not depress the turnout of voters across socioeconomic 

lines. 

Now, with regard to Georgia, you know, we had a great turnout 

in the 2008 election. In fact, you know, we had one of the highest 

turnouts in decades. But the turnout in Georgia went up in comparison to other States that also went up. For example, Mississippi, 

a neighboring State, large African-American population, just like 

Georgia, the increase in turnout there was only about a third what 

it was in Georgia. Indiana—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Can I ask you something? 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Sure. 

Senator FRANKEN. Do you know how much Mississippi grew in 

terms of black population during those years versus Georgia? 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. I do not, but I do know—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, wouldn’t that—excuse me. I am sorry. 

Wouldn’t that have to factor in then, the significance of that? 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. It certainly does, but Georgia’s Secretary of 

State recently noted that, in fact, for example, in the 2010 elections 

the turnout of African-Americans outpaced their registration by 

like 20 percent. 

29 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, here is my question. You did a study, 

and you put in your testimony that it was significant that the percentage of black voters grew more in Georgia than in Mississippi, 

and you just cited it again. But I would think that as someone who 

writes studies that it would be significant to know that the black 

population in Georgia grew at more than 4 times the rate than the 

black population in Mississippi. And I am wondering how you did 

not factor that in and put all kinds of significance into the fact that 

the percentage of blacks who voted grew more in Georgia than in 

Mississippi when, in fact, Georgia was, I think, the second highest 

next to Kentucky in terms of percentage of growth of black population during the last decade. Don’t you think that that is a little 

sloppy that you put that in without noting that Georgia grew at 

more than 4 times the rate that Mississippi did? And didn’t that 

create an inference? 

I have to go. I am sorry. I mean, doesn’t that—— 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Do you want me to answer the question or 

not, or—— 

Senator FRANKEN. I am sorry. It is more than 3 times the rate, 

not 4 times the rate. I apologize. 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. All you are telling me, Senator, is that the 

increase in turnout kept up with the rate of growth, which is just 

another sign that it did not affect or depress the turnout. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, I was basically kind of saying that you 

put something in your testimony that did not—that suggested 

something that was not necessarily—that created an inference that 

was not true. 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Well, I would disagree with that, Senator. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, but I think that it is hard to really argue 

with it because you did not note that Georgia’s black population 

grew at a much, much, much faster rate than Mississippi’s, and yet 

all you did was put that their black voting rate increased more. 

And I think that is creating an inference that—either you knew it 

or you did not know it, but I think you should have checked it out. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much, Senator Franken. I 

appreciate your coming and your patience. 

I want to ask a few more questions, and, Ms. Browne-Dianis, you 

are not going to get off the hook. You were invited to be part of 

this panel, and I would like to hear your comments. You probably 

heard Senator Bill Nelson speak about the situation in Florida, and 

voter registration. And I am concerned that a group like the 

League of Women Voters would decide to get out of the business. 

And I am also concerned that there are many other organizations, 

nonpartisan organizations, focusing on voter registration that may 

share their concerns when you impose burdens like the new Florida 

law does. 

So, if I can, I would ask you to comment on the impact of these 

new voter registration standards. They have been alluded to here, 

turning in voter registration within 48 hours and the like. If you 

could comment on what impact this is likely to have on voter registration turnout. 

Ms. BROWNE DIANIS. Sure. As Professor Levitt mentioned, this 

actually was not the first time that the Florida State Legislature 

tried to increase the penalties for voter registration groups and the 

30 

burdens on them. However, Advancement Project and the Brennan 

Center sued on behalf of the League of Women Voters before, and 

we were successful in settling that case. 

We believe what will happen this go-round is that a number of 

requirements that groups did not have to meet before, that are 

very similar to Jim Crow registration requirements of the 1950s 

and 1960s where, first of all, groups will have to go and register 

as registrars in the State and go through a process, a burdensome 

process of filling out paperwork, will not make it very easy for 

these groups. 

