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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–555 PDF 2001

HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2001

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 3295

DECEMBER 5, 2001

Serial No. 49

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., WISCONSIN, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

ED BRYANT, Tennessee 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., MICHIGAN

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

DECEMBER 5, 2001

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress 

From the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ... 1

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 3

WITNESSES 

Ms. Cleta Mitchell, Attorney, Foley & Lardner Attorneys at Law 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7

Mr. James C. Dickson, Vice President, American Association of People With 

Disabilities 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13

Mr. John R. Lott, Jr., Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 18

Mr. Philip Zelikow, Executive Director, National Commission on Federal Election Reform 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 37

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 39

Mr. Lloyd J. Leonard, Legislative Director, League of Women Voters of the 

United States 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 47

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 49

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 2

APPENDIX 

STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Ms. Barbara Arnwine, Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law .......... 75

Mr. Matt Blunt, Secretary of State for the State of Missouri .............................. 76

Ms. Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen ..................................................... 77

Ms. Marisa J. Demeo, Regional Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund (MALDEF) ...................................................................... 80

The National Council at La Raza (NCLR) ............................................................. 86

People for the American Way (PFAW) ................................................................... 88

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities ............................................................. 90

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Adam Lioz, Democracy Advocate, United States Public Interest Research 

Group .................................................................................................................... 92

Page

IV

Article from the Houston Chronicle, Monday, November 19, 2001, ‘‘Officials 

deny Brown’s claim of voting problems’’ ............................................................. 95

Article from the Houston Chronicle, Sunday, December 2, 2001, ‘‘Election 

2001 / Turnout strong for tight race / Complaints leveled by voters, monitors’’ ...................................................................................................................... 97

Article from the Houston Chronicle, Sunday, December 2, 2001, ‘‘Election 

2001 / Emotions run high in runoff / Voters complain of various glitches’’ .... 99

Article from the Houston Chronicle, Friday, November 30, 2001, ‘‘Changes 

in polling places could cause confusion’’ ............................................................. 101

Tables for Congressional testimony ....................................................................... 103

(1)

HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2001

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. 

Without objection, the Chair will be given the authority to declare 

recesses at any time today, and the audience will be in order, too. 

The Committee meets today for a legislative hearing on H.R. 

3295, the ‘‘Help America Vote Act of 2001.’’ This bill was introduced on November 14 by the Chairman and Ranking Member of 

the House Administration Committee, Congressmen Ney and 

Hoyer. A markup was held by that Committee on November 15, 

and the bill was reported favorably by a unanimous vote. 

Several provisions of this bill invoke the jurisdiction of this Committee. The purpose of this hearing is to examine these provisions 

and discuss some of the alleged voting process problems in the 

United States to determine if H.R. 3295 will properly solve those 

problems. 

The basic principle of one person, one vote is one that crosses 

party lines, for voting is not a partisan issue, but an American 

issue. All Americans want to know that the vote they cast, for the 

candidate of their choice, will be counted fairly and accurately. But 

it is also the concern of a great many Americans that widespread 

voter fraud is discounting or cancelling out the value of their legally cast votes. 

Part of this problem can be attributed to significant inaccuracies 

which exist with the voting rolls. For instance, in Michigan it was 

discovered that 1 million duplicate registrations were on the rolls 

when they were audited. It has been reported that Philadelphia 

has the same number of registered voters as there are voting-age 

people living in the city, and in Los Angeles County it is estimated 

that 25 percent of all voter registrations have problems or incorrect 

information. 

Throughout the debate on election reform, there has been a call 

for provisional balloting to prevent disenfranchisement of eligible 

voters. However, the real problem is not provisional balloting, 

which we have had in Wisconsin for a number of years, but rather 

inaccurate voter registration lists. Election officials need to clean 

up their registration rolls so that they are accurate. Section 502 of 

the bill goes right to the heart of this issue by establishing that one 

2

of the mandatory minimum standards with which the States must 

comply is the implementation of statewide voter registration lists, 

which are connected with every local jurisdiction. If this bill is enacted, I believe we must make sure that these systems are fully 

auditable so that States can and will be held accountable if they 

fail to adhere to this statutory provision. 

I believe we must seriously examine allegations of voter fraud in 

the country. If evidence exists of vote fraud, then the perpetrators 

must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, for vote fraud 

is not a victimless crime. It is a crime that erodes the integrity of 

the very system our forefathers put into place to ensure the freedoms which we hold dear. 

It is also time we get serious about ensuring the integrity of the 

election process and protecting the public trust in the election system of the United States. The end result of greater integrity will 

be greater participation in the electoral process. 

The individual States across the country have been hard at work 

in 2001 reviewing their election laws with a fine-tooth comb, identifying the weak spots and potential causes of concern, and, most importantly, developing solutions. Reforming election laws is a complex job, and it is one that is best left to the States. This hard work 

will certainly continue into next year, but look at what has happened so far at the State level. More than 1,770 bills have been introduced, 249 have been passed, and 487 are still pending. For example, Florida has enacted sweeping reforms which address issues 

such as voting machine and ballot design, establishing an improved 

centralized database, voter education, and poll worker recruitment, 

and new and presumably constitutional recount procedures. The 

States are proving that they are best able to determine what solutions will work effectively for their unique needs, and the primary 

focus of election reform should be left to them. 

Ensuring fair and honest elections by eliminating voter fraud, 

improving voting techniques, eliminating disenfranchisement, and 

respecting the constitutional role of the States and localities should 

not be partisan issues. Our fundamental system of elections is 

sound, but just as with all things, there is always room for improvement, and that can and should occur. 

Finally, I want to personally thank all of the witnesses for their 

willingness to appear before the Committee on very short notice. I 

very much appreciate your flexibility for taking the time to come 

before Congress to discuss this very important issue and now yield 

to Mr. Conyers for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

The Committee meets today for a legislative hearing on H.R. 3295, the ‘‘Help 

America Vote Act of 2001.’’ H.R. 3295 was introduced on November 14, 2001 by the 

Chairman and the Ranking Member of the House Administration Committee, Congressmen Ney and Hoyer. A markup was held by the House Administration Committee on November 15 and the bill was reported favorably by a unanimous vote. 

Several provisions of H.R. 3295 invoke the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine these provisions and discuss some of the 

alleged voting process problems in the United States and determine if H.R. 3295 

would properly solve these problems. 

3

The basic principle of ‘‘one person, one vote’’ is one that crosses party lines, for 

voting is not a partisan issue, it is an American issue. All Americans want to know 

that the vote they cast, for the candidate of their choice, will be counted fairly and 

accurately. 

But, it is also the concern of a great many Americans that widespread voter fraud 

is discounting or ‘‘cancelling’’ out the value of their legally cast vote. Part of this 

problem can be attributed to the significant inaccuracies which exist with the voting 

roles. For instance, in Michigan, they discovered one million duplicate registrations 

when they audited their voter rolls. It has been reported that Philadelphia has the 

same number of registered voters as there are voting age people living in the city. 

And in Los Angeles County, it is estimated that 25% of all voter registrations have 

problems or incorrect information. 

Throughout this debate on election reform, there has been a call for provisional 

balloting to prevent disenfranchisement of eligible voters. However, the real problem 

is not provisional balloting, but rather inaccurate voter registration lists. Election 

officials need to clean up their registration rolls so they are accurate. Section 502 

of H.R. 3295 goes right to the heart of this issue by establishing that one of the 

mandatory minimum standards with which states must comply is the implementation of statewide voter registration lists which are connected with every local jurisdiction. If this bill is enacted, I believe we must make sure that these systems are 

fully auditable so that states can and will be held accountable if they fail to adhere 

to this statutory provision. 

I believe we must seriously examine allegations of voter fraud in this country. If 

evidence exists of vote fraud, then perpetrators must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. For vote fraud is not a victimless crime. It is crime which erodes 

the integrity of the very system our forefathers put into place to insure the freedoms 

we hold dear. 

It is time we get serious about insuring the integrity of the election process, and 

protecting the public trust in the election system of the United States. The end result of greater integrity will be greater participation in the electoral process. 

The individual states across the country have been hard at work in 2001 reviewing their election laws with a fine-tooth comb, identifying the weak spots and potential causes for concern, and most importantly . . . developing solutions. Reforming 

election laws is a complex job but it is one that is best left to the states. This hard 

work will certainly continue into 2002, but look at what has happened so far at the 

state level: more that 1,770 bills have been introduced, 249 have been passed and 

487 bills are still pending. For example, Florida has enacted sweeping reforms 

which address issues such as voting machine and ballot design; establishing an improved centralized voter database; voter education and poll worker recruitment; and 

new and, presumably constitutional, recount procedures. 

The states are proving that they are best able to determine what solutions will 

work effectively for their unique needs and the primary focus of election reform 

should be left to them. 

Ensuring fair and honest elections by eliminating voter fraud, improving voting 

techniques, eliminating disenfranchisement, and respecting the constitutional role of 

the states and localities should not be partisan issues. Our fundamental system of 

elections is sound, but just as with all things, there is always room for improvement 

that can and should occur. 

Finally, I want to personally thank all of the witnesses for their willingness to 

appear before this Committee on such short notice. I very much appreciate your 

flexibility and for taking the time to come before Congress to discuss this very important issue.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Members of the Committee, I begin by expressing my gratitude 

to the Chairman of our Committee for acquiring sequential referral 

so that this matter would end up in the appropriate Committee for 

its additional disposition. This is a very important matter. As we 

know, election reform has been a single focus for me for a number 

of years, and I think it still remains one of the most important civil 

rights issues that we in the Congress have to deal with. 

Now, it is true that the electoral problems of today and of the 

last number of years lacks the stark drama of the civil rights era 

where there were police dogs, and marches, and violence, and murders, and church bombings, and court processes that were less than 

4

adequate, and literacy tests and poll taxes. We still have some of 

the same aura lingering over the electoral process today. African 

Americans across the country and in one State in particular were 

sometimes as much as 10 times more likely to have their ballot discarded. The California Tech and MIT studies showed that while 

over 100 million Americans went to the polls on Election Day last 

year, as many as 6 million might just have well spent the day fishing because their ballots were discarded by faulty machines, improper process, violation of the law, sloppiness. 

Because this Committee and not the other Committee, the House 

Administration Committee, as much as I like it, has jurisdiction 

over constitutional questions and matters relating to civil rights, it 

is obviously logical that this measure has to end up in room 2141, 

and so along with a number of Members in the House and the 

number of Members in the Senate, I have introduced the bill, the 

‘‘Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act,’’ H.R. 1170, which has 218 

cosponsors in the House and the Senate, more than any other bill 

in the Congress. And when the bill was introduced, it got the conventional treatment by the wise men of the media. My friend David 

Broder, Washington Post, echoed the conventional wisdom that a 

bill that imposed, ‘‘minimum standards,’’ on the States could not 

pass the House of Representatives. Months later there are two bills 

that have, ‘‘minimum standards,’’ that are now projected to affect 

all of the several States, and they are called the Ney-Hoyer bill and 

the Conyers-Dodd bill. 

Now, those same wise men have raised a question. It goes like 

this: Can’t we get along? I mean, why should these two bills find 

themselves at different ends of the spectrum when they should be 

working together? Why don’t we—since most assume that the bill 

my name is on is a more perfect bill, why don’t we just take a half 

a loaf instead of possibly none? 

Well, I want my colleagues to arrive at these conclusions, and 

some perhaps have. The measure that we are listening to today 

turns out not to be a half loaf. It actually takes away some of the 

crumbs that we have been able to accumulate over the last few decades because the bill weakens current law. It weakens Motor Voter 

law. It weakens Americans with disabilities law. 

And check the civil rights groups and their leaders, the disability 

rights and their leaders, check organized labor and their leaders, 

check the League of Women Voters and other civic groups, and 

check it yourself. The measure that we are hearing today leaves 

language minorities and individuals with disabilities at the back of 

the bus. There are no standards that would ensure access for language minorities, and the standards for individuals with disabilities are loophole-ridden, ridden with loopholes. 

The standards in the bill, I regret to say this, are literally unenforceable because the bill allows States to grade themselves on 

whether they have met the standards. I have got a few secretaries 

of state in the United States that I wouldn’t want to ask them 

what they thought of their performance. 

There is no requirement in the bill, regrettably, that every voter 

has the right to vote on a machine that warns the voter of mistakes 

before they leave the polls, the polling place. Nothing would stop 

a State from getting brand new machines for precincts in one area 

5

and continuing what appears to be a tradition of reserving the oldest, most likely to be defective machines for the low-income neighborhoods, minority neighborhoods, poor neighborhoods, Latino 

neighborhoods. The bill does not fix the problems that were revealed across the Nation nor in Florida, but indeed it codifies it, 

and this bill does not enhance existing civil rights laws. It weakens 

them. This bill does not do away with punch cards and dimpled 

chads in the poor and minority neighborhoods. 

But there is hope. If you read the daily Hill papers, the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut Chris Dodd, from Missouri 

Chris Bond, and others from Kentucky are very close in agreement 

on a measure that I’m sure that we can support so it’s my sincerest 

hope that the Members of the Committee can rally around our 

Chairman to protect our historically important jurisdiction over 

voter rights and see what we can do on our side of the dome before 

we leave the halls for this year, and I thank the Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members’

opening statements will appear in the record at this point. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Today our witnesses are Cleta 

Mitchell, a partner at Foley & Lardner, Attorneys at Law; John R. 

Lott, Jr., resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; 

Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director, National Commission on 

Federal Election Reform; Lloyd J. Leonard, legislative director of 

the League of Women Voters of the United States; and James 

Dickson, vice president of American Association of People With Disabilities. 

All of your written statements will be included in the record as 

a part of your testimony without objection, and I would now like 

to ask the witnesses to stand and raise their right hand and take 

the oath. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Let the record indicate that each of 

the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

I would like to ask each of them to confine their verbal remarks 

to approximately 5 minutes. There is a timer in front of you, and 

the red light means your 5 minutes are up. 

Ladies first. Ms. Mitchell, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF CLETA MITCHELL, ATTORNEY, FOLEY & 

LARDNER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

Ms. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Representative Conyers, Members of the Committee, it’s an 

honor for me to be appearing before you today, and I want to thank 

you—I want to thank you for holding this hearing. 

Now can you hear me? Okay. Thank you, sir. 

My background is that I am an attorney. I spent my entire career in either law or politics or the combination thereof. I served 

as a member of the State legislature in Oklahoma for a number 

years, as well as serving as Chairman of the Appropriations and 

Budget Committee of the State House. I know from firsthand experience the difficulties of getting elected officials to decide to approVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
6

priate money for election machines and equipment when there are 

so many other unmet needs. 

There are four areas that I’d like to confine my remarks to today. 

The first point is that election administration is historically and 

constitutionally a State and local province primarily. There is a 

role for Federal Government and a role for Congress, but I would 

urge the Committee and the Congress to be very careful about 

blurring the lines and stepping too far into an area which has historically been in this country a State and local responsibility. 

Secondly, I would submit that it is not necessary to create an entirely new Federal agency. The Office of Election Administration at 

the Federal Election Commission has done quite a lot with quite 

a little for a number of years, and I’d be happy to respond to questions about some of the things that they are doing and have done. 

But I would just point out that tomorrow the Federal Election 

Commission will be reviewing and putting for comment for a second time new proposed national voting standards, and I would submit that it would be important for this Committee and perhaps the 

entire Congress to pay attention to what some of the things are 

that this agency is already doing and not step out and create a 

whole new set of Federal bureaucrats and advisory people and administrative costs that are really unnecessary. 

But the third and, I think, the most important point I would like 

to make is that I believe that the gravest danger to our democratic 

process, our freedom—our free elections, is the notion of election 

fraud and failure to take the proper steps to guard against any 

kind of concerted effort that would allow ineligible voters to vote, 

because it dilutes the votes of those people who are, in fact, legally 

eligible to vote, and I have attached to my testimony and incorporated as part of the testimony, a report from the State of Missouri on this very subject, and I will come back to that in just a 

moment. 

The final point that I want to address today is that of the overseas and military voting rights—particularly of our armed services 

personnel. I think there is much more that could be done in the 

proposed legislation. I know that H.R. 3295 has taken steps to address the issues of ensuring the right to vote of all of our military 

personnel, but I would urge that there are a couple of other things 

that could be done. So those are the four points I would want to 

make. 

I want to turn quickly to the particular case of Missouri. Earlier 

this year the Secretary of State for the State of Missouri, Matt 

Blunt, chaired a bipartisan commission which reviewed some of the 

problems that went on in St. Louis County and St. Louis city on 

November 7, 2000. I happened to be taking my tour of duty on the 

phones at the Republican National Committee late in the day. They 

asked election law attorneys to come in and answer phones and 

questions. Late in the day I received a call that essentially said, 

they’re taking us to court to keep the polls open another several 

hours, and, in fact, when the bipartisan commission from the State 

of Missouri looked at what had happened, it’s clear that some law 

officials need to take steps to investigate what happened on that 

day. 

7

It is clear that over 1,000 people who were not legally eligible to 

vote cast ballots. It is documented that illegal ballots were cast by 

convicted felons. There are people who voted at least twice, others 

who may have voted more than twice, votes cast by people who are 

deceased, which is hard to do. People who were registered at vacant lots cast votes. There were votes cast by people who—where 

there were multiple names registered at the same address, and 

those addresses are single-family homes, they are not group homes, 

they are not hospitals, et cetera. 

The primary lawsuit that was brought to force the polls to be 

kept open longer than the statute provided was brought by a person, a lead plaintiff who was deceased. When the attorney was 

asked about that in open court, he said, ‘‘Oh, well, it’s a different 

person of the same name, but a different middle initial.’’ And, in 

fact, when they checked, they found out that that person had, in 

fact, voted. 

The point is that there is evidence of voter fraud that no one is 

paying attention to, and I use this as an example because I think 

that it is crucial that any effort to reform our election process cannot be successful if we don’t take proper steps to ensure that the 

penalties are severe and that those who engage in this kind of activity will be punished. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Ms. Mitchell. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mitchell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CLETA MITCHELL

Mr. Chairman, Rep. Conyers, Members of the Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and thank you for holding 

this hearing to discuss the important issue of election administration and procedures in America. 

My background is that I am an attorney, specializing in campaign finance and 

election law, and in that capacity was very involved in studying and commenting 

upon the post-election activities in Florida last year. 

I am also someone who has run for office, been elected, served as a member of 

a state legislature and as Chairman of the Appropriations and Budget Committee. 

I know first hand the challenges of being asked to appropriate funds for election machinery when so many other needs exist. 

There are four areas on which I would focus my testimony today.

1. Election Administration is a state and local responsibility, not a federal one 

and Congress should not do anything that replaces that historic responsibility with a federally mandated system.

2. There is no need—NONE—for a new federal agency in this arena. The Federal Election Commission does an excellent job insofar as the limited role of 

the federal government in election administration and any expanded funding 

should be appropriated to the FEC for a limited increase in the federal role.

3. The gravest danger to the election process is NOT faulty equipment that 

fails to protect voters from making mistakes—the real threat to the American election process is the potential for deliberate fraud and systems that 

fail to protect the integrity of the voting process. There is evidence that such 

fraud was committed in the 2000 election under the guise of ‘inclusion’. But 

including votes from ineligible or non-existent voters is not benign—it is a 

serious cause for concern and undermines the very system of democracy our 

nation is defending even as we sit here today.

4. And, finally, in that regard, it is vital that those men and women and their 

families who are stationed and serve around the world defending America, 

serving our nation in various ways overseas, or are American citizens, eligible voters, who live and work in other countries for whatever reason—we can 

never allow another election cycle to go by in which the Americans overseas, 

particularly those in the armed forces, are deprived of their right to vote. 

8

I. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IS A STATE AND LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY. 

The morning after the November 7, 2000 General Election, I received a phone call 

from a Washington Post reporter asking for some guidance on ‘basic principles of 

election law’ for a background piece he was working on as a result of the Florida 

situation. What I said then is what I will tell you here today: We do not have national elections in this country. That is how the system was envisioned in the Constitution and that is the fundamental principle on which the decisions of Congress 

should be made on this subject. 

There should not be a stampede to create a one-size fits all system of election administration or a federal mandate for election day operations. 

The role of the federal government—and Congress—should be circumscribed and 

well-defined. Funding the acquisition of new machinery to assist states and localities which have not been able to afford new or updated or modern equipment is 

something Congress can and should do. 

But Congress should resist the temptation to attach strings on such funds, seeking to impose its judgment on that of the states and local jurisdictions in this area. 

As I will discuss below, there is a good case to be made that some of the things 

Congress has done in the past decade have actually made election administration 

much more difficult than it needs to be, than it used to be or than it should be. 

This is an area that is not the primary responsibility of Congress. In fact, the only 

reason the framers included the provision in the Constitution which allows Congress 

to alter the time, place and manner of selecting members of Congress was the concern at the Constitutional Convention that some states might not hold elections for 

members of Congress at all—and there needed to be some mechanism for Congress 

to establish the election machinery for members of Congress if the states did not 

choose to do so. 

II. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A NEW FEDERAL AGENCY

IN THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATION ARENA. 

My practice is largely in and before the Federal Election Commission and various 

similar state agencies. 

While the Federal Election Commission can be justly criticized for many shortcomings, flawed procedures, and other faults—the Office of Election Administration 

has done a very good job over the years with limited resources, low visibility and 

virtually no mandate. 

The OEA has been doing—quietly—exactly what the various ‘reform’ bills moving 

through Congress now say they want: reviewing election machinery and mechanisms, developing national standards for not only the voting equipment but tabulation systems, working with and training local and state officials and keeping track 

of / publishing data on all of these issues as well as voter registration and voting 

statistical data. 

To guard against an excessive federal role in this state and local province of law, 

I would urge the Committee—and the Congress—not to create a new federal agency 

but to work with the Office of Election Administration in terms of providing greater 

funding and specific guidelines as to a more visible role for the office. There is no 

responsibility identified in any of the pending bills that could not be performed by 

the Office of Election Administration. 

III. NO ELECTION REFORM CAN BE COMPLETE WITHOUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO

COMBAT ELECTION AND VOTE FRAUD

There are some who are pressuring Congress to cast the federal government in 

the role of protecting voters from anything that might keep them from voting, including themselves. 

Prior to November 7, 2000, the Florida law provided that machine error was the 

only grounds for overturning an election; after November 7, 2000 the argument 

turned to one that seems to say ’voter error’ is grounds for overturning an election. 

