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

40–987 2008

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ELECTION DAY 

REGISTRATION AND PROVISIONAL VOTING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 9, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California, 

Vice-Chairman 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

Charles A. Gonzalez, Texas 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, 

Ranking Minority Member 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, Staff Director 

WILLIAM PLASTER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ELECTION 

DAY REGISTRATION AND PROVISIONAL 

VOTING 

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren (chairwoman of the subcommittee) Presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Ehlers, McCarthy, Davis of 

California and Davis of Alabama. 

Also Present: Representative Ellison. 

Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Thomas Hicks, Senior Election Counsel; Janelle Hu, Election Counsel; Jennifer Daehn, 

Election Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; 

Kyle Anderson, Press Director; Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative 

Clerk; Daniel Favarulo, Staff Assistant, Elections; Matthew 

DeFreitas, Staff Assistant; Fred Hay, Minority General Counsel; 

Gineen Beach, Minority Election Counsel; Roman Buhler, Minority 

Election Counsel; and Bryan T. Dorsey, Minority Professional Staff. 

Ms. LOFGREN. As it is 10:00, we would like to begin the hearing, 

if we could. So, good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee 

on Elections and this hearing on Election Day Registration and 

Provisional Voting. 

Section 302 of the Help America Vote Act, known as HAVA, outlined the provisional balloting process, but left room for the States 

to determine the procedure. This includes who qualifies as a registered voter eligible to cast a provisional ballot that will be counted, and in what jurisdiction the ballot must be cast in order to be 

counted. 

Generally, if a registered voter appears at a polling place to vote 

in an election for Federal office, but either the voter’s name does 

not appear on the official list of eligible voters or an election official 

asserts that the individual is not eligible to vote, that voter must 

be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. 

After the 2004 election, there were several lawsuits on whether 

a vote cast in the wrong precinct but the correct county should be 

counted. The Sixth Circuit in Sandusky County Democratic Party 

v. Blackwell held that ballots cast in a precinct where the voter 

does not reside and which would be invalid under State law are not 

required by HAVA to be considered legal votes. Based on the 

court’s interpretation of HAVA, States have the discretion to determine how they define jurisdiction for the purpose of counting proviVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:40 Apr 02, 2008 Jkt 040987 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\40987.XXX 40987

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

sional ballots. However, the litigation clarified the right of the 

voter to be directed to the correct precinct to vote and have their 

vote counted as well as the right to a provisional ballot. 

While States are primarily responsible for regulation of Federal, 

State, and local elections, HAVA was an attempt to allow more voters to have their ballots cast. However, with varying State procedures on provisional balloting, some votes in Federal elections are 

being counted and others are not. And, according to the EAC report 

on provisional reporting in the 2004 election nationwide about 1.9 

million votes, or 1.6 percent of the turnout, were cast as provisional 

ballots. Of that number, more than 1.2 million, or just over 63 percent, were counted. 

Directly related to provisional voting is election day registration, 

also called same-day registration. It allows eligible voters to register and cast a ballot on election day. EDR significantly increases 

the opportunity for all citizens to cast a vote. According to Demos, 

the 2004 presidential election, the seven EDR States had an average turnout 12 percent higher than that of non-EDR States. 

The EDR has shown to have many benefits for voters. Earlier 

this fall, the subcommittee held a hearing on committee list maintenance, and we discussed the eligible voters who may have been 

mistakenly purged from the voting rolls. EDR provides those eligible voters an opportunity to vote and have their vote counted, instead of taking the chance with a provisional ballot which may not 

be counted. 

EDR also provides another opportunity for people who have not 

had time or have just become eligible and who have missed a 

longer deadline or maybe just forgot to register to vote. And beyond 

this, EDR leads to the enfranchisement of voters who have recently 

moved and lower income voters. In States where EDR is in place, 

it has resulted for lower costs for election administrators because 

it eliminates the need for provisional balloting. 

Election day registration, however, is not without criticism, particularly over whether allowing voters to cast ballots on the same 

day they register fails to provide adequate security and whether 

this allows for voter fraud. So I look forward to the testimony from 

Demos and from the other witnesses. Demos has done a study of 

the nearly 4,000 news reports for the six EDR States over three 

Federal election cycles, and found only 10 discrete instances of potential fraud. Of course, there was only one case of voter impersonation at the polls. 

Our witnesses today will discuss the pros and cons of election 

day registration and provisional voting. The panels provide a State 

and local view of how these affect voter participation and administration, as well as academic and advocacy insights into these two 

issues. 

[The statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 9 here 40987A.001
4 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 10 here 40987A.002
5 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would now like to recognize our ranking member, Mr. McCarthy, for any opening statement he may make. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I thank you, Madam Chair. And I am excited 

about continuing along these lines that we are continuing to look 

at how people are allowed to vote in America. And the one thing 

that we do want to always make sure is that we have the ability 

to make it accessible to everyone. We want to make sure we have 

checks and balances. 

And as this committee continues to look at this, I continue to ask 

that we make sure we gather all information from all sides. Because, as you said in your opening statement, same day voter registration, some States have it. 

There are criticisms on both sides of the aisle. And one thing 

that I think we are held accountable to as Members is making sure 

we gather all the information, and that is why I continue to ask 

that, as we move forward, that we don’t limit the number of people 

that can have witnesses here, that we make sure we have a fair 

and balanced approach, one that has views from all sides so we are 

able to gather all the information before we make a decision. 

Unfortunately, though, again, this committee has shifted from 

the past history and tradition of being equal on that basis and the 

witnesses have not been equal. So I would like to submit under 

House rule XI a minority hearing so we can continue to gather information. 

[The following information was subsequently withdrawn by Representative McCarthy. See page 189 of transcript.] 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 13 here 40987A.003
7 

Ms. LOFGREN. I will accept this, and it will be dealt with under 

the rules. I will note for the record that we did approve a 6–4 witness ratio for this hearing, but the minority only brought 3 witnesses, so there is nothing I can do about that. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Madam Chair, that would be the first time I 

have heard of more than three witnesses being approved. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I did that personally earlier this week. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I would, one, want to thank you for that. Two, 

I would like to meet with you afterwards then, because I did not 

have knowledge of that and I am being told by my staff they didn’t. 

So I would, one, want to thank you for the 6–4, and continue to 

ask that we keep a tradition of the 109th Congress that we actually 

have 6–6. But thank you for increasing to 6–4. 

Ms. LOFGREN. As I said, I don’t want to delay this because we 

do have a room full of witnesses and the public. I have always been 

available for a discussion and would welcome one at any time, but 

not at the hearing. 

And now I would like to recognize our first two witnesses. We 

have two Members of Congress. 

First, we have Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Congressman 

Ellison is a newly elected Member of Congress representing the 

Fifth Congressional District of Minnesota, which includes the City 

of Minneapolis and the surrounding suburbs. He previously served 

two terms in the Minnesota State House of Representatives, and 

while in the State legislature he served on the Public Safety, Policy, and Finance Committee and the Election and Civil Law Committee. Representative Ellison now serves on the Financial Services 

and the Judiciary Committee, along with me. 

We welcome his testimony today. And, of course, he is the author 

of the bill to provide for same-day election day registration. 

We also have Steve King of Iowa. Congressman King was elected 

in 2002 to represent Iowa’s Fifth Congressional District. He serves 

on the House Small Business Committee, the Committee on Agriculture, and he is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee, serving on the Constitution and Immigration Subcommittees. As a matter of fact, he is the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee, which I chair. Prior to joining Congress, he 

served in the Iowa State Senate for 6 years, where he assumed 

roles as chairman of the State Government Committee and vice 

chairman of the Oversight Budget Committee. 

And we welcome both of you today. You know the drill. Both of 

your statements are made part of the official record. We would ask 

you to limit your oral testimony to about 5 minutes. 

And we will begin with you, Mr. Ellison. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEITH ELLISON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. ELLISON. Let me start by thanking you, Madam Chair, and 

the Ranking Member McCarthy for holding this important hearing 

on election day registration and provisional voting. Madam Chair, 

I would also like to thank your staff and the House Administration 

staff as well as my own staff who have done an excellent job preparing for today. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
8 

I would also like to acknowledge the presence of Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who is here to testify, and of course 

our former Minnesota Secretary of State, Mary Kiffmeyer, who is 

also here, and I thank them both for being here. 

I am honored to be here to discuss the importance of election day 

registration. Madam Chair, I am also committed and passionate 

about election day voter registration, and I am so committed to it 

that I introduced H.R. 2457, the Same Day Voter Registration Act 

of 2007. We have 41 cosponsors. My distinguished predecessor, 

Martin Sabo, championed this legislation in years past, and I am 

honored to continue that tradition, and I feel we have made some 

important progress in our effort to extend voting rights to all 

Americans. 

My home State of Minnesota has been a national leader when it 

comes to elections and election administration. We consistently 

rank in the top nationally in voter turnout. For example, in the 

2004 presidential elections 78 percent of eligible voters in Minnesota cast a ballot. This is more than 18 percent higher than the 

national average. In 1998, a nonpresidential year, there were nationally only 30 to 35 percent of eligible voters who cast a ballot. 

Voter turnout topped out more than 60 percent. 

Additionally, when it comes to election administration, Minnesota consistently conducts one of the most efficient, fraud free 

and error free elections time and time again. And though I do believe some share credit—many people share credit for Minnesota’s 

national leadership on elections, credit needs to go to committed 

public servants like Mark Ritchie and several local officials who 

manage these elections. 

Minnesota laws, like the same day voter registration statute, 

have contributed to this stellar national reputation. My home State 

enacted same day voter registration about almost 25 years ago. 

Since the right to vote is such an important and fundamental 

right, I believe the right to vote should not be conditional on any 

ability to navigate bureaucracy or to meet artificial and arbitrary 

deadlines. 

America, Madam Chair, has consistently moved towards voter 

access throughout its entire history: The 13th amendment striking 

down involuntary servitude; the 14th amendment, which actually 

incentivized voter participation of the newly freed men; and of 

course the 15th amendment, which allowed for universal male suffrage. 

Of course, America wasn’t done yet. The 19th amendment allowed universal adult suffrage when it included and recognized the 

right of women to vote in 1920. 

But of course it didn’t stop there. The 24th amendment banned 

the poll taxes and other taxes associated with being a barrier, a financial barrier to voting. 

But then, in 1965 we saw the Voting Rights Act, which for the 

first time really struck down all the tools, devices and tricks that 

eliminated people from voter participation. 

And then of course in the 1970s we lowered the voting age to 18 

years old. 

Madam Chair, I believe that EDR is a logical extension of America’s ever increasing desire to see more and more people express 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
9 

their view as to who should represent them in this great representative democracy. I strongly encourage colleagues in Congress to follow the lead of States like Minnesota to enact same day voter registration. 

Let me conclude by quoting from a New York Times op ed piece 

written by a Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State of 

Ohio and Maine. The quote is as follows: Though one of us is Republican and the other is a Democrat, we can attest that political 

affiliation isn’t relevant here. This is a policy election day registration that is good for voters regardless of party and good for our democracy. When it comes to elections, America is best served when 

all eligible voters cast ballots, even those who miss the registration 

deadline. 

And I might add, Madam Chair, that in my own State of Minnesota we have seen Republican Governors elected and reelected. 

We saw an Independent Party Governor, Governor Ventura, elected. We have seen Democratic Governors elected. And we have seen 

both houses shift back and forth. Same day voter registration 

doesn’t favor a party, it favors voters. 

Madam Chair and members of the committee, I could not agree 

more with both the Republican and Democrat Secretaries of State 

of Idaho and Maine. 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify this morning. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ellison. 

[The statement of Mr. Ellison follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
10 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 20 here 40987A.004
11 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 21 here 40987A.005
12 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. King. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

McCarthy. I appreciate these hearings today. And I listened carefully and attentively to the gentleman from Minnesota’s testimony, 

and I want to commend him for taking an initiative on something 

he believes in, in fact to the point where we had a conversation 

about these bills. And that I think was when the gentleman from 

Minnesota became aware that I have taken an entirely different 

position on this 180 degrees off. And I would like to just take, if 

I could, the committee back through some of those points that 

brought me to the position that I have taken, and that is the 2000 

elections. 

This Nation and the world stood transfixed wondering who would 

be the next leader of the free world. All eyes went to Florida. We 

watched it 24/7. I was for 37 days investigating the things that 

were coming up as allegations in Florida and the challenge as to 

what would be counted as a legitimate vote and what would not be 

counted as a legitimate vote. 

At the time, I was the chairman of the Iowa State Government 

Committee, and I knew the responsibility fell to me to make any 

changes in the Iowa law if we were going to avoid ever becoming 

a State in the position that Florida was in. And while those 37 

days unfolded, some say 36, it was 37 for me, I chased down every 

rabbit trail on the Internet that I could find for voter integrity, ballot integrity, and examined this thing from a constitutional perspective, an historical perspective, and also from the statutory perspective. 

I believe in the concept of federalism. This is something that we 

have left to the State. But the question that hangs out here for 

anyone who takes a side on federalism, and that being the States 

rights component of this, you still have to ask the question: But for 

527 votes in Florida, there would be a different leader of the free 

world probably today. That changes history. And this Nation is susceptible to decisions that are made within the State. 

Now, we are here talking about Federal legislation, but I came 

to this conclusion that there was significant fraud taking place in 

many places across the country. There was plenty of evidence of 

that in different areas. I came to the conclusion that we needed a 

voter registration list in each of the States that would be free of 

duplicates, deceased, and, where the law applies, felons, and that 

we need to verify that the people that showed up to vote under the 

name that they alleged that they had actually could prove that 

they were that person. That means a picture ID. And, I believe 

that they should be citizens and they should verify that they are 

citizens. 

I would ask that the Secretary of State of each of the States certify the citizenship of the people on the voter registration roles. I 

think that the lists should be sorted and crunched, and the most 

recent registration be the one retained, and the duplicate registrations that might be in multiple precincts or multiple counties or 

multiple States eventually would be purged. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
13 

That is my view, because 527 people in Florida selected the leader in the free world. When they did that, if there had been just that 

many that cast illegitimate ballots and canceled out the legitimate 

ballots that made that difference. It is as egregious to have a legitimate ballot canceled out as it is to tell someone who is legitimate 

that they can’t vote. And I ran into protection for opportunities for 

fraud. 

And so as I look at this legislation, and I am opposed to motorvoter, by the way, because that brings in people that aren’t citizens 

and brings in people that aren’t legitimate to vote in those precincts. But it gives them that opportunity that, here is your driver’s 

license, and now how would you like to register to vote? The implication is that you are a citizen. And I know that there are restraints on perjury charges, but that isn’t something that we have 

seen people use. 

So, as I look down through this list of things; if someone shows 

up to vote same day registration and their ballot goes into the pot 

with everyone else and it is not a provisional ballot, you have no 

way to correct the inequity that is there. So I would say, first of 

all, if this legislation is to be approved, it should be provisional ballots only for same day registration. 

I would also point the cause out here to say that you do not have 

to produce an identification. You can walk in then and allege to be 

anyone and no one can challenge who you are and you are allowed 

to vote. 