Second, there is a 48-hour turnaround for groups to turn in completed registration forms. Of course, there is some concern. First of 

all, the turn around deadline had been 10 days. A registration 

group could take its voter registration form and make certain that 

it was of high-quality. Part of the problem is that the new requirement will chip away at the quality of voter registration that third 

party that groups are doing, because often the best voter registration groups—and I have seen this in the State of Florida—take 

these voter registration forms, make sure that they are filled out 

completely before they are submitted. If they are not, they go back 

to the person that was applying to register to get the missing information before they hand it in to the registrar, thereby cutting down 

the work that the registrar may have to do in processing incomplete forms. 

It will also increase the penalties, actually the cost and the fines 

that registration groups will encounter if they do not turn in the 

registration forms within the 48-hour period. 

So if you are looking at this as the League of Women Voters, the 

NAACP, other nonpartisan groups, and thinking about the cost to 

us of messing up one time or two times, it may not be worth it. 

And so to have an organization like the League of Women Voters, 

that has been doing voter registration in Florida for over 60 years, 

pull out of Florida is very devastating. It really is about whether 

or not people will have access to voting. And, again, as I said in 

my testimony, African-American and Latino voters are more likely 

than white voters to register through third party voter registration 

drives than going into the motor vehicle office or some other agency 

to do the registration. 

Chairman DURBIN. So what have you found in this Advancement 

Project that you are part of in terms of the incidence of voter 

fraud? Professor Levitt and Mr. von Spakovsky obviously have a 

different point of view. What have you found? 

Ms. BROWNE DIANIS. Sure. We have looked at the studies; we 

looked at what the Department of Justice did during the Bush administration in its 5-year investigation of voter fraud, coming up 

with very little voter fraud. One thing that was mentioned earlier 

was the issue about a Cuban coming to America and registering to 

vote. The new photo identification requirements do not prevent 

that. What helps is Federal law. The Help America Vote Act requires that a voter registration applicants you provide either a 

driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number that can be matched against their name. And so there 

are other protections in Federal law that really address these 

issues so that we do not have to go to new photo ID requirement. 

31 

And, again, it is about whether or not the law allows for multiple 

forms of identification. Professor Levitt got on a plane with multiple forms, not just that one photo ID. 

And so, again, it is the solution without the problem; and there 

is no documentation of the problem. In Indiana, they could not 

come forward with a case of impersonation in front of the Supreme 

Court. So if they cannot find the cases, they do not exist, because 

I am sure they have been looking for them for a long time. 

Chairman DURBIN. I sent a letter to a number of Governors as 

a result of this hearing asking them for some information about 

what is going on in their State where these laws are being 

changed. I hope they respond. 

I want to make particular note of a neighboring State to Illinois—Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a State agency, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, and they determined that 20 percent of the people living in Wisconsin do not possess the kind of identification required 

by the new Wisconsin law. That includes 177,000 elderly people, 36 

percent of young voters, 70 percent of African-Americans under the 

age of 25, and approximately 242,000 Wisconsin college students 

whose student ID cards do not meet the strict new requirements 

in Wisconsin law. 

Let me go to student ID cards for a minute here. It seems to me 

that these States are going out of their way not to acknowledge IDs 

issued by State universities. Texas is a good illustration. Your ID 

at the University of Texas does not meet the test. However, your 

application for a firearm, that ID does meet the test. Hmm. Can 

we draw any political conclusions from that? 

I would like to ask you, when you take a look at where this is 

headed, is it a leap to suggest that these laws are more restrictive 

in terms of potential Democratic voters? 

Ms. BROWNE DIANIS. It is not a leap. When you look at the 

groups that will be disproportionately impacted by these laws— 

black voters, Latino voters, young voters in States like South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin where they will not be able to use their 

student IDs—there clearly is a correlation because those are the 

groups that saw a surge in voter registration in 2008 and saw a 

surge in turnout. And so there is real concern that these new restrictions are targeted at these folks so that they will not be able 

to participate in such great numbers in 2012. 

Chairman DURBIN. Now, one of the things Wisconsin made a 

point of doing was saying we are not going to charge for the ID 

card. That was smart because I think that would have just fallen 

on its face as basically a poll tax. You have made the point and 

others have made the point that going to get a birth certificate is 

not a free enterprise. You end up paying for it usually if you need 

one to prove your identity for one of these State ID cards. 