My personal favorite in this regard is James Carville’s oft-repeated statement this 

past year that ‘‘Al Gore won the intended vote....’’ Anyone who has ever been involved in many political campaigns and any close elections or recounts—where you 

get to look at the lists to see who actually voted—only to discover the countless donors, volunteers and close friends of the candidate who didn’t vote—I’ve got some 

elections over the past thirty years where I’d like to go back and count the intended

votes. 

The threat to our system of open, free and fair elections is not that voters make 

mistakes, spoil their ballots, don’t cast votes for candidates for every office or vote 

for more than one candidate for the same office. Frankly, voters have a constituVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
9

tional right to screw up their ballots and it deeply concerns me as a citizen that 

Congress would even consider legislation to correct or prevent these types of voter 

mistakes. 

What Congress should be concerned about is organized efforts by political 

operatives to dilute the duly cast votes of registered voters by allowing fraudulently 

cast ballots by individuals who are not legally eligible to vote. 

This is not hypothetical. Attached as an addendum to my testimony and made 

part of the official record of this proceeding is the July 24, 2001 Report of the Secretary of the State of Missouri, The Honorable Matt Blunt entitled, ‘‘Mandate for 

Reform: Election Turmoil in St. Louis, November 7, 2000.’’

The state of Missouri established a bi-partisan commission to review the events 

of November 7, 2000 in which 1,233 persons who were not legally qualified to vote 

in the State of Missouri nonetheless cast ballots upon obtaining court orders, falsely 

claiming to be eligible. The evidence demonstrates that a concerted effort was 

planned in advance of election day to not only illegally extend the hours for voting 

beyond the statutory period but also to obtain court orders authorizing votes to be 

cast by persons not legally eligible to vote. 

The report of this Commission and Secretary Blunt deserves national attention. 

Clearly, this was a plan to violate the integrity of the voting system in the state 

of Missouri—which succeeded. 

Key findings include votes cast by:

• convicted felons

• people who voted at least twice, possibly more than twice

• deceased persons

• persons registered at vacant lots

• multiple names registered at the same address—which addresses are not 

multiple family dwellings, nursing homes, dorms, hospitals or group homes

The primary lawsuit brought by the Gore-Lieberman campaign to keep the polls 

open beyond the statutory poll closing time had a lead plaintiff who was deceased. 

When the fact was brought to the attention of the attorney, he responded that it 

was another person by the same name who had not been allowed to vote—a review 

of the records revealed that the individual had voted earlier in the day without difficulty. 

If Congress is interested in doing ‘something’ about election reform, enact severe 

penalties for vote fraud schemes—and publicize the penalties. Take steps to make 

certain that people know that vote fraud is a severe blow to our nation and such 

actions undermine the freedom of all Americans—and that it will not be tolerated. 

How can Congress address this in the election administration area? One important step which must be done is to assist the states in creating a statewide voter 

registration database which is accessible to all polling places on election day. And 

to be certain that the database is current and accurate, Congress must revise the 

provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 which prevents states from 

properly purging its voter registration rolls. 

Congress can assist the states by providing money for electronic accessibility to 

the database on election day as well as providing that the database be publicly accessible and capable of audit by the public. 

To balance the interests of protecting privacy of the voters while establishing a 

voter tracking system capable of ongoing updating, every voter should have his or 

her own voter identification number. This number should be one that the voter can 

remember—the Office of Election Administration has suggested the last four digits 

of the social security number and the birthdate, but whatever the number is, it 

should be issued only upon or after presentation of a photo identification. 

The database MUST be capable of being purged on a regular basis: People who 

fail to vote in the number of elections determined by state law should be purged 

from the database; states should make use of various agency databases to comply 

with purging requirements of state law such as felony convictions, mental incompetence, etc. 

Likewise, persons whose probation or parole is terminated should be advised and 

encouraged to re-register to vote as allowed by law. 

Nothing is more important to the protection of the election system in America 

than one which is operated honestly. 

There should be a complete investigation by the proper law enforcement authorities to bring to justice those who committed the voter fraud in the state of Missouri 

in 2000 as a deterrent to its recurrence in 2002 and beyond. 

10

And there must be a national commitment by all in positions of authority that 

such plans and activities have no place in American political campaigns of the 21st 

century. 

That is something Congress can and should do. 

IV. MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTING RIGHTS MUST BE PROTECTED

IN FUTURE ELECTIONS. 

Congress has enacted the Overseas and Military Voting Assistance Act. It is routinely violated without consequence. 

The enforcement of that law rests with the federal government, in the Department of Justice. 

Who knows how many American servicemen and women were denied the right to 

vote in the 2000 general election? 

I would submit that the proposals for correcting the problem still fall short. Because of the difficulty of mail delivery to and from the armed services personnel in 

remote parts of the world, Congress should appropriate funds for the Department 

of Defense and Department of State to establish electronic voter registration and absentee ballot processing through military and federal installations directly to the 

chief state elections office of every state. Providing a system for receiving the registrations on-line, the absentee ballot requests on-line will eliminate much of the 

delay experienced by overseas and military voters. Congress should require the Department of Defense to develop and implement a system of expedited absentee ballot 

delivery and return through military channels before the next presidential election, 

in order that every person in our armed forces who desires to vote will have instant 

access to that system—and it should be one which insures that all armed services 

personnel receive their ballots on a timely basis and have a system for getting them 

returned in time to be counted. 

There can be no higher priority than making certain that the men and women 

who are defending all of us have their voting rights not only protected in theory—

but that systems are put in place by the Congress and the Department of Defense 

to make that theory reality by 2004. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. Congress has a role to play 

in the election reform debate. But please, be sure the one you choose is the right 

one, not the wrong one.

11


Blunt1A.eps
12

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Dickson. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES C. DICKSON, VICE PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 

Mr. DICKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. It’s an honor to be before you. 


Blunt1B.eps
13

A couple of years ago my wife and I made history when we became the first married couple to differ on who should be elected. 

I am blind, and we were in the voting booth, and Renee was helping me with my ballot. She turned to me and she said, ‘‘Jim, I 

know you love me. Now I know you trust me because you think I’m 

marking this ballot for that idiot.’’ I hasten to add that we—I did 

not have the opportunity to vote for any of the distinguished Members of this Committee. 

I am blind, and I have never cast a secret ballot. There are 15 

million people like me who every time we vote, we wonder was our 

ballot marked correctly. The Carter-Ford Commission, President 

Carter and President Ford, said in the Washington Post last week 

that this piece of legislation is a Christmas present to the Nation. 

It gives me a great deal of pain to have to say for Americans with 

disabilities, this is not only an empty box, it has coal in it for us. 

We—17 years ago the Congress passed legislation essentially 

saying, as this does, it’s up to the States to make polling places accessible. The States and local counties have not done that. They 

have used excuse after excuse. A GAO report reported that last November over 80 percent of the Nation’s polling places were inaccessible to voters in wheelchairs. This piece of legislation would perpetuate that irresponsible behavior of local and State election officials. 

We have national standards in this Nation for everything that 

matters, for our money, for our time. We have national standards 

that define what an accessible moral will be. This legislation says 

we will have 50 different standards to decide what accessible voting will be. That is just not acceptable, and this is why every national disability organization that has taken a position on election 

reform is opposing this legislation. 

I want to speak for a minute about the whole notion of minimum 

standards and speak as an American and as a person who has 

worked in elections for years. The morning prayer of election officials on the day of election is, Dear God, please let it not be close. 

That is a terrible admission. That is an admission that we have a 

voting system that cannot accurately count the votes of Americans. 

We can and must do better, and the only way to do that is to 

have minimum national standards. Fraud in elections ought to be 

punished. Voting should also be easy. A centralized statewide list 

will prevent voter fraud. The provisional ballot will prevent voter 

fraud. Accessible voting with national standards will make it possible for the 14 million Americans with disabilities who did not 

vote in the last election to go to the polls and vote in secrecy and 

in pride. 

The broader civil rights community has submitted a short list of 

proposed amendments that would fix the disability problems and 

the concerns of the civil rights community, and I would hope that 

they could be addressed. Thank you very much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dickson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES C. DICKSON

I am Jim Dickson. I am Vice President for Governmental Affairs at the American 

Association of People with Disabilities. I have worked on elections for over thirty 

years, ten as a volunteer and twenty as a professional. Currently, I am Chair of the 

Disability Vote Project, a coalition of 36 national disability-related organizations 

14

that worked for over a year to increase the political participation of Americans with 

disabilities. 

The American Association of People with Disabilities is a national membership organization dedicated to promoting the economic and political empowerment of all 

people with disabilities; educating business and the general public about disability 

issues; and providing membership benefits, such as financial services and product 

discounts. AAPD was founded in 1995 by a group of cross-disability leaders to help 

unite the diverse community of people with disabilities—including their family, 

friends and supporters—and be a national voice for change in implementing the 

goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act—equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. 

Twenty-five national disability organizations are opposed to the passage of HR 

3295, The Help America Vote Act (unless you happen to be an American with a disability), as currently drafted. Attached is a letter from the Consortium of Citizens 

with Disabilities Rights Task Force explaining our opposition to this legislation. 

We already have, in federal law, national standards defining access to everything 

from shopping malls to telephones to buildings. HR 3295 would have fifty different 

standards defining access to voting systems and polling places. Such a confusion of 

standards would send the wrong message to industry. The manufacturers of voting 

systems need one clear set of standard to design and build to. HR 3295 defines people with disabilities as those ‘‘having physical disabilities.’’ This would allow state 

and local election officials to claim that blindness is a sensory disability, as many 

already do, thereby being exempt from the legislation. Furthermore, the bill fails to 

protect people with mental disabilities. The American with Disabilities Act and 

other federal legislation deal with people with disabilities as a group. Defining disability purely as physical would be a major set back in our nation’s public policy. 

In addition, this bill ties the right of persons with disabilities to vote to the ADA 

and we believe voting should have a higher standard. The ADA allows for local communities to offer ‘‘equivalent facilitation.’’ This is a loophole through which a blind 

man like me could drive a truck. For seventeen years elections boards have told us 

to vote by absentee ballot or at the curbside. Americans with disabilities should 

have the same right to privacy and to vote at the polling place with their fellow 

citizens. There are federal courts in Michigan and Texas which have ruled that the 

ADA does not offer blind individuals a right to a secret ballot. As a nation we cannot 

allow a secret ballot for some but not for all. Again, we have national standards for 

time, for money, to measure distance and for hundreds of other federal programs. 

The notion that we should have local standards for voting diminishes the importance of voting and will allow continued discrimination against thirty-five million 

voters with disabilities. 

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (‘‘The Access 

Board’’) has been charged with defining access for the Rehabilitation Act, The Telecommunication Act and the American with Disabilities Act. We believe that the Access Board should be charged with defining access for voters with disabilities. 

The nation’s entire disability community wishes to thank Representative Conyers 

for holding these hearings and for pointing out the need for mandatory national 

standards. 

Over 14 million voters with disabilities cast their vote in the 2000 presidential 

election. This was an increase of more than 2.7 million from the 1996 election. Unfortunately, more than 21 million voting aged people with disabilities did not cast 

a ballot. A recent Harris Poll survey commissioned by the National Organization on 

Disability found that about 41% of people with disabilities voted in the November 

election. This is up from 31% in the 1996 election, but still far below the national 

average of about 52% of the public voting. The low voter turnout of people with disabilities is due to a number of causes, but a major piece of the problem is inaccessible polling places and voting systems. 

The majority of Americans take for granted their right to privacy at the polling 

place. According to the U.S. Census more than 10 million voters with disabilities 

are unable to able to exercise this right because their visual impairment makes it 

difficult or impossible to see print. These voters cannot cast a secret ballot; they 

must rely on the courtesy of family members, friends or even sometimes strangers 

to cast their vote for them. This is completely unacceptable. I am blind. Everyday 

I walk down the street, catch a bus to go to work, get off at my stop, enter my building, board the elevator, push the button for my floor, enter my office, turn on my 

computer, download my emails, and begin my day at work. I do this every day, by 

myself. Millions of people just like me do these very same things, independently. 

But when I go to my polling place I have to bring my wife or my ten year-old daughter with me. Someone else has to cast my vote for me. Once, after my wife cast my 

ballot, she said to me, ‘‘Jim I knew that you loved me, but now I know you trust 

15

me because you think I marked your ballot for that idiot.’’ The point of that anecdote is there is always some level of uncertainty when another person marks your 

ballot for you. Twice in Massachusetts and once in California, while relying on a 

poll worker to cast my ballot, the poll worker attempted to change my mind about 

whom I was voting for. I held firm, but to this day I really do not know if they cast 

my ballot according to my wishes. Last year’s election in Florida caused many 

Americans to wonder, for the first time, if their vote was tallied for the person they 

intended to vote for. I, and millions of other American citizens, ask ourselves this 

question every time we vote. According to a Harris Interactive survey conducted in 

December 2000, 95% of Americans with disabilities, compared with 86% of the general public, believe that we have a serious problem with how votes are cast and 

counted. 

We need accurate, effective, and accessible voting systems. These systems already 

exist. Money cannot be a reason to purchase inaccessible systems and continue the 

disenfranchisement of the nation’s largest minority. Texas has already led the way. 

In 1999, the state legislature passed and Governor Bush signed into law, legislation 

that requires any new voting system purchased to be fully accessible to voters with 

disabilities and the system must offer a secret and independent ballot to voters who 

are blind or who have low vision. (The Texas legislation and regulations are available on the web at http://info.sos.state.tx.us) This means computer systems with a 

simple adaptation that offers speech synthesis so that I, and others like me, can 

hear the ballot. Another simple adaptation is the use of special switches that allow 

voters who have arm or hand disabilities and are unable to hold a pen to cast their 

ballot privately. (See attached list of manufacturers who produce accessible voting 

systems) 

Eighty-four percent of surveyed polling places across the country were found to 

have a barrier that prevents a person with a disability from voting, and at sixtyseven percent of those same polling places, the barriers completely prevent voters 

who use wheelchairs from even entering, according to last year’s General Accounting 

Office (GAO) report. 

This means voters who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices across the country are unable to enter their polling places. 

The disability community’s patience, as we wait for polling places and voting systems to be made accessible, is running thin. There is a growing body of litigation. 

As the Congress deliberates communities all around the country are rushing to buy 

inaccessible voting systems. To date, Jacksonville, Florida, Washington, DC, and 

Philadelphia, PA have all decided to buy inaccessible voting systems ignoring the 

right of voters with disabilities to cast a secret ballot. All across the nation counties 

and cities are knowingly denying disabled voters the right to a secret ballot. 

For years, election officials have been encourage, by law, but not mandated to, 

make polling places accessible and they have failed to do so. Seventeen years ago 

Congress passed legislation encouraging, but not mandating accessible polling 

places and yet today roughly one-third of all polling places are inaccessible. Only 

a handful of states make voter information available in accessible formats. Eleven 

years ago the Federal Election Commission issued voluntary voting system standards addressing recounts, ballot security and other matters. To date thirteen states 

have failed to adopt these standards and five states adopted these standards only 

after last November’s election. A voluntary accessibility standard will absolutely ensure that thousands of polling places remain inaccessible and that more than eleven 

million disenfranchised voters will not be able to cast a secret and verifiable ballot. 

In order to allow citizens with disabilities to exercise their franchise with the 

same freedom and independence as the rest of the population, the American Association of People with disabilities submits the following recommendations. 

All polling places must be physically accessible to voters who use wheelchairs and/

or have mobility impairments. Legislation must require a collaborative process between the disability community and election officials to inspect every polling place 

and existing polling places should be made accessible or the polling place should be 

moved to an accessible location by the deadline of November 2004. 

In every polling place there should be at least one polling device that would offer 

a secret ballot to all voters with disabilities. Any federal funds used for the purchase 

of new polling equipment must only be used to purchase accessible voting systems 

that offer a secret ballot, and the polling site the new equipment is placed in must 

also be 100% physically accessible. 

The election community should conduct a coordinated outreach effort through the 

disability community in order to recruit people with disabilities to be poll workers. 

The nation must recruit and train competent poll workers. Most election officials report that it is difficult to find people who can volunteer the one or two days a year 

necessary to be election workers. Seventy percent of people with disabilities are unVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
16

employed. It is difficult for most Americans to volunteer a 15 hour work day, if the 

law mandates 6 or 8 hour shifts, the number of people willing to serve as poll workers will grow significantly. 

Poll workers must be educated about disability etiquette in their training sessions. They must learn how to appropriately serve voters with disabilities. 

Federal law currently allows the voter to select who will assist her or him in the 

polls; tens of thousands of voters with disabilities report that this right has been 

denied—the poll workers insist that they alone should enter the booth along with 

the disabled voter. 

Any materials prepared by election officials to educate the voter on the candidates 

or voting procedures must be made available in alternative formats, so that people 

with visual impairments and other disabilities can listen to or read this information. 

Compliance with these points needs to be enforceable by an individual or organization’s right to sue and if the individual or organization prevails, they should be 

entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. 

In addition to these disability specific recommendations, the American Association 

of People with Disabilities also believes that any effective election reform legislation 

should mandate the following non-disability specific requirements. 

A provisional ballot must be offered to any person who appears at a polling place 

and is told that she or he is not eligible to vote. The voter should then be promptly 

notified, in writing, whether or not the ballot was counted and if not, why. 

Language minority access must be available; specifically including written ballots 

and bi-lingual poll workers (the audio ballot for the blind can be easily and inexpensively translated into a foreign language allowing those citizens who may never 

have been taught to read in their native country to cast a ballot with privacy and 

without embarrassment). 

The Voters Bill of Rights must be prominently displayed in all polling places and 

be widely distributed before an election. 

On behalf of the Disability Vote Project and the American Association of People 

with Disabilities, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to testify before the House 

Judiciary Committee.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Mr. Dickson, and let me 

invite on behalf of all of the Members of this Committee to move 

into any of our districts, but it might be advisable for you to wait 

until the redistricting process is finished lest you end up in the district of someone you did not plan on ending up in. 

Dr. Lott. 

Mr. DICKSON. Mr. Chairman, I forgot to mention that two of the 

very accessible machines are here today. There are eight manufacturers who have machines that would allow people like myself to 

cast a secret ballot, and I would encourage the Members of the 

Committee and those in the audience to look at these exciting devices. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Good. Thank you. 

Dr. Lott. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN R. LOTT, JR., RESIDENT SCHOLAR, 

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FEDERAL ELECTION REFORM 

Mr. LOTT. Thanks very much, Chairman Sensenbrenner and 

Congressman Conyers. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Could you please turn the mike on? 

I don’t think it’s on. 

Mr. LOTT. Thank you very much, Chairman Sensenbrenner and 

Congressman Conyers, for allowing me to speak here today. It’s an 

honor. 

What explains spoiled ballots where ballots show either no vote 

for candidate or votes for multiple candidates in the same race? To 

what extent were different groups, the poor, minorities, discriminated against? The Ney-Hoyer and Conyers bill both aim to reduce 

17

the number of spoiled ballots. They differ in terms of the flexibility 

that they give States. They also differ in terms of the standards 

that they set and the motivations that they give for observed differences in spoiled ballot rates. 

Ideally, any analysis of spoiled ballots would go and look to see 

what voters had spoiled ballots. Unfortunately that data is not directly available. What’s been done by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and others has essentially been to go and look across precincts or across counties and to see whether or not those counties 

or precincts that have more of a specific group of voters tended to 

have relatively higher spoiled ballot rates. Other factors such as 

the type of voting machine used are dealt with simultaneously and 

are also explained for whether they are correlated with the higher 

spoiled ballot rate. People have then interpreted evidence linking 

these percentages as some examples of discrimination or other 

problems that are going on. 

There are two general types of data that have been looked at: either looking across counties or precincts in a particular year, or 

looking at what we call panel data, which is looking across counties 

in Florida over many years or across the entire country. I’m going 

to try to concentrate primarily on Florida because of—because of 

the obvious emphasis that’s received. 

There is some recent data that’s been put together by USA 

Today. It’s by far the most extensive data that’s available, and they 

collected precinct-level data for the entire State. The Secretary of 

State’s office for each precinct can tell you because when people 

register, you register not only your party affiliation, but also by 

race; the number of not only blacks, but also by black Republicans 

or black Democrats that voted in each precinct. They also did an 

extensive job using U.S. Census data as well as information from 

individual county election supervisors to get extremely detailed 

data on educational attainment, income, age, gender, number of 

voters who were new in a State, absentee voting, voting machine 

type, ballot type, information on things like where the votes were 

counted. There’s many other types of information there, on political 

affiliation, for example, and race of county election supervisors. 

This is much more extensive than the Cal Tech/MIT study that was 

noted earlier, for example, which doesn’t even have information on 

the type of ballot design that’s used in different counties. 

As a group, voting machines, ballot design, and where votes are 

counted are important, though I think the emphasis on it’s probably been greatly exaggerated. If you look at the data for Florida, 

about 11 percent of the differences in spoiled ballots across precincts can be explained by the combination of those three factors. 

For a breakdown of that 11 percent, about half of it or about 5.5 

percent is due to ballot design, about a third or about 3.6 percent 

is due to machine type, and only about a 6th is due to where the 

votes are counted. 

I could go through the different type of results here. Basically 

central processing has a higher rate or is more likely to result in 

spoiled ballots, things like the infamous butterfly or 8–2 ballots 

also result in higher spoiled ballot rates. Even among voting machines, though, the results are not particularly simple. You have 

different types of punch card machines, and it was one particular 

18

type of punch card machine, punch cards without chads or the 

Votomatic machines, which were consistently associated with much 

higher spoiled ballot rates. 

There are lots of other different factors that seem to explain variations in—in spoiled ballots. Things like education and income are 

important, though they don’t meet the simple type of explanations 

that one would think. One would normally think that people with 

relatively lower educational attainments, lower incomes would, in 

fact, have higher spoiled ballot rates, but when you look at the 

data, it’s—nothing like that occurs. For education it’s actually more 

of an M shape, where people with the very lowest educational attainments, less than 9th grade of education, had a very low spoiled 

ballot rate. People with some high school had a very high spoiled 

ballot rate. It was very low for people who had completed high 

school, high again for people who had some college, and then very 

low again for college. 

For education—for income it was also something that didn’t exactly fit the type of story you would have with people making mistakes. The group with by far the spoiled—high spoiled ballot rate were people who lived in households with over $500,000 a year income. Their spoiled ballot rate was 4.6 times higher than for the 

next wealthiest group, the next highest group, which was people 

from $150,000 to $250,000 in income, and, in fact, was 15 times 

higher than for people who were in the lowest income group making less than $15,000 a year. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Dr. Lott, do you think you could 

wrap up in about 10 seconds? 