So, the limitations that we would have left if the Ellison legislation is approved is any willing voter, any willing traveler-voter can 

vote in any precinct they choose under an unchallenged ballot, one 

that is not provisional that goes right into the count with everyone 

else. And there is no way to verify then. And if we lose our electoral process, we have to have the maximum amount of integrity 

here, and this is something that I would be willing to take significant political loss on policies and issues that I care a lot about in 

order to preserve this constitutional republic that depends, for 

Democrats and Republicans, upon the integrity of the electoral system. 

We have seen the acrimony that came out of the questions in 

Florida, and yet I haven’t seen the evidence that there was anything other than the appropriate result in those 2000 elections. But 

if we lose our faith in our electoral process, if we fail to maintain 

the integrity that the American people will demand of us, our electoral system will collapse around us, and neither Republicans nor 

Democrats will be standing when the dust settles. 

So I want the maximum amount of integrity. I want to preserve 

this system no matter who it advantages, Republicans or Democrats. It is more important we preserve our constitutional republic. 

I conclude my oral testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The statement of Mr. King follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
14 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 27 here 40987A.006
15 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 28 here 40987A.007
16 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 29 here 40987A.008
17 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. King and Mr. Ellison. 

I am advised that we will have votes at about 10:30, so we will 

have time to throw a couple questions to our colleagues now, if we 

wish, and then we will come back for the other two panels. 

Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

One, I want to thank both panels. This is what I always envisioned. Before I gather information, I want both sides. And, Mr. 

Ellison, I respect both opinions, Mr. King, you want to make it 

easier for voters to be able to go vote. Mr. King’s concern is you 

want to make sure that there is integrity in the election system. 

So, really, that is what I want to be able to gather. I have a belief 

in both of you, and so I want to find how we can make it that we 

get the voters to the polls but at the same time we have trust in 

what elections are held. 

Now, you want to take this nationwide. And I will tell you, as 

we have gathered information here on other bills, we had the Secretary of State from Vermont here talking about absentee ballots. 

In Vermont, they don’t even check your signature. And her answer 

to me was: We trust everybody. We know everybody. That may 

work in a very small State. I have concerns with that. But putting 

things nationwide, I have great concerns. 

One question I have for you, Mr. Ellison. If you vote, and you 

have to vote to register that same day inside your bill. Is that correct? First. And then, secondly, would you be open to making that 

a provisional ballot? Because once you put that into the mainstream, the ballot into the box, there is no way of checking how 

that person voted. There is no way of checking if there is any concerns or questions. That would be my first question to you. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, first of all, let me make sure I understand 

what you are asking me. You are saying that you are asking if 

someone wants to engage in same day voter registration, would 

they be expected to register and vote on the same day? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. The way I read your bill, if you want to register 

that same day, you have to vote. Am I reading it wrong? 

Mr. ELLISON. I don’t think you would be required to vote. I think 

that you could—but you certainly would show up to the polls in 

order to register to vote. So I think people would be expected to 

vote and people would be expecting to vote. And I would bet that 

people who show up would be there to vote. But I don’t read a fundamental requirement that you must vote if you register on that 

day. In order to participate in that election, you have to register 

in that vote. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So you don’t have to vote if you register that 

same day, on your bill? 

Mr. ELLISON. So basically you want to know, can you go in and 

just register and then walk away? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. I think a person could register to vote at any time 

during the year to register for that election. To be able to vote in 

that election, you would be expected to vote on that day. But I 

don’t think you would necessarily have to. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Now, what about that person voting a provisional ballot instead of voting a regular ballot? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
18 

Mr. ELLISON. I would not favor that, because I think we have 

other protections to make certain that the person is who they say 

that are. Now, remember, there has been talk about photo IDs 

today. That is not what we are talking about here. When you register to vote, when you register, not cast a ballot but register, you 

would have to—and the State, there is nothing in this bill to prohibit the State to require that you identify yourself with valid identification in order to register to vote. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Now, I know we are not talking about your other 

bill. But you have introduced another bill, 4026, that prohibits election officials from requiring an ID. 

Mr. ELLISON. Right. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I only bring that up because later that could 

come into play here. Are you familiar within Milwaukee on their 

same day registration where they had a task force. And I don’t 

know, in Minnesota you say there hasn’t been any concerns and I 

haven’t found any yet, but in Milwaukee they had the FBI, the 

chief of police, and they found 1,300 same day registrations that 

were cast with problems. They found 141 that weren’t even inside 

the city. And I get concerns when you go statewide. 

What checks and balances do you have in Minnesota in this provision that you go forward now? 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, Minnesota has a long reputation of having 

good clean elections. I think that you will hear that from the 

former Secretary of State and the present one who will testify 

today. But if you vote, if you fraudulently vote in Minnesota, that 

is a felony offense. That subjects you to serious criminal penalties, 

something that just people don’t do. 

Also in Minnesota, we have provisions to challenge people. So if 

you have substantive information that the person is not who they 

say they are, there are provisions for challenges. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. But if you challenge somebody, how do you find 

that ballot of what they voted? Because if you do provisional, it is 

off to the side. If you let them have the exact same ballot when 

they are going in the same day and you find the 141 or the 1,300, 

there is no way of knowing which ballot was there or how they 

voted. So I am just wondering, from a checks and balance point, 

how do you answer that question? 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, the fact is, is that we have—it is a crime to 

do. We have people who did challenge you. You have to sign, you 

have to swear under penalty of perjury. And the fact is, I can tell 

you that our track record has been excellent. And so it is what we 

have been doing has been working. I mean, if the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, elections in Minnesota taste pretty good. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Just a quick second, yes or no. Would you be 

open to, if you moved your bill forward, amending it that at the beginning you make these individuals vote provisional to make sure 

these checks and balances were there? 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, let me say this, Representative. I am one who 

never says we won’t talk, but I don’t think I would agree to that 

provisional provision. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you for your time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just like to ask Mr. Ellison about, you 

have got a real experience here in your State in the whole issue 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
19 

of voting, lots of times various hints of there is fraud. But I would 

like to just take a look at, have there been any prosecutions? Because that is the real proof. I remember going to a hearing a year 

ago in August and all these wild comments about it. But there has 

been no prosecutions. So the proof is in the pudding. And what has 

been your experience in Minnesota? Has anybody been prosecuted 

for fraud associated with this? 

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I cannot report any known cases of 

convictions for election fraud. Now, we do have two Secretaries of 

State coming behind me. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I will ask them, too. 

Mr. ELLISON. But I will just tell you that I am not inexperienced 

on this. I have researched this. I have looked into this carefully. 

And I have a close friend who some of my Minnesota colleagues 

know very well; his name is Pat Diamond. He is a tough prosecutor. He will charge you and toss you in jail if you violate the 

law. And Pat Diamond, who is a prosecutor in Hennepin County, 

he has told me that he has never prosecuted an imposter voter 

case. This just hasn’t happened. And this is a gentleman who takes 

his role as a prosecutor extremely seriously. 

So I would like to know, but—so I guess the answer is no. But 

there are better minds than mine here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, what has happened to turnout in Minnesota? 

Usually the problem is not one where people are trying to fake it 

to vote, it is to try to get people to vote. What has turnout been? 

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, we have trouble getting people to 

vote one time let alone two. But the fact is, voter turnout in Minnesota is excellent. 78 percent. 

Ms. LOFGREN. 78 percent. 

Mr. ELLISON. We have experienced very high voter turnout. We 

did have high voter turnout in the early years, 50s, 60s, then it 

dipped. And since we enacted voter EDR, it dramatically came back 

up to a point where we are real happy about. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, I remember the election of Governor Ventura, I mean just reading about it. But it seemed to me from the 

press reports that that just took off at the end, and that it was people who had not been registered voters but who got excited by his 

campaign after the registration would have been over who actually 

decided to come forward; that he had touched something in them 

and surprised the whole country that this guy who no one thought 

was going to win won. Was that, do you think, because of election 

day registration? 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes, I do. And I think it is a very good thing. I 

think it is important to leave alone what kind of Governor people 

thought Governor Ventura made. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is up to the voters in Minnesota to decide, not 

me. 

Mr. ELLISON. But they expressed a preference. Students expressed a preference. People who had moved had expressed a preference. I think that if what we are trying to do is most closely approximate how people really feel, that EDR brings us very close to 

that. Because of course, as you know, Madam Chair, there is a lot 

of voter information that comes through in the last days of the 

campaign. You know, people may not focus, people are busy. But 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
20 

in that last month of the campaign where an artificial deadline 

may cut you out, you can still listen, read, focus, hear debates, and 

really make up your mind as to who you want to vote for. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am going to yield back my time because we are 

being called to votes and I want Mr. Ehlers to have his chance to 

ask questions before we run off to vote. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Just in response to a previous question-and-answer interchange 

with Mr. McCarthy. As I read the bill, you say: On the date of the 

election, the polling place may not make services available under 

this section to any eligible applicant who does not cast a ballot. 

So, basically, you are saying if they register they have to vote. 

Or, in other words, they are not even going to be registered if they 

don’t agree to vote. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, Mr. Representative, I read it a little bit differently. I don’t think this is the most critical part of the bill. 

Mr. EHLERS. I agree. And I don’t think—that is not a major matter. I am just pointing out it is in your bill. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yeah, it is in my bill and I am familiar with that 

section. The way I read that is if you want to vote in that election 

that day, then registering that day makes you eligible to vote in 

that election for that day. But I think that if you wanted to register 

to vote the next day, the day after election, I don’t see any rules 

that would say you couldn’t fill out a voter application to register 

to vote. 

Mr. EHLERS. I just wanted to try to clarify that issue. 

I was born in Minnesota, southwestern Minnesota. 

Mr. ELLISON. Congratulations. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. It has made me what I am today, a good 

solid Republican. Seriously. I grew up in Edgerton, a very fine 

town. Everyone knew everyone, very little crime. There was some 

crime. But I think same day registration would work there easily 

because everyone knew everyone, and maybe that is what you are 

referring to. But I refuse to believe that there are no criminals in 

Minnesota, and that no one might try to take advantage of this. 

Even if there weren’t, we are talking about Federal legislation. 

And the history of our country, frankly, a shameful history, is that 

in certain areas of the country there is considerable dishonesty in 

elections. And in this particular issue, and I totally agree with Mr. 

King on this, this creates incredible opportunities for mischief and, 

frankly, for breaking the law. 

We are all familiar with Tammany Hall, the Pendergrass machine, the Daley machine. You can go on and on. They certainly 

played every trick in the book. And same day registration has the 

potential for doing that, unless the ballot that the person casts is 

a provisional ballot so in case they are breaking the law by what 

they have done, then you can discard their ballot and no harm is 

done. 

If you allow the ballot to be tossed in the hopper and counted, 

you have done permanent damage. You have cheated the public of 

a fair election. And I think the key factor of same day registration 

is to make certain that it is a provisional ballot. 

Related to this of course is the requirement that we passed with 

HAVA that every State has to establish a statewide voter database 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
21 

to keep track of registrations and so forth. That is essential to determine if someone, regardless of whether they are registering the 

same day or not, are voting twice. 

And so, I just have experienced and seen enough fraud around 

the country that I am very worried about adding something that 

would make fraud easier for those who are dishonest. It also, what 

you are proposing, makes voting easier for those who are honest. 

And I don’t object to that, really, but you have to protect against 

fraud if you are going to provide extra opportunities for fraud, 

which is what your bill does. And I think we have to be very, very 

careful about that. 

If we are going to try to make this a national issue instead of 

an issue State by State, where all the good people of Minnesota 

who by and large obey the law and wouldn’t do anything wrong, 

I am very worried about passing a law that is going to apply everywhere in the country, where there is plenty of chance for mischief 

and downright dishonesty. 

I would appreciate your comments. 

Mr. ELLISON. May I comment very briefly, Madam Chair? Let me 

say this very quickly. The people who live in a precinct, even if you 

live in an urban area, it is like a small town. For example, there 

might be just one building that people vote at and that is like the 

whole precinct. So even though it is an urban area, it is a closely 

knit unit that people are voting in. So there really is quite a substantial amount of that small town atmosphere. People know each 

other. 

So I think we have probably got a vote. But I do appreciate your 

question. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, I would hate to depend on that, simply because I live in a relatively small urban neighborhood, and I have 

served in local government, I know a lot of people. But when I go 

to the precinct to vote, I see a lot of people there I don’t know. And 

when I talk to the election clerks, they see a lot of people they don’t 

know. And so I think caution is best in a situation like this. 

As Mr. King said, we really have to guarantee the purity of the 

ballot to reassure the voters that the result is accurate and that 

it follows the intention. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. And we have 

been called to vote. So I will recess the hearing now, thanking both 

of our colleagues for their testimony. We will return as soon as 

votes are done and commence with the other two panels. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am sure that the Ranking Member is on the way 

back. Under the rules we can proceed when we have two members. 

But I am going to begin because we have more votes in an hour, 

and we can start introducing now, while Kevin is on his way. 

I would like all the members of the next panel to come forward. 

And I am searching for my introduction here. We have three witnesses before us. We have the Honorable Mark Ritchie, who is currently serving as Minnesota Secretary of State, where he is the 

State’s chief elections officer. Mr. Ritchie has made many contributions to improving civic participation in the electoral process, including his leadership of National Voice, a national coalition of over 

2,000 community-based organizations working together to increase 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
22 

voter participation. Mr. Ritchie was able to lead this organization 

in registering over 5 million new voters nationwide, one of the largest nonpartisan voter mobilizations in our Nation’s history. 

Next we have Mr. Tim Moore. Mr. Moore currently serves as a 

representative in the North Carolina House of Representatives. He 

was first elected in 2002, and now serves as chairman of the Committee on Elections Law and Campaign Finance Reform Committee. Mr. Moore is also an attorney with the law firm of Flowers, 

Martin, Moore & Ditz. 

And finally, we have Mr. Neil Albrecht, who is the Assistant Director, City of Milwaukee Elections Commission. He has been the 

Deputy Director for the city of Milwaukee’s Election Commission 

since July of 2005. His focus in this position has been on the full 

implementation of system improvements identified by the Milwaukee Task Force on Elections. He is a lifelong resident of the 

city of Milwaukee and has a professional background in finance 

and nonprofit management. 

And we do thank all of you for coming today to share your insights with us. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. MARK RITCHIE, SECRETARY OF STATE, 

MINNESOTA; HON. TIM MOORE, NORTH CAROLINA STATE 

REPRESENTATIVE; AND NEIL ALBRECHT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CITY OF MILWAUKEE ELECTION COMMISSION 

Ms. LOFGREN. And if we could, we will begin with Secretary of 

State Mr. Ritchie. Welcome. 

Let me just interrupt and note that your full written comments 

will be made part of the official record of this hearing. We do ask 

that your oral testimony consume about 5 minutes. And that little 

machine there has lights. And when the yellow light goes on it 

means that you have consumed 4 minutes. It is always a surprise. 