But there is also another element, and I will give you an example 

here in Wisconsin. There is only one DMV office in the entire State 

of Wisconsin that is open on weekends. One for the entire State. 

More than half of the DMV offices open during the week only have 

part-time hours. Three counties have no DMV office at all. 

So I have written to the Governor and asked him, ‘‘You are considering closing more DMV locations because of budgetary problems. How are you going to accommodate the issuance of IDs to one 

32 

out of five people in Wisconsin who do not have them? ’’ Is this a 

problem beyond Wisconsin? 

Ms. BROWNE DIANIS. Sure. As I mentioned earlier, in Texas it is 

also a problem where 80 counties have either no DMV office or 

have closed their DMV offices. Of course, as we see the cutbacks 

in budgets across the country, we will see more of these offices closing. And when you look at the correlation—actually, it is my testimony—the correlation between race and where those offices have 

closed, you will find that there are disparities in the impact of the 

closures of those offices, thereby making it more difficult for African-American and Latino would-be voters to actually get their ID 

in order to vote. 

Chairman DURBIN. Mr. von Spakovsky, you said that photo ID 

laws increase public confidence in elections. But if that is the case, 

what impact does disenfranchising people who cannot make it to 

these DMV offices because of inconvenient locations or inconvenient opportunities, what impact does that have on public confidence 

in elections? 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Well, I think as I have said both in my 

written testimony and here today, those claims are, quite frankly, 

bogus, Senator. Let me read you a quick quote from the Indiana 

Federal district court that said this: ‘‘Despite apocalyptic assertions 

of wholesale voter disenfranchisement, plaintiffs have produced not 

a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who 

would be prevented from voting pursuant to the photo ID law.’’ 

All of the same claims being made here today, that there are 

huge numbers of people without photo ID, that they will not be 

able to vote, were made not just in the Indiana case but also in the 

Georgia case before Judge Harold Murphy, who, by the way, is not 

a conservative judge. He is a Carter appointee. And, in fact, the 

plaintiffs in that case venue shopped to file their case up in a small 

town in the northwest corner of Georgia specifically to get that particular judge. And he also said that this failure to identify those individuals is particularly acute in light of the plaintiffs’ contention 

that a large number of Georgia voters lack acceptable photo ID. 

In both cases, when it actually came to not making claims but 

producing actual evidence that there are large numbers—or even 

a single individual that would not be able to meet these photo ID 

requirements because they either did not have a photo ID or could 

not easily obtain one, these organizations were unable to do so, and 

that is why those laws are in place and have been in place now for 

several elections in both States. 

Chairman DURBIN. Your first quote was from the Crawford v. 

Marion County Election Board case which considered Indiana’s 

photo ID law, and you have cited that case to support your point 

that photo ID laws do not prevent people from voting, and you 

quoted the court’s statement to that effect. Your citation is misleading because the Crawford case was filed before the Indiana law 

was even implemented. 

Isn’t it true that in Crawford there were no plaintiffs that had 

been harmed by the photo law because the election in Indiana had 

not occurred and Indiana’s voter ID law had not been implemented? 

33 

Mr. VON SPAKOVSKY. Well, I would refer you to what Congressman Rokita said earlier. Any groups, the same groups who contested the case before the U.S. Supreme Court could have within 

the last few years filed an as-applied challenge based on actual individuals that they claim are unable to vote because of the law, 

and as Congressman Rokita said, you know, where are the suits 

making that claim? 

Chairman DURBIN. Professor Levitt. 

Mr. LEVITT. So it is a little odd listening Mr. von Spakovsky begging for more litigation. I think your point is exactly right, that the 

suit was brought before there was ever a chance to enforce the law. 

That may or may not speak to a particular plaintiff’s strategy, but 

it does not speak at all to whether there were actual voters burdened. 

It is also important to listen to the quote, and Mr. von Spakovsky 

quoted accurately, but the judge said: ‘‘There is no individual prevented from voting who has been put before the court.’’ There were 

plenty of individuals, mostly in an amicus fashion, who would have 

had a really, really hard time, and the court essentially set a higher standard than public policy should ever set in determining that 

it was only going to look at people who were locked out, no point 

of return, not caring about the individuals who would be substantially burdened. And there are real individuals. 