Mr. LOTT. Sure. 

There are lots of numbers here. I think when you break it down, 

things like race are not simple homogeneous factors. It’s basically 

going to be—basically is Republicans which are much more likely 

to be affected by spoiled ballots, and I think the bottom line when 

you look at this, I think it’s very hard to go and explain this on 

result of errors. I think it’s much more likely due to differences in 

taste where certain voters felt conflicted in terms of who they 

wanted to vote for. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Dr. Lott. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lott follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN R. LOTT, JR. 

Part of this paper was originally written at the request of the minority members 

of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. I also served as an expert for USA Today

in evaluating the precinct level data that they had put together. I received no compensation for any of this work. 

I) INTRODUCTION

Over and undervotes should not necessarily be presumed to be errors on the part 

of voters. What everyone wants to accomplish is minimize true errors without unintentionally creating other new problems. Worse, some attempts to reduce errors can 

even actually increase them. 

For the 2000 Presidential election in Florida only a relatively small percentage 

of over—or under-votes can be explained by ballot design, voting machine type, or 

where ballots are counted. Changes in ballot designs and machine types can lower 

‘‘spoiled’’ ballot rates—that is, not counted because they showed either no vote for 

president or multiple votes—, though restricting local options too rigidly can actually produce the opposite result. Even voting methods that do not work well on average nationally still produce remarkably low spoiled ballot rates in some jurisdicVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
19

1 Brit Hume, ‘‘Special Report with Brit Hume,’’ Fox News Network, Wednesday, June 27, 

2001. 2Zev Chafets, ‘‘Florida Got Bad Rap in Vote Mess,’’ New York Daily News, Sunday, June 10, 

2001, p. 39. 3 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election, June 8, 2001 (http://www.usccr.gov/vote2000/stdraft1/main.htm). 4 Ibid. 

5 Unlike previous examinations such as those by the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, 

this data contains detailed information not only on voting machine type but also on ballot design 

and where votes were counted. Their other control variables such as income and education were 

much more limited.

tions. For these unusual jurisdictions simply requiring new voting methods could 

raise spoiled ballot rates if only during a transition period. There are other possible 

unintended consequences. If taken literally, standards that seek to reduce a ‘‘voting 

system’s error rate . . . as close to zero as practicable’’ might actually require the 

adoption of paper ballots that are counted by hand. Yet, hand counting paper ballots 

even if technically ‘‘practicable’’ is presumably unacceptable in heavily populated areas. Disturbing claims of discrimination have also been raised after the 2000 Presidential Election. African American ballots were said to be spoiled at higher rates 

than the ballots of other groups. Representative Conyers bill notes that there is 

‘‘overwhelming evidence that disparate procedures and antiquated machinery have 

a disproportionate racial impact.’’ The chair of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission 

called for a criminal investigation.1 The Rev. Jesse Jackson also charged that there was ‘‘a clear pattern of suppressing the votes of African Americans.’’ 2

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Majority Report on the 2000 Presidential 

vote in Florida served as a main focus of these claims and presented two types of 

empirical evidence that African-Americans were denied the right to vote.3 The report concluded that, ‘‘The Voting Rights Act prohibits both intentional discrimination and ’results’ discrimination. It is within the jurisdictional province of the Justice Department to pursue and a court of competent jurisdiction to decide whether 

the facts prove or disprove illegal discrimination under either standard.’’ 4 To reach 

their conclusion that discrimination had occurred, the majority examined the impact 

of race on spoiled (or non-voted) ballot rates as well as the impact of race on the 

exclusion from voter eligibility lists because of past felony criminal records. They relied on empirical work regarding non-voted ballots relies solely from cross county 

regressions or correlations using data from 2000 alone. The evidence that AfricanAmericans are erroneously placed on the ineligible list at higher rates than other 

racial groups is based upon a simple comparison of means. 

My examination of the data here demonstrates three things:

1. Cross-sectional precinct level data that was compiled by a group of newspapers lead by USA Today allows for a much more detailed examination and 

indeed implies that precincts with more African-American voters have higher 

rates of non-voted ballots.5 But if spoiled ballots do indicate disenfranchisement, then the new data show that it is mistake to view racial groups as 

homogenous. By a dramatic margin, the group most victimized in the Florida 

voting was African American Republicans. The new findings are stunning: 

African American Republicans who voted in Florida were in excess of 50 

times more likely than the average African American to have had a ballot 

declared invalid because it was spoiled. Spoiled ballot rates also much higher 

for white Republicans than either white Democrats or African-American 

Democrats. (The Appendix uses the Majority Report’s method and data for 

determining whether there is ‘‘a direct correlation between race and having one’s vote discounted as a spoiled ballot’’ is quite sensitive to the specification used. Using their method, it is simply not possible to distinguish whether the higher spoilage rate among African-Americans is a result of them 

being African-American, being in counties with Democratic Election supervisors, or being in counties with African-American Election supervisors.) 

2. Discussions of the non-voted ballot rates by the Commission Majority and 

others fail to account for which counties had high rates of non-voted ballots 

in the past. Once these past rates are accounted for, additional increases in 

the percent of voters in a county who are African-American are not related 

to changes in the rate that ballots are not voted. While the difference is not 

statistically significant, the ballot non-voting rate is slightly more positively 

related to the share of white voters than African-American voters.

3. The Majority Report’s own evidence that African-Americans are erroneously 

included on the ineligible list at higher rates than other racial groups actuVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
20

6 Abigail Thernstrom and Commissioner Russell G. Redenbaugh, The Florida Election Report: 

Dissenting Statement, June 26, 2001 (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/final—dissent.htm). 7The correlation between the change in non-voted ballots and the share of voters who are 

white is .09; the same correlation for Hispanics is .03; and the correlation for ‘‘other’’ (neither 

white nor African American) is—.17. 8The Majority claimed to have examined precinct level data for Miami-Dade, Duval, and Palm 

Beach, but no regressions were reported (http://www.usccr.gov/vote2000/stdraft1/ltrpt.htm). 

ally shows the opposite of what they think that it does. The evidence that 

African-Americans win a greater share of successful appeals does not account 

for the fact that African-Americans make up an even much greater share of 

the list of ineligible voters to begin with. In fact, the rate that whites are 

removed from the list because they were incorrectly included to begin with 

is almost twice the rate of African-Americans.

The evidence thus indicates that even if the commission is correct on the law (and 

there is some debate on that),6 it is difficult to accept the commission’s conclusion 

that discrimination was unintentional and surely not intentional, unless one believes that black democratic county election supervisors were responsible for higher 

non-voted ballot rates by African-American voters. The following sections will first 

evaluate the data on non-voted ballots and then turn to the data on African-Americans being erroneously excluded from voting due to felony criminal records. 

II) RE-EXAMINING THE SIMPLE CORRELATIONS AND MEANS

Ideally any analysis of non-voted ballots and race would directly link whether individuals in a particular group actually had non-voted ballots. Lacking that direct 

link, the Majority Report attempts to see whether counties or precincts with a higher percentage of African-Americans have a higher percentage of non-voted ballots. 

The Majority Report interprets evidence linking a higher percentage of AfricanAmericans with a higher percentage of non-voted ballots as showing that whatever 

is causing ballots to be non-voted affects some fixed percentage of African-Americans 

who go to the polls. 

The Majority Report provides many scatter plots to illustrate this correlation 

across precincts and counties. The problem is that all the evidence provided by the 

Majority Report is based on purely cross-sectional evidence. Yet, purely cross-sectional evidence suffers from well-known weaknesses in not being able to account for 

other factors that may explain the relationship between race and non-voted ballots. 

The simplest way to account for these other factors is to examine whether certain 

counties had high levels of non-voted ballots even before they had high levels of African-Americans. Thus, we examine counties over time and compare the change in 

the racial composition of voters with the change in non-voted ballots. If AfricanAmericans disproportionately account for non-voted ballots, the percent of AfricanAmericans and non-voted ballots should continue to hold across elections: counties 

with the largest increase in the percentage of voters who are African-American 

should also have the largest percentage increase in non-voted ballots. 

To examine this, we compared the change in county ballot spoilage rates and racial composition in the Presidential election in the 1996 and 2000 and the change 

in the share of voters in those elections who were in different races. The results are 

shown in Figures 1 through 4. Generally it is difficult to see much of any relationship. If indeed there is one, it turns out to be the opposite of what is implied by 

the Majority Report: there is a very small negative correlation between increases 

in the percent of voters who are African-American and spoilage rates (a correlation 

of —4 percent). And an increase in the share of white voters is associated with an 

increase in the non-voted ballot rate, though none of these very simple relationships 

are statistically significant.7 Using data from the Election Data Services on the type 

of voting equipment used in different counties it is also possible to breakdown these 

figures on the basis of those counties that used the same voting machines in both 

the 1996 and 2000 elections. Doing so produces a set a graphs that is very similar 

to Figures 1 through 4 (see the Appendix). 

III) ANALYZING THE PURELY CROSS-SECTIONAL PRECINCT LEVEL DATA

USA Today, The Miami Herald, Florida Today and five other newspapers undertook a massive operation to identify non-voted ballots in each precinct in Florida for 

the 2000 presidential election.8 They put together a very rich cross-sectional data 

set. Besides the number of African-Americans, whites, Hispanics, and others who 

voted in each precincts, the paper further broke this relationship down by political 

affiliation so that it is possible to know, for example, the number of African-AmerVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
21

9The data indicates that .5 percent of voters in the average precinct are African-Americans 

registered as Republicans versus 9 percent of voters being African-American Democrats. 

ican Republicans and Democrats who voted by precinct. They also collected information on ballot and machine type, whether the ballots were counted centrally or at 

the precinct, as well as detailed census data on educational obtainment, household 

income, and age. 

The regression estimates presented here are Poisson regressions because of the 

obvious count nature of this data. (Appendix Figure 1 illustrates how the distribution of non-voted ballots (both for under and over votes as well as the total) exhibits 

the classic shape seen for Poisson distributions.) The coefficients are reported as incident rate ratios, so coefficient values greater than one indicate the percent increase in uncounted votes from a one unit increase in exogenous variable, while values less than one indicate the opposite. For example, the coefficient for Democratic 

County Election Supervisors in Table 1, column 1 is 1.129 and it implies that even 

after accounting for all the other factors from voting methods and machines to demographics having a Democratic supervisor is associated with about a 13 percent 

higher non-voted ballot rate. 

The regressions use all the data supplied to me on whether votes were counted 

centrally or at the precinct; the different types of voting machines and ballots used; 

income categories from $15,000 to $25,000 and up through over $500,000; and the 

level of schooling by residents from high school not completed through college graduate. Additional variables were the number of males, number of females, number 

of absentee ballots, number of new voters, mean age, and number of people over 65. 

I have also combined this data with information that I had previous put together 

on the political affiliation and race of county election supervisors. 

Even to the extent that a relationship exists between race and non-voted ballot 

rates, the effect is small. Column 2 in Table 1, which uses only one race related 

variable (the number of African-Americans in a precinct), implies that adding a 

thousand more African-Americans in a precinct would only increase the number of 

non-voted ballots by .25 percent. However, columns 3 and 4 provide some insight 

into what is being hidden by lumping all African-Americans together. Simply 

disaggregating by political registration between Republicans and Democrats produces one coefficient that is much larger and one much smaller than previously seen 

with the aggregate number. The estimate for African-American Republicans is so 

large that using columns 1 and 3 imply that 18 African-American Republicans will 

produce as many non-voted ballots as a 1000 randomly selected African-Americans. 

For columns 2 and 4, every 15 African-American Republicans produces as many 

non-voted ballots as a 1000 randomly selected African-Americans. While AfricanAmerican are registered as Republicans at only about 1/18th the rate that they register as Democrats,9 the results in the first four columns imply that African-American Republicans are 54 to 66 times more likely than the average African-American 

to produce non-voted ballots. 

Another way of saying this last result is that, for every two additional black Republicans in the average precinct, there was one additional spoiled ballot. By comparison, it took an additional 125 African-Americans (of any party affiliation) in the 

average precinct to produce the same result. 

While illustrative, selectively including only some of the possible racial and ethnic 

as well as political affiliations of voters creates a problem because the presence of 

different groupings are likely to be correlated (either positively or negatively) across 

precincts and using only select groupings might falsely attribute some of the variation that is in fact associated with other groupings to only those that are included. 

To deal with this the rest of the regressions reported in Tables 1 and 2, as well as 

the file where I have tried in the brief time available to see whether the results 

are sensitive to inclusions of varying subsets of control variables, use all the remaining information of race, ethnic grouping, and political registration that was provided 

to me. In order to avoid perfect collinearity with the variable measuring the number 

of voters in each precinct, the variable for voters of ‘‘other races registered to other 

parties (neither Republican or Democratic).’’

Including these other groupings does reduce the size of the coefficient for AfricanAmerican Republicans, but the coefficients in columns 5 and 6 of Table 1 are still 

substantial compared to the average effect for African-Americans, with a difference 

of around 50 to 55 times. The bottom third of Table 1 tests to see if the different 

voter groups have statistically different effects on the number of non-voted ballots. 

What the results show is that African-American Republicans, White Republicans, 

and Hispanic Republicans have much higher non-voted ballot rates than AfricanAmerican Democrats and that all the differences are quite statistically significant. 

22

10There is only one African-American supervisor and that person is a Democrat. 11 Cutting out these variables when fixed county effects are included has no discernable impact on the ability to explain the variation across precincts in non-voted ballots. 

Only for ‘‘other races’’ is the reverse true, and that difference is very large and also 

quite statistically significant. 

The regressions also allow us to examine whether Bush and Gore voters were different, and here the results are mixed, with the more complete regressions showing 

that Bush voters had the higher non-voted ballot rate and the other two significant 

results showing the same for Gore. Generally, females have a higher non-voted ballot rate than males. Higher rates were also observed for older people as well as 

those living in counties with Democratic and/or African-American County Election 

Supervisors. This last effect is quite large. Column 5 in Table 1 indicates that a 

county with a Democratic supervisor experiences a fourteen percent higher nonvoted ballot rate and a county with African-American Democratic supervisor has a 

31 percent higher rate.10

The voting methods and mechanisms are extremely important in explaining the 

non-voted ballot rate. Punch cards without chads are associated with higher nonvoted ballots in both specifications 5 and 6, though whether paper or optical with 

arrows has the next highest rate depends upon the specification. Central processing 

has a higher rate than processing at the precinct, and either the infamous ‘‘butterfly’’ or the ‘‘8–2’’ ballots tend to be associated with more non-voted ballots. As 

shown in Table 3 and the raw regressions file, removing information on whether 

ballots are counted centrally or at precinct, the ballot type, and the machine type 

reduces the amount of variation in non-voted ballots explained by these regressions 

by 11 percentage points.11 By contrast, removing measures of race and political affiliation reduce the amount of variation explained by a little over two percentage 

points. 

While information on educational attainment of residents and household income 

is important in explaining variations in non-voted ballot rates, the patterns are not 

easily explained by simply relying on ‘‘voter stupidity.’’ The results for Figure 2 vary 

with whether a separate variable is used to pick up average differences in non-voted 

ballots across counties (so-called ‘‘county fixed effects’’) are included, but in both 

cases those who have attended some high school have higher non-voted ballot rates 

than those with less than a 9th grade education. Without county fixed effects, those 

with some college have a significantly higher non-voted ballot rate than all but 

those with some high school. 

The relationship between household income and non-voted ballots in Figure 3 is 

even more puzzling. No matter what specification is used there are wide swings in 

the non-voted ballot rate for people at the higher income levels, with incomes from 

$250,000 to $499,000 showing unusually lower rates of non-voted ballots and those 

above $500,000 showing the reverse. Indeed the non-voted ballot rate for this top 

income group is at least 4.6 times higher than observed for the next highest category (those between $150,000 to $249,999, another extremely wealthy group of 

households) and 15 times higher than those in households earning less than $15,000 

a year. Even over lower ranges of income it is difficult to detect any obvious pattern. 

The education and household income results make it difficult to argue that nonvoted ballots arise from a lack of intelligence. One possibility is that these results 

arise simply from differences in ‘‘tastes.’’ For example, the high non-voted ballot rate 

for African-American Republicans could simply arise because they were more conflicted than other voters in deciding whom to vote for. Similar types of conflicted 

views might be arising for other groups like those in households making over 

$500,000 or those with some high school education. 

As to ballot types and voting machines, having the candidate names listed in one 

column, optical machines or paper ballots that are counted by hand, as well as 

counting ballots at the precinct level are associated with relatively fewer non-voted 

ballots. Both measures of older people (the mean adult age and number of people 

over age 65) are strongly related to more non-voted ballots. 

While a strong case can be made for the inclusion of all the variables included 

in the data set, there is still the issue of whether the results are dependent on any 

single variable or set of variables. If one is sure that all the control variables should 

be included in the regressions, little work is needed beyond Tables 1 and 2. However, on the chance that some might object to the inclusion of certain variables, I 

have tried to briefly run specifications that first drop out one of the control variables 

(or closely related set of control variables) and then a second one. A closely related 

set of variables involves something such as the education, voting machine, ballot 

type variables, or gender of voters. I also tried including only one of the control variVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
23

12Telephone calls were made to all the individual county election supervisor’s offices in an 

attempt to obtain this data. 13 Election Data Services is located at 1401 K Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005–

3417. 14The data on these income and payment values were obtained from the Regional Economic 

Information System (REIS). Income maintenance includes Supplemental Security Insurance 

(SSI), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and food stamps. 15Lichtman uses a similar approach. 16 As a proxy for new voters who may have made mistakes because they had no previously 

voted, I used a variable for the change in the number of voters by race from previous elections. 

This proxy has definite problems since an increase in the number of voters in a particular racial 

category can arise because of people who are experienced voters moving from one place to anContinued

ables (or closely related set of control variables) at a time. A total of 175 regressions 

are presented and they provide fairly consistent estimates. 

While about 17 percent of the results in the accompanying file that examines the 

sensitivity of the results implies that African-American Democrats may be associated with more non-voted ballots, even in those relatively rare cases where the relationship is positive, the coefficient is at most about 1/10th as large as the coefficient 

for African-American Republicans. In every single case White Republicans have a 

higher non-voted ballot rate than African-American Democrats, and the difference 

is always statistically significant at better than the .0004 level (which means that 

we can reject these differences as being due to randomness at least at 4 per 10,000 

level). 

Finally, Table 4 shows that the non-voted ballot rate for African-American Republicans relative to Democrats is actually a couple of times larger for these heavily 

African-American precincts than it is for all precincts as a whole. Examining only 

those precincts where over 90 percent of voters are African-American and using the 

regressions in Table 2 shows that the difference is statistically significant at the 10 

percent level for five of the six specifications. If there is something unusual that is 

occurring to African-American ballots in the most heavily African-American precincts, it is precisely in those precincts that the relative impact on African-American 

Republicans is the largest. 

V) ANALYZING THE COUNTY LEVEL DATA FOR THE 1992, 1996, AND 2000 PRESIDENTIAL

ELECTIONS

As noted earlier, using purely cross-sectional data faces severe limitations in accounting for differences across counties. Unfortunately, though, the panel level data 

limits us to using county level data. It is also unfortunate that the data for previous 

years does not allow us to breakdown voter data by both race and political affiliation. There are many reasons why spoilage rates differ and accounting for the 46 

variables used in our analysis (or the smaller number available in the Majority Report, see appendix) leaves out many possible factors that are necessary to explain 

the difference in ballot spoilage rates in different counties. Using information on 

non-voted ballot rates during previous presidential elections allows us to examine 

whether changes in the racial composition of voters can explain changes in these 

rates. None of our results imply increasing the share of voters in any racial or ethnic group significantly increases non-voted ballot rates. 

While neither the Florida Secretary of State’s Office nor individual county election 

offices have detailed records on current county level voting operations, past information was not readily available on some variables, such as the method of voting, 

where the votes are tabulated, and the race of the county election supervisor.12 Fortunately, Election Data Services provides data on the type of voting machine by 

county for the last three presidential elections.13 During 1996 and 2000, fourteen 

counties switched from lever machines and eleven counties switched from DataVote 

machines. Most the changes for the 1996 election and all of those for 2000 were towards the adoption of optical scan machines. 

In the regressions shown in Table 5, I use only the percent of the voters by race 

and not the demographic breakdown of the general population. In place of the median income and poverty rate, I use data that I had readily available on per capita 

income, per capita unemployment insurance payments, and per capita income maintenance payments (welfare).14 These last three variables were only available up 

through 1998, so I use those values as proxies for the year 2000.15 County fixed effects are used to account for other factors that explain differences in non-voted ballot rates across counties and fixed year effects are used to pick up differences over 

time. (The literacy rate data could not be included as it was only available for one 

year, and the fixed county effects would be perfectly collinear with this variable.) 16

24

other. I found no significant impact from this variable. However, I was unable to determine 

whether this lack of statistical significance was due to there really not being a problem arising 

from new voters or from problems with the measure itself. Including these variables did not 

alter the other findings. 17This data was obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

The results indicate that the percent of voters in different race or ethnic categories are rarely statistically related to ballot spoilage. In these specifications, less 

than 2 percent of the variation in non-voted ballots is explained by including African-American voters. The only specification that implies a statistically significant 

relationship between the rate of non-voted ballots and the percent of voters who are 

African-American is the third column, but even this result provides little support 

for the notion that discrimination was occurring. Because the percent of voters who 

are African-American in the third column is not only included by itself but also by 

interacting the African-American variable with whether the county election supervisor is a Republican or a Democrat, the interactions must be added together with 

the direct effect to determine the net effect of more African-American voters on the 

non-voted ballot rate in counties with Republican or Democratic supervisors. Doing 

this indicates that more African-American voters increases non-voted ballot rate 

when the election supervisors are either non-partisan or Democrats and decreases 

the non-voted ballot rate when they are Republicans. Each one percentage point increase in the percent of voters who are African-American results in the non-voted 

ballot rate rising by .43 percentage points when the election supervisor is a Democrat and falling by .15 percentage points with a Republican. The net effects for 

Democratic or Republican supervisors are not statistically significantly different 

from zero nor from each other. The F-test for the difference between these the net 

impact on African-American voters in counties with Republican or Democratic supervisors is significant at only the 20 percent level. Only the direct effect of the percent of voters who are African-Americans is really statistically significant and that 

is picking up what is happening in counties run by non-partisan election supervisors. 