And when the red light goes on it means you have actually spoken 

for 5 minutes. We would ask you to try and summarize at that 

point so that we can hear everybody. Mr. Ritchie. There is a little 

button. There we go. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK RITCHIE 

Mr. RITCHIE. Chairwoman Lofgren, Representative Davis, thank 

you for this opportunity to present testimony on election day registration. When I began the process of running for the office of Secretary of State, one of the first persons I sat down with and asked 

his support was the Secretary of State of Minnesota, who was serving in that position when I came of age when they lowered the voting age, Arlen Erdahl. Arlen Erdahl had been a Congressman, a 

Republican Congressman from Minnesota, had come back to Minnesota, was Secretary of State when Election Day Registration was 

passed and implemented in our State. He gave me an amazing history of the process, particularly pointing out the problems that 

were being solved at that time by making that change. But he also 

urged me to go meet with and talk to all of our 87 county election 

officials and to get their point of view, because, as he said, county 

election officials, city election officials, that is where the rubber hits 

the road. If you want to know about Election Day Registration, its 

benefits, and how it functions, go talk to those officials. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
23 

So I did. And in meeting around the State—and I have met with 

all 87—I heard four consistent themes about election day registration in Minnesota. So this is based on 34 years of experience. And 

some of these election officials have been in their jobs for most of 

that time. 

Number one, it clearly has increased turnout, but it has been especially important for increasing turnout for young people. Minnesota was on a decline from 1956 to the early 1970s, and with the 

introduction of the 18-year-old voting in this country, another hit 

on participation. But we passed Election Day Registration at 

roughly the same time. And so we have been able to build up over 

the past few years so that we are top in the Nation, but especially 

we are proud of the fact that it brings in young people. In fact, 

Election Day Registration has been shown to have about twice the 

positive impact on bringing young people into the process as older 

adults. 

The second thing that election officials pointed out is that this 

has largely eliminated the disputes, the problems, the mistakes. It 

just made election administration much easier and much cleaner, 

much less expensive, and allows election officials to do their job 

better. 

Third, it is a much more accurate and secure system. You are 

registering somebody in person. They are standing in front of you 

instead of a form received in the mail. If there is some error in the 

registration form, hard to read, poor writing, some missing information, you can correct it right there on the spot. And we have a 

whole series of safeguards, including requiring our proofs, our 

oaths. We have provisions for challenging. And of course we have 

criminal prosecution for anyone who is lying under oath. So we feel 

like it has been a much better and more accurate and secure system. 

And finally, since most of the same-day registrations are simple 

address changes, we also think that there are some ways to, you 

know, make this great system even better in the future. And so we 

are looking forward on that. 

I took their comments and their suggestions to heart in my campaign and now that I am in this position, and Minnesota is going 

to be an even better and stronger participant in the Election Day 

Registration process. But what I have noticed is that many other 

states are very interested because they have the problems of provisional ballots and other problems. They are asking us for our advice, for our help. 

Many other States have come to visit Minnesota to look at our 

system. I always have those visitors meet with local election officials because those are the folks who really know how the system 

works. They have seen every problem, every unusual situation, and 

they have tackled those very well. And so Minnesota at this point 

is a state where this system works for us and it works well. 

In the closing of Congressman Ellison’s comments this morning 

he quoted from my colleagues, the Secretaries of State from Idaho 

and from Maine, about how this is not a partisan issue, this is an 

issue that is in favor of voters. And I want to underline that. Our 

87 county election officials are very, very fiercely independent, and 

they range from all spectrums of the political climate in Minnesota, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
24 

and they all feel strongly that this is a great system. Our 34 years 

of history gives us great confidence. And we are very happy to see 

this idea being adopted in other States, and potentially at the national level. 

Madam Chairwoman, thank you again. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ritchie. 

[The statement of Mr. Ritchie follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
25 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 50 40987A.009
26 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 51 40987A.010
27 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 52 40987A.011
28 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 53 40987A.012
29 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see that our colleague Mr. Ellison has joined us. 

And by unanimous consent we will invite him to participate with 

us. And we are now joined by our Ranking Member, Mr. McCarthy, 

time for Mr. Moore’s testimony. Proceed, please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MOORE 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member McCarthy, members of the committee. It is really an honor to be here 

today speaking before this committee both as a citizen and as a 

member of the North Carolina State House of Representatives. I 

am here today because our General Assembly recently this past 

session enacted same-day voter registration in North Carolina 

through the enactment of House Bill 91. I opposed that measure 

in the General Assembly because I felt like there were real concerns with a number of issues to protect against voter fraud, and 

that we failed to fully address that. 

Support for same-day voter registration is, of course, based upon 

the noble intention of increasing voter turnout. But I don’t think 

any member of this committee or this Congress would also doubt 

that we also have to be equally vigilant not only about voter turnout, but accuracy and legitimacy in the elections to prevent against 

fraud. 

This process first started actually—or this past week, the elections which were held for a lot of municipal elections is the first 

time same-day voter registration has occurred in North Carolina. 

The data I have seen thus far indicates that it has not had an impact on the voter turnout. So I guess that remains to be seen, and 

the canvass has yet to occur, and that will be fleshed out in the 

coming weeks. But at least tentatively at this point, the data does 

not show there was an increase in turnout, at least in North Carolina, in the municipal elections. 

But same-day voter registration does have the very real potential 

to decrease confidence in the elections, particularly if there are increases in the amount of fraud. And I will point out two examples 

to kind of show it. 

I suppose if the only goal was to increase voter turnout, we could 

take a cardboard box, cut a hole in it, and put it on the street corner and leave it there for a couple days and come back and pick 

it up. You would probably have an increase in voting in that precinct. But it is obvious what the concerns for fraud would be. Someone could stuff the ballot box or anything. There are other ludicrous examples where you could require fingerprint ID or something like that. The point is there has to be a balance struck between voter security and between ease of voting. 

It is my concern that same-day registration at the State level, 

and particularly with the Federal bill, tips that balance dangerously away from ensuring accuracy and fairness of the voting. 

The bill that is before Congress is similar in some ways, but different in one. One thing I would stress, one difference I would 

stress, is the fact that in North Carolina the ballots are provisional 

ballots. They are retrievable ballots. So if there is a challenge to 

fraud it can be retrieved. But the issue of voter I.D. really dovetails 

with this, because if we are going to increase the opportunity for 

voter registration, and, at the same time, decrease the period of 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
30 

time that the Board of Elections would have to ensure the accuracy 

and verify the eligibility of the voter, we need to find ways to enhance the security component. 

I have supported, or I ran an amendment in North Carolina to 

our bill to add photo I.D. That bill did fail along partisan lines, unfortunately. But I would encourage Congress, if you pass this, that 

you implement at least a photo I.D. component. Because the types 

of I.D. that HAVA sets forth right now are things that are very 

easy to fabricate, such as a power bill, and very difficult to verify. 

The allegations as to past fraud, I think in some ways those may 

be understated. History is full of examples of where fraudulent conduct has affected elections. And any time we are going to expand 

the opportunity for that to occur, we need to put in place those protections. 

Additionally, North Carolina, like many other States across the 

Nation, has seen a huge growth in population, some of those being 

illegal foreign nationals. In fact, some estimates in our State estimate that as many as a half million members of our new population are folks who are here illegally. By getting rid of the period 

of time that the Board of Elections has to verify the eligibility, we 

increase the opportunity that we could have those who aren’t even 

citizens voting. So again, I think the photo I.D. component would 

be very important. 

We did at the State level find some examples of voter fraud that 

were discussed on the floor. One where a person went to vote, or 

went to vote on election day, and then discovered someone had 

voted in their place on the early day. They were disenfranchised. 

There were several examples of where dogs had registered to vote. 

I think one dog even got some votes. I don’t think they voted. But 

it does appear that there is an issue and that there has to be a 

way to strike the balance. 

And in sum, I will say this. I do think that this also is a State 

issue as to election administration. I am all for finding ways to increase voter turnout and participation. One thing that I would recommend Congress look at doing is finding ways to ensure that the 

ballots of our military personnel who are overseas are counted. I 

am aware there are some problems with some logistical issues getting those back and forth. I would hope Congress would look at 

ways to address that. But I do appreciate your time, Madam Chair, 

and members of the committee. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Moore. 

[The statement of Mr. Moore follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
31 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 59 here 40987A.013
32 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 60 here 40987A.014
33 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 61 here 40987A.015
34 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 62 here 40987A.016
35 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 63 here 40987A.017
36 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 64 here 40987A.018
37 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 65 here 40987A.019
38 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 66 here 40987A.020
39 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 67 here 40987A.021
40 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 68 here 40987A.022
41 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 69 here 40987A.023
42 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 70 here 40987A.024
43 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 71 here 40987A.025
44 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 72 here 40987A.026
45 

Ms. LOFGREN. And our last witness on this panel is Mr. Albrecht. 

And we would be pleased to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF NEIL ALBRECHT 

Mr. ALBRECHT. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, and members of the committee. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Can you pull the microphone a little bit closer? 

Maybe it is not on. There is a button you have to—there you go. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ALBRECHT. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to represent 

the city of Milwaukee in this discussion. My name is Neil Albrecht, 

and I am the Deputy Director of the city of Milwaukee Election 

Commission. My purpose in testifying this morning is to speak to 

Milwaukee’s positive and productive experience administering election day registration, and also to address the allegation that Milwaukee is a voter fraud city, and that election day registration has 

contributed to a voter fraud problem in the city of Milwaukee. 

Nationally, use of the words ‘‘voter fraud’’ have been applied randomly, and are often unsubstantiated. In recent elections in Hawaii, there were allegations of widespread voter fraud when six 

polling sites did not open on time. In Indiana, problems with new 

touch-screen voting machines were construed as election fraud. In 

Utah, where poll workers forgot a step in setting up a voting machine, there were allegations of voter fraud. 

It has been our experience in Wisconsin that misrepresentation 

of these two words is often intentional, and has been successful at 

intimidating and disillusioning voters. 

Voter turnout during the 2004 Presidential election was unprecedented. Beyond any dispute, the city’s elections systems were overwhelmed by the sheer volume of preelection registration and absentee voting activity. Due to Wisconsin’s status as a battleground 

State, the problems that were experienced attracted significant national attention, as did allegations of widespread voter fraud. After 

both a State and Federal investigation into the election, there were 

two voter fraud prosecutions, and neither related to election day 

registration. 

While the act of voter fraud in any election is not acceptable, two 

prosecutions hardly warranted the labeling of Milwaukee as a voter 

fraud city. Fortunately, allegations of voter fraud did not overshadow Milwaukee’s recordbreaking turnout in the 2004 Presidential election; 277,535 ballots were cast, representing 70 percent 

of the city’s 307,000 registered voters. Nationwide, Wisconsin 

ranked second in voter turnout, just below our neighboring State 

of Minnesota. 

There were many factors that contributed to Milwaukee’s success 

in motivating voter turnout, including the city’s longstanding history of engagement in political processes. Unquestionably, the most 

significant contributing factor was the availability of election day 

registration. Of the nearly 278,000 voters, over 80,000, or 29 percent, registered to vote on election day. 

I think it is time to get bifocals. In Milwaukee, voting is a citywide event that crosses into every neighborhood, community, gender, age, and economic class. Despite the overzealous and inacVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:40 Apr 02, 2008 Jkt 040987 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\40987.XXX 40987

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
46 

curate allegations of Milwaukee being a voter fraud city, voting as 

a right is woven deeply and throughout the very cultural diverse 

fabric of Milwaukee. Election day registration has consistently encouraged voter participation. 

In Wisconsin, in the most recent gubernatorial election nearly 

35,000 of the 172,000 voters who voted on election day were election day registration. That number represents one in five voters. 

Offering election day registration does require an additional administrative investment on the part of any municipality. Voting 

rooms are set up to allow separate areas for election day registration so as to avoid long lines and delaying the issuance of ballots 

to registered voters. In Milwaukee, we provide trained registrars at 

every polling site. At our 208 sites, this represents an investment 

of 320 additional election workers, a minimal investment considering the outcome: civic engagement and voter participation. 

The value of election day registration exceeds increased voter 

participation. It is also evidenced by the demographics of the election day registrants themselves: young people, apartment occupants, people who are more transient, and persons from the lower 

socioeconomic classes. 

During the 2006 gubernatorial election I received a call from the 

chief inspector at Riverside High School, a voting site close to the 

UW-Milwaukee campus, notifying us that they were running out of 

election day registration applications. On delivering additional applications to the school, I found a registration line that spanned approximately four blocks long. Nearly every person in that line was 

a college student. Voters from the neighborhood and school faculty 

distributed bottled water and power bars to the people standing in 

line. It is difficult for me to imagine turning away young people 

from the polls because they did not register 15 or even 30 days 

prior to the election. 

In Wisconsin, State law clearly identifies that election day registrants must be prepared to provide a proof of residence that includes their name and registration address. The legislature has approved a comprehensive array of acceptable documents similar to 

HAVA that can include student identification cards, leases, property tax bill, government-issued identification, and utility bills. An 

elector may also produce a corroborating witness who will certify 

their identity and address. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Albrecht, could you try and summarize? We 

are a little bit over. And we do have a separate panel. 

Mr. ALBRECHT. I am sorry. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is all right. We are giving you extra time because you didn’t have your bifocals. 

Mr. ALBRECHT. I know. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But we do need to, if you could summarize and 

conclude, that would be great. 

Mr. ALBRECHT. All right. Elections should be about inspiring and 

engaging people, particularly young people or people that have 

been disenfranchised by the political process. In Wisconsin, we do 

not believe in setting up barriers that prevent students from experiencing the power of casting their first ballot or further disenfranchise the more transient residents of the city or the poor or the elderly with cumbersome I.D. requirements. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
47 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Albrecht follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
48 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 79 here 40987A.027
49 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 80 here 40987A.028
50 

Ms. LOFGREN. And thanks to all of our witnesses. 

Now is the time when we can proceed to questioning for 5 minutes each. And I will turn first to Susan Davis, our colleague on 

the committee from California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank 

you to all of you for being here. I was actually going to ask a question that in some ways, Mr. Albrecht, I think you answered partly, 

but I think that there are in some ways—I mean there are so many 

things that need to be done in communities to outreach for registration. 

I am guessing, and perhaps you can clarify for me, that in some 

ways same-day registration is sort of a last attempt effort in many 

ways. But that would suggest that somehow we are not doing everything that we should do beforehand. But I also am very aware 

of your testimony that largely we are talking about college students, perhaps, and others who have moved who are more transient. 

Mr. Ritchie, is that your assessment as well? I mean is there 

something that we should be doing more prior to—or in those areas 

where we have same-day registration, now is it considered not a 

last resort necessarily and it is just the way it is? 

Mr. RITCHIE. Madam Chair, Representative Davis, Minnesota, I 

think, is similar to Wisconsin in that on large election years, presidential years, it can be 25 percent of our voters. So this is for us, 

it is a full spectrum; it is old, young, it is all kinds of people. It 

does represent approximately 80 percent of those people who are 

changing their address, so they are prior registered, they have been 

in the system, they have moved. And the other 20 percent have 

just come of age, just moved to the state, or were just recently motivated because a candidate or an issue caught their attention. So 

I think it is a wide range. But what we see is that for young voters, 

it is often of greater benefit to young voters than to others. 