Since that case was brought, we know that there have been individuals without ID who have tried to vote and failed. Real people. 

Retired nuns in South Bend in 2008. I believe that there were at 

least ten of them turned away, and one of the nuns who was 

turned away noted that many others among the 137 retired sisters 

living at the Congregation of Sisters of the Holy Cross Convent 

were dissuaded from voting upon learning that their sisters had 

been turned away—that is, never showed up to cast a provisional 

ballot. We do not have the evidence that they tried to vote because 

sisters came home and said, ‘‘Hey, we just went down to the polls 

and we could not do it.’’ 

Chris Connolly, a 50-year-old veteran of the Navy and Marines, 

tried to vote in Indiana’s 2008 primary, but his Veterans Administration photo ID card did not have an expiration date, and so he 

was not able to cast a valid ballot. 

That is just one example here. There are many others that I 

have put forward in my written testimony for you. But I frankly 

think it is shameful to conceive of even one veteran who served our 

country and watched brothers and sisters die to preserve others’ 

right to vote turned away for no good reason. And, yes, it is true 

that Mr. Connolly did not bring a lawsuit, but that should not be 

the standard when looking at whether these laws are rational, 

whether they are good public policy, and even whether they are 

constitutional. 

Chairman DURBIN. I want to thank this panel for joining us 

today and being part of what I believe may be the first hearing on 

the subject on Capitol Hill. I hope others will follow. What is at 

issue here goes beyond the ordinary fare of these committees, as 

important as it may be, because the right to vote in America has 

been described as ‘‘the right preservative of all other rights.’’ It 

really is fundamental. It goes way beyond getting on an airplane 

34 

or anything else that we might do. And that is why I think it 

should be treated with extreme care, and each generation should 

accept the responsibility to make certain that we preserve this 

right to vote for all those in America who have fought so hard to 

maintain it over the years and who honor it as we do. 

Dozens of organizations are on the ground educating the public, 

challenging these laws, and fighting to preserve the right to vote 

for all Americans. Many of them have submitted statements, including Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Brennan Center 

for Justice, Rock the Vote, Demos, AARP, Fair Elections Legal Network, Constitutional Accountability Center, United States Student 

Association, Human Rights Campaign, NAACP Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund, the League of Young Voters, America Votes, 

District Supervisor Nikiya Harris of Milwaukee, Campus Progress, 

National Coalition for the Homeless, National Action Network, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, and without objection, 

I will make these statements that they have submitted part of the 

record. 

[The statements appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. I thank these organizations and especially 

thank the witnesses for the sacrifices they made to come here 

today and be part of this important hearing. 

The hearing record will be open for one week to accept additional 

statements. Written questions for the witnesses may also be submitted, and I hope they can respond in a timely fashion. 

If there are no further comments from those on the panel, I want 

to thank our witnesses again for attending and all those who are 

here today and my colleagues for participating. The hearing stands 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follows.] 