The last specification replaces the simple variable for the percent of voters who 

are African-American with that variable being interacted with the dummy variables 

for the type of voting machines used. Interestingly, the coefficient on the interaction 

for punch card machines is almost identical to the interaction for optical scan machines, and F-tests indicate that none of the different voting methods imply a different rate of non-voted ballots as the percent of voters who are African-American 

increases. 

As for the other variables, non-partisan and Republican county election supervisors are associated with more non-voted ballots. A county that switches from a 

Democratic to a non-partisan election supervisor sees its non-voted ballot rate more 

than double. Yet, while the average rates are higher for Republicans than Democrats, the non-voted ballot rate that does exist is more likely to be positively related 

to the share of voters who are African-American in Democratically controlled counties. The average non-voted ballot rate declined significantly from 1992 to 1996 and 

then rose very slightly in 2000. While the coefficients for optical scanners always 

imply a statistically significant lower rate of non-voted ballots, and three of the five 

coefficients are statistically significant. None of the other variables produce consistent results. 

Table 6 replaces the voting share data in the first column of Table 5 with census 

demographic data to measure the differential impact that age, sex, and race might 

have on non-voted ballots.17 This breakdown was not readily available in terms of 

those who voted in the elections, so we use the census data as a substitute. One 

reason for relying on this census data is that when the percent African-American 

in the general population are used in place of African-Americans as a share of voters the previous regressions, we obtain results that are roughly similar in size and 

statistical significance. 

The results in Table 6 paint a much more complicated story on the relationship 

between race and non-voted ballots than is discussed by the Majority Report. For 

five age and sex categories, an increase in the share of voters who are AfricanAmerican implies more non-voted ballots. Yet, for the other five age and sex categories, the reverse is true. It is not clear what form of discrimination would imply 

that more African-American males between 30 and 39 increases non-voted ballots, 

but the reverse is true for African-American females in that age range. 

While the panel data here implies that increasing the number of African-Americans in a county does not increase the non-voted ballot rate, it is still possible that 

African-American Republicans had non-voted ballots at much higher rates than African-American Democrats. Yet, the inability to breakdown voter data by both race 

25

18Two measures of education (the percentage of high school graduates and a measure of literacy) are briefly mentioned in the text of Professor Lichtman’s draft report to the commission, 

but the data is not provided in the data appendix and the results are never reported in his own 

draft. 19 Allan J. Lichtman, ‘‘Report on the Racial Impact of the Rejection of Ballots Cast in the 2000 

Presidential Election in the State of Florida,’’ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 2001 

(http://www.usccr.gov/vote2000/stdraft1/ltrpt.htm). 

and political affiliation across these different elections makes it impossible to test 

this hypothesis with the panel data. 

V) THE EVIDENCE ON EXCLUDING CONVICTED FELONS

The evidence on convicted felons proves the opposite of what the Majority Report 

claims. In their conclusion on page 37, the Majority Report states that ‘‘the chance 

of being placed on this list [the exclusion list] in error is greater if the voter is African-American.’’ The evidence they provide indicates that African-Americans had a 

greater share of successful appeals. However, since African-Americans also constituted an even greater share of the list to begin with, whites were actually the 

most likely to be erroneously on the list (a 9.9 percent error rate for whites [125/

1264] versus only a 5.1 percent error rate for blacks [239/4678]). The rate for Hispanics (8.7 percent [105/1208]) is also higher than for blacks. Their own table thus 

proves the opposite of what they claim that it shows. A greater percentage of Whites 

and Hispanics who were placed on the disqualifying list were originally placed there 

in error. 

In any case, this evidence has nothing to do with whether people were in the end 

improperly prevented from voting, and there is no evidence presented on that point. 

The Majority Report’s evidence only examines those who successfully appealed and 

says nothing about how many people of those who didn’t appeal could have successfully done so. 

VI) CONCLUSION

It is difficult to see any evidence that African-American Democrats in Florida 

were systematically discriminated against in terms of voting. The results clearly indicate that with respect to non-voted ballot rates the differences within races are 

as large as the differences between races. If one believes that African-Americans 

were systematically prevented from voting, it is African-American Republicans who 

were the most harmed. If one believes that the actions of county election supervisors 

played an important role in creating this problem (either by intent or carelessness), 

non-voted ballot rates were clearly the highest in counties with Democratic and/or 

African-American supervisors. As to concerns that the poor were likely to have their 

ballots not counted, the results decisively reject this conclusion. Not only do voters 

whose household incomes fall between $15,000 and $24,999 have a lower non-voted 

ballot rate than any income range below $150,000 (with the exception of one estimate for the $75,000 to $99,9999 range), but the group with by far the highest nonvoted ballot rate are the very richest with annual household incomes over $500,000. 

The panel data makes it very difficult to ascertain any systematic bias either intentional or unintentional against African-American voters. 

APPENDIX: USING THE MAJORITY REPORT’S COUNTY LEVEL DATA

Appendix 1 of the Commission’s Majority Report lists the factors that they presumably tried to account for in their analysis of non-voted ballots. Besides the percent of registered voters who are African-American, they include information on the 

percent of the general population who are white, African-American, Hispanic, and 

minority; median income; the poverty rate; the type of voting system (optical, punch 

card, paper/hand, lever machine); and whether voting was tabulated at the precinct, 

centrally, or otherwise. While these factors are listed, there is surprisingly little discussion on why these factors rather than other variables are included. Despite repeated requests by commission member Abigail Thernstrom, no information has 

been provided on how exactly these different variables were included in their regression estimates.18

The statistical appendix for the Majority Report provided by Allan Lichtman also 

mentions that the results are unaffected by including a variable measuring ‘‘the percentage of adults in the lowest literacy category failed to diminish the relationship 

between race and ballot rejection or to reduce the statistical significance of the relationship’’ from 1992.19 While this ‘‘lowest literacy category’’ is not defined in the report, we assume that it is from the U.S. Department of Education’s Adult Literacy 

Survey which defines it as those being unable to ‘‘make low-level inferences based 

26

20 National Center for Education Statistics, Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the 

Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey, National Center for Education Statistics (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993), 18, 113. 21 I tested for heteroskedasticity but could not find evidence for it. 

on what they read and to compare or contrast information that can easily be found 

in [a] text.’’ 20

Why some of these factors are important is easy to explain. For example, measures of income and poverty are roughly associated with education and therefore with 

the ability to read and follow voting instructions. Literacy rates, as used by 

Lichtman, are a more direct measure of this, though even this is not perfect because 

the county data does not breakdown the rates by race. The national data indicates 

that 38 percent of African Americans—but only 14 percent of whites—ranked in the 

lowest category, so it does raise the issue of whether any race variables will be 

proxying for left out literacy measures. Errors in voting will also vary with the type 

of voting equipment and possibly where the votes are tabulated. For example, if optical readers are used and the votes are fed into a vote counter directly by the voter, 

it is possible for a ballot with an error to be immediately returned to and corrected 

by the voter. 

Other factors mentioned by the Commission in its appendix are more difficult to 

explain. For example, why include a detailed breakdown of the share of different 

groups in the general population but only examine the share of voters who are African-American? There is also the issue of what has been left out. Given the Majority 

Report’s emphasis on ‘‘intentional discrimination’’ (e.g., p. 37), why not try to account for those involved in the process who might have some reason for either discriminating against African-American voters or preventing such discrimination? 

Some obvious controls for this are the political party affiliation or race of the county 

election supervisor. If the suspected discrimination is occurring against AfricanAmericans and given that African-Americans vote so heavily for Democrats, it seems 

doubtful that Democratic or African-American election supervisors would act in 

ways to increase the rate of non-voted ballots of African-Americans. 

Because of these two sets of concerns we gathered data on the share of voters who 

are white or Hispanic and on the political affiliation and race of county election supervisors from the Florida Secretary of State’s Office and individual county supervisors of elections. Section A in Appendix Table 3 contains descriptive statistics on 

the county data for the year 2000 obtained directly from the Majority Report’s Appendix 1. Section B in Appendix Table 3 provides information on the new variables 

that I obtained. 

Appendix Table 4 provides some preliminary information using the cross-sectional 

evidence that casts doubt on Republicans are responsible for the problems with nonvoted ballots. Indeed, the counties with Democratic election supervisors have the 

highest non-voted ballot rate, with white Democrat supervisors having a higher rate 

than African-American Democrat supervisors. White Republican election supervisors 

have the lowest rate of spoiled ballots, indeed the non-voted ballot rate for white 

Republican supervisors is only a third of the rate of black Democratic supervisors. 

Comparing sections A and B in Appendix Table 4 also shows why cross-sectional 

analysis produces a simple correlation between race and non-voted ballots. Those 

counties with the highest rates of African-American voters also were more likely to 

have both Democratic supervisors and more spoiled ballots. 

Since neither the Majority Report nor the accompanying ‘‘Draft Report’’ by Allan 

Lichtman show exactly what regressions specification they examined, we tried different specifications to replicate the commission’s results. Because the Majority Report does not reference data on literacy rates, we report the results with and without the literacy variable included. However, it was difficult to find a consistent relationship between the share of voters who are African-American and the ballot spoilage rate. We started out by using all the variables reported in their Appendix 1 and 

the literacy rate (see column 1 in Appendix Table 5, section A). While the coefficient 

on the percent of voters who are African-American was indeed positive, implying 

that a greater share of voters being African-American (and not just characteristics 

correlated with the presence of African-Americans in the community) increased the 

spoilage rate, the coefficient was quite statistically insignificant. The probability 

that the coefficient was positive was only 28 percent. Excluding the literacy rate in 

Section B produced an even lower level of significance. Thus using the Commission’s 

very own set of control variables, there is thus no real confidence that there is a 

positive relationship between the share of African-American voters and the ballot 

spoilage rate.21

Because the cross-sectional data might not be sufficient to disentangle the share 

of African-Americans in the general population from the measure of the share of 

27

22The claim in Professor Lichtman’s draft report that 25 percent of the variation can be explained simply by the share of voters who are black is very misleading. It is obtained only because no other variables are included in that regression. This only makes sense if he really believes that this is the only variable that should be included in explaining the variation in ballot 

spoilage rates. 

voters who are African-American, column 2 in Appendix Table 5 removes the variable for the share of African-Americans in the county population. Interestingly, this 

specification implies that a higher share of voters being African-American actually 

reduces the ballot spoilage rate. Indeed, it is quite damming that any specification 

that accounted for something as simple as the share of the county population that 

is white resulted in no significant relationship between the share of voters who are 

African-American and the ballot spoilage rate. The specification in column 3 removes the percentage of the population that is white and is the only specification 

shown in Appendix Table 5 when literacy rates are included that provide statistically significant evidence consistent with the Majority Report’s claims. 

Even in the specification (column 3) which implies a significant impact of the 

share of voters who are African-American, the variable explains very little of the 

overall variation in spoilage rates. Removing the share of voters who are AfricanAmerican reduces the amount of variation in ballot spoilage that can be explained 

by the regression from 73.9 percent to 72.2 percent, a 2.3 percent reduction. By contrast, removing the variables that account for the method of voting and where the 

counting takes place explains 31 percent of the variation. In none of other the specifications shown in Table 5 does removing any or all of the variables that contain 

the share of voters who are African-American reduce the amount of the variation 

in non-voted ballots that can be explained by any more than 2 percent. In the first 

specification that uses all of the variables provided by the Majority Report, the 

share of voters who are African-American explains less than two-thirds of one percent of the variation.22

Once we found a specification that was consistent with the Majority Report’s 

claims, we examined whether the relationship between African-American and ballot 

spoilage rates might really be proxying for other left-out factors. The next four specifications (columns 4 through 7) point to one clear conclusion: there exist many other 

factors that occur in heavily African-American counties and any of these factors 

could generate a high non-voted ballot rate. 

For example, the largest effect we find between the share of voters who are African-American and ballot spoilage rates exists when African-Americans are county 

election supervisors (column 6) and a net positive effect also occurs when Democrats 

are county election supervisors (column 5). Because the point estimates need to be 

added together in evaluating the impact of the percent of voters who are AfricanAmerican in counties with African-American county election supervisors, the net effect in column 6 for the percent of voters who are African-American and that variable interacted with whether the county election supervisor is African-American is 

just short of being statistically significant at the 10 percent level (p=.1088). The estimates imply that each one percent increase in the share of voters by African-Americans produces 135 percent more non-voted ballots when the county election supervisors are African-American than when they are of some other race. 

The data does not allow us to distinguish which is the primary reason for the 

higher spoilage rate when African-American voters are relatively more prevalent, 

but the most statistically significant effect still appears to be whether African-Americans are voting in a county where the election supervisor is African-American. Column 7 implies that the rate of non-voting when there are more African-Americans 

in a county is 43 percent larger when the supervisor is African-American. If county 

level voting is rigged (intentionally or not) to discriminate against African-Americans voters, the empirical method used by the Majority Report implies that by far 

the most discriminatory counties are ones where Democrats and African-Americans 

control the balloting process. Unless we actually believe that Democrats and African-American officials are discriminating either intentionally or not against AfricanAmerican voters, and such discrimination would make no sense, the obvious conclusion is that this approach for ferreting out discrimination is flawed. 

By contrast, the estimates imply that in counties with Republican election supervisors a higher share of voters who are African-Americans actually results in a tiny 

reduction in the non-voted ballot rate, though the effect is never statistically significant. For each additional one percentage point of the voters living in a county with 

a Republican election supervisor, columns 5 and 7 imply that the non-voted ballot 

rate falls by between .09 and .1 percentage points (a 6 to 7 percent decline in the 

average rate of non-voted ballots in counties with Republican supervisors). 

28

23Lichtman writes: ‘‘A multiple regression analysis that controlled for the percentage of high 

school graduates and the percentage of adults in the lowest literacy category failed to diminish 

the relationship between race and ballot rejection or to reduce the statistical significance of the 

relationship.’’

I also tried another specification (not shown), similar to what is reported in the 

fourth column, that interacted the dummies for the four different types of voting 

machines and whether the ballots were counted centrally with the percent of voters 

who are African-American. Optical scans and punch card machines implied that 

more African-American voters resulted in more non-voted ballots, while lever machines and paper ballots implied fewer non-voted ballots when there were more African-American voters, but none of the coefficients were statistically significant nor 

statistically significantly different from each other. Generally, since one would expect that the ability to discriminate against black voters should vary with the type 

of voting machine used, it is hard to see any relationship here that implies discrimination. 

The other control variables imply that combining optical voting machines with the 

central counting of votes produces significantly more non-voted ballots, whereas optical votes counted at the precinct reduces spoilage. Higher poverty rates are also 

significantly associated with more spoilage in seven of the eight specifications, 

though median income is rarely statistically significant and then only when literacy 

rates are accounted for. 

Section B of Appendix Table 5 reruns the regressions reported in Section A, but 

without the literacy rate variable. Lichtman’s comments suggest his primary specifications did not include this variable.23 The general pattern of results is similar to 

what is shown in Section A, though the results are even stronger. Columns 13, 14, 

and 15 imply even more clearly that whatever relationship exists between a higher 

percentage of voters who are African-American and more non-voted ballots is driven 

by African-Americans living in counties with Democratic and/or African-American 

election supervisors. The net effects of the African-American voter interactions are 

always positive and the F-tests at the bottom of the section indicate that there is 

always at least one combination of these interactions that is statistically significant. 

By contrast, the net effect of Republican supervisors always implies that more African-American voters in those counties leads to fewer non-voted ballots. 

Professor Lichtman’s report, upon which the Majority bases it conclusions, makes 

the claim (p. 6) that: ‘‘is there some other factor which better explains this disparity 

in ballot rejection rates? In short the answer is no.’’ This is indeed an important 

question. Yet, this section has shown that merely accounting for the data supplied 

in the Majority Report’s appendix can reverse Lichtman’s claim. In addition, this 

section has raised possible variables that help explain the variation in non-voted 

ballot rates that were never discussed in either the Majority Report or Lichtman’s 

draft report. Any relationship between race and non-voted ballots is sensitive to the 

specification. Of the 16 specifications reported, only three exhibited positive relationships that were statistically significant at least at the 10 percent level, though another three specifications were significant at least at the 15 percent level. Yet, even 

the largest estimates imply that the percentage of African-Americans explains only 

two percent of the variation in non-voted ballots. 

There is a long list of other factors that might help explain spoilage rates, such 

as voter age or gender, and these were never included in the simple regressions. 

It is also important to study not only the means but the distributions of different 

variables. Part of our reason for not going much beyond what was done in the Majority Report was to keep our results as similar to theirs as possible, though it was 

very easy to include variables that would eliminate any statistical significance with 

respect to the share of voters who were African-American. The panel data set over 

several presidential elections in the following section examine these issues in more 

detail because the larger sample allows us to more fairly make this type of detailed 

breakdown.

29


A.eps
30


B.eps
31


C.eps
32


D.eps
33


E.eps F.eps
34


G.eps
35


H.eps
36


I.eps
37

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Zelikow. 

TESTIMONY OF PHILIP ZELIKOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FEDERAL ELECTION REFORM 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Committee. My name is Philip Zelikow. I’m the executive director of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, also 

known as the Carter-Ford Commission, Ford’s famous cochairs. 

They were listed as honorary cochairs; they were anything but in 

the process. They were actively engaged from start to finish and remain engaged. Thank you very much again for the opportunity to 

testify today. 

Although it seems long ago, the 2000 Presidential election was 

a political ordeal that tested our electoral system unlike any other 

in living memory. Fortunately our political system proved its resilience, but last January, looking to the future, former Presidents 

Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, as well as former Senator Howard 

Baker and Lloyd Cutler, formed the National Commission on Federal Election Reform. The Commission was privately funded in 

order to be sure it could work quickly and not be encumbered by 

political pressures. Two ideas animated the Commission. First, we 

are not going to refight Florida. Second, Americans can and should 

expect their electoral system to be a source of national pride and 

a model to all the world. 

Our cochairs asked a diverse group of outstanding individuals to 

join the Commission and spend a year investigating America’s 

democratic processes. We held hearings all over the country. We 

heard directly from more than 50 witnesses, and our task forces 

consulted more than 200 other experts. The good news I can tell 

you is this, that in much of the country cadres of able and dediVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA

J.eps
38

cated election administrators, some of whom are sitting behind me, 

are in place who can show what is possible and carry reforms into 

practice. 

In a world of problems that often defy any solution, the weaknesses in election administration are somewhat remarkably problems that government actually can solve. When the American people choose their President, Vice President, and Members of the 

Congress, our Commission agreed unanimously, and they were all 

partisans of one stripe or another, that voters should expect all levels of government to provide a democratic process that does at least 

six things: one, maintains an accurate list of citizens who are qualified to vote; two, encourages every eligible voter to participate effectively; three, uses equipment that reliably clarifies and registers 

the voters’ choices; four, handles close elections in a foreseeable 

and fair way—Mr. Delahunt, I think, would take particular interest in that point; five, operates with equal effectiveness for every 

citizen and every community; and six, reflects limited but responsible Federal participation. 

We agreed unanimously that the primary role remains with the 

States, but that there needs to be a Federal partnership to go with 

all those Federal mandates that are already in the law. The Commission envisioned a country where each State maintains accurate 

computerized voter lists of who can vote, network with local administrators. Using that system, qualified voters in our mobile society 

would be able to vote throughout their State without being turned 

away because of local administrative problems. Millions of military 

and overseas voters would find it easier to receive and return their 

ballots. Voting machines would meet a common standard of excellent performance. Each State would have uniform objective definitions of what constitutes a vote. Every jurisdiction and every official would obey the Voting Rights Act and other statutes that secure the franchise and prohibit discrimination. 

Let me note that Presidents Carter and Ford, of course, have political experiences that go back in their active lives to the late 

1950’s. They wrote that they thought, that the Help America Vote 

Act adopt our Commission’s most important recommendations, and, 

‘‘aside from the civil rights acts,’’ notably the Voting Rights Act of 

1965, would ‘‘provide the most important improvements in our 

democratic election system in our lifetimes,’’ and I can tell you that 

Jimmy Carter personally drafted that phrasing, and that’s a person 

who experienced voter fraud at the origins of his political career. 

The cornerstone of both our report and the Ney-Hoyer bill is a 

statewide voter registration database. This has not received enough 

attention, and it is vital. And I can go on why Republicans and 

Democrats can break out of the traditional trench warfare on vote 

fraud issues to leapfrog that into a system that helps both sides 

and both communities if you use statewide voter roles, helping the 

more mobile poor or ill-educated voters while dramatically reducing 

vote fraud. 

The Ney-Hoyer bill is not perfect, yet a sense of perspective is 

needed. This legislation would create a genuinely national framework for the administration of elections for the first time in the 

history of the United States. It would create the first Federal partnership with State and local governments in paying for the maVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
39

chinery of democracy. It would transform the voter registration systems, voting procedures and voting systems in practically every 

county in America, and I think it does so with real sensitivity to 

federalism issues. So that is why this Commission of contentious 

partisans came together on our recommendations and why our 

Commission’s leaders have endorsed the Help America Vote Act as 

a good bill, and they don’t wish a search for the perfect to be the 

enemy of the good. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Mr. Zelikow. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zelikow follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR PHILIP ZELIKOW

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today, particularly on a matter that goes to the heart of our 

nation’s democracy. In these challenging times, the quality of our democratic processes can and should be part of our national debate. 

Although it seems long ago, the 2000 presidential election was a political ordeal 

that tested our electoral system unlike any other in living memory. From November 

7 to December 12 the outcome of the presidential election was fought out in bitter 

legal and political struggles that ranged throughout Florida and ultimately extended 

to the United States Supreme Court. Fortunately, our political system proved its resilience. 

The ordinary institutions of election administration in the United States, and specifically Florida, just could not readily cope with an extremely close election. Many 

aspects of the election processes were put under a microscope and viewed by an anxious nation. With dismay and growing anger we saw controversial ballot design; antiquated and error-prone voting machines; subjective and capricious processes for 

counting votes; voter rolls that let unqualified voters vote in some counties and 

turned away qualified voters in others; confusion in the treatment of overseas and 

military ballots; and a political process subjected to protracted litigation. 

Stepping back from Florida, the picture was no more encouraging. The chief election official of Georgia, Cathy Cox, testified to our Commission that: ‘‘As the presidential election drama unfolded in Florida last November, one thought was foremost 

in my mind: there but for the grace of God go I. Because the truth is, if the presidential margin had been razor thin in Georgia and if our election systems had undergone the same microscopic scrutiny that Florida endured, we would have fared 

no better. In many respects, we might have fared even worse.’’ Across America, we 

heard from official after official who felt the same way. 