But I think your question gets to an issue that we are addressing 

in Minnesota right now, which is how do we get more people into 

the system earlier? And there are so many benefits to that. As an 

elected official, of course, we are buying, you know, voter lists, that 

kind of thing for door knocking, for registration purposes, for direct 

mail. And the more people that are registered before, the better are 

the lists. So that is one advantage. 

The second is that Secretaries of State offices and other organizations like League of Women Voters are distributing information 

about where to vote, about candidate information, about what is 

needed. And so the better, the more people registered the better 

the information is shared. 

And then finally, it is certainly true that getting people to feel 

they are part of the process somehow is going to have a positive 

overall benefit. We don’t think of it as necessarily sort of a lastditch effort, because so many of our Minnesotans use this opportunity. But it certainly is true that we want to do everything in our 

power to get more people registered before. And we have some specific proposals to begin using U.S. Postal Service data on change 

of address, being more directly tied into our other State systems 

that are requiring citizenship identification. And I would be happy 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
51 

to provide you with further information about that after I go back 

to my office. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Yeah. In terms of your situation, are 

you voting with machines or are you—what is the method of voting? 

Mr. RITCHIE. Chairwoman Lofgren, Representative Davis, Minnesota only votes on paper, paper ballots. They are counted by optical scan equipment. And we have HAVA-compatible equipment 

that assists voters in marking their paper ballots, and then those 

are then used in the optical scan system. And frankly, it is the fact 

that we vote on paper that we have same-day registration, so everyone is welcome, and we do post-election random audits. Those 

are the three pillars of our voter confidence. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Can you help me understand if in fact 

you have a situation where somebody may be in the area but it is 

not necessarily their precinct, or I am thinking even in terms of, 

you know, if they are voting on some county propositions versus 

city propositions, how do you deal with that, then, if in fact they 

are to show up in the wrong area? Are they sent to another area 

or are they——

Mr. RITCHIE. Chairwoman Lofgren, Representative Davis, it is a 

felony to vote outside of your precinct in the State of Minnesota, 

so we do not permit or allow this. We instruct people where they 

need to go. But we are looking closely at the experience in Colorado, which has been really in the forefront of looking at some 

county-wide voter registration systems where you could go to near 

your workplace or your school. 

So right now in Minnesota we don’t have the option of voting outside of our precinct. But we are looking how other States are doing 

this, and we think there is something there. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Albrecht or Mr. Moore, are you also 

voting on paper in Wisconsin? 

Mr. ALBRECHT. Identical systems. Paper ballots. And then we 

also have the HAVA-mandated equipment for a person with a disability to mark their ballot. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. We will grant 

an additional 30 seconds for Mr. Moore to answer and then we will 

go to Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MOORE. In North Carolina we have both forms. And one additional concern in our State on the same-day voter registration, 

our early voting folks actually are voting in places other than their 

poll site. A county will set up one, maybe a couple facilities 

throughout that county. And one of the concerns on the identification component is that they may be in a part of the county which 

they do not reside, and so no one there would know who they are. 

And that was one thing we actually raised at the State level. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We now recognize the Ranking Member of the 

committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick housekeeping—I have a couple reports that are relevant today, and just 

ask unanimous consent they get entered in the record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
52 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 86 here 40987A.029
53 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 87 here 40987A.030
54 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 88 here 40987A.031
55 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 89 here 40987A.032
56 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 90 here 40987A.033
57 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 91 here 40987A.034
58 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 92 here 40987A.035
59 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 93 here 40987A.036
60 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 94 here 40987A.037
61 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 95 here 40987A.038
62 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 96 here 40987A.039
63 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 97 here 40987A.040
64 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 98 here 40987A.041
65 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 99 here 40987A.042
66 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 100 here 40987A.043
67 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 101 here 40987A.044
68 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 102 here 40987A.045
69 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 103 here 40987A.046
70 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 104 here 40987A.047
71 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 105 here 40987A.048
72 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 106 here 40987A.049
73 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 107 here 40987A.050
74 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 108 here 40987A.051
75 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 109 here 40987A.052
76 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 110 here 40987A.053
77 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 111 here 40987A.054
78 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 112 here 40987A.055
79 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 113 here 40987A.056
80 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 114 here 40987A.057
81 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 115 here 40987A.058
82 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 116 here 40987A.059
83 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 117 here 40987A.060
84 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 118 here 40987A.061
85 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 119 here 40987A.062
86 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 120 here 40987A.063
87 

Mr. MCCARTHY. First to Mr. Moore. You talked about, and I 

agree with your concerns on same-day registration, same-day voting. But what you did in North Carolina is actually different than 

what is being proposed in this House bill. You allowed for provisional ballots if you are a same-day registered and same-day voting. Could you elaborate why? 

Mr. MOORE. Certainly. The ballots would be retrievable in that 

case. So if through the process of the few days between when the 

ballots are cast and between the canvass, if it was discovered that 

the ballot was fraudulent or the person was ineligible to vote, then 

there would be a means to trace the ballot to the voter and for the 

ballot to be retrievable at that point. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Okay. Thank you very much. 

To Mr. Ritchie, thank you for coming. And I read your testimony. 

Sorry I was a little late. But in part of your testimony you said 

same-day registration has actually increased turnout. 

Now, I have got this here where they have taken an analysis, 

and you can tell me whether I am wrong or right here, it takes 

from 1952 to 1972 because in 1973 is when you went to same-day 

registration, correct? The average then was 77 percent turnout. 

And then from 1973 now to 2004, the average is 71 percent turnout. So that is a decrease, but I don’t know if decrease across the 

country people turning out. But you still feel, even though the 

numbers don’t show it, that it does increase turnout? 

Mr. RITCHIE. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member McCarthy, 

yes, that is right. In 1956 we started at 83 percent, we fell to 70 

percent in 1972, and we extended the franchise to 18-year-old men 

and women and we had a further downward pressure on our turnout. And we are now back up to almost 78 percent as of our last 

presidential election. 

I am very sorry you weren’t here for my testimony, but I was referring to my meetings with the county election officials, who are 

really the experts and who does elections. All of them are quite 

clear. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Could I ask you one thing about your answer? 

And I appreciate that. You talked about you want to make sure 

people register beforehand. That is your initial goal. Because people are more well informed. And I was just wondering, people use 

voter lists for a lot of different things, but candidates use them, too, 

for talking to voters. Do you feel voters that go in and do the sameday registration, that they are less informed or more informed because people are mailing their positions and where they stand 

based upon election records? 

Mr. RITCHIE. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member McCarthy, 

80 percent of our same-day registrations are people who have been 

registered from 1 year to 89 years. And so 80 percent of those people have the same level of prior registration as anyone else. So we 

believe that the people who are registering to vote on election day 

are more or less equally informed. 

However, young people are generally often less informed because 

they are new to the process. And so it is very important to get more 

young people directly included. We are working hard on that. And 

so there are things that we want to do, but generally speaking, 

most of the people using this opportunity are people who have been 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
88 

registered for their entire lives, however long they have been 

adults. And they are quite well informed, especially in Minnesota. 

But of course, we are all above average. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, that is good to know. I come from California, so maybe I am a little below. Have you found any fraud 

through this? And have you found through those younger people—

I know people, they tell stories; people that are here elected tell 

that they were a little wilder when they were in their college days 

and they did things, pushing the envelope. 

Have you found since that is a larger portion that goes and votes 

on same-day registration, that they are voting absentee back home 

and at the same time going in? Have you had any reports about 

that? 

Mr. RITCHIE. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member McCarthy, 

yes, thank you for this question. Almost every major election cycle, 

we find one person who has made the very serious mistake of voting in two places. And it makes me very sad to say it is almost always a young person. And it is often college students who don’t understand that this will make it very hard for them to grow up and 

be a lawyer, which is what happened in one case, or some other. 

And there are things that we do as young and older people that we 

know that are wrong. And drunk driving is one. And sometimes 

there are no consequence and sometimes there are terrible consequences. And so I make it part of my job to try to communicate 

to young people, not to scare them away from voting, but saying 

look, this is a very serious mistake. And we always find them because we have a statewide system, and we run all the——

Mr. MCCARTHY. Can I ask just one quick follow-up? I don’t mean 

to cut you off. I only have a couple seconds. Was that vote counted? 

Because they don’t vote provisional, correct? 

Mr. RITCHIE. That is correct. That vote was counted. And as I 

say, in my state, I personally, my preferred system would be where 

no person could drive until they prove to me or someone that they 

weren’t drunk or impaired. But that is not our system. And in voting it is not our system. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Knowing what you know now, how every time 

you find someone who has broken the law there, would you change 

your current law and make a same-day registration vote provisionally so those votes would not be counted? 

Mr. RITCHIE. Absolutely not. Madam Chairwoman, Representative McCarthy, your proposal which you asked earlier would disenfranchise 213,000 Minnesotans in a presidential election year. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. But they still vote. I don’t understand how provisional—if I am allowed. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman is granted an additional 30 seconds 

so the witness can answer. 

Mr. RITCHIE. The national average of counted provisional ballots 

is 63 percent. Let’s say Minnesotans, who are above average, it is 

70 or 80 percent. That would leave 100,000 Minnesotans 

disenfranchised by your idea. This would not be something that I 

would support. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I wish I had more time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
89 

I will begin. We got a letter from Deborah Ross, the majority 

whip of the North Carolina General Assembly. From her stationery 

I see she chairs the Ethics Committee and Judiciary I Committee, 

and is vice chair of the Election Law Committee. And she disagrees 

with you, Mr. Moore. And I just wanted to put in—I ask unanimous consent to put the letter in the record. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
90 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 127 here 40987A.064
91 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 128 here 40987A.065
92 

Ms. LOFGREN. But I would note that she reports to us that the 

Director of North Carolina State Board of Election encouraged her 

as the bill sponsor to use one-stop voting sites as ideal locations: 

And in a letter that he wrote to her she quotes, a registration application filled out, and sworn to, in the presence of an election official enhances the accuracy of the information obtained and transferred into our database. In-person registration also enhances a 

proper review of the identification documentation provided by the 

applicant. And the new law requires the Board of Elections to 

verify the address of the applicant through the DMV and other 

databases. 

She points out that there are many safeguards against fraud. 

And that in addition to those, that the applicants sign under penalty of perjury that he or she is a U.S. citizen. And failing to adhere to the rules results in two felonies. And notes that the bill— she says HB 91 passed with bipartisan support, particularly in the 

North Carolina Senate. The U.S. Department of Justice pre-cleared 

the new law within a month of its passage, and that the law was 

used in October and November 2007, municipal elections without 

incident. So I make that part of the record. 

And I just, you know, I did a search with the Internet. You can 

find a lot of things, but you are never sure if it is entirely accurate. 

But the only instance I could find of a prosecution of voter fraud 

in North Carolina was a gentleman who worked for Congressman 

Patrick McHenry who voted twice and was indicted. And apparently he is a young man who made a mistake. He made some kind 

of plea deal, which I am happy for him in his life. But I couldn’t 

find any other prosecution. Are you aware of any, Mr. Moore? 

Mr. MOORE. A couple things, if I may. I used to actually co-chair 

the Elections Law Committee with Representative Ross. We had a 

spirited debate on this issue on the floor of the House. The one 

thing we heard was that there were folks who said they went to 

vote, they weren’t able to, and there were allegations of fraud. One 

of the difficulties about voter fraud, Madam Chair, is it is very difficult to prove. At least that has been the experience not only in 

our State, but what I have researched and found in other States. 

The example I told you where the dog—— Ms. LOFGREN. So were there prosecutions? Do you know any 

other than this Congressman McHenry’s aide? 

Mr. MOORE. I am not aware of any that I actually can cite to you 

this morning, but I am aware there were other investigations. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. I think you answered this, Mr. Albrecht. 

But Mr. McCarthy mentioned in his opening statement, or I guess 

it was to the first panel, this task force that looked at Milwaukee. 

And how many—there were prosecutions occurred? 

Mr. ALBRECHT. There were two prosecutions——

Ms. LOFGREN. Two prosecutions. 

Mr. ALBRECHT [continuing]. Coming out of the 2004 election. Neither was related to election day registration. Both were occurrences 

of a person who was on probation or parole for a felony conviction 

at the time of the election. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And so they—under State law they weren’t eligible 

to be a voter? 

Mr. ALBRECHT. Correct. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
93 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. And I am just wondering if any of you can 

answer one of the things that I mentioned in my opening statement 

is the situation where sometimes provisional ballots aren’t counted. 

And one of the things that I have thought about is whether there 

should be standards and procedures so there is uniformity on the 

counting of provisional ballots, because it is sort of an equal, you 

know, justice thing. You know, if you are in county A it gets counted; if you are in county B it doesn’t. And it seems like there ought 

to be some uniformity to—you know, whatever the rules are ought 

to apply to all the Americans so that they are treated the same. 

Do you have thoughts on why ballots aren’t being counted and 

whether it is the lack of standards or some other reason? Anyone 

who knows the answer. Mr. Ritchie you might have a thought on 

that. 

Mr. RITCHIE. Madam Chair, I think national standards would be 

very important, but it would also need to be somehow looked at the 

overall cause. Provisional ballots are an extremely expensive and 

time-consuming and complicated process. And so once national 

standards are under discussion, finding out what are the cost burdens——

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. RITCHIE [continuing]. On state and local, particularly local 

governments. And so that that could be somehow addressed. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That would be an important component. 

Mr. Albrecht, do you have anything to add on that? I will grant 

myself an additional minute so you can answer. 

Mr. ALBRECHT. I will just agree they can present a pretty significant administrative burden, and that there is substantial cost involved with that as well. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Of course under HAVA, you have to have it anyhow. So I think this is something we would certainly welcome additional advice on from not just you two, but other State election officials. 

Well, my time has expired, so I will now turn to Mr. Ehlers for 

his 5 minutes. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. And Mr. Ritchie, I was born 

in Minnesota, so I appreciate your comments that Minnesotans are 

above average. That has been my experience, too. It has also been 

my experience that the crooks in Minnesota are above average and 

very clever. And I think you should be concerned about that. 

In between the first part of this hearing and the second part we 

had to go to the floor to vote, and one of my congressional colleagues from Minnesota told me tale after tale of dishonest practices, many of them involving same-day registration. So it is not 

apparently as copacetic as we have been led to believe here. 

I don’t understand the reluctance to have provisional ballots. If 

you are so worried about the sanctity of the ballot, I think it is essential that you have provisional ballots. And you argue the expense. Good grief, it is far more expensive to run an election than 

to deal with just a minor part of it, which is the provisional ballots. 