35 


71326.001
36 


71326.002
37 


71326.003
38 


71326.004
39 


71326.005
40 


71326.006
41 


71326.007
42 


71326.008
43 


71326.009
44 


71326.010
45 


71326.011
46 


71326.012
47 


71326.013
48 


71326.014
49 


71326.015
50 


71326.016
51 


71326.017
52 


71326.018
53 


71326.019
54 


71326.020
55 


71326.021
56 


71326.022
57 


71326.023
58 


71326.024
59 


71326.025
60 


71326.026
61 


71326.027
62 


71326.028
63 


71326.029
64 


71326.030
65 


71326.031
66 


71326.032
67 


71326.033
68 


71326.034
69 


71326.035
70 


71326.036
71 


71326.037
72 


71326.038
73 


71326.039
74 


71326.040
75 


71326.041
76 


71326.042
77 


71326.043
78 


71326.044
79 


71326.045
80 


71326.046
81 


71326.047
82 


71326.048
83 


71326.049
84 


71326.050
85 


71326.051
86 


71326.052
87 


71326.053
88 


71326.054
89 


71326.055
90 


71326.056
91 


71326.057
92 


71326.058
93 


71326.059
94 


71326.060
95 


71326.061
96 


71326.062
97 


71326.063
98 


71326.064
99 


71326.065
100 


71326.066
101 


71326.067
102 


71326.068
103 


71326.069
104 


71326.070
105 


71326.071
106 


71326.072
107 


71326.073
108 


71326.074
109 


71326.075
110 


71326.076
111 


71326.077
112 


71326.078
113 


71326.079
114 


71326.080
115 


71326.081
116 


71326.082
117 


71326.083
118 


71326.084
119 


71326.085
120 


71326.086
121 


71326.087
122 


71326.088
123 


71326.089
124 


71326.090
125 


71326.091
126 


71326.092
127 


71326.093
128 


71326.094
129 


71326.095
130 


71326.096
131 


71326.097
132 


71326.098
133 


71326.099
134 


71326.100
135 


71326.101
136 


71326.102
137 


71326.103
138 


71326.104
139 


71326.105
140 


71326.106
141 


71326.107
142 


71326.108
143 


71326.109
144 


71326.110
145 


71326.111
146 


71326.112
147 


71326.113
148 


71326.114
149 


71326.115
150 


71326.116
151 


71326.117
152 


71326.118
153 


71326.119
154 


71326.120
155 


71326.121
156 


71326.122
157 


71326.123
158 


71326.124
159 


71326.125
160 


71326.126
161 


71326.127
162 


71326.128
163 


71326.129
164 


71326.130
165 


71326.131
166 


71326.132
167 


71326.133
168 


71326.134
169 


71326.135
170 


71326.136
171 


71326.137
172 


71326.138
173 


71326.139
174 


71326.140
175 


71326.141
176 


71326.142
177 


71326.143
178 


71326.144
179 


71326.145
180 


71326.146
181 


71326.147
182 


71326.148
183 


71326.149
184 


71326.150
185 


71326.151
186 


71326.152
187 


71326.153
188 


71326.154
189 


71326.155
190 


71326.156
191 


71326.157
192 


71326.158
193 


71326.159
194 


71326.160
195 


71326.161
196 


71326.162
197 


71326.163
198 


71326.164
199 


71326.165
200 


71326.166
201 


71326.167
202 


71326.168
203 


71326.169
204 


71326.170
205 


71326.171
206 


71326.172
207 


71326.173
208 


71326.174
209 


71326.175
210 


71326.176
211 


71326.177
212 


71326.178
213 


71326.179
214 


71326.180
215 


71326.181
216 


71326.182
217 


71326.183
218 


71326.184
219 


71326.185
220 


71326.186
221 


71326.187
222 


71326.188
223 


71326.189
224 


71326.190
225 


71326.191
226 


71326.192
227 


71326.193
228 


71326.194
229 


71326.195
230 


71326.196
231 


71326.197
232 


71326.198
233 


71326.199
234 


71326.200
235 


71326.201
236 


71326.202
237 


71326.203
238 


71326.204
239 


71326.205
240 


71326.206
241 


71326.207
242 


71326.208
243 


71326.209
244 


71326.210
245 


71326.211
246 


71326.212
247 


71326.213
248 


71326.214
249 


71326.215
250 


71326.216
251 


71326.217
252 


71326.218
253 


71326.219
254 


71326.220
255 


71326.221
256 


71326.222
257 


71326.223
258 


71326.224
259 


71326.225
260 


71326.226
261 


71326.227
262 


71326.228
263 


71326.229
264 


71326.230
265 


71326.231
266 


71326.232
267 


71326.233
268 


71326.234
269 


71326.235
270 


71326.236
271 


71326.237
272 


71326.238
273 


71326.239
274 


71326.240
275 


71326.241
276 


71326.242
277 


71326.243
278 


71326.244
279 


71326.245
280 


71326.246
281 


71326.247
282 


71326.248
283 


71326.249
284 


71326.250
285 


71326.251
286 


71326.252
287 


71326.253
288 


71326.254
289 


71326.255
290 


71326.256
291 


71326.257
292 


71326.258
293 


71326.259
294 


71326.260
295 


71326.261
296 

Æ 


71326.262