Last January, looking to the future, former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy 

Carter, as well as former Senator Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler, formed the National Commission on Federal Election Reform. The Commission was privately funded in order to ensure that it could work quickly and not be encumbered by political 

pressures. Its mission was simple: to ensure that while our elections can and should 

be hard-fought, every American can be assured that the administration and determination of our elections is fair, accurate, and just. 

Our co-chairs asked a diverse group of outstanding individuals to join the Commission and spend a year investigating American democratic processes at every 

level. These Commissioners from every region of the country have diverse political 

affiliations, professional, and personal backgrounds. 

They listened hard, studied hard, and asked hard questions. They heard testimony in four public hearings from over 200 election administrators, civil rights 

groups, scholars, and concerned citizens. They looked at our election system as a 

whole, as well as that of individual states. 

While the Commission observed many problems in our nation’s electoral systems, 

there was also good news. In the last few years, and now spurred by the events of 

last year, election reform has returned to the legislative agenda in many states, 

most notably Florida and Georgia. In much of the country cadres of able and dedicated election administrators are in place who can show what is possible and carry 

reforms into practice. In a world of problems that often defy any solution, the weaknesses in election administration are, to a very great degree, problems that governments actually can solve. 

With that optimism, both Republicans and Democrats on the Commission, sought 

solutions that were bipartisan and would be consistent with the historical development of America’s electoral system. The Commission believes that when the AmerVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
40

ican people choose their president, vice president, and members of Congress, voters 

should expect all levels of government to provide a democratic process that:

• Maintains an accurate list of citizens who are qualified to vote;

• Encourages every eligible voter to participate effectively;

• Uses equipment that reliably clarifies and registers the voter’s choices;

• Handles close elections in a foreseeable and fair way;

• Operates with equal effectiveness for every citizen and every community; and

• Reflects limited but responsible federal participation.

For Americans, democracy is a precious birthright. But each generation must 

nourish and improve the processes of democracy for its successors. The Commission 

envisioned a country where each state maintains accurate, computerized voting lists 

of who can vote, networked with local administrators. Using that system, qualified 

voters in our mobile society would be able to vote throughout their state without 

being turned away because of local administrative problems. Millions of military 

and overseas voters would find it easier to receive and return their ballots. Election 

Day would be held on a national holiday, freeing up more people to serve as poll 

workers and making polling places more accessible. Voting machines would meet a 

common standard of excellent performance. Each state would have uniform, objective definitions of what constitutes a vote. News organizations would exert necessary restraint in predicting election outcomes. Every jurisdiction and every official 

would obey the Voting Rights Act and other statutes that secure the franchise and 

prohibit discrimination. In all of this there would be a delicate balance of shared 

responsibilities between levels of government, between officials and the voters they 

serve. 

From that vision, the Commission recommended 13 reforms. They included a 

statewide voter registration database, provisional ballots, simplified procedures for 

uniformed and overseas voters, benchmarks and standards for voting systems, including clear definitions of what constitutes a vote on each kind of machine, the creation of a new federal election agency responsible for administering grants and setting voluntary standards, restoration of voting rights for felons after they have 

served their full sentence (including probation), and federal investment to capitalize 

state revolving funds that will provide long-term assistance to election administrators. 

I will be happy to answer your questions about the specifics of any of these recommendations later in this hearing. However, in the meantime please allow me to 

highlight one of our core recommendations and a key provision of Chairman Ney 

and Congressman Hoyer’s Help America Vote Act, because I believe that it goes a 

long way to explain the need, practicality, and bipartisan nature of both our Commission’s Report and the Ney-Hoyer bill. 

First, let me note that the Help America Vote Act could, in the words of our cochairs, Presidents Ford and Carter, Michel and Cutler, ‘‘with the exceptions of the 

Civil Rights Laws of the 1960’s . . . provide the most important improvements in 

our democratic election system in our lifetimes.’’ The bill adopts our Commission’s 

most important recommendations. It is bipartisan, innovative, and will actually 

work in practice. 

The cornerstone of both our report and the Ney-Hoyer bill is a statewide voter 

registration database. One of the most serious problems in America’s elections is 

also one of the most basic—identifying who can vote. For some this is a problem 

of disfranchisement. For others this is a problem of the integrity of the voting system. 

The issue of voter lists now has well-drawn battle lines. Some argue that the 

‘‘purging’’ of voter lists has been used to push minority voters off the rolls. Others 

maintain that ‘‘list maintenance’’ is essential to preventing fraud. Regardless of 

one’s position, there is no disagreement that voter lists are swollen with large numbers of named voters who have moved, or died, or are no longer eligible to vote in 

the local jurisdiction where they are registered. For example, in Oklahoma, which 

gathered statewide data from its unitary election system, 25 percent of the voters 

on its roles are inactive. A number of other jurisdictions have compared their lists 

to census numbers and observed that they have thousands, sometimes ten of thousands, more registered voters than people. 

Some contend that swollen voter rolls are harmless, since the individuals have 

moved or died and therefore do not vote, and since poll worker scrutiny and signature verification can prevent fraud. We disagree:

41

• Significantly inaccurate voter lists add millions in unnecessary costs to already underfunded election administrators and undermine public confidence 

in the integrity of the election system and quality of public administration.

• Significantly inaccurate voter lists invite schemes that use ’empty’ names on 

voter list for ballot box stuffing, ghost voting, or to solicit ‘‘repeaters’’ to use 

such available names. The opportunities to commit such frauds are actually 

growing because of the trend toward more permissive absentee voting.

• Significantly inaccurate voter lists often penalize poor or ill-educated voters. 

Among the most mobile citizens in the country, these voters find that even 

modest residential changes, within a state or county, will keep them from appearing on the list of eligible voters at their new residence.

Rather than take a side in this ongoing partisan argument, the Commission and 

the Ney-Hoyer bill, propose to fix the problem in a way that breaks from the old 

controversies over ‘‘purging.’’ Implementing statewide, computerized databases, 

similar to the one utilized by Michigan and Kentucky, will allow every state’s voter 

registration lists to be more accurate and transparent. 

A statewide database, tied to the DMV and other social service agencies, will ensure that the rolls are more accurate. It would keep the core constitutional responsibility for voter registration in the hands of state governments. In-precinct provisional ballots, which allow a voter to cast a ballot if they believe they have been 

incorrectly removed from or never added to the database, can only occur under this 

system. A statewide registration system is also more transparent and accountable 

to outside scrutiny and will be less susceptible to fraud. This is why this recommendation has been at the heart of almost every group who has studied the problems in our election systems, including the United States Commission on Civil 

Rights, the Cal-Tech MIT Project, the FEC, and the Election Center. 

I use this relatively mundane example because it demonstrates that there are 

clear bipartisan solutions to large problems with our election systems. I use it because it is a clear example of the kind of role that the federal government can play, 

by providing funding and setting minimum standards that will ensure that the accuracy and fairness of our democratic processes for every voter. And, at the same 

time, it allows states and localities to enact this program in a way that fits the 

needs of their system and citizenry. 

The Ney-Hoyer bill is not perfect. It did not include some of the suggestions made 

by our Commission. Yet, a sense of perspective is needed. This legislation would create a genuinely national framework for the administration of elections for the first 

time in the history of the United States. It would create the first federal partnership 

with state and local governments in paying for the machinery of democracy. It 

would transform the voter registration systems, voting procedures, and voting systems in practically every county in America. 

If a bill emerges that is better than Ney-Hoyer, our Commission will readily endorse it. Perhaps this Committee can find amendments that will clarify or improve 

the bill, while maintaining the foundation of bipartisan spirit and substantive reforms on which the legislation was drafted in this brief window of legislative opportunity. We, like all Americans want what is best. But, for now, we do not wish to 

be the enemy of the good. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

42


Zeli1A.eps
43


Zeli1B.eps
44


Zeli1C.eps
45


Zeli1D.eps
46


Zeli1E.eps
47

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Leonard. 

TESTIMONY OF LLOYD J. LEONARD, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. LEONARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I am Lloyd Leonard, legislative director for the League of 

Women Voters of the United States. The League of Women Voters 

is a nonpartisan citizen organization that has worked for more 

than 80 years to educate the electorate, register voters, and make 

government at all levels more accessible and responsive to citizens. 

We believe that voting is the most important expression of a citizen’s participation in government. 

Mr. Chairman, many Americans were shocked by the problems 

in election administration that were exposed by the 2000 election. 

That election demonstrated that our administration systems are in 

dire need of repair. To remedy the problems, the League urges that 

Congress pass legislation to fix the voting machines, to fix the 

voter registration rolls, and to protect voters. 


Zeli1F.eps
48

The league supports election reform. We are disappointed, however, with H.R. 3295, the legislation currently before this Committee. In our view the bill falls short of ensuring that all of—all 

of America’s voters have a full opportunity to cast their ballots and 

have their votes count. In important respects the bill moves backwards. That’s why the League of Women Voters as well as many 

other civil rights, disability rights, religious and civic groups oppose 

the bill as reported by the Committee on House Administration. 

With your permission I would like to submit a letter from the 

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and its constituent organizations, such as the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza, 

stating opposition to the bill as reported. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the letter will be 

included in the record. 

Mr. LEONARD. Thank you. 

I would also like to submit a letter from the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, including Easter Seals and the United Cerebral Palsy Association, voicing opposition to the bill as reported 

from the Committee. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, that letter will be 

included as well. 

Mr. LEONARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There are some good elements in H.R. 3295. For example, there 

is an innovative program developed by Mr. Hoyer that would encourage young people to work at the polls on election day, but 

when it comes to some core elements, we believe that H.R. 3295 

falls significantly short. 

Fortunately the crucial shortcomings in the bill can be corrected. 

I would like to discuss the problems with the bill and suggest ways 

of fixing them. 

First, H.R. 3295 amends current law in a way that removes existing protections for voters. Specifically the legislation amends the 

National Voter Registration Act in a way that allows citizens to be 

purged from voter registration rolls if they don’t vote. Key safeguards under current law that protect against errors in election administration would be cut back. H.R. 3295 as currently written exposes millions of duly registered voters to removal from the rolls. 

Some of the supporters of the bill suggest that it merely restates 

the current requirements under the National Voter Registration 

Act. In response I will refer to you section 902(a) of the bill, which 

expressly amends the purging provisions of the NVRA that prohibit 

removing voters because they have not moved. Clearly section 

902(a) does not restate NVRA requirements. It changes them. Mr. 

Chairman, we believe that the amendment to the National Voter 

Registration Act should be stricken from the bill. 

Our second concern is that H.R. 3295 fails to ensure that voters 

with disabilities have access to the polls just as other American 

citizens. A full range of disability groups from the Paralyzed Veterans of America to the American Council of the Blind oppose the 

legislation as currently written. While H.R. 3295 reaffirms that the 

Americans with Disabilities Act applies in the voting context, it 

fails to take into account that more than half of all polling places 

remain inaccessible to voters in wheelchairs despite the provisions 

of the ADA. From our perspective, simply reinforcing the status 

49

quo does not qualify as election reform. We believe the bill needs 

to be amended to set national standards for accessible voting with 

reasonable time frames for compliance. 

Third, H.R. 3295 fails to ensure that citizens can receive a provisional ballot. Because many jurisdictions have problems getting all 

registered voters on their lists in time, provisional ballots are an 

important voter protection. While the bill purports to set a minimum standard, it includes a huge loophole that allows the adoption of an alternative to provisional ballots without stating what 

objectives the alternative would have to meet. These problems 

could be served by reworking the language of the bill. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill fails to establish minimum Federal standards for America’s voting systems. As a recent report 

from Cal Tech and MIT points out, millions of votes are, ‘‘Lost in 

each Federal election because voting machines and their associated 

systems fail to properly record the voter’s intent.’’ We believe that 

a voter in Alabama or Alaska, California or Connecticut should be 

recorded and counted equally. We need basic national standards to 

ensure that our voting systems work properly. 

The events surrounding the 2000 election exposed many problems that have been festering for years. Congress should not miss 

the opportunity to fix these problems. We urge that the deficiencies 

in H.R. 3295 be corrected so that real election reform can be passed 

by Congress and signed by the President. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LLOYD J. LEONARD

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Lloyd Leonard, legislative director for the League of Women Voters of the United States. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to express the League’s strong support 

for speedy enactment of election reform legislation. 

The League of Women Voters of the United States is a nonpartisan citizen organization with more than 125,00 members and supporters in all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. For more than 80 years, Leagues across the 

country have worked to educate the electorate, register voters and make government 

at all levels more accessible and responsive to citizens. We believe that voting is the 

most important expression of a citizen’s participation in government. 

Mr. Chairman, many Americans were shocked by the problems in election administration that were exposed by the 2000 election. We in the League of Women Voters, however, were not surprised. Unfortunately, the kinds of problems we saw in 

2000 are not unusual. They represent the harvest from years of indifference that 

has been shown toward one of the most fundamental and important elements of our 

democratic system—our election mechanisms. 

Election 2000 demonstrated that election administration systems are in dire need 

of repair. Antiquated voting machines and ballot systems that confuse the voter illustrate the problem at the most basic level. In addition, poll worker training issues, 

reports of differential application of voter ID requirements and other civil rights 

concerns, purging practices, accuracy problems, standardization and consistency 

issues—all these point to fundamental and systemic problems. 

To remedy these problems, the League urges that Congress pass legislation to fix 

the voting machines, to fix the voter registration rolls and to protect voters. Voting 

machines, or voting systems to use the more technical term, must ensure that the 

voter’s vote will be properly recorded. Registration rolls with the names of all properly registered voters should be available at the polls. And we need a variety of systems to ensure that the voter has full access to the polls and to the ballot. 

Mr. Chairman, the League supports election reform. We are disappointed, however, with H.R. 3295, the legislation currently before this committee. In our view, 

H.R. 3295 falls short of ensuring that all of America’s voters have a full opportunity 

50

to cast their ballots and to have their votes count. In important respects, H.R. 3295 

moves backwards. That’s why the League of Women Voters, as well as many other 

civil rights, disability rights, religious and civic groups, oppose the bill as reported 

by the Committee on House Administration. 

Fortunately, the crucial shortcomings in H.R. 3295 can easily be corrected. I 

would like to discuss the problems with the bill, and suggest ways of fixing them. 

First, H.R. 3295 amends current law to remove existing protections for voters. 

Specifically, the legislation amends the National Voter Registration Act in a way 

that allows citizens to be purged from voter registration rolls if they don’t vote. Key 

safeguards under current law that protect against errors in election administration 

would be cut back. H.R. 3295 as currently written exposes millions of duly registered voters to removal from the rolls. We believe that the amendment to the National Voter Registration Act should be stricken from the bill. 

Second, H.R. 3295 fails to ensure that voters with disabilities have access to the 

polls just as other American citizens. That’s why a full range of disabilities groups, 

from the Paralyzed Veterans of America to the American Council of the Blind, opposes the legislation as currently written. While H.R. 3295 reaffirms that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies in the voting context, it fails to take into account 

that more than half of all polling places remain inaccessible to voters in wheelchairs 

despite the provisions of the ADA. What’s more, the bill allows federal funds to be 

used to purchase new voting machines that are inaccessible. The bill needs to be 

amended to set national standards for accessible voting, with reasonable time 

frames for compliance. From our perspective, simply reinforcing the status quo does 

not qualify as election reform. 

Third, H.R. 3295 fails to ensure that citizens can receive a provisional ballot. This 

simple reform would provide a special ballot to those who come to the polls but 

whose names are not on the official registration list. The ballot would be held aside 

until election officials can check to see if the individual is eligible and qualified to 

vote. Because many jurisdictions have problems getting all registered voters onto 

their lists in time, this is an important voter protection. While H.R. 3295 purports 

to set a minimum standard, it includes a huge loophole that allows the adoption of 

‘‘an alternative’’ to provisional ballots. It also fails to ensure that citizens will be 

notified whether the provisional ballot is ultimately counted. These problems could 

be solved by reworking the language of the bill. 

Fourth, H.R. 3295 fails to establish a federal minimum standard for America’s 

voting systems. As a recent report from Caltech and MIT points out, millions of 

votes are ‘‘lost’’ in each federal election because voting machines and their associated systems fail to properly record the voter’s intent. H.R. 3295 does not provide 

for basic standards to protect each voter. We believe that a vote in Alabama or Alaska, California or Connecticut, should be recorded and counted equally. We do not 

advocate a ‘‘one size fits all’’ solution that requires the same machines to be used 

nationwide. Rather, basic national standards are needed to ensure consistently low 

error rates, notice to the voter if she or he has mistakenly miscast a vote by overvoting or undervoting, full access for persons with disabilities or limited English 

proficiency, and an audit trail. Representative Conyers has proposed such basic minimum standards for voting systems, and we believe that this common-sense approach should be added to H.R. 3295. 

Mr. Chairman, the League of Women Voters has worked for years to protect voter 

rights. We have learned that the mechanisms of election administration can be complicated and detailed. But we have also learned that those mechanisms and those 

details determine whether each American citizen will have a fair opportunity to participate in our elections and whether every vote will count. 

The events surrounding the 2000 election exposed many problems that have been 

festering for years. Congress should not miss the opportunity to fix these problems. 

We urge that the deficiencies in H.R. 3295 be corrected so that real election reform 

can be passed by Congress and signed by the President. 

We thank you for your attention, and look forward to working with you on this 

vital issue.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will operate under 

the 5-minute rule, and the Chair has noted in which order Members have appeared on each side, and, again, because of the number of Members present, when the red light goes on, your time is 

up. And I would hope that Members would be accommodating to 

those who appeared later to give them a chance before we have to 

51

go and vote. So I will yield myself 5 minutes and ask Mr. Zelikow 

a few questions. 

Mr. Zelikow, the State of Wisconsin does not require statewide 

voter registration. It is required in communities of over 5,000, but 

it is optional for communities of less than 5,000 population. I believe that title 5 of the bill will require the State of Wisconsin to 

comply with this law by requiring registration at local government 

expense in the communities where registration is not required by 

State law. Am I correct in that? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Yes, you are correct in that, I believe, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Now, since the registration function 

is handled by local officials, and the local officials maintain the 

voter registration roll, is that not an unfunded mandate on the 

local government that will be required under this law to impose 

registration? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. No, sir, because the financial burden would shift 

to the State level and, therefore, would actually relieve county officials of a significant burden they now shoulder, and there is assistance specifically allocated for the State governments to pay for this. 

So it is both a funded mandate, to the extent it’s a mandate at all. 

It’s actually just a standard that Wisconsin can choose to implement in the way it finds most appropriate for its conditions, but 

the burden will fall on the State government that has access to 

Federal funds. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. But won’t this disenfranchise voters 

who have never had to register before, and all of a sudden there 

is a registration requirement imposed, and they show up to vote 

just like they voted in the past and find out that they haven’t registered, and they are shown the door? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. No, sir, because when you create the statewide registration system, the way that’s done is the way they would then 

use the DMV database and other statewide databases in order to 

instantly create a voter roll that would be useful for all the citizens 

of the State and, in fact, would immediately include every resident 

of those towns who has a driver’s license or is available through 

social service agencies of other kinds. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. But you don’t have to be a citizen to 

get a driver’s license. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. No, sir, you don’t. The validation of citizenship, 

which, by the way, our Commission strongly supports, is a problem 

that has to be addressed in other ways, because no jurisdiction in 

America, Federal, State, or local, has reliable databases on who is 

and who is not a citizen. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Now, turning to your Federal 

aid to get rid of punch card ballots provisions, Wisconsin got rid of 

punch card ballots beginning with the year 2000 election, and there 

was a phase-out after we have had several horror stories on punch 

card ballots affecting several offices. The highest office was a special election for Congress in 1993. The communities in my State 

spent their own money to replace punch card ballots with better 

types of voting systems. 

Do you think it’s fair to tax my constituents again after they paid 

to clean up their own punch card ballot mess to provide aid for peoVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
52

ple in jurisdictions that decided that they wanted to spend their 

State and local dollars doing something other than that? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Mr. Chairman, others here will know that I actually had the same concern you did and which other members of the 

Commission strongly hold, which is don’t punish the good folks, 

don’t punish the folks who have already cleaned up their system. 

Fortunately I can say that this bill heard that concern and did a 

couple of things to address it. First, they offered assistance to counties that don’t want to avail themselves of punch card buyout, but 

secondly and more importantly, the counties that have already 

spent money are not going to be penalized because they’ve already 

spent the money. Instead they will be able to get election assistance to do things like poll worker training, poll worker recruitment, obtaining polling places, which in your counties I think 

they’ll find are places where they are really strapped, having already spent the money on updating——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No, they are not strapped, because 

we use public buildings like schools and city halls and firehouses 

and things like that as polling places. We do not have polling 

places in most places in Wisconsin in any type of private building. 

I just am very concerned that you’re hanging a promise out there 

that if this is enacted, there are a lot of communities that are simply going to wait for the Federal aid to come, and given the fact 

that the appropriators are quite stingy, they are going to delay 

doing what my communities have taxed themselves to do. And I 

think that this might very well be an illusion on the horizon of the 

desert given the fact that we have had other expenses, particularly 

those caused by 9–11 and the economic downturn, and getting rid 

of punch card ballots I don’t think is going to be one of the high 

priorities of the appropriators. 

My time is up. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Mr. Chairman, could I respond very briefly? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. All right. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Just simply to say that I’m very open-minded 

about the best way to address that, but the members of our Commission had your concern, and they were looking for a bill that 

would not penalize communities that had already spent their taxpayer money to work on these machines, and that’s what we are 

trying to do, too. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate all the witnesses being here, but most of all I appreciate Mr. Zelikow being here because I knew Gerald Ford when he 

was a Congressman from Michigan, Grand Rapids, and I knew 

Jimmy Carter from a long time back as well. 

Now, my understanding is that President Carter attended one 

out of five meetings, right? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. No, sir, that’s not correct. 

Mr. CONYERS. Tell me what is right. Two out of five? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. No, sir——

Mr. CONYERS. Wait a minute. Three out of five? Four out of five? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. If I could just explain——

Mr. CONYERS. Pick a number. Give me a number. 