It makes me very suspicious when people say we want same-day 

registration, but we don’t want provisional ballots. That makes no 

sense. And that leads me to believe people are trying to play games 

with this. And I just cannot abide that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
94 

Mr. Albrecht, I wanted to turn to you for a moment. After your 

election in 2005 or 2004, I understand the Milwaukee Police Department, district attorney’s office, the FBI, U.S. Attorney, formed 

a special task force. They found that there were a number of cases 

in which the number of people who voted exceeded—the count exceeded the number of people who actually voted. I am sorry, the 

ballots cast exceeded the number of votes. And there were a number of other improprieties. What can you tell us about that? 

Mr. ALBRECHT. The number that you are referencing, which was 

sort of an immediate post-election disparity between the number of 

people who had been assigned voter numbers on election day and 

ballots cast in the machine, was actually recently resolved. There 

was a number from the formula that law enforcement was missing. 

And that is the people who had registered to vote at City Hall in 

the 14 days prior to the election. So while the final report from the 

district attorney’s office has yet to come up or be released, the initial significant margin of error that was widely promoted in the 

media in fact proved to be false. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, we will be following that with great interest. 

And I just want to quickly drop back to the issue of costs of provisional ballots. We spent millions, in fact I suspect it is above a 

billion, dealing with voting improprieties in Florida in 2000. I can’t 

believe that the cost of a provisional ballot comes anywhere near 

the expense involved in case there is really a legal battle involved 

about the results of an election. I just think that is a totally mistaken assumption and statement, and I cannot accept that. That is 

separate from the issue of same-day registration, but I really think 

it is also crucial to have provisional ballots for those exercising 

same-day registration. 

I am not a babe in the woods. I wasn’t born yesterday. I am familiar—I have been working in elections for over 30 years. I am familiar with many, many cases of fraud taking place. And sometimes there are victims, as the one, the gentleman you mentioned, 

Mr. Ritchie, who was convicted. It may have been innocent. But 

someone told that person to do that. And I have, in contested cases 

that we have had to deal with in this panel, I have found the same 

thing. There are outside forces who are persuading people to do 

things that are illegal. 

And we have a case of a group that was trying to persuade illegal 

aliens that it was perfectly fine for them to vote because they wanted them to vote. But of course they could be deported immediately 

for doing that. 

So it is the organized fraud I worry about, not the average person who comes in and makes a mistake. But there are people out 

there who try to influence elections fraudulently. And we should be 

aware of that and we should guard against that. 

I will yield any remaining time I may have to Mr. McCarthy if 

he wishes to follow up on anything. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields 10 seconds. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. The only comment I would make is that your 

statement about the provisionals, you let a vote go that is an illegal 

vote, knowing it is an illegal vote. Provisionals, the majority aren’t 

counted because they are not determining the outcome. JFK was 

elected by one vote per precinct. President George Bush, 500 votes 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
95 

in Florida. We have congressional Members here that are here by 

83 votes. 

I think the accuracy and the trust of elections is of utmost importance. I would say you have to have provisional. Why you go beyond, and knowing that you are going to have and accept illegal 

votes in, is not a way to move. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman, Mr. Davis, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let me, 

I guess, make one observation at the outset that I don’t think anyone on either side of the aisle disputes that we have election fraud 

that happens. 

There is a particular gentleman in Alabama who ran for Congress in a county that had 13,000 people, and the problem is he got 

16,000 votes in that county. Happened to be my predecessor. So I 

know the story fairly well. What is interesting to me is we spend 

a lot of our energy and a lot of our time focusing on just that side 

of the equation. 

The other side of the equation is voter suppression. The other 

side of the equation is deliberate tactics designed to suppress the 

vote, particularly in minority communities. Let me mention two notable examples. The Ranking Member mentioned one example that 

is odious, encouraging people who are not legal citizens to vote. But 

there is another example that I know of from the opposite side. 

And in one election in California there was a congressional candidate in the last cycle who apparently sent out notices to immigrants who were documented, who were capable of registering to 

vote, and suggested to them that they could not vote unless they 

were born in the United States. That is not accurate. 

And another election in Louisiana, 2002, Senator Landrieu’s reelection to the Senate, there were polling places, it was alleged and 

documented, where certain individuals went into minority voting 

precincts with bullhorns and announced that anybody in this line 

who has an outstanding judgment or an outstanding warrant can’t 

vote. That is not the law in this country. 

There are other tactics that are hard to describe and hard to explain, dealing with calling certain households in certain communities and telling them that the polling places may be moved on 

election day, so make sure you know where your polling place is. 

Or there could be long lines on election day, if you don’t get to the 

polling place by a certain time you can’t vote. Or it may not be in 

your interest to vote because you may not be able to get back to 

work on time. All of those things I would label as voter suppression. And frankly, it is my understanding that all those tactics violate existing laws that we have today. 

So let me just ask the panel, Mr. Albrecht, Mr. Ritchie, the two 

election officers who are on the panel, do you agree with me that 

voter suppression as you understand it violates existing Federal 

laws? And would it also violate existing State laws in your jurisdictions? 

Mr. ALBRECHT. I would agree. I think in the State of Wisconsin, 

in Milwaukee, for example, the two cases that were prosecuted of 

felons who were on probation or parole at the time of the election 

became such lightning rods for allegations of voter fraud and attenVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:40 Apr 02, 2008 Jkt 040987 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\40987.XXX 40987

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
96 

tion to that issue that it has now really succeeded as a suppression 

tool for felons who have completed their probation or parole, not 

believing that in fact they are eligible to vote in elections. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. And you would agree with me that communicating, knowingly communicating false information to convicted felons about their status and suggesting to them—for example, in Alabama, now there are circumstances in which convicted 

felons can vote. There were allegations from the 2006 election 

cycle, as I understand it, that there were some campaigns and 

some communities saying remember, if you are a convicted felon 

you can’t vote, irrespective of a new law in Alabama that changed 

that. 

So you would agree that that kind of technique would be illegal 

in your jurisdiction. 

Mr. ALBRECHT. I would agree. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Ritchie. 

Mr. RITCHIE. Madam Chair, Representative Davis, I would agree 

this is a problem. And I participated in a number of the hearings 

and studies for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. And 

the thousands of pages of voter suppression that were documented 

in the Midwest region and throughout the entire country were 

stunning to me. 

And one morning in a recent election in my neighborhood somebody put flyers underneath every windshield wiper, urging people 

to go vote to a place that would seem logical but was absolutely not 

the place to vote and had never been the place to vote. 

I feel very fortunate to live in Minnesota, where now Congressman Ellison passed laws in our state legislature against deceptive 

voting practices. And I am very encouraged to see debate and conversation about that here in Washington. But it does happen, and 

it is enough of a problem that the Congress, I believe unanimously, 

reauthorized the Voting Rights Act. So it must be widespread and 

nationwide. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Well, two last observations. I wish it were 

unanimous. Unfortunately, it was not. There were about 60 Members who voted against it. 

But if I could just make two quick observations. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman is granted an additional minute. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you. 

The first observation, I serve with the Chairwoman on the Judiciary Committee, and we have oversight hearings periodically with 

the voting rights division chiefs, the people who are in charge of 

enforcing voting rights laws. I have asked the question at several 

different hearings if the Ashcroft-Gonzalez Justice Department 

have brought a single voter suppression case, and the answer I receive varies from ‘‘I have no idea’’ to ‘‘I don’t know of any.’’ That 

is unacceptable. 

The final point, Madam Chairwoman, something else that I wish 

this committee would take up at some point, is the very odious 

practice of anonymous election calls that communicate slanderous 

and false information. For example, suggestions that John McCain 

had an illegitimate child; that happened in the State of South 

Carolina in 2000. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
97 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. False and defamatory. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Ellison is participating per our UC earlier and 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Could the panelists share with us if the States have a standard 

and consistent definition of provisional ballot between them? Do 

you understand my question? Is there one standard, uniform definition of what a provisional ballot is? 

Mr. RITCHIE. Madam Chair, Representative Ellison, to my knowledge, no. 

Mr. ALBRECHT. I would agree, there seems to be varying definitions between States. 

Mr. ELLISON. And, Mr. Moore, would you agree with that? 

Mr. MOORE. I would. We define it in our North Carolina statutes, 

which is what I am used to working with, but how it compares to 

other States I am not aware. 

Mr. ELLISON. And is there any standard requirement among the 

States as to when a provisional ballot will be counted and when it 

will not be? How is it ultimately determined? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, in North Carolina it is counted when the determination is made that the person is an eligible voter; or actually 

that the person is not an ineligible voter, I should say. So most provisional ballots, it is my understanding most provisional ballots are 

counted, and they are treated much like an absentee ballot in 

North Carolina. 

Mr. ELLISON. So, for example, in North Carolina if you vote provisionally, then some election official will determine whether you 

are an eligible voter. And if it is confirmed to be that case after 

you cast your ballot, it will be put in the batch with the rest of the 

ballots. Am I right about that? 

Mr. MOORE. That is correct. And the eligibility criteria would be 

determined in large part to the HAVA guidelines. 

Mr. ELLISON. Now, are you aware of other States where that is 

not the case? It seems to me I am aware of some States where provisional ballot sort of is really no ballot; it is just something for you 

to fill out to feel like you voted, but you don’t really ever have your 

ballot counted. Are you aware of any other kind of definitions like 

that? Perhaps there are some other panelists on another panel that 

may speak to that issue. 

Mr. ALBRECHT. No. Our issuance of a provisional ballot is comparable to what has been described, the two identification requirements consistent with HAVA. And if the I.D. is produced, the ballot 

is counted in the election. 

Mr. ELLISON. What if the person votes, they are eligible, but they 

don’t come back to give, you know, for reasons of their own, they 

can’t come back and give that I.D. or whatever it is that was lacking? 

Mr. ALBRECHT. Which unfortunately happens often. We had 40 

provisional ballots in one of our most recent elections, and only 

three of them responded the next day to meet the identification requirement. The 37 other ballots then were not counted in the election. 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Ritchie. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
98 

Mr. RITCHIE. Madam Chair, Representative Ellison, I believe this 

is why somewhere over a third of provisional ballots are never 

counted. That is the national average. And you are describing some 

of the reasons, but there is no standard, there is no national approach. 

Mr. ELLISON. Of course it might be—I mean I don’t take any 

issue at this moment with the North Carolina procedure, but I 

mean there could be—you could define provisional ballot as just, 

you know, pretty loosely. I mean you could just sort of fill it out 

and then maybe it never gets counted. I mean that is my concern 

with this whole provisional ballot thing. Well, one of them is that 

it could simply result in people not voting even if they are in all 

other ways qualified to vote. You have any response to that? 

Mr. MOORE. I would. I think that the provisional ballots, though, 

in not counting those, the State still has to comply with HAVA. So 

you do have that Federal law, the same thing that applies on voting on election day would apply to the provisional ballots. 

And secondly, I think it is important to mention when we say we 

don’t count all provisional ballots, well, the reason is because a lot 

of those ballots may be invalid, the person was not eligible to vote 

for some reason and that is why they are voting provisional. 

So I think when the percentages are thrown around that a certain percentage of provisional ballots aren’t counted and that folks 

are being disenfranchised, that that in some way ignores the reality that the reason they are provisional ballots is that we don’t 

know. And once they are reviewed, it is determined that actually 

some of those ballots were not valid and that they should not be 

counted. So that would at least count for some of that percentage. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, Representative Moore, you would agree that 

there is a percentage of those ballots that were cast that the individual is in all other respects eligible to vote, they just didn’t happen to have what they needed at the moment when they were at 

the polls. You would agree with that, wouldn’t you? 

Mr. MOORE. Just as in answer to the other question about prosecutions, I am unaware of the data on that, but I can tell you——

Mr. ELLISON. I know, but you suppose that hey, maybe some of 

the reasons that these folks don’t come back is because they are 

not eligible to vote. I am just asking you to agree to the other side 

of that equation, that there are a lot of those people who were eligible to vote, they just—because they got five kids and grocery shopping, two jobs and life on top of their shoulders, they just can’t 

make it back to the polls. You would agree with that, too, wouldn’t 

you? 

Mr. MOORE. I would certainly hope it wouldn’t happen. 

Mr. ELLISON. Come on now. I agreed with you on your side. You 

don’t want to agree with me on mine? 

Mr. MOORE. I am sure there are examples. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired, and all time to 

question this panel has expired. 

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chair, may I just have 10 seconds? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Certainly. Without objection. 

Mr. EHLERS. I just want to make clear, and I am sorry that Mr. 

Davis has left, but I totally agree with his statements. I abhor all 

fraud, no matter which party, which people, whoever does it, how 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
99 

they do it. I abhor it, I want to stop it. And I want to make that 

clear. And I think that is true of everyone on this panel. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ehlers. 

We want to thank the panelists, the witnesses. And we will have 

5 legislative days, if we have additional questions we will forward 

them to you. And we would request if that happens that you answer them as promptly as you can. And we thank you very much 

for sharing your expertise with us. 

And we will call the next panel forward at this time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. As the witnesses are coming forward, I will begin 

our introductions. 

First I would like to introduce Mr. Miles Rapoport. He is the 

president of Demos, a nonpartisan public policy research and advocacy organization committed to building an America that achieves 

its highest democratic ideals. Prior to his service at Demos, he 

served for 10 years in the Connecticut legislature. As a State legislator, he was a leading expert on electoral reform, chairing the 

Committee on Elections. In 1994, he was elected as Secretary of 

State of Connecticut. And as Secretary of State, Mr. Rapoport released two reports on the state of democracy in Connecticut. He 

was also executive director of Democracy Works, a nonpartisan 

group that works on democracy reform. 

Next we have Daniel Tokaji. He is an assistant professor of law 

at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, and associate director of election law at Moritz. In addition to his work with Ohio 

State University, Mr. Tokaji has written numerous publications 

and articles on election issues, as well as co-authored an EAC 

study with the Eagleton Institute of Politics on provisional voting. 

Prior to arriving at Moritz College of Law, Mr. Tokaji was a staff 

attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Next we have Jan Leighley, who is a Professor of 

Political Science at the University of Arizona. Her current research 

focuses on the determinants and consequences of voter turnout in 

the United States and effects of various States’ policies regarding 

election administration and voter registration. Professor Leighley’s 

work appears in various journals, such as the American Political 

Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, and the 

Journal of Politics in American Politics Research. 

And, finally, we have Mary Kiffmeyer. She served as the Secretary of State of Minnesota, the 20th Minnesota Secretary of 

State, from 1999 to 2006. Ms. Kiffmeyer also served as the President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, and she is 

also a former member of the Election Assistance Commission 

Standards Boards. 

So we welcome all of our witnesses who have tremendous expertise to share with us today. We appreciate your being here. 

STATEMENTS OF MILES RAPOPORT, PRESIDENT, DEMOS; DANIEL P. TOKAJI, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW, THE 

MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW; JAN E. LEIGHLEY, PROFESSOR, 

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA; AND MARY KIFFMEYER, FORMER 

SECRETARY OF STATE, MINNESOTA 

Ms. LOFGREN. We will start with Mr. Tokaji. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
100 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. TOKAJI 

Mr. TOKAJI. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members of 

the committee. I am very grateful to have been invited today to testify on this very important subject. 

I am going to start with some background on election reform, including the various values over the past several years that have informed the debate. I will then turn to a more detailed discussion 

of the issues of provisional voting and election day registration, focusing on the nexus between the two of them. 

As explained below, provisional voting has undoubtedly had enormous benefits in some respects, but it also should be acknowledged 

that it carries with it some significant problems. Foremost among 

them are the rejection of the votes of some eligible voters, the unequal treatment of voters across counties that was referenced a moment ago and, perhaps most significantly, the potential for postelection litigation of the type that we saw after Florida’s 2000 election over whether those ballots should count. For reasons that I 

will explain, I think election day registration has the potential to 

both increase turnout while minimizing our reliance on provisional 

ballots and avoiding some of these problems. 

Two of the values that have been at the center, properly so, of 

the debates over election reform over the past several years are access and integrity. By access, the idea that everyone should be able 

to vote and everyone’s vote should count. By integrity, the idea that 

we want to minimize cheating and fraud. 

What I would like to suggest today is that there is a third value 

that needs to be added to the mix, and that is finality, the idea 

that we need to resolve elections promptly, ideally with a minimum 

of judicial involvement. 

Now, we have had some significant and I think very helpful legislation both at the Federal level and at the State level in recent 

years. Among the provisions of the Help America Vote Act was a 

requirement that all States have provisional voting and that they 

issue provisional ballots to at least two categories of voters: those 

who show up at the polls and find their names not at the list and 

those who fail to present required identification. 

The idea as expressed by the Carter-Ford Commission is that no 

American qualified to vote anywhere in his or her State should be 

turned away from the polling place in that State. 

Now, I think provisional voting has had some significant advantages, but there are also some downsides, and one of them is that 

a lot of the provisional ballots that are cast by eligible voters wind 

up not being counted. Nationwide, 63 percent were counted, but 

some 37 percent were not counted. Now, I think there are some 

procedural things that can be done to improve that number and to 

see that more provisional ballots are counted, which I have referenced in my written testimony, but it is an issue that we have 

to be concerned with. 

Perhaps an even more significant issue is disparities in how provisional ballots are treated across counties, different standards and 

different procedures that are followed, as was referenced just a moment ago. This is a serious problem and could raise equal protection concerns of the kind that caught the Supreme Court’s attention in Bush versus Gore. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
101 

Third and finally, the more provisional ballots you have, the 

greater the potential for protracted, post-election litigation over the 

result of the type that we almost had in my own State of Ohio in 

2004, where we had a whopping 159,000 or so provisional ballots 

cast. And there is no question that if the result had been closer we 

would have seen litigation in our State over whether to count those 

provisional ballots, something comparable to what we saw in Florida 2000 over whether to count those punch cards. 

Let me turn in the short time I have left to the subject of election 

day registration. There is no reasonable basis for disputing that 

election day registration increases turnout. I know that Professor 

Leighley will address that question. What I want to focus on is that 

election day registration can also significantly reduce the number 

of provisional ballots that have to be cast, and thus advance the 

value of finality as well as access, by reducing the likelihood of this 

very disruptive post-election litigation. 

So, again, election day registration is something that can increase access, can advance the goal of finality, and does so without 

increasing the risk of fraud. 

I know my time is up, so I would call the committee’s attention 

to a study that I cited in my testimony from Professor Lorraine 

Minnite, investigating very carefully the incidents of fraud in election day registration States and finding it is not greater than in 

any other States. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Professor. 

[The statement of Mr. Tokaji follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
102 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 153 here 40987A.066
103 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 154 here 40987A.067
104 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 155 here 40987A.068
105 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 156 here 40987A.069
106 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 157 here 40987A.070
107 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 158 here 40987A.071
108 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 159 here 40987A.072
109 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 160 here 40987A.073
110 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 161 here 40987A.074
111 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 162 here 40987A.075
112 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 163 here 40987A.076
113 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 164 here 40987A.077
114 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 165 here 40987A.078
115 

Ms. LOFGREN. Professor Leighley. 

STATEMENT OF JAN E. LEIGHLEY 

Ms. LEIGHLEY. Madam Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member 

McCarthy, and other members of the subcommittee, thank you very 

much for the opportunity to present to the committee an overview 

of what scholarly research has demonstrated regarding the effects 

of election day registration on voter turnout. 

Political scientists have long been interested in State-level policies and their effects on whether individuals choose to cast ballots 

on election day, perhaps the ultimate act of engagement and equality in a democratic political system. Of course, we know a relatively 

small proportion of individuals choose to exercise this democratic 

right in the United States compared to other countries, and seeking 

to understand whether policies might be adopted to increase voter 

turnout is indeed a critical endeavor, as we seem to have agreed 

so far today. Widespread participation in the democratic process is 

an important part of maintaining faith in government. 

Briefly, my testimony shows that we know quite a bit about the 

impact of election day registration. My own research has shown 

that its adoption in the 1970s by the three early adopter States—

Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin—led to overall increases in turnout of over 4 percentage points, increases in the turnout of young 

people between 8 and 12 percentage points, and increases in turnout of lower-middle-class people of over 5 percentage points. And 

this research is consistent with all existing research which has 

shown that those States had substantial increases in turnout from 

the adoption of election day registration. 

Modern research on the impact of electoral reforms on voter 

turnout starts with the seminal work, Who Votes, by Professors 

Ray Wolfinger and Steve Rosenstone; and Wolfinger and 

Rosenstone showed that requiring people to register well in advance of election day decreased voter turnout by about 6 percentage points. A substantial body of research produced in 27 years 

since Who Votes has unambiguously supported its conclusion that 

lowering the costs of voting would increase turnout. The only questions open to debate are what are the most effective ways of lowering the cost of voting and which persons would be most affected 

by any reforms. 

The existing literature on the effects of election day registration 

points to four key conclusions: 

First, election day registration has a positive and significant effect on voter turnout. Not a single study based on the experience 

of the Wave I States suggests that voter turnout would decrease or 

remain unchanged. Instead, this research suggests that voter turnout would increase at a minimum from between 3 to 6 percentage 

points. 

Second, the magnitude of this effect is larger for the three States 

that adopted election day registration earlier than for those who 

adopted it later, Idaho, New Hampshire, Wyoming. 

We don’t have any firm evidence as to why election day registration seems to have had less of an impact in these States. However, 

they did adopt election day registration as an alternative means of 

complying with the National Voter Registration Act—Motor 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
116 

Voter—which allows those States to avoid complying with other 

substantive provisions of that law. So any analysis of impact of 

election day registration in these States is implicitly comparing the 

adoption of election day registration to the adoption of the provisions implemented of the National Voter Registration Act. 

Third, the two groups who are most affected by the availability 

of election day registration are young individuals and individuals 

who have moved recently. 

Michael Alvarez at Cal Tech has written several reports with 

other co-authors and published by Demos showing that election day 

registration would have increased turnout in other States that 

were considering it, New York and Iowa, and estimating that the 

turnout of younger individuals and of recent movers would likely 

increase by approximately 10 to 12 percentage points. These studies show the effects of election day registration are somewhat larger for middle and lower income and education individuals than for 

high income and high education individuals. My current research 

confirms these estimates. 

Fourth, existing research suggests the two potential disadvantages of election day registration, the possibility of fraudulent registration and voting and increased implementation costs, are minimal. 

As consistent as these research findings are, they are nonetheless somewhat captive of the empirical reality that we have only 

six States—I guess we now have more—with evidence on that that 

have adopted election day registration, and these States adopted 

election day registration in two different periods. The common 

mode of analysis is to estimate the difference in turnout in election 

day registration States pre- and post-EDR adoption and to compare 

the difference with the difference observed in non-EDR States. 

Methodologically, this raises issues about what the relevant comparison groups should be. 

For example, some non-EDR States might well adopt other policies meant to increase registration or turnout, and such actions 

could minimize observed differences between the two sets of States. 

This is precisely what we believe occurred in comparing the Wave 

II State adopters with the non-EDR States and their compliance 

with NVRA. 

My current research with Jonathan Nagler provides some advantages in research design over these previous approaches. Our analysis at this point strongly reinforces the four key points of previous 

research: an estimated positive impact of approximately 4 percentage points in Wave I States, the greatest impact for youngest age 

group and greater impacts of election day registration for individuals in the middle and lower income and educational groups rather 

than in the highest groups. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Professor; and I just want 

to take this opportunity to say what a pleasure it is to hear Ray 

Wolfinger being quoted. He was my absolute favorite professor as 

an undergraduate at Stanford quite a few years ago. So thank you 

very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Leighley follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
117 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 171 here 40987A.079
118 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 172 here 40987A.080
119 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 173 here 40987A.081
120 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 174 here 40987A.082
121 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 175 here 40987A.083
122 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 176 here 40987A.084
123 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 177 here 40987A.085
124 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 178 here 40987A.086
125 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 179 here 40987A.087
126 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 180 here 40987A.088
127 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 181 here 40987A.089
128 

Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. Kiffmeyer. 

STATEMENT OF MARY KIFFMEYER 

Ms. KIFFMEYER. Madam Chair Lofgren, Representative McCarthy, members, I am here today to testify in favor of integrity in the 

elections system. 

It is so often that we take a little piece of an election and we 

focus so much on that that we lose sight that it is a system. It is 

an entire system. It begins with registration, and it concludes at 

the finality of actually having those votes recorded and included. 

So my approach here is, let’s stop just focusing on just that one 

piece. Let’s think of it as a whole. Because the ballots in the box 

are integrally tied to who gets the ballot. 

Does same-day registration increase turnout? In taking a look at 

some of these statistics, in the years before same-day voter registration in Minnesota, it went below 60 percent one time. In the 

years after same-day voter registration, it went below 60 percent 

six times. So I think it is important to realize not only in the average but in the individual years it is certainly seen. 

And I think part of that is attributed to Minnesota’s culture. We 

are Germanic, Norweigian. We just are involved. If there is an organization for anybody, we have got it in Minnesota. So a lot of this 

I believe has a lot to do with just simply that kind of culture. 

Our high school students, almost 100 percent of them are registered to vote before they leave high school. It is a very active part 

of that. So for those young people it is really an issue. The college 

students who are coming here from other States are often using 

same-day voter registration to vote in elections in Minnesota on 

election day though they are from another State. 

My approach was to encourage everyone; and certainly the results and that message of hope and focus on integrity, I believe, did 

contribute to the upward trend in Minnesota’s election turnout during the last years. I took those principles—access, accuracy, integrity, and privacy—before I thought of running for Secretary of 

State, because I felt those embodied all of the election system. 

In Minnesota, when it came to paper ballots, which I took office 

before the 2000 election and served during the time including the 

tragic death of Senator Wellstone, we did an election in 11 days, 

and as well we did many other things, but we focused on those ballots. I stood for paper ballots when the technology trend was just 

out of this world; and I said, no, it can’t withstand that scrutiny. 

We deserve better. 

In Minnesota, we implemented Precinct Optical Scan paper ballots during my watch, the methodical recounts of ballots, aggressive training at all levels of election workers. Having been one myself for 12 years in the polling place, I knew how much training 

could really implement these changes we needed. The auditing 

statewide of results and certification of the code was implemented 

during my time as Secretary of State. 

Now, on the other issue as well, incidents, some that you might 

say, is there no stealing of votes, all these kind of things you hear? 

Well, any of you who don’t believe that there is stealing of votes, 

next time you leave, don’t lock your house and don’t lock your car 

door if you have that kind of absolute trust. It is important to realVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:40 Apr 02, 2008 Jkt 040987 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\40987.XXX 40987

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
129 

ize that, of course, I think what we want is a balanced system that 

recognizes those situations not only in the final end, counting ballots, but in the beginning, which is registration. 

I think that recently, as a matter of fact this week, in the University of Minnesota daily newspaper a commentary was written by 

the students in support of photo ID. These young folks stated, in 

synch with the minds of Jimmy Carter, James Baker, and Andrew 

Young, former mayor of Atlanta, Georgia: A photo ID would not be 

a poll tax but a voting enabler. This comes from the mouth of the 

University of Minnesota college student newspaper themselves. I 

think that should carry a lot of weight from these young people. 

I know that also there are a lot of folks who will maybe tout and 

gloss over some of the challenges. I have experienced that. Of 

major import, when time is short and urgency is great and you are 

doing elections in the polling place on election day, you will have 

lines. It is hard to guess the number of poll workers you need because you don’t know exactly how many are coming. 

A personal instance for me in Minnesota was hearing on the 

news a polling place that had run out of ballots and people were 

there. I walked to the polling place. About 200 people, they had run 

out of ballots. I sent my staff person with a $20 bill from my own 

pocket, and I said, ‘‘Go get pens, because when the ballot gets here 

they are also out of pens.’’ So we were able to pull that together. 

But I felt so bad that there were people because of this situation 

who didn’t get to vote simply because we had election day registration and the polling place was flooded. 

Those are issues that are important. If we are going to have a 

let-everyone-vote measure, then let’s make sure that everyone-is-eligible measure balances those two situations as well. 

In regards to some of the cases in Minnesota, we have the Coates 

city had 93 people falsely registering to vote. Fortunately, it was 

before election day, it was caught, and it was prevented. 

We had another deputy county administrator who told a polling 

place person, yes, a green card is okay to register to vote. 

We had a car trunk that was collected with over 300 voter registrations just stuffed in a trunk; and, again, that was caught by 

a routine traffic stop at the airport. 

Thirty-four non-U.S. citizens registered to vote in Minnesota, 

documented after HAVA, because we are required to verify things. 

Twelve of those also did vote. Those were turned in to the Department of Justice. 

Those are some of just the larger ones, and indeed two of those 

that were actually prosecuted. It is difficult to prosecute after an 

election. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you for your testimony. 

[The statement of Ms. Kiffmeyer follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
130 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 187 here 40987A.090
131 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 188 here 40987A.091
132 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 189 here 40987A.092
133 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 190 here 40987A.093
134 

Ms. LOFGREN. Finally, we go to Mr. Rapoport. 

STATEMENT OF MILES RAPOPORT 

Mr. RAPOPORT. Thank you very much, Chairman Lofgren. 

I am Miles Rapoport, and I currently serve as the President of 

Demos: A Network for Ideas and Action. Demos is a nonpartisan 

public policy center in New York, which has been dedicated since 

its founding in 2000 to the expansion of democratic participation. 

We have felt all along that Election Day Registration is one of the 

mechanisms we could use, one of the policies that we could adopt 

that would significantly enhance voter participation. 

I want to make mention of the fact that I have longer written 

testimony that I will summarize; and also that there are three reports, including Professor Lorraine Minnite’s report. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, those will be entered into the 

record. 