53

Mr. ZELIKOW. President Carter chaired one of the four public 

hearings and attended and chaired the entirety of the key drafting 

session on the Commission report in addition to——

Mr. CONYERS. That’s one out of five. Look now, you’re not going 

to waste my time like this, my friend. Let’s get that straight. Answer the direct question, no running the clock on me. Okay. Have 

you ever heard of a private nonpartisan group endorsing legislation? In other words, this distinguished Presidential private committee met and issued a report in August. What was that date? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. July 31, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. July. And then you double—when did the Commission expire? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. The Commission has not expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. It’s still going on? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. In other words, if you had what George Will refers 

to as an epiphany, you would be able to go back and reassemble 

the Commission; is that correct? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. If they decided—okay, you answered it. Right. 

Now, what happened between July 31 and November 30 when 

we found out that you did this, little wonderful Gerald Ford—oh, 

God, here’s an op-ed written by Carter, Ford, Cutler and Bob 

Michel, all four of them. Now, what transpired? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Some of you folks wrote a bill that adopted our 

language verbatim in many respects and which we thought we 

ought to notice. 

Mr. CONYERS. And that was after you had examined all the bills 

that were in existence? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. No. 

Please continue. I don’t wish to interrupt you, Congressman. 

Mr. CONYERS. I don’t want you to interrupt me. Did you consider 

all of the bills in existence? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Congressman, you may——

Mr. CONYERS. Yes or no. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. To the best of my knowledge, yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Did you consider H.R. 1170? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. And what meeting was that, that this was considered? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. The Commission exchanged written communications about your bill responding to——

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. I get it. 

Mr. ZELIKOW [continuing]. In response to a written analysis——

Mr. CONYERS. I understand. I see how this is shaping up. Okay. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. I should add, Mr. Conyers, you were present when 

you declared very firmly to leading members of our Commission 

what your bill did and how important that bill was. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I didn’t ask you to add that. That was an 

unsolicited comment, but we will leave it in the record. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. I think your question had to do——

Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment, sir. You see that yellow light? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Yes, sir. 

54

Mr. CONYERS. You’ve done a good job. Now, how in God’s name 

can you come before—here is a civil rights matter, two past Presidents, and you tell me that several months afterward, without a 

meeting, talking over the phone and e-mailing and faxing, looking 

at all the bills, I believe you, you came to the total—was that a 

unanimous conclusion, by the way? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. To which conclusion are you referring to, sir? 

Mr. CONYERS. The only one that I have been talking about, the 

support of the measure before us. Was that a unanimous conclusion? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good to have you all with us today. 

Ms. Mitchell, you indicated that you don’t see any need for the 

new Federal agency to administer programs contained in various 

election reform measures. Many people believe that the Federal 

Election Commission has been ineffective in its approach to election administration. What would you say to these Doubting 

Thomases and Doubting Janes to convince them that the FEC can 

handle these additional responsibilities? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Mr. Coble, I think that it’s clear that—let me just 

say this. I have been somebody who has been very critical of the 

Federal Election Commission. I do battle with them on a regular 

basis on behalf of clients and in my law practice. But the Office of 

Election Administration is a very small part of the Federal Election 

Commission, five staff people, not much appropriation, but the bill 

H.R. 3295—and I didn’t emphasize earlier in my remarks I do support the legislation. I think it’s really done a good job of balancing 

various interests. The one thing that concerns me about the new 

advisory commissions and boards and agency that’s created in H.R. 

3295 essentially is that it creates five more boards and temporary 

commissions, and it has over 160 people to be appointed. One of 

the boards has a hundred—over 110 people on it, and to have one 

meeting of all those different things is going to cost a quarter of 

a million dollars. 

Mr. COBLE. I don’t disagree with that. I guess I just wanted to 

hear from you about the FEC’s role. But I don’t disagree with that. 

Mr. Dickson, you laced your testimony very generously with 

humor, and I appreciate it because we need all the humor we can 

get. 

Mr. COBLE. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Dickson. You indicated that H.R. 3295 would have 50 different standards defining 

access to voting systems. Now section 221(b) of the bill authorizes 

the FEC to promulgate voluntary standards for States, including 

ensuring the accessibility of voting registration polling places, running equipment, et cetera. Furthermore, title five requires that 

States certify that they are in compliance with the ADA. 

Now, the courts interpreting the ADA, it is my belief, have uniformly held that accessibility is precisely what is required. So having said that, Mr. Dickson, would not all States have standards 

that are at least consistent with the ADA? 

55

Mr. DICKSON. Sir, there are problems with the ADA standards. 

There are two Federal courts that in tying their decisions in part 

to the ADA have ruled that there is no right to a secret ballot. One 

of those courts was in Michigan, the other in Texas. On the point 

of the 50 standards and the certification, the 17-year-old polling 

place access law required a similar voluntary standard and a similar certification that they were accessible, and we have the GAO 

saying that 80 percent of the polling places are not accessible and 

the cost of making a polling place accessible is minimal. It simply 

involves moving a polling place. We have seen all across this Nation election officials who have refused to do that. 

Mr. COBLE. All right, sir. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Zelikow, it was reported or I’ve read somewhere that there 

was extended debate regarding the issue of fraud as you all met 

between the various parties in attendance. Can you tell us what 

specific concerns about fraud were discussed? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. There were the entire litany of the usual partisan 

arguments over fraud. Is there fraud, is it a significant problem, 

is the problem outweighed by the abuses incurred in trying to 

purge lists and correct fraud? There were people who urged that 

we ought to take a firm stand on photo identification and back and 

forth on that. And essentially those disagreements were reconciled 

in our report by the decision to leap forward and recommend the 

statewide voter registration schemes that were recommended to us 

by many people as a way of kind of getting past that partisan 

trench warfare. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you all again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California, 

Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’m very appreciative to you and to Mr. Conyers for this hearing today. As you 

know, I chaired the Democratic Caucus Committee on Election Reform and we had the opportunity to go throughout the country 

holding hearings in at least six States. We learned an awful lot. 

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to ask all of the questions in the 

length of time that I have allotted, but let me start with Ms. Mitchell. 

You made some points that our task force may agree with you 

on and may disagree with you on. You talked a lot about fraud, but 

you did not talk about on the opposite side voter intimidation and 

other obstacles to voting and the information and the documentation of obstacles to voting experienced by minorities, et cetera. 

What are your thoughts on the opposite side of this discussion relative to every citizen having access to the polling place and the 

right to vote without intimidation, et cetera? What do you think 

should be done on that side of the discussion? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Congresswoman, it seems to me that these are 

not opposite ends. These are not contrary viewpoints. We can all 

support the notion that everybody has a right to vote who is eligible, who is duly registered. We ought to encourage everybody to 

vote. People ought to not fear intimidation when they go to the 

polls. I don’t think there’s any disagreement about that. It seems 

to me that the recommendations included the provisions that are 

56

included in H.R. 3295 for creation of statewide voter registration 

databases that are maintained, that are accurate, that, for instance, take advantage of other agency databases that may exist in 

a State to make sure that if somebody is a convicted felon who is 

not eligible to vote under the State law, that that information is 

in the database before election day so that someone doesn’t have 

to be fearful of being alleged to be ineligible. 

Ms. WATERS. What about intimidation at the polling place? What 

do you recommend be done about that? What are your feelings 

about that? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I think the most important thing is to recruit and 

train election poll workers who know how to treat people. 

Ms. WATERS. You indicated there should be penalties for those 

who are suspected of fraud or convicted of fraud in some way. You 

seem to have a lot of information about that. What about penalties 

or exercising at least the law as we know it against those who prevent people from voting on election day? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, I think that if that happens that shouldn’t 

be allowed. By the same token I would look—for instance, I would 

call the Committee’s attention to something that happened again 

in Florida with regard to the letter that went out on counting the—

how not to count the overseas and military ballots that were coming in after the specified time because Florida was under consent 

decree. I think that any effort not to count duly cast eligible votes 

is improper. People should be punished for that. 

Ms. WATERS. Let’s talk about Missouri. You seem to know a lot 

about Missouri. I know quite a lot about Missouri, too. I happened 

to be there during one election where I went to the telephone, I 

called the Department of Justice to come in because of what I considered quite a bit of harassment in one section of St. Louis at the 

polling place where more than one piece of identification was being 

required of some and where people were being sent away from the 

polling place. Do you know about that in Missouri? 

Ms. MITCHELL. No, but I think you’ve raised an important point 

here that if we have a voter registration data base that has integrity and is correct, one of the things I recommended in my testimony, other people have recommended as well, that people have a 

voter identification number, perhaps something that they can remember. The Office of Election Administration had recommended 

having a number that is the last four digits of your Social Security 

number plus your birth date. Anybody can remember that so even 

if you don’t have a card that——

Ms. WATERS. In many States there are no voter identification requirements. I’m from California and we don’t have that. In some 

States they have statutes or laws that require one piece of legitimate kind of identification. Sometimes it’s not described thoroughly. But if there’s a question at the polls about whether or not 

that identification meets the requirements, what do you think 

should happen at the polling place on that day? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I think that issue should be addressed before 

election day to as great an extent as possible so that the database——

Ms. WATERS. But if it is not, what do you think should happen? 

57

Ms. MITCHELL. I think the only alternative then is to have some 

method for provisional voting so that a——

Ms. WATERS. Have you looked at the provisional aspects of——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Ms. WATERS. Unanimous consent for 30 seconds, please, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The witness please answer the question. 

Ms. WATERS. The question that I was putting to her has to do 

with provisional balloting. In this legislation there is some broad 

identification for how it should take place. Do you think that’s tight 

enough or strong enough? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, again I come back to—and this is really 

something that is going to be carried out on the local level, in those 

polling places. And I would highly recommend that that be something that be submitted from the local to the State to whatever 

agency or commission you end up with. I do not think that should 

be mandated in Federal legislation. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman has 

now really expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas. 

Mr. GEKAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just following up a bit on 

the provisional voting that has just been discussed, in Pennsylvania our procedures call for allowing a voter who can swear that 

he is registered, knows that he’s eligible to vote to sign an affidavit 

there on the spot at the polling place. It isn’t called provisional voting, but we believe that it complies. Is that the general agreement 

among the witnesses that is an aspect of it that could comply? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Mr. Gekas, could I comment briefly, because this 

provision on provisional balloting in the bill has been attacked precisely because it allows for analogous methods. The irony is we 

wrote that language that way, which was then adopted into the bill 

in our commission, precisely for States like yours, for Pennsylvania, 

that have affidavit balloting, which is very generous to voters, and 

we did not wish to outlaw that procedure by an unduly constrictive 

provisional of balloting. 

Ms. MITCHELL. I think the one issue arises where the question 

is, is the ballot then segregated in order to be able to validate subsequent to the election, or the incident itself or the time when the 

voter is there, is the ballot segregated so that it can then be counted once it is confirmed that the person is eligible to vote or whether 

it is just included based on the word of the voter. 

Mr. GEKAS. I think the regulations would cover the consequences 

there. But now, quickly to Motor Voter, which has been giving us 

headaches since it was first conceived and enacted by this Congress. As a result, even before the Federal election in November of 

2000, we had hundreds of complaints about the fraud and ineligibility of voters under Motor Voter. I had to—I finally convened a 

task force myself who had recommendations to offer about how to 

fine-tune Motor Voter. For instance, one of the things that they say 

is that the Motor Voter Act requires only the minimum amount of 

information necessary and it is insufficient in determining a registrant’s eligibility. 

58

Are you convinced that this bill can cure that defect that this 

Committee found? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I think one of the most important things that it 

does is it allows for a better way of maintaining the voter registration lists that the National Voter Registration Act really created 

huge obstacles. My own State of Oklahoma, for instance, prior to 

the enactment of Motor Voter there were regular systems for purging rolls and making certain that the voter rolls were cleaned up 

regularly. The change, the Motor Voter, basically makes that almost impossible, and this bill does ease those restrictions and allows for the maintenance of a clean database. That’s the best guard 

against voter fraud. 

Mr. GEKAS. My recollection is that the fraud or scandal that occurred in St. Louis, Missouri, was because of the flaws in Motor 

Voter. I remember Senator Bond wrote a scathing editorial commentary on that. Do you agree that that was partially the cause 

for that? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I think that was part of it, but again it is because 

you come back to there was not a good clean roster. There wasn’t 

a method in place before election day to make certain that database is secure, that all people have the opportunity at any polling 

place to be electronically accessible to the central database and 

that you allow it to get cleaned up regularly. All of us—anybody 

who’s been involved in politics knows the importance of the lists. 

And you know how difficult it is to maintain accurate lists of supporters and donors and everything else. It’s important that we keep 

these lists——

Mr. GEKAS. Doesn’t Motor Voter make—exacerbate that? Motor 

Voter exacerbated that. Now, the question arises does this bill cure 

that, and the question that I have is that if the last section of the 

bill makes certain that all the previous laws remain in force, that 

the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 shall continue 

unabated by this bill, yet Mr. Zelikow says this bill would transform the voter registration system, voting procedures and voting 

systems in practically every county. How do we do it if we maintain 

the flow of ineligibility that Motor Voter seems to provide? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Mr. Gekas, we took the same approach Ms. Mitchell recommends in our Commission. It’s basically don’t touch 

NVRA. There is a problem of dead wood. It’s a real problem. But 

to fix that problem don’t change NVRA on this. Actually it’s ironic 

that we recommended not changing NVRA. The bill doesn’t change 

NVRA, yet a number of its opponents claim that it does even 

though the bill expressly twice states that it does not. 

Our approach then to solve the problem if you’re not going to 

change NVRA is that you have to get at the underlying voter list, 

as Ms. Mitchell pointed out, and that was the approach we suggested. And we think try this approach because we think it will 

transform the quality of our voter lists. 

Mr. GEKAS. So in other words, if we under this bill cause the 

obligatory nature of Motor Voter to clean up the rolls, that that 

would keep Motor Voter intact but deliver it from one of its evils? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Yes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

59

Ms. WATERS. I would ask unanimous consent to correct some incorrect misinformation that was just accepted as fact in the last 

discussion. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is not recognized. 

This is a 5-minute rule with questions and answers. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chair. I will yield some time to my 

colleague from California, but I think—and I’m going to, I think, 

interpret the question that was posed to you, Ms. Mitchell, by Congresswoman Waters, and I can speak to this firsthand because I 

was involved in a rather famous landmark case that was constantly quoted during Florida. But your emphasis in your opening 

remarks about ineligible voters, from where I sit, very clearly the 

problem was—and I don’t want to describe it as fraud, but I think 

technology, system deficiency laws, the necessity to get eligible voters to the polls, let them vote and have it counted accurately was 

a far more significant crisis than so-called voter fraud. 

And with that, I would yield a minute or so to my friend from 

California. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. Congressman Gekas talked 

about the provisional balloting system in Pennsylvania. I held a 

hearing in Philadelphia. The provisional system there was in order 

to sign the affidavit you had to go to the local police department. 

That’s why we have national standards because that’s a deterrent 

to voting. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Congresswoman, that’s why we called for increasing provisional balloting. 

Mr. FRANK. You better define what you mean by the precinct. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. It’s not usually the police station. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I’ll take back my time from the gentleman from 

Massachusetts. 

Mr. Leonard, I was called out when you were talking about in 

some cases the bill before us moves, goes backward. It’s tough for 

me to imagine going backward. I’m going to review your testimony. 

And you had started to enumerate in those particular sections. I 

do agree I think it was with Mr. Zelikow about, you know, the—

how does that cliche, the good and the perfect and the enemy 

thereof, I think whatever we do has to be a step forward. I think 

it’s really critical given what occurred in the past presidential election that we take advantage of this opportunity. I think we owe it 

to the American people. We owe it to our heritage, to our Constitution to move forward. 

But the one issue that concerns me, and I’m confused in this, is 

the concern by the disabled community. You know, Representative 

Hoyer was one of the original—in fact he was the lead House sponsor in 1990 of the Americans With Disabilities Act. He has circulated a fact sheet entitled ‘‘Myths and Facts,’’ the myth being the 

Help America Vote Act will weaken the ADA and other important 

civil rights laws. The fact is according to this memorandum that 

absolutely nothing in H.R. 3295 diminishes the requirements of the 

ADA. It’s simply wrong. In fact, he goes on to say that this is the 

first legislation to be reported by a House Committee that specifically requires State compliance with the existing applicable reVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
60

quirements of the ADA in the administration of elections. Moreover, one of the eligibility requirements per election assistance 

funding under the bill is that there be at least one voting system 

available in each precinct or polling place that is fully accessible to 

voters with disabilities. 

Now, somebody is not intentionally misrepresenting, but boy, 

there’s a lot of confusion here and this is an important point I 

know for many of us in regards to this issue. I would hope that it 

could be clarified and that we could move on, because I think that 

it’s important that Congress does something in this session so that 

the American people can have confidence in the integrity of their 

system. 

Mr. Zelikow, why don’t you respond? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Congressman, having read the bill line by line repeatedly, I agree with your assessment and I agree with the assessment that Congressman Hoyer offered to you. Not only does it reaffirm the existing laws repeatedly and require compliance with 

them, it also has the additional requirements for new voting systems to provide a practical and effective means for voters with disabilities to cast a secret ballot, language, by the way, that was recommended to us in one of our task force sessions by the disabilities 

groups as model language to use in legislation, which we then incorporated in our report and which was then adopted. 

So we think this is a landmark achievement. We know it does 

not solve some problems. It does not solve accessibility of polling 

places. There are some complex reasons why that’s a hard problem 

to solve, especially in places like Wisconsin where they use a lot 

of private places and homes and churches as polling places. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all 

the members of the panel for their contributions today. Ms. Mitchell, I think you summed up what many of us perceive to be the biggest problem here and that is, in your testimony where you said 

the real threat to the American election process is the potential for 

deliberate fraud and systems that fail to protect the integrity of the 

voting process. 

I wanted to ask you in that regard your opinion of the National 

Voter Registration Act, the so-called Motor Voter law. That law has 

been criticized as loosening up the ability of the States to prevent 

fraud in a number of instances, whether it is removing voters who 

haven’t participated in the process over several elections, that’s 

been made much more costly and difficult to do and isn’t done as 

much. There are lots of inaccurate information on the rolls. Allowing for registration by mail, not providing for requiring Social Security number or some proof of citizenship prior to registration in voting. 

I’m wondering what your recommendation would be with regard 

to that law. Do you think it should be scrapped or, more likely, do 

you think it should be amended? What particular changes would 

you make? I’ll extend that opportunity to other members of the 

panel who might want to comment on it as well. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Congressman, I think that H.R. 3295 goes a long 

way in trying to address some of the problems created by Motor 

61

Voter. I think it would be—I see no possibility or even perhaps desirability after the States have worked to try to figure out how to 

comply with Motor Voter to now come along and say we were just 

kidding. So I think that the reality is that we have the National 

Voter Registration Act, the States have been working with that for 

a number of years. We now know some of the problems created by 

that act. I think H.R. 3295 goes a long way to trying to resolve 

those, most particularly the recognition—I come back to my response to Congresswoman Waters—the best protection against 

voter fraud and against voter intimidation on election day at the 

polls is having as sound a system of a voter registration database 

as you can possibly establish. I do think there should be some kind 

of voter identification number that can be—I think that should not 

be issued until a photo ID is presented so that you make sure that 

that number goes with that person and that follows that person if 

they move from one precinct to another. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Are the provisions in the bill satisfactory in that 

regard? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I think they could be strengthened. But at the 

same time we don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. 

But I do think that H.R. 3295 does go a distance to resolving some 

of the problems with Motor Voter. I think if this is enacted I think 

we’ll begin to see from the States some of their recommendations 

and their—how it is that—they would recommend as part of their 

plans to get funding how they’re going to enforce some of this effort 

to clean up the voter registration database. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. What does this legislation do to enable the 

States to better clean up their records and would it make it easier 

for them to remove people from the rolls who haven’t voted in several elections? 

Ms. MITCHELL. My understanding is that it specifically provides 

that that particular provision of the National Voter Registration 

Act that prohibits—it eases the restrictions on removing people 

from the rolls. It also provides for funding possibilities for a State. 

Again I come back—I’ve been in a legislative body trying to deal 

with—the cost is millions of dollars to do these things, to have a 

centralized voter database, and to provide some funds for that from 

the Federal Government is very important to getting it done. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Anybody else want to comment? 

Mr. LEONARD. I would like to say Ms. Mitchell is correct that 

with the next step in implementation of an improved voter registration system is a statewide list. It’s important that it’s a statewide list that operates well, and that’s why it’s key that it be 

hooked into the Department of Motor Vehicles, which frankly has 

the best information, including date of birth and address, to make 

the system work better. 

One of the concerns we have about the bill is it does not explicitly call for the linkage with the Department of Motor Vehicles in 

the States, but that is the important next step in registration reform. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Anyone else? 

Mr. Chairman, I’m pleased to yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Fourteen seconds. The gentleman 

from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank. 

62

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I think we should 

make it explicit that this is not an entirely neutral subject. Ideology is a factor. It’s not an accident that conservatives tend to be 

more critical and liberals more supportive of efforts to make it easier to vote. In fact, voting is correlated with socioeconomic conditions, and the harder it is to vote, to some extent difficult voting 

machines and requirements become latter day functional equivalents of literacy tests or poll taxes. It’s not odd that there’s an ideological cast. We understand that. There is nothing wrong with that. 

In fact, it’s only wrong when people are pretending it isn’t. It is 

clear to me that the harder it is to vote, the less representative the 

actual result will be and it will have a conservative bias. It will 

particularly bias people who are the most vulnerable. 

Now, I want to add that I know that Steny Hoyer well understands that. As my colleague pointed out, the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, Mr. Hoyer was in fact when Tony Coehlo 

left the parent of the Americans with Disabilities Act. So I have no 

question about his bona fides. If he was in fact in the majority I 

think we would have a different and better bill. 

We have two sets of questions. One, if the bill makes some improvements but fewer than you want, do you accept this now or do 

you fight another day? That’s a legitimate philosophical question. 

But there is a second question. I want to get to Mr. Zelikow on 

this. And that is what if it makes it worse? Now, there were two 

areas where advocates with whom I am in agreement argue that 

it makes it worse. One has to do with the ADA. I must say there 

seems to me a contradiction there. One argument has been that 

this weakens the ADA, but Mr. Dickson I think more accurately 

says the problem isn’t—he doesn’t find the American Disabilities 

Act a sufficient standard. It does not seem to me this weakens the 

ADA. There is a quarrel about whether we should go beyond it. But 

it seem to me, Mr. Zelikow, that it weakens the National Voter 

Registration Act. Ms. Mitchell is right in being happy that it does 

and you are not quite right in claiming that it doesn’t. 

Go to page 105. And it specifically says, page 105, nothing in 

paragraph may be construed to prohibit a State—it says, ‘‘The National Voter Registration Act is amended by inserting the following: 

Except that nothing may be construed to prohibit a State, et 

cetera.’’ Here is the difference: What it says is under this an individual can be dropped if he or she hasn’t voted in two or more consecutive general elections and has not notified the registrar in writing that he or she is still there. You have this in the alternative. 

You say if you haven’t voted twice you can be dropped either if you 

don’t respond to a letter you get from the registrar or if you don’t 

initiate it. In other words, under this the registrar wouldn’t have 

to send you a notice. If you didn’t vote twice and did not then take 

the initiative in notifying him I am still here, you could be dropped. 

That’s a weakening of the National Voter Registration Act. 

Now, if you didn’t have that ‘‘or,’’ it would be different. But you 

do. And so it reads, because of the ‘‘or if the individual,’’ you can 

be dropped if the individual has not voted or appeared in two or 

more consecutive general elections for Federal office and has not 

notified the applicable registrar in person or in writing that the individual intends to remain registered in the registrar’s jurisdiction. 

63

Now I left out some words but the words I left out are preceded 

by an ‘‘or’’ which means that this stands independently. 

Isn’t that the case and do you really mean that to be the case? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. No, sir. 

Mr. FRANK. Which? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. No, I don’t think this bill does what you just said 

it does. 

Mr. FRANK. How could it not? There’s an ‘‘or’’ there. Does it not 

say that you can be dropped if you haven’t voted twice and you 

haven’t volunteered a notification? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. No, sir, actually I read it—the language I have in 

front of me says, have not voted in two or more consecutive general 

elections for Federal office and who have not responded to a notice 

shall be removed. In other words, they don’t have to then take the 

initiative to contact. They have to fail to respond. 

Mr. FRANK. You left out words. Here’s what it says. Appeared to 

vote in two or more consecutive general elections for Federal office 

and has not notified the applicable registrar or responded. What 

you read is correct but it comes after an ‘‘or.’’ there’s a phrase between that and the ‘‘or′′

And that therefore stands independently. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. We may be looking at two different sections of the 

act. 

Mr. FRANK. I’m looking at page 105, H.R. 3295. The first paragraph, do you have that in front of you? It says, has not notified 

the applicable registrar, parentheses, in person or in writing, or responded to a notice. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. No, I understand now. In the section you’re referring to, I refer to, is a two-part test. They have to fail to do both. 

Mr. FRANK. ‘‘or’’ doesn’t make it a two-part test. ‘‘or’’ means it is 

either/or. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. That’s right. That have to either not do this or not 

do that. They have to fail both ways. 

Mr. FRANK. That is the oddest reading of a statute I have ever 

seen. Mr. Dickson could read that statute better than that without 

his wife. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. If you read 903(a) and (b) just to make sure that 

that odd reading is the reading the courts will give it. 

Mr. FRANK. I’m very disappointed in that. I think you made a 

mistake. But it clearly doesn’t say what you’re trying to say. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. But the act does say that it does not limit or 

change the NVRA. 

Mr. FRANK. Except for this. That’s a significant exception. 

Mr. LEONARD. I would like to get in on this if somebody would 

like to——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 

Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the risk of changing 

the subject, I would like to focus my questions to Mr. Dickson, and 

I apologize for not being able to get away from the Israel resolution 

debate on the floor in time to hear your testimony, but I have read 

it with great interest and want to express my appreciation for your 

work at AADP and the clarity of your thoughts expressed in writing. 

64

I come from a conservative perspective and I’m always looking 

for what we might have government not do, and what I’m genuinely curious about is the degree to which the American Association of People with Disabilities has looked at the issue of accessibility relative to voting. And I ask this knowing a lot of times you 

have people that have answers in mind. I don’t know what the answer is. I spent a lot of time in my early political career eating 

stale donuts at polling places 11 hours into the day. Never have I 

been to a polling place where I didn’t see people scramble to help 

people with disabilities in every way possible to exercise their franchise. 

Is that a midwestern experience of mine from Indiana or do we 

have a genuine problem, Mr. Dickson, that the AADP is recognizing in expressing their discomfort with what you refer to as 

loopholes in this bill? 

Mr. DICKSON. Sir, there are election officials who have been spectacular in their accommodating people with disabilities, but that is 

not the rule. Many election officials in their hearts believe and 

have said to us vote absentee, vote at the curbside. That takes 

away privacy and it sets up a separate standard for us. We 

wouldn’t say to African Americans or women vote absentee or vote 

at the curbside. 

On the question of how does this weaken the ADA, the difficulty 

is that under the ADA we have one national standard for defining 

access. Under this piece of legislation we would have 50 States setting up different standards. That’s not only going to create confusion, it’s going to hurt the industry, which is trying to build machinery to one standard. The problem is if the ADA afforded the 

protection that we need, why do 80 percent of the polling places 

still have physical barriers? As we speak, counties all across the 

Nation are rushing to buy inaccessible optical scan machines and 

they know that they’re inaccessible, and they know about the ADA 

yet they’re doing it. We’ve had to file suit against three cities. The 

State of Arizona is considering requiring optical scans statewide. 

Mr. PENCE. Understood. What about the arguments of those, and 

maybe you have already heard them, Mr. Dickson, who says particularly section 502 of the bill that requires States—essentially 

comes in a way of—there’s a lot of funding in these mandates that 

we might give in these bills, but it seems to me there’s a little bit 

of unfunded mandates here. It requires States to adopt minimum 

standards in assuring, ‘‘No voting systems provide a practical and 

effective means for voters with disabilities to cast a secret ballot.’’

As you point out in your piece, there is the equivalent facilitation 

requirement under the ADA. Is this not a higher standard that the 

bill calls for? And isn’t that progress from the standpoint of people 

with disabilities relative to voting their franchise? 

Mr. DICKSON. No, sir. Unfortunately it defines disability as physical. I’ve had election officials say to me and other blind people you 

don’t have a physical disability, you have a sensory disability, 

therefore, that wouldn’t apply to us. The same would apply to people with mental disabilities. And the key word is where it’s practical and effective. We have election officials who believe that 

curbside voting or absentee ballots are practical and effective. I’m 

a blind man. 

65

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

There are three votes on the floor. The Committee will recess for 

these votes. I would encourage Members who have not asked questions yet to return promptly after the last vote, and we will then 

recognize you in the order in which you initially appeared. 

The Committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. The 

gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is recognized for 5 minutes. The gentlelady, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to wait until there 

is order in the room; if everybody can be seated, I would appreciate 

it. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order 

again. The gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I was wondering if we’ve lost one of the witnesses. I just wanted to make sure——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. They’re all accounted for. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could the doors in 

the back be closed, please? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me also thank the Ranking Member for his leadership on this 

important issue and take note that although the Conyers-Dodd or 

the Conyers bill is not before this Committee, we recognize the 

work and the thoroughness of that effort. Likewise let me congratulate the proponents and authors of this legislation, Mr. Hoyer and 

Mr. Ney, as I do realize that their intentions are extremely meritorious, and I think they should be acknowledged for that. 

I heard testimony earlier this afternoon that we should not relive 

Florida. I agree. Florida speaks for itself. No one can add to the 

story that Florida told, and that is that we denied Americans the 

right to vote. But I do think we should at least allude to the philosophical differences that we have seen play out in this room and 

I think that contributes to maybe the differences of opinion. 

I happen to believe that every American has the right to vote. 

And what I have heard in some instances and some questions that 

there are those with philosophies that it should be the rich, the 

educated, the physically able, and the mentally able, and I believe 

the distinction in the two legislative initiatives, the Dodd bill and 

possibly the Dodd-Conyers and the Ney-Hoyer is the question of 

standards, and I would like to see that we have legislation that 

mandates particular standards so that we do not have 50 different 

standards in 50 different States. 

I want to applaud the witnesses for their different perspectives. 

This is what testimony is all about. But let me briefly include in 

the record so that I will not have to revisit Florida, although I 

spent a lot of time in Florida, current day incidences that I think 

play into why we are here today. I also joined the Election Task 

Force and visited many cities listening to testimony and had the 

pleasure of being with the representatives of the Carter/Ford Commission, and I respect the work you’ve done. 

But let me cite, and I think we had as a witness today Marilee 

P. Brown, who just had an election in 2001, and tell me what we 

faced on that day. Changing polling places right before the election, 

no notice particularly to minority communities, no voter verificaVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
66

tion of the computerized system. It failed, and so voters who came 

were turned away, particularly in minority communities: Inconsistency of the application of the challenge of provisional ballots, precinct workers who did not understand that it was not discretionary 

to give a provisional ballot or a challenged ballot; voters turned 

away, misunderstanding about the need of a picture or a nonpicture ID, voters turned away; poll watchers talking to voters rather 

than just monitoring the voting circumstances and calling, voter 

suppression; voters on Election Day who voted in the general election, not on the list when they came back to vote in the runoff, 

voter suppression; precinct judges telling voters only one vote per 

household, therefore not allowing of the child that is 18 to vote 

when the mother voted. 

Again people arrested at the polls for asking for challenged ballots or provisional ballots, no way to verify the electronic voting, 

and I see the equipment here is in this room and we happen to be 

using that equipment, but no way to verify close votes on electronic 

voting. We need to have paper trails to be able to reconcile electronic voting tabs with the votes. Too much discretion and not a 

lot of training. Not Florida. Houston, Texas, December 1, 2001. 

So the standards issues are enormously important, and I wanted 

to submit those factors that occurred in the record because of the 

fact that we still deal with voter suppression and voter purging. 

Let me now raise a question on these very points, and if I can 

have, I believe, one of our witnesses who did not get a chance to 

finish his answers——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Lott, based upon 

your analysis, was the overall nonvoted ballot rate any higher in 

the 2000 election than in previous elections? 

Mr. LOTT. Are you talking about nationally or in Florida? 

Mr. CHABOT. Let’s start with Florida. 

Mr. LOTT. Florida it was slightly higher than it was in previous 

elections. You’re talking about maybe a few tenths of a percentage 

point. 

Mr. CHABOT. And in your opinion, would that be not that significant then? 

Mr. LOTT. I don’t think it was statistically significantly different, 

no. 

Mr. CHABOT. How about nationally relative to——

Mr. LOTT. Nationally, it’s actually been falling over time. It’s 

been fairly significantly falling over time. In Florida too, it depends 

whether you just want to compare it to the 1996 election or earlier 

ones. If you compare it to earlier ones, it’s actually been falling, if 

you look at it over a decade or so period of time. 

Mr. CHABOT. And there was, obviously, as a result of this election, a tremendous amount of hue and cry about nonvoted ballots 

and the rate, et cetera, but in reality, according to what you’re saying, it wasn’t that much more significant this time, at least in Florida than it was in previous elections. 

Mr. LOTT. Yeah. It was significantly lower than it was, let’s say, 

in 1992 in terms of spoiled ballots, significantly higher than 1996, 

67

and nationally, you’ve been seeing a drop fairly consistently over 

time as long as we have data going back to about 1988. 

Mr. CHABOT. It was obviously the closeness of the race that drew 

everyone’s attention to the specific election. 

Mr. LOTT. That is right. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Also Dr. Lott, in your written statement, you state that, and I quote, ‘‘even voting methods that do not 

work well on average nationally still produce remarkably low 

spoiled ballot rates in some jurisdictions.’’ Could you expound upon 

what that indicates or—— Mr. LOTT. Right. Well, one can go and look at the average rates 

of spoiled ballots across different types of machines, and you can 

say, for example, that maybe optical methods have lower spoiled 

ballot rates on average than punch cards, but there’s still a large 

variance that you have there. In fact, the highest spoiled ballot 

rates for some counties for optical is much higher than it is for 

punch cards. 

The highest punch card county in terms of spoiled ballots is 

about 16 percent. You actually have a half dozen or so counties in 

the country which have maybe about 5 percentage points higher 

and on average, nonvoted ballots that use optical type systems, and 

there is a fair number of punch cards systems that—counties which 

had zero spoiled ballots for all practical purposes. And so one of the 

concerns that you have there is that if you adopt a national standard—and simply when you change systems you can have an increase in spoiled ballots as people kind of get the kinks out of the 

system and people learn how to use it and get it up and running. 

And so having a national standard where you don’t take into account the fact that maybe certain types of machines may have been 

working very well in certain areas could actually increase the number of spoiled ballots in those areas. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. Mr. Leonard, let me ask you 

a question if I can. In your written testimony, you stated that H.R. 

3295 amends the National Voter Registration Act in a way that allows citizens to be purged from voter registration rolls if they don’t 

vote. Now, under section 502(2)(a) of title five, it requires States to 

certify in writing to the Election Assistance Commission that they 

have enacted legislation that removes individuals from the list of 

eligible voters, if they have not voted in more than two or more 

consecutive general elections for Federal office and, and I want to 

emphasize the ‘‘and,’’ have not responded to a notice. It specifically 

prohibits the removal of an individual solely by reason of a failure 

to vote. Would you comment on that? 

Mr. LEONARD. Yes. As we have discussed earlier, section 902 of 

the bill amends the National Voter Registration Act to set up a 

new purging requirement, a new purging system under which 

someone could be purged for failure to vote and failure to respond 

to a notice. That is different than, and less protective of voters than 

the current system, whereby a person who has moved gets a notice, 

then has an opportunity to vote in two Federal elections, and then 

go to the polls and correct erroneous information. 

That’s the fail-safe voting provision of section 8(e) of the National 

Voter Registration Act and that is what has taken away—that is 

what is taken away by the amendment in section 902. Cleta MitchVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
68

ell and I agree that this changes the National Voter Registration 

Act and makes it easier for voters to be removed from the polls. 

Our concern is that people will be erroneously removed from the 

polls. Our difference with Mr. Zelikow is that he believes it does 

not change the Voter Registration Act. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired, 

the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot has been said about 

this provisional vote and what happens if people show up without 

an identification card. In Virginia, if you show up without an identification card, you sign the affidavit and vote. That is not a provisional vote. It’s a vote. ‘‘provisional’’ is when you are told you can’t 

vote and you insist on voting and you vote and that vote is put 

aside for further verification. Now, the bill provides for a requirement for provisional ballot or an alternative. What could be an alternative to a provisional ballot? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Is that question to me? 

Mr. SCOTT. Sure. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. An alternative to a provisional ballot would be an 

affidavit voting system——

Mr. SCOTT. That would provide that everybody who self-certifies 

that they are eligible to vote will in fact be allowed to vote; is that 

right? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Right and then you don’t research the further eligibility of that voter. You accept the affidavit as binding. That’s an 

affidavit voting system which is actually very generous of the voter 

because it doesn’t do further research into the voter’s qualifications. 

Mr. SCOTT. And does the vote count? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Yes, it counts on the spot. 

Mr. SCOTT. So anybody who self-certifies under that provision 

can vote. 

Mr. ZELIKOW. If a State has chosen the affidavit balloting system, yes, and several States do have such a system. 

Mr. SCOTT. Then there is no provisional situation? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Precisely. 

Mr. SCOTT. The only provisional situation is when the State decides that you can’t vote. In that situation nobody—anybody who 

shows up can vote, that’s not after——

Mr. ZELIKOW. Correct. The goal is that no one who shows up 

claiming to be eligible to vote is turned away by being told that 

they are not eligible. If they assert their eligibility, that’s either accepted on the spot or it is researched later, but they always get to 

cast a vote, at least provisionally. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does any State have that process? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. Yes, sir. Several do. We especially modeled our recommendations on the provisional ballot system in the State of 

Washington, which is the most ambitious form of this system. It allows voting statewide. That is, I can be in Tacoma, but I live in 

Seattle, but I want to go vote in Tacoma, cause I just happen to 

be in Tacoma that day. In Washington you can go in and vote in 

Tacoma and that ballot will be counted provisionally once they verify that you really do live in Seattle ’cause you live in the State of 

69

Washington. It can be counted for those candidates that are on the 

statewide ballot. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me get to Individuals With Disabilities Act. 

Under the ADA, I mean, the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you 

don’t like what’s going on, you can file an individual suit. You have 

a private right of action under ADA. What is your remedy under 

this bill? 

Mr. DICKSON. We like——

Mr. SCOTT. Can you push the——

Mr. DICKSON. I don’t know how to turn this. We like the private 

right of action under the ADA. The difficulty with the ADA in 

terms of voting is that the Department of Justice has interpreted 

the ADA to say that a disabled person can be compelled to vote either absentee or at the curb. That’s the DOJ ruling interpreting 

the ADA. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, how have the courts, if you used your—do you 

have a private right of action? 

Mr. DICKSON. Yes. Several—two courts have ruled that under the 

ADA there is no right of a secret ballot. 

Mr. SCOTT. Have other courts ruled differently? 

Mr. DICKSON. No. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does this bill advance or reduce your right to complain? 

Mr. DICKSON. The right to complain under this bill? 

Mr. SCOTT. Apparently there is no individual right of——

Mr. DICKSON. Yes. We would have like to have seen a private 

right of action in——

Mr. SCOTT. So are you better off with this bill or the ADA? 

Mr. DICKSON. That’s a difficult choice. Neither will—neither are 

going to solve the problem. If I could just answer one other question, we would like to see a dead date certain by which every polling place has to be accessible and by which there has to be one accessible machine. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me ask you. I have got little time left. Does the 

reduced mail rate make a difference or would it cause more confusion than it’s worth? There is a provision in here, you get half 

priced mail. Does that make a difference, anybody——

Mr. ZELIKOW. It makes a huge difference to county officials to 

who pay for mailings, and it actually takes away one of their excuses for not contacting voters more often to give them information 

they need. 

Mr. SCOTT. How about a bulk rate? 

Mr. ZELIKOW. In effect, as I understand the amendment, it’s an 

effort to try to get the benefits of a bulk rate mailing by specifying 

a reduced postal rate, but the details of what’s the bulk rate versus 

the rate in this bill is a matter on which I can’t help you. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I’m the last person 

to ask questions. So I will try to be quick. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. You can get up in line by being more 

prompt when the hearing starts. 

70

Mr. WATT. No. I wasn’t trying to get up in line. I wasn’t complaining. I’m actually honored to be the last person to go because 

I may be a little bit out of step on some of these issues. 

I don’t want to pick a fight with Ms. Mitchell. Obviously I engage 

a lot in hyperbole myself, but I guess one of the concerns I have 

is that we start this hearing by talking about the prospect—and 

you were the first witness to talk about it—the prospect that voter 

fraud, potential voter fraud is a much, much more serious problem 

than the reality that we confronted that a number of people who 

showed up at the polls not intending to participate in any kind of 

fraudulent activities, just wanting to vote, had their votes not 

counted in the last election. That was the whole impetus for reform. And then we start a hearing by your pronouncement number 

3 that the gravest danger to the election process is not, in all caps, 

faulty equipment that fails to protect voters from making mistakes. 

The real threat to the American election process is the potential for 

deliberate fraud in systems. 

Now, I grant you if you believe that, that’s fine. I’m not trying 

to pick a fight with you. I just can’t get to that as a starting point. 

I can’t get to the notion that the most important part of any kind 

of bill that we are going to pass is going to be a statewide registration system. I guess I have kind of been with the old-fashioned notion that if you were a United States citizen, it would be nice to 

be able to vote without having to register. I haven’t seen anything 

in my Constitution that requires registration. We were the symbol 

of democracy until, I guess, South Africa did their democratic election without registration. They put pictures on the ballot so that 

people could—you know, except for people who couldn’t see, people 

who even couldn’t read could pick out their candidates by just identifying them. 

I think the whole process that we engaged in here should be empowering people and encouraging people to vote, not setting up registration systems and checks and here and there that discourage 

people from voting. 

So I guess I’m having trouble asking a question to the panel because everybody on the panel seems to have accepted this basic notion that there is something American or even religious about registration, and on that, I guess if anybody wants to comment, I’ll 

leave the rest of my time. 

Mr. DICKSON. Voter registration rolls did not exist in this country 

until the beginning of the last century and in fact, the State of 

North Dakota maintains no voter registration roll. 

Mr. WATT. I admire North Dakota and maybe anybody else who 

wants to comment go right ahead. I’m not going to ask another 

question—I’m not going to ask a question. Comment. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Congressman, I want to take exception to the 

idea that by having a—a correct as pristine as possible voter registration database, that that is somehow a discouragement and impediment to voting. Now, it is true that I accept the premise that 

the States have, over the past century, enacted voter registration 

procedures, and those vary from State to State, and I accept that 

premise as a matter of Federalism, and that that’s within their 

constitutional prerogative. 

71

And so I accept that and so I start with that basic premise. If 

you’re going to have a registration system which every State but 

North Dakota has, some sort of a registration system, then it 

seems to me that the way to make sure it is not an impediment 

to voting is to make sure that it’s accurate and that you can eliminate a lot of the mischief that you and others have pointed out, if 

it’s correct before election day, and if your process is right then 

people will be able to get in and out smoothly, and they won’t have 

people questioning whether they can vote, and you don’t get into 

all the problems of provisional voting, et cetera. And that’s all I 

think we’re saying is you correct both problems through the same 

mechanism. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

That concludes the questioning. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. To ask unanimous consent, I was trying to ask 

Mr. Leonard a question, and I would—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Everybody has been limited to 5 

minutes and——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I’m raising it and I’m asking unanimous consent. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. You can put your question in writing 

and I would ask that whoever receives the question respond 

promptly so that we can include it in the record. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s never as effective as asking a question on the—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, everybody is able to allocate 

their time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I do understand that but in this instance I’m 

going to disagree because this is a very important hearing, and 

here we go again with cutting off conversation and debate. Thank 

you. I yield back my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentlewoman from Texas appeared at hearings on time——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am on time and this is not a question of debating whether I’m on time. I was on time. This is an important 

issue and I wanted to ask him some additional questions, and we’re 

always cutting off debate in this particular Judiciary Committee. I 

believe it’s unfortunate because this is a Committee that makes 

very important decisions. I only ask unanimous consent. You’re not 

giving it to me and I accept it. I believe it’s important to talk about 

issues dealing with people’s denial of the right to vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, then let me say——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It’s not about whether I’m on time at hearings. I’m on time. I do a lot of work in this Committee and I won’t 

accept that challenge of my credibility and the work that I do. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair announced what the rules 

were for the conduct of this hearing at the beginning of the hearing. Many Members wished to participate. I’m holding this hearing 

at the full Committee where there are 37 Members that have an 

opportunity to speak. It is the purpose of the rules and the Chair 

has applied the rules uniformly to all Members of the Committee 

72

regardless of what side of the aisle they sit on, that we adhere to 

the 5-minute rule in order to give everybody the same shot at the 

witnesses and to be as fair as possible. Extensions of time merely 

impose on other Members of the Committee, and that’s why the 

Chair stated expressly that when the red light went on, the questioners’ time and the witnesses’ time had expired. That is the way 

the Chair has operated this Committee since I became the Chairman in January. 