Mr. RAPOPORT. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
135 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 192 here 40987A.094
136 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 193 here 40987A.095
137 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 194 here 40987A.096
138 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 195 here 40987A.097
139 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 196 here 40987A.098
140 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 197 here 40987A.099
141 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 198 here 40987A.100
142 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 199 here 40987A.101
143 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 200 here 40987A.102
144 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 201 here 40987A.103
145 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 202 here 40987A.104
146 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 203 here 40987A.105
147 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 204 here 40987A.106
148 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 205 here 40987A.107
149 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 206 here 40987A.108
150 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 207 here 40987A.109
151 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 208 here 40987A.110
152 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 209 here 40987A.111
153 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 210 here 40987A.112
154 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 211 here 40987A.113
155 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 212 here 40987A.114
156 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 213 here 40987A.115
157 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 214 here 40987A.116
158 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 215 here 40987A.117
159 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 216 here 40987A.118
160 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 217 here 40987A.119
161 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 218 here 40987A.120
162 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 219 here 40987A.121
163 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 220 here 40987A.122
164 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 221 here 40987A.123
165 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 222 here 40987A.124
166 

Mr. RAPOPORT. I think the single largest argument for election 

day registration has been discussed a lot, and that is that it increases voter participation. It seems a fundamental reality that 

many of us—and I served as Secretary of the State for the State 

of Connecticut for 4 years in the 1990s—have observed the precipitous drop in voting percentages that occurred in the early 1970s. 

This has been partly because we allowed 18-year-olds to vote, partly because of disillusion around Watergate, and we have never regained those levels. So we have actually nationwide a serious drop 

which now we are hoping to come and push back up a little bit. 

I think we also understand that people’s lives are complicated 

and that the more you can make something convenient for people 

the more they will access it. The private sector understands this 

very well. 

When I was young, I used to get a paycheck every Friday afternoon at 2:30, race to the bank, stand in line for about an hour with 

all the other people who got their Friday paychecks, because you 

knew that if you didn’t get your paycheck cashed on Friday, you 

didn’t have any money for the weekend. I tell my son, who is sitting back here, that that is the way it used to be, and he looks at 

me like it is an Abraham Lincoln log cabin story. 

So, no self respecting bank would require people to take extra 

steps in order to get their money. But when it comes to voting we 

require people to register, in some cases, 30 days in advance. 

The turnout figures, the participation rates are clearly 10 to 12 

points higher in the States where they do have Election Day Registration. Not all of that can be attributed to Election Day Registration itself. I think the academic studies that Professor Leighley referred to, about 4 percent, with larger increases for certain parts 

of the population, are accurate. 

There are two corollary benefits to election day benefits beyond 

the increase in participation, which is, of course, first and foremost. 

One, it does reduce the problems with provisional ballots. There 

have been huge problems with provisional ballots on the counting. 

We know that a third of the provisional ballots in the 2004 Presidential election were not counted. The possibility of huge, lengthy 

battles about who was eligible to cast a provisional ballot and have 

it counted is a dramatic possibility. 

There are also, as Representative Ehlers mentioned, additional 

costs, but I don’t think that has been a central focus here and 

doesn’t need to be. 

The second corollary benefit is interesting, and I say this as a 

former candidate. I do believe that it widens and enriches the political debate that we will have. You are taught as a candidate only 

talk to people who are registered and on that list. If you go out 

knocking on doors, you walk right by a house even if people want 

to talk to you if they are not on that list. Those people are ignored 

as far as the political process is concerned. That is efficient as a 

candidate, but it is not very healthy for our democracy. 

I think we want to create a situation in which the campaigns and 

candidates talk to everyone, because everyone is a potential voter. 

I think that flow of information and flow of discussion would be 

much, much better. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
167 

Let me deal with the arguments against Election Day Registration that have been mentioned. One has been the administrative 

complexity at the polls, where there will be difficulties. Clearly, as 

with any new policy, the poll workers need to be trained, the procedures need to be put in place, a separate desk or whatever needs 

to be set up for the registrants so they are not standing in line, creating lines. But that has been shown in every State that has had 

Election Day Registration, some for 30 years, to be entirely manageable. 

The second is the cost, where there clearly are additional costs 

of additional personnel. I think they are minor, and I think they 

are offset by the costs of hiring additional people to get the voters 

on the rolls where there is not Election Day Registration and the 

counting of provisional ballots afterwards. 

The most important argument that has been adduced has been 

the argument that will open the way to fraud, and I want to address that very directly. It is certainly a theoretical possibility. I 

don’t think anybody could say, don’t worry, there is no possibility 

whatsoever. There are problems in our current system in as many 

States without Election Day Registration as there are in States 

with. We have had problems in Connecticut, mostly minor, mostly 

with absentee ballots. But the overwhelming thrust of the evidence 

here is that it simply has not happened and is very unlikely to happen. 

I think that the study by Professor Minnite documents that. She 

looked at 4,000 news reports for all six EDR States over the period 

of 1999 to 2005, found only 10 incidents that were even substantive 

and investigated and prosecuted, and only one of those involved an 

impersonation and that was in New Hampshire where a son voted 

for his father. 

So I think that the fraud issue is a potential one. We are, as 

elected officials, election officials, or people who are interested in 

our elections, having to balance. You will have the responsibility to 

balance. But we have a situation here where I think there is very 

little evidence that fraud will increase, a huge amount of evidence 

that this will draw millions of new people into the polls; and, on 

balance, for the health of our democracy, it seems that Election 

Day Registration would be a very, very good policy to adopt nationwide as well as State by State. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

[The statement of Mr. Rapoport follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
168 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 228 here 40987A.125
169 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 229 here 40987A.126
170 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 230 here 40987A.127
171 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 231 here 40987A.128
172 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 232 here 40987A.129
173 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 233 here 40987A.130
174 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 234 here 40987A.131
175 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 235 here 40987A.132
176 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 236 here 40987A.133
177 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 237 here 40987A.134
178 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 238 here 40987A.135
179 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 239 here 40987A.136
180 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 240 here 40987A.137
181 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 241 here 40987A.138
182 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 242 here 40987A.139
183 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 243 here 40987A.140
184 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 244 here 40987A.141
185 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thanks to all of you for very interesting testimony. 

We now go to the time in our hearing when we have a chance 

to ask questions; and I will turn first to my colleague from California who represents San Diego, Susan Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I appreciate your all being here. Thank you very much. 

One question that really occurred to me while you were talking, 

have we done very much tracking of those people who vote in 

same-day registration, whether or not they continue to return to 

the polls for subsequent elections? Do we have any data on that, 

as far as you know? 

Ms. LEIGHLEY. I am not aware of any tracking in terms of panel 

data on individuals. I would note, we do have some work which 

suggests that the key is getting those people in the door the first 

time; and at that point the political interest is enhanced. Mobilization is enhanced. They have entered in. So our best guess, from 

fairly strong theoretical arguments, is that there would likely be a 

subsequent effect. 

Mr. TOKAJI. If I could just add one thing. There is also evidence 

that the benefits from election day registration in terms of increasing turnout do persist over time, specifically from the three States 

that Professor Leighley mentioned in her testimony earlier. 

Ms. KIFFMEYER. Representative Davis, Chairman Lofgren, I believe that there is an effect that, no matter how you register to 

vote, no matter where your first time voting is, that once you begin 

that you are more likely to continue. But I don’t think it makes it 

any more so, as an opinion, how you get registered or which day. 

But I do think that it does make a difference, and that is why we 

very much focused on making sure that those young students in 

Minnesota were registered and had those opportunities right away. 

First-time voters are more likely to continue as they go along, but 

I think the methodology where they register isn’t proven to be as 

big a factor. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you. 

You are capturing, though, a lot more people. So I think that you 

would suggest that if they continue to be voters that you certainly 

would have them when you might not have otherwise. And I think 

we still have questions about why we weren’t able to get to them 

in 30 days prior, but that is another issue. 

One of the things I think we would all agree on is no fraud is 

acceptable. But I think we have also talked about the suppression 

of voting issues as well. And in your experience, is there an acceptable level in some ways? We know that there is going to be problems, but they seem to be rather minimal. And we know that there 

is tremendous suppression that can exist in communities just as 

well. I mean, is that something that in your positions you have discussed? 

Because it would seem to me that, while we don’t like it, there 

may be an acceptable level. But it is also clear that—what are the 

red flags that go up when you know that something is really going 

wrong? And maybe we need to kind of look at what are those red 

flags. And, again, how would you act to secure whether it is sameVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:40 Apr 02, 2008 Jkt 040987 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\40987.XXX 40987

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
186 

day registration or even registration generally that perhaps we are 

not addressing? 

Mr. TOKAJI. Let me take the position that no voting fraud is ever 

acceptable. I think we are in agreement on that point. 

I would also suggest that, no matter what kind of system you 

have, there are always going to be a few people out there who are 

trying to cheat. 

I think it is important when we are talking about fraud to be 

clear about what we mean and in particular separate it into three 

categories. There is, first of all, the voter who goes to the polls on 

election day and tries to cheat, pretending to be someone they are 

not. That is extremely rare. A bit more common, though also rare, 

is people trying to cheat through absentee ballots; and if you are 

an individual voter trying to cheat, that is the way you are most 

likely to pursue. Also rare is the third kind, but again a bit more 

common than the first, which is insider fraud, people on the inside 

stuffing ballots or things like that. 

What should be emphasized is that the risks of fraud arising 

from election day registration are very small. Because if voters are 

going to try to cheat, they more often than not do it through absentee ballots, not through going into the polls on election day, pretending to be someone they are not or otherwise trying to cheat. 

And that is demonstrated by Professor Minnite’s study. 

So I don’t think there is any acceptable level of fraud, but I also 

don’t think that the evidence supports the conclusion that election 

day registration increases it. It is clear that election day registration does increase turnout, and this is where we have a huge problem in our society that we have not satisfactorily addressed. Not 

nearly enough people come out to vote; and, moreover, certain 

groups, including racial minorities, poor people, younger people, 

people with disabilities, are underrepresented in our voting polity. 

And that is a serious problem. Election day registration is the best 

way I know of, based on the social science evidence, to increase registration and participation through election administration. 

Mr. RAPOPORT. I would add a quick comment on that. It seems 

to me that if we make the assumption that we want to guard 

against fraud as effectively as possible, there are still two paths to 

go. One is to create an election system that works as smoothly and 

as efficiently and where we give the prosecuting authorities, the 

election enforcement commissions in the States and the Attorney 

General in the State, the resources that they need to really actively 

go and search out the fraud, look at it in a case-by-case basis, and 

do it. 

The second path is to sort of tamp down on the process of allowing people to vote in a more general way, catching the fraud but 

also I think limiting significantly the amount of people that will 

vote. 

And I think the first path we have the capacity to do with the 

digitized statewide voter lists, with increasing the sophistication of 

the voter identification processes and mechanisms. I think those 

are the better ways to go. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

I turn now to the ranking member, the gentleman from California, Mr. McCarthy. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
187 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank the whole panel. I appreciate all the testimony. 

Like Congresswoman Davis said, we want to make it as easy as 

possible for people to vote, and we have evolved so far in everything we do in America. You think today—and Mrs. Davis and I 

had a conversation just the other day about other countries and 

how you see the turnout so much larger than America, and people 

waiting in line, people having to walk to the polls. And we could 

vote absentee. States let you vote early out there for 2 weeks at 

a time in shopping centers and everything else. 

But one testimony struck me very unique, Ms. Kiffmeyer, taking 

from the whole perspective. Because in this committee we are also 

looking at contested elections. We have one issue in Florida 13. So 

we are looking at, is there an undervote or whatever going 

through? But do we ever also look at, if we are going to do a complete accounting, if we are looking at just the final product, was 

this person actually able to vote or should they have? 

And I do have a real concern in this whole debate of whether it 

be a provisional or not. Because once it is inside the ballot, you 

don’t know which ballot it was. There is no way of checking. 

And when you look at how close these elections are, then you 

have the whole argument about, are these people informed? Are we 

not allowing them to be more informed? The more we get in voter 

registration, that is how people use the voter rolls. Some people use 

them for wrong reasons. But that is the main reason why we are 

able to get information out. 

My question would be to Ms. Kiffmeyer, have you found—because you have had same-day voter for quite some time, did you 

find with the college students—and you put about the ID there. 

Did you find any fraud within there? That people from other 

States, because—coming in there, going to college, voting back 

home and also voting there as well? 

Ms. KIFFMEYER. Representative Lofgren and Representative 

McCarthy, certainly we have cases. There are instances of convictions. But what we have found, though, is that the tools that we 

need in order to verify some of these things are nonexistent. In 

other words, is there fraud is one question. The second thing is, do 

you have a system to catch it? Do you have a system that can give 

you that degree of certainty? 

When you have students coming from other States and voting in 

your State, there is no ID requirement. They come in on election 

day. The ballot is live and counted. Then, afterwards, a 

nonforwardable postcard is sent to them. What happens to that 

nonforwardable postcard? I mean, those are the kinds of researches. 

Newspaper reports, by the time things get to a newspaper, there 

is lots of stuff going on that never hit the newspaper. You need to 

dig a little deeper and also be wiser about the actual system and 

what is really happening to know what to do there. 

But those tools to verify that those students—did they vote in 

their home State? Did they vote also in Minnesota? Can we know? 

And shouldn’t we know? 

Where are the tools that enable us to give what I believe we owe 

to the American people? I mean, we do it on the side of the ballots. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
188 

We have the recounts and we have all this and we have attorneys 

and we have all this stuff going on. But it seems like on this side, 

when it comes to registration, there is almost a sense of faith-based 

trust in regards to registration, that, ergo, they registered, ergo, it 

must be true, without the same level of scrutiny that we give in 

the ballots themselves. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. We are pretty much leaving the door unlocked, 

like your analogy earlier, because we don’t have the information to 

even check to see about the accuracy within there. 

I know HAVA has—if you are a first-time voter and you register, 

first-time registered and first-time voter, they make you form a 

check of an ID or you get mailed it back. Would you think, if a person goes to the ballot and they are first-time registering to vote, 

should there be any other check there? Should people show an ID? 

Ms. KIFFMEYER. Well, certainly when you have your check and 

you go to cash your check, in most every instance you are required 

to show some sort of identification to tie those two records together. 

In other words, here is my name on the roster and here is my 

name on this ID, and you tie those things together. That is just a 

common-sense thing that is used everywhere else in our society. 

And the only place it is wholly absent, many times, is in the polling 

place on election day, where you are getting a vote, a real live ballot. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Because it is the only registering by mail the 

first time that we do that check. 

Now, the only other question I have, maybe to Mr. Rapoport, 

would you support showing an ID? I know a lot of people use driver’s license. I come from a State that first proposed giving driver’s 

license to illegals. It got repealed. Where is your position on that? 

Mr. RAPOPORT. I think it is reasonable for a first-time registrant 

to show identification. I think the question becomes, ‘‘what are the 

acceptable forms of identification?′′ 

We negotiated this very carefully when I was the chairman of the 

Government Administration and Elections Committee in the Connecticut legislature about what form of ID. And where we ended up 

was a list of acceptable IDs, driver’s license probably the most 

used, electronic benefit transfer cards, student IDs, but anything 

that has both a signature and either a picture or an address. And 

then the last, the sort of fail-safe, is an attestation requirement 

where a voter can, if they are absolutely lacking ID, sign an affidavit stating—under penalty of perjury stating I am who I am. And 

if someone else were to come and vote there, under that name you 

have at least the beginnings of a signature to do it. 

I will say that in the 15 years since that system has been enacted in Connecticut, there has been not a single prosecution for 

false identification. There have been election fraud issues in Connecticut. They have been entirely in the misuse of absentee ballots. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. One quick follow-up. I know that was 15 years 

ago. Would you still have that opinion now, with the debate going 

on about illegals being able to have a driver’s license? Would a 

driver’s license still be okay for you for the IDing, for that purposes? 

Mr. RAPOPORT. I imagine that it would. I think there probably 

would be some differentiation in the license. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
189 

But I also say this, that I think that the people who have studied 

this generally feel that people who are not citizens and who are 

subject to deportation or subject to real problems are very unlikely 

to expose themselves by coming out to vote. I think it is hard to 

get them to respond to many things at all. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Madam Chair, I do want to thank you for—it 

must have been our miscommunication that you did from 6–4. And 

if we are moving beyond three in the majority and one on the minority for witnesses, it would be my intent to withdraw my rule 11, 

and I thank you for that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We should have a discussion of this at a later 

time. 

Mr. Ellison is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Madam Chair; and let me thank all the 

panelists. And I hope you all will forgive me for thanking Ms. 

Kiffmeyer to be here in particular. She is from Minnesota, and she 

and I worked together over the years. She could report how we 

showed up in places around the district and tried to encourage people to go vote, and I want to thank you for the work you did then 

and for coming out today. 

Professor Tokaji, one question I want to ask you is there seems 

to be sort of a dispute in the statistics about whether or not sameday voter registration increases voter turnout. Secretary Kiffmeyer 

said that we already had high voter turnout in Minnesota, and so 

same-day voter registration didn’t really change that. What if we 

look at it in a more broad sense, look at the more comprehensive 

look at all the States that have it? Can you say with some authority that it actually does increase voter turnout? 

Mr. TOKAJI. I say with absolute confidence that election day 

voter registration increases turnout, and I believe I have looked at 

all the social science evidence that exists on this subject. I think 

Secretary of State Ritchie explained one of the blips in Minnesota, 

which had to do with the fact that we were lowering the voting age 

at around the same time as some of those studies. But there is no 

reasonable basis for disputing, based on the evidence that election 

day registration increases turnout. It is—I would say it is a social 

scientific fact, just as evolution is a natural scientific fact, is at that 

level of clarity. There is reason——

Mr. ELLISON. There are people who debate that, too. 

Mr. TOKAJI. There are always going to be people who debate certain things. There may be some reason for quibbling about exactly 

how much you think it increases turnout, but there is no reasonable basis on the evidence for questioning that it increases turnout. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Professor; and thank you. Everybody 

had an excellent presentation I want to say. 

What about your thoughts on this, Professor Leighley? Do you 

agree or concur with Professor Tokaji on this issue? 

Ms. LEIGHLEY. I do. This is one of the few places where, in studying electoral behavior in the United States, there is a clear unanimity in all of the studies about increases that result from election 

day registration; and it is based on empirical evidence, things that 

we actually observe in the world, as opposed to concerns or questions or allegations. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
190 

Mr. ELLISON. How about you, Secretary Rapoport? Do you concur 

with Professor Leighley and Professor Tokaji? 

Mr. RAPOPORT. I do, and I think the evidence is consistent. I 

want to call the committee’s attention to a chart which is actually 

not in what I introduced, but I can leave it and copies can be made. 

Mr. ELLISON. Can I offer unanimous consent that it be introduced? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
191 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 330 here 40987A.205
192 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 331 here 40987A.206
193 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 332 here 40987A.207
194 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 333 here 40987A.208
195 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 334 here 40987A.209
196 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 335 here 40987A.210
197 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 336 here 40987A.211
198 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 337 here 40987A.212
199 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 338 here 40987A.213
200 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 339 here 40987A.214
201 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 340 here 40987A.215
202 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 341 here 40987A.216
203 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 342 here 40987A.217
204 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 343 here 40987A.218
205 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 344 here 40987A.219
206 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 345 here 40987A.220
207 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 346 here 40987A.221
208 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 347 here 40987A.222
209 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 348 here 40987A.223
210 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 349 here 40987A.224
211 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 350 here 40987A.225
212 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 351 here 40987A.226
213 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 352 here 40987A.227
214 

Mr. RAPOPORT. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

We did a chart just to look at this very question, about were 

States higher anyway and does Election Day Registration make a 

difference? And what we found, that if you go back to 1968 to the 

Presidential elections, all six of the States that had election day 

registration in 2002 were indeed higher than the national average 

by anywhere from 6 to 9 points. But once they adopted election day 

registration, it went up to 12 to 13 and 14 and, in some cases, 17 

and 18 percent higher. So I think there is a very clear distinction 

to be made. 

Secretary Kiffmeyer is correct, that some of the States already 

had very high voting traditions. But there is no question that EDR 

has significantly increased this. And I will leave this chart with the 

committee. 

Mr. ELLISON. So, Secretary Kiffmeyer, why are these distinguished, learned individuals wrong? 

Ms. KIFFMEYER. I don’t think I take a position that way. I think 

that what I am looking at——

Mr. ELLISON. Excuse me. I am sorry. So you agree with them. 

Ms. KIFFMEYER. I don’t think that is a point that I was making. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, do you agree with them? 

Ms. KIFFMEYER. I think that they are giving a lot of facts and 

a lot of background that—especially when you get into some of 

these studies that they have done, such as the study done by Miles, 

and when you are reporting another study where they were using 

newspaper reports to do their study as a basis for what you had 

found—so I think all of their analysis, and I think that, actually——

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Secretary, forgive me for my interruption. 

I only have 5 minutes. Of course, I would never interrupt you, as 

you know, I respect you so much. But do you disagree with them 

or do you agree with them? 

Ms. KIFFMEYER. I think I don’t have all their studies and facts 

and figures. 

Mr. ELLISON. So you would say that you don’t know? 

Ms. KIFFMEYER. Well, I haven’t looked at all of their studies and 

all of their research. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, you would have to agree, disagree, or you 

don’t know. 

Ms. KIFFMEYER. I think I have stated, though, that they have 

given a lot of facts and a lot of information, and you are asking me 

to just ratify all of their statements and their opinions——

Mr. ELLISON. No, I am not asking you to ratify. You could say 

they are wrong and they have got it all wrong and they looked at 

the data wrong. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. ELLISON. Ten more seconds. 

Ms. LOFGREN. By unanimous consent, 10 more seconds. But since 

you and Ms. Kiffmeyer know each other very well, you can also finish this at a later date. 

Mr. ELLISON. That is right. Madam Chair is absolutely correct. 

I was just hoping to get Secretary Kiffmeyer on the record taking 

a position on this issue. But if—but I—it may—one last chance to 

see which——


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
215 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think Ms. Kiffmeyer has probably concluded 

her——

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And we will now turn to Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. It is very tempting to satisfy Mr. Ellison’s request 

by just saying they are wrong and get it over with. 

But, no, just expanding on that a bit. I just cast my lot with Ms. 

Kiffmeyer. I have the same hands-on experience that she has had. 

I have seen it. And I respect these gentlemen. Since I am supposed 

to be an egghead myself, I certainly don’t want to castigate any of 

the witnesses for their research. But there is something to be said 

for the hands-on, having to deal with the problem on election day, 

which is a very frantic time for all election workers, and deal with 

all the problems that come up. And there are lots of them, innumerable problems that come up. You can’t describe all of them. 

But I will certainly cast my lot with Ms. Kiffmeyer and the 

practicalities and the difficulties that you encounter in this situation. And that doesn’t mean that I am against same-day registration. I am just cautioning everyone here that it opens multiple opportunities for fraud. And I am not talking so much about the 

fraud on the part of an individual. I am talking about organized 

fraud. Bussing, gathering people up and—well, I shouldn’t use the 

term bus. What I have seen is vans, not buses. But picking up people and getting them to vote when they shouldn’t vote and telling 

them that it is legal for them to vote when in fact it is not legal 

for them to vote. 

You can’t just have the pie-in-the-sky attitude. This is great. It 

improves turnout. You have to look at all aspects of it, and that 

is what I want to thank Ms. Kiffmeyer for doing, because she has 

given us those aspects and I respect that. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. 

I just want to ask a couple of questions, and then we will thank 

you all and go to our floor vote. 

We talked earlier about the provisional ballots and that many of 

them are not counted. Now, maybe—and we don’t know why they 

are not counted. But, for the two professors, have you given any 

thought to whether there should be some kind of nationwide standard for how provisional ballots are dealt with? And, if so, what 

those standards ought to be? 

Mr. TOKAJI. Let me say a couple things on this. 

First, I am actually someone who is generally very cautious 

about recommending that we implement national standards when 

it comes to the administration of elections. Our elections have traditionally been run at the State and local level; and I think that, 

generally speaking, our State and local officials do a fantastic job. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I do, too. 

Mr. TOKAJI. I do think that there is some place for the Federal 

Government here. Frankly, I think that HAVA should have been 

written to make clear that people who mistakenly cast a provisional ballot in the wrong precinct should have those ballots counted, at least for races they were entitled to vote in. We do have statistical evidence which I have cited in my testimony that States 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
216 

that do count those ballots count a much higher percentage of provisional ballots. 

Beyond that, I would be wary of too much Federal legislation on 

this question. I do think it is essential, however, that every State 

have clear standards for what provisional ballots should count and 

that those standards and procedures as well be followed uniformly 

throughout the State so as to avoid an equal protection problem. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Professor—Mr. Rapoport, you have made a multidecade study of these issues. Do you have—— Mr. RAPOPORT. Yes. I think that the absence of national standards on the counting of provisional ballots and on several other 

kinds of issues is a real problem. So I would, despite having been 

a State-elected official and not wanting too much Federal control, 

I think that voters in all jurisdictions are entitled to know that 

their provisional ballots will be counted more or less in the same 

way. And it is clear from the testimony that has been given here 

that one of the real virtues of Election Day Registration, if it were 

adopted, would be to minimize the problems with provisional ballots. I think that would be a good thing as well. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. Kiffmeyer, you were President of the Secretaries of States Association, and I know the Secretaries of State 

don’t like Federal interference. On the other hand, there is an 

equal protection issue if there is wide variation. What would your 

thoughts be on some kind of national standard that we work with 

the Secretaries of States to develop? 

Ms. KIFFMEYER. Well, Madam Chairwoman and members of the 

committee, one of the things you saw in the implementation of 

HAVA was there was a standard in regards to the equipment. But 

they also gave a methodology by the standards board, which was 

made up of local and State election officials, to work together to review those, and under the EAC. And so I think there was a methodology there that enabled the States and locals to do that. 

It was interesting, it was very important to us to make the issue 

that it was still up to the States to voluntarily comply with those 

standards. Now, interesting enough, all 50 States have. Why? Because they have had input. They have been able to establish that. 

And it was made up of those who actually administer elections. 

So I think in that particular case you see that, even though it 

was voluntary, the heart and the desire to do good elections—as a 

matter of fact, making it not voluntary would have actually put a 

big resistance to the whole situation. So that I think is an example. 

I don’t know. I think that, really, we don’t have Federal elections. 

We have State elections for Federal officers. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just like to ask Mr. Tokaji, you have done 

so much research on this. When I registered to vote in California 

a long time ago, it was before we had postcard registration, but 

now that is how everybody registers that way. And you just fill it 

out and sign it, and there is no—you don’t show up anywhere. You 

don’t show any ID. And it sounds to me that what is being proposed on election day acts as a much higher standard. You have 

to show up in person and sign it. It is a lot more rigorous than 

what California has. Is that just wrong? 

Mr. TOKAJI. I think you are exactly right, Madam Chair. And a 

couple of other social scientists have made precisely that point, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
217 

that when you register on election day you are actually appearing 

before someone in person, representing that you are who you say 

you are, signing a statement under penalty of perjury that you are 

and providing some sort of identifying information. 

When things go through the mail, there are all sorts of opportunities—I don’t think they happen very often but at least opportunities—for improprieties that don’t exist when someone is doing it in 

person. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired. But I will just say that this 

whole issue of—I just have to make this statement. Because, in addition to chairing the election subcommittee, I chair the Immigration Subcommittee in the Judiciary Committee. And all that we 

have learned—I mean, people who are undocumented, they are 

risking their lives crossing the desert to get a job, they are not risking their lives to come over and vote. It is a whole different dynamic. And once you are here, they are laying low. They do not 

want to be found out. 

So I just think it is important to state that. There is no evidence 

to support that. 

But I will get off my soapbox and thank all four of you for being 

here today. We have 5 legislative days to pose additional questions. 

If we do that, we would ask that you try and respond as promptly 

as possible. 

A lot of people don’t realize that the witnesses who come before 

our committees are volunteers and come here just to help our country by sharing their expertise; and so we thank you very much, 

each of you, for doing that. 

And this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Information follows:] 

[Whereupon, at 1:24 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
218 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 267 here 40987A.142
219 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 268 here 40987A.143
220 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 269 here 40987A.144
221 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 270 here 40987A.145
222 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 271 here 40987A.146
223 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 272 here 40987A.147
224 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 273 here 40987A.148
225 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 274 here 40987A.149
226 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 275 here 40987A.150
227 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 276 here 40987A.151
228 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 277 here 40987A.152
229 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 278 here 40987A.153
230 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 279 here 40987A.154
231 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 280 here 40987A.155
232 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 281 here 40987A.156
233 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 282 here 40987A.157
234 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 283 here 40987A.158
235 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 284 here 40987A.159
236 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 285 here 40987A.160
237 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 286 here 40987A.161
238 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 287 here 40987A.162
239 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 288 here 40987A.163
240 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 289 here 40987A.164
241 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 290 here 40987A.165
242 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 291 here 40987A.166
243 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 292 here 40987A.167
244 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 293 here 40987A.168
245 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 294 here 40987A.169
246 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 295 here 40987A.170
247 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 296 here 40987A.171
248 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 297 here 40987A.172
249 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 298 here 40987A.173
250 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 299 here 40987A.174
251 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 300 here 40987A.175
252 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 301 here 40987A.176
253 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 302 here 40987A.177
254 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 303 here 40987A.178
255 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 304 here 40987A.179
256 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 305 here 40987A.180
257 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 306 here 40987A.181
258 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 307 here 40987A.182
259 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 308 here 40987A.183
260 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 309 here 40987A.184
261 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 310 here 40987A.185
262 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 311 here 40987A.186
263 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 312 here 40987A.187
264 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 313 here 40987A.188
265 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 314 here 40987A.189
266 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 315 here 40987A.190
267 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 316 here 40987A.191
268 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 317 here 40987A.192
269 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 318 here 40987A.193
270 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 319 here 40987A.194
271 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 320 here 40987A.195
272 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 321 here 40987A.196
273 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 322 here 40987A.197
274 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 323 here 40987A.198
275 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 324 here 40987A.199
276 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 325 here 40987A.200
277 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 326 here 40987A.201
278 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 327 here 40987A.202
279 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 328 here 40987A.203
280 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 329 here 40987A.204