I think that it has been fair to all of the Members of the Committee because they knew coming in what the rules were and how 

they could allocate their time for questions. And that’s the way the 

Chair intends to continue conducting the hearings that we have 

and the markups that we have. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the Chairman yield? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan has 

got some unanimous consent requests. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a series of 

unanimous consents to include in the record statements, letters, 

and other documents from AFL-CIO, MALDEF, the National Council of La Raza, The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under Law, 

the Public Interest Research Corporation, Public Interest Research 

Group, Public Citizen United Methodist Church, NAACP—all in 

opposition to the legislation. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the letters referred to by the gentleman from Michigan will be included in the 

record. 

Mr. CONYERS. And I thank the Chairman for holding the hearings in such a timely fashion and I thank the witnesses as well. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And I thank the gentleman from 

Michigan for his cooperation. I thank the witnesses as well. It has 

been——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have additional material to 

put into the record. May I have unanimous consent to put it into 

the record? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the material that 

the gentlewoman from Texas wishes to put in the record will be included. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair would like to thank the 

witnesses as well. It has been a long day. We appreciate your patience during the pause of the four votes that called us away. All 

of your contributions have been very useful to this very controversial subject. 

In closing, let me say that the House Administration Committee 

has yet to file the Committee report on this legislation, even 

though they voted out this legislation on November 15, 2001. It is 

the intention of the Chair to request the leadership to give this 

Committee a sequential referral in order that we can mark up 

those sections of this legislation that are within the jurisdiction of 

the Committee on the Judiciary. This may very well be an extremely short sequential referral. So I would ask the Members of 

the Committee to bear with me in trying to give this Committee 

a chance to mark this bill up. The notice of any markup may be 

extremely short as a result of the short nature of the sequential, 

73

but I wish to give every Member of the Committee a shot at the 

provisions of the Ney-Hoyer bill that are within the Committee’s 

jurisdiction. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. I would like to congratulate you for attempting to 

acquire a sequential referral and under the exigencies of the time, 

the clock’s running out, I think that’s an extremely critical piece of 

business to accomplish for the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Mr. WATT. Would the Chairman yield for a question? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. Just on the sequential referral, I assume the sequential referral will be not for the period between Christmas and New 

Year’s like the sequential referral that we got on the reinsurance 

bill that was between Thanksgiving and the following week when 

we——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. You may recall the sequential we got 

on the Broad Band bill was over Memorial Day, but we were able 

to get that job done. If it comes the day before adjournment, obviously that is unreasonable and it is the intention of this Committee 

to state when something is unreasonable loudly and clearly. There 

being no further business to come before the Committee, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(75)

A P P E N D I X 

STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARBARA R. ARNWINE

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (‘‘The Lawyers’ Committee’’) 

has applauded the bipartisan efforts in both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate to pass comprehensive electoral reform before 

Congress adjourns for the year. Both the House and Senate have been working hard 

to move a bill on election reform this year, however, we must unequivocally state 

that the legislation which is the subject of the hearing today, which was introduced 

by Congressmen Robert Ney (R-OH) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) called ‘‘Help America 

Vote Act of 2001’’ as it is currently drafted, is not the right vehicle to move election 

reform forward. 

As it is currently drafted, the Help America Vote Act of 2001 plainly fails to address the grave problems so many Americans faced in the 2000 elections and continued to face this year in elections in New Jersey and Virginia. Consequently, the 

Lawyers’ Committee cannot support it. Congress needs to ensure that when it 

passes election reform legislation it truly solves the problems that voters throughout 

our nation encounter as they cast their ballots. Comprehensive electoral reform 

must move us forward with minimum standards that ensure uniformity and nondiscrimination. Under these standards all voters must have effective machinery 

which allows them to cast the vote they intend and to correct their ballot if they 

make a mistake. Comprehensive electoral reform must guarantee that legally registered voters are not erroneously purged from registration rolls, that voters are notified of and given the opportunity to cast provisional ballots, and finally, it must 

require that voters are informed of their rights under state and federal law. The 

one bill that goes the distance and addresses these problems head on is the Equal 

Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001, introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd 

and Congressman John Conyers. 

A simple examination of the details of the Help America Vote Act makes clear 

that there are serious problems which prevent it from bringing about true election 

reform and which actually take steps backward. 

H.R. 3295 has inadequate minimum standards for machinery. It does not ensure 

that voting systems, even those newly purchased with federal monies will be accessible, give the voter notice of overvotes and undervotes and the opportunity to correct their ballot before it is cast, and will meet a national error rate standard. Comprehensive electoral reform must provide these minimum requirements for all voting machines if it is to correct the problems that voters all over our nation faced 

on election day 2000 and 2001. 

H.R 3295 creates a loophole that allows states to opt out of provisional balloting. 

Provisional balloting is critical to ensure that registered voters have the ability to 

cast provisional ballots when there is confusion over issues of registration, identification or voting rights at the polling place. H.R. 3295 allows states to adopt ‘‘an alternative’’ to provisional balloting which in practice will undermine the access to 

and uniformity of provisional ballots. Furthermore, H.R. 3295 does nothing to guarantee that voters are aware of their right to cast a provisional ballot. More often 

than not, election officials do not provide adequate notification to voters that they 

can cast a provisional ballot. Therefore, for a provisional ballot measure to be meaningful and be a true safeguard as it is intended to be, it must require that election 

officials notify voters that they can receive a provisional ballot and also notify the 

voter of the final result. Problems with registration cannot be remedied unless voters know whether their ballot is counted. 

H.R. 3295 rolls back existing federal law that protects people from being purged 

if they have not voted. Two provisions in H.R. 3295 take a significant step backward 

to undermine the protections provided to voters against purging for erroneous inforVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
76

mation. These provisions turn the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (the 

‘‘NVRA’’) on its head by allowing state officials to remove individuals from registration list because they have not voted in two successive federal elections and then 

don’t respond to a notice. Current federal law does not allow voters to be purged 

from the rolls for not voting. However, the language of H.R. 3295 appears to allow 

such a practice and specifically amends a section of the National Voter Registration 

Act to change language which prevents voters from being purged for not voting. (See 

H.R. 3295, Section 502(2)(a) and Section 902(a)). Under these provisions, voters will 

be disenfranchised because the result of the purge is that they are not properly registered and, thus, cannot then have the safeguard of a provisional ballot to vote. 

Additionally, H.R. 3295, as it is currently drafted, also eliminates the ‘‘fail safe’’ provision of the NVRA which allows voters to correct erroneous information that 

caused the purge and then confirm their address in writing so that they can cast 

their ballot at the polling place. (42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(e)). Without this provision 

voters can be removed from the polls with no opportunity to correct inaccurate information and will also not be able to cast an effective provisional ballot because the 

erroneous registration information drops them from the registration list so election 

officials will be unable to count the provisional ballot. 

Finally, H.R. 3295 does not require full compliance with federal voting rights laws 

and offers no check on states to make sure they are in compliance. It is essential 

to election reform that as states contemplate how they will spend federal money 

there is a means to ensure that they are currently in compliance with existing federal voting rights laws. H.R. 3295 offers no such a provision. This bill by simply 

allowing states to self certify their compliance, and only in area of ‘‘administering 

election systems’’ (which narrows where states need to be in compliance), offers no 

real protection for taxpayers as states spend millions of federal dollars without having to be in compliance with federal law. True election reform must have in place 

a mechanism that requires the Attorney General to check for compliance prior to 

releasing funds for electoral reform. 

These provisions make clear and other elements of the legislation confirm that 

H.R. 3295, the bill offered by Congressmen Ney and Hoyer, cannot meet the concerns and problems that voters continue to face at polling places around the country. Going partway, as H.R. 3295 would have us do, and turning back the clock on 

important current voting rights laws, is not a compromise—true election reform 

must safeguard existing law and then move to solve the problems.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE MATT BLUNT

I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 3295, 

known as the ‘‘Help America Vote Act of 2001,’’ sponsored by Congressmen Ney, 

Hoyer and Blunt. I appreciate their hard work on the bill. I would also like to thank 

Congressman Conyers, Ranking Member of this Committee, for his interest in election reform. 

In light of the contentious recount of presidential ballots in Florida, public trust 

in our election systems and procedures has been threatened. Closer to home in Missouri, court intervention in the November 7, 2000, general election, as well as allegations of fraud and a continuing federal investigation into the conduct of the election in St. Louis City, have heightened public concern with the voting process. Even 

before I took office in January, 2001, as Missouri’s Secretary of State and the state’s 

chief election official, election reform was a top priority of mine. One of my first official acts as Secretary of State was to convene a bipartisan commission of election 

officials from across Missouri to conduct a complete review of the state election code 

and provide recommendations to improve election laws and procedures. As a result, 

I put together a comprehensive package of election law reforms. These reforms included an advance voting program, uniform statewide standards for voting and 

counting votes, and strong anti-fraud enforcement provisions. Unfortunately, the 

Missouri House of Representatives did not take up election reform until the last few 

hours of the 2001 legislative session, too late to consider and pass meaningful reform. Realizing that immediate action was necessary to ensure fair elections in Missouri, I took direct action by using the administrative rulemaking authority of my 

office to address flaws in the election process. The ‘‘Florida Fiasco’’ could have easily 

been the ‘‘Missouri Fiasco.’’ The changes I made by administrative rule establish a 

uniform standard for counting ballots, make modifications in the rules regarding 

postcard applications produced by the Secretary of State’s office to register people 

to vote, provide for certification of new or modified electronic voting systems, and 

provide for counting electronic ballots. However, more needs to be done, especially 

in the area of election fraud. In the upcoming Missouri 2002 legislative session, I 

77

will again be supporting a comprehensive election reform bill that includes strong 

anti-fraud provisions. 

An important part of restoring public trust in Missouri elections was my office’s investigation into the allegations of wrongdoing in the November 7, 2000, election 

in St. Louis City and County. I presented our findings in a report entitled, ‘‘Mandate for Reform,’’ issued on July 24, 2001. I attach a copy of the report as an exhibit 

to this testimony. This report detailed massive problems with the election system 

in St. Louis. In the words of Congressman William L. (Lacy) Clay, the failures of 

the system in St. Louis ‘‘not only caused great inconvenience and confusion for the 

voters, they threatened the integrity of the electoral process.’’ The report sets out substantial and credible information that in St. Louis City and 

County, there was a coordinated effort to misuse the judicial process to manipulate 

the results of the election. One thousand two hundred thirty-three (1,233) persons 

who were not qualified to vote nonetheless obtained court orders to cast ballots. 

Court records spell out that in most cases the voters admitted in sworn affidavits 

that they were not registered to vote and thus were not legally qualified to cast ballots in the election. Nevertheless, they were given court orders to vote in violation 

of state law. Additionally, in St. Louis City a lawsuit filed by the Gore-Lieberman 

Campaign, Lacy Clay’s Campaign Committee, and the Missouri State Democratic 

Party to keep the polls open late resulted in the polls being kept open approximately 

forty-five minutes longer that the law allowed before the Missouri Court of Appeals 

ordered the polls closed. The report details substantial and credible information that 

this lawsuit was a preconceived effort to misuse the court system to generate improper votes. The report also reveals that one hundred fourteen (114) convicted felons in St. Louis City and County voted in the election in violation of state law. 

Other potential violations of the election laws are set out in the report. I urge the 

members of the Committee to carefully review the report and its findings as well 

as the documentation supporting our findings. I understand that law enforcement 

authorities continue to investigate the possible criminal violations uncovered by my 

office’s investigation. I continue to believe that vigorous prosecution of those who 

violated the law is necessary to restore trust in our election system. 

Perhaps more importantly, our investigation revealed serious shortcomings in the 

operations of the local election authorities in St. Louis City and County. In both the 

City and County, my staff uncovered tens of thousands of inaccurate voter registrations. We found a huge number of duplicate registrations, that is, persons who were 

registered to vote in both St. Louis City and County. Moreover, the St. Louis press 

recently reported that in St. Louis City, the Board of Elections could not even correctly determine whether people were registered to vote from vacant lots in the City. 

In fact, many of the locations that the City Board verified were vacant lots were 

not vacant at all. These shortcomings by the St. Louis City and County election authorities are a recipe for disaster and create an environment that encourages fraud 

and abuse. 

I want this Committee to know that I will continue to fight for election reform 

at the state level. I applaud the efforts of the United States Congress to pass federal 

election reform legislation, and I hope that my testimony will assist this Committee 

to that end. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOAN CLAYBROOK

The Ney-Hoyer ‘‘election reform’’ bill would do relatively little to fix our broken 

election system—which ‘‘lost’’ about six million votes in the 2000 presidential race. 

Unveiled barely three weeks ago, Ney-Hoyer compares unfavorably to the more proreform Dodd and McConnell-Schumer bills in the Senate. Both Senate bills require 

states and localities to meet strong national voting standards as an indispensable 

condition for federal assistance. But Ney-Hoyer offers only weak standards—shot 

through with loopholes—in a ‘‘hands off’’ program of grants to states and localities. 

Rather than fixing the wound to our democracy, Ney-Hoyer would largely perpetuate the flawed state and local system that produced the 2000 election fiascoes. 

Unlike both Senate bills, the Ney-Hoyer bill:

• Does not require national standards for the permissible ‘‘error rate’’ of voting 

machines in counting and tabulating ballots.

• Does not require that voters be notified if they have voted for too few or too 

many candidates so they can know whether they need to correct their errors.

• Does not mandate that the states and localities ensure the availability of voting technology that would enable vision-impaired and other disabled voters to 

independently and privately fill in their ballots.

78

• Does not ensure that citizens deficient in English will have access to ballots 

in alternative languages.

• Does not ensure that voters are notified of their right to file a provisional ballot if their names are not on the precinct register, and to be informed whether 

their registration was ultimately verified and their vote counted.

• Undermines the ‘‘Motor Voter’’ law by allowing voters to be purged from registration lists if they have not voted in four years and not responded to a notice (regardless of whether they actually received it, for example, at a new 

address).

Nearly 80 percent of the Senate is co-sponsoring a better bill than Ney-Hoyer, so 

it is not true, as some argue, that the House ‘‘can’t do better than this.’’ If House 

leaders want to pass a serious reform, the best thing they could do now would be 

to await the imminently anticipated results of ongoing Senate compromise negotiations among Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) and the principal sponsors of the superior Senate legislation, and take its cue from there. At the very least, they need to fix NeyHoyer and send a credible bill to an eventual House-Senate Conference. 

The American people will not accept a fraudulent reform that makes a new Florida fiasco almost inevitable.

79


Clay1A.eps
80

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARISA J. DEMEO, REGIONAL COUNSEL, MEXICAN

AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND (MALDEF) 

INTRODUCTION

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) appreciates the opportunity to submit written testimony regarding H.R. 3295, The Help 

America Vote Act of 2001. MALDEF is a national nonprofit organization dedicated 

to protecting and promoting the rights of Latinos in the areas of education, employment, political access, immigrants’ rights, and public resource equity. We achieve 

our mission through community education, litigation and advocacy. Founded in San 

Antonio, Texas, in 1968, MALDEF now is headquartered in Los Angeles with offices 


Clay1B.eps
81

1 U.S. Census Bureau, Language Use and English Ability, Persons 5 Years and Over By State: 

1990 Census (visited Nov. 28, 2001) <www.census.gov>. 2 Id. 

3 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Supplemental Survey Summary Tables (visited Aug. 7, 

2001) <http://factfinder.census.gov >. 4 42 U.S.C. 1973b(f)(1) (2000). 

5 42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a (2000). 

6 42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a(e) (2000). 

7Department of Justice Implementation of the Provisions of the Voting Rights Act Regarding 

Language Minority Groups, 28 C.F.R. 55.1 (2000). 

in Sacramento, San Antonio, Houston, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Chicago, Atlanta, and 

Washington, D.C. 

Under our political access program, MALDEF has concentrated on protecting the 

voting rights of Latinos throughout the United States. MALDEF and its voting 

rights attorneys are recognized as experts on the Voting Rights Act as it applies to 

Hispanics. Since the presidential election of 2000, MALDEF has been working with 

various congressional offices to design meaningful election reform that will significantly improve the voting process for Latinos. We appreciate the efforts that Congressmen Bob Ney and Steny Hoyer have made to address election reform issues 

in their bill, H.R. 3295; unfortunately, MALDEF must oppose the bill as it was reported out of the House Administration Committee because it falls woefully short 

of what is needed and what is possible in this Congress. In fact, in some parts of 

the bill, the bill would take away some of the gains we have made in the past to 

make voting more accessible to American citizens. 

In this testimony, MALDEF addresses three issues: H.R. 3295’s failure to address 

adequately the language barriers to voting faced by Hispanics and others with limited English skills; H.R. 3295’s failure to address illegal and unfair voting systems; 

and H.R. 3295’s failure to provide for provisional ballots as a national standard. 

There are other shortcomings to H.R. 3295; however, we are aware that other civil 

rights organizations and organizations concerned with access to the voting process 

will also be filing testimony, so we will limit our testimony to these three issues 

key to the Hispanic community. 

H.R. 3295 FAILS TO ADDRESS ADEQUATELY THE LANGUAGE BARRIERS TO VOTING FOR

HISPANIC AMERICANS AND OTHER CITIZENS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH SKILLS

Background 

In 1990, 14% of the U.S. population spoke languages other than English at home.1

Of those persons who spoke other languages, 54% spoke Spanish in the home.2 Although the detailed Census 2000 data has not been released, the Census Bureau 

did conduct a Census 2000 Supplemental Survey, which estimates that the percentage of the U.S. population speaking languages other than English at home has risen 

to 18%, and 60% of those persons are speaking Spanish at home.3

Not all persons who speak Spanish in the home are citizens and eligible to vote, 

but a fair number of them are. Some of the citizens who speak Spanish in the home 

are naturalized citizens, but others are persons who are native-born citizens. Native-born citizens whose first language is Spanish could be Puerto Ricans who were 

born in Puerto Rico as U.S. citizens and raised in a Spanish-speaking environment. 

When they come to the U.S., although they are not immigrants, they still face many 

language barriers. In addition, other citizens, born in the States and raised in Spanish-speaking households, can also face language barriers. 

In 1975, Congress recognized the language barriers that certain citizens faced in 

casting their vote when they extended protection against voting discrimination to 

‘‘language minority groups.’’ 4 If either 5% or 10,000 of the voting-age citizens of a 

State or political subdivision are limited English proficient and speak a single language, the jurisdiction is prohibited from providing materials exclusively in 

English.5 Congress, at the time of amending the Voting Rights Act to protect language minorities, limited the protection to persons who are ‘‘American Indian, Asian 

American, Alaskan Natives, or of Spanish heritage.’’ 6 Currently, twenty-eight states 

contain jurisdictions covered by either Section 4(f)(4) or Section 203(c), the language 

provisions of the Voting Rights Act.7 Many states and local jurisdictions provide 

even further protection for a larger class of language minorities. Despite these legal 

protections, Latino citizens still face barriers when they try to cast their ballot at 

the polling place on election day. 

In a report issued by the United States Commission on Civil Rights (‘‘Commission’’) reviewing the voting irregularities that occurred in Florida in the presidential 

election in 2000, the Commission unveiled a number of language barriers faced by 

82

8 United States Commission on Civil Rights, Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 

Presidential Election (Advance Copy) 128–131 (June 2001). 9 Id. at 129; At the March 14, 2001 hearing on election reform before the Senate Rules Committee, witness Juan Figueroa, President and General Counsel of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) gave testimony further outlining the facts supporting the 

allegation that Puerto Rican and other Latinos were denied the opportunity to vote in central 

Florida. 10 United States Commission on Civil Rights, supra note 8, at 129. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 H.R. 3295, 107th Cong., Sec. 201–216 (2001). 15 Id. at Sec. 221. 16 Id. at Sec. 221(a)(1)(D). 17 Id. at Sec. 221(a)(1). 18 Id. at Sec. 101–122. 19 Id. at Sec. 112(a). 20 Id. 21 Id. at Sec. 221(a)(5); Sec. 221(b)(5). 22 Id. at Sec. 241(b)(1); Sec. 243. 23 Id. at Sec. 251(b)(1); Sec. 253. 24 Id. at Sec. 231–234. 25 Id. at Sec. 233. 26 Id. at Sec. 501–502. 

Spanish-speaking Latino citizens.8 According to testimony submitted by the Puerto 

Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), many Latino voters were 

turned away at the polls without proper language assistance.9 What the Commission found was that many poll workers were not properly trained to handle language accessibility concerns.10 In addition, the Commission found that in some 

cases, either willing bilingual volunteers or poll workers were stopped from providing assistance to voters with limited English skills.11

In addition to barriers faced by Latinos, other citizens who have language barriers 

who do not receive protection as a language minority under the Voting Rights Act, 

such as Haitian-Americans, also experience barriers when going to the polls to vote. 

The Commission collected testimony from Marleine Bastien, a Haitian-American 

community leader, who testified that a county ordinance extends protection for the 

language needs of Haitians in Florida.12 Despite that protection, precincts failed to 

provide a voting process accessible to the Creole-speaking citizens who needed assistance.13

H.R. 3295

H.R. 3295 does address the language barriers of Hispanic Americans, but it addresses those barriers in a limited fashion. 

Title II of H.R. 3295 would establish an Election Assistance Commission consisting of 4 members, who would be advised by a 110-member Standards Board and 

a 25-member Board of Advisors.14 The Commission would be charged with devising 

voluntary election standards.15 While these standards are required to ensure that ‘‘new voting equipment systems certified by the Federal government or by any State 

should provide a practical and effective means for voters with physical disabilities 

to cast a secret ballot,’’ 16 there is no requirement that the standards ensure access 

for citizens with language barriers either those covered by the Voting Rights Act or 

to extend protection to other citizens with language barriers.17

In Title I of H.R. 3295, the bill provides grants ($400,000,000) for jurisdictions to 

replace punch card voting machines.18 In order to be eligible to receive the grant, 

a State must make several assurances to the federal government.19 Those assurances do include an assurance that the voting systems that will replace punch card 

machines will improve accessibility for individuals with limited English proficiency 

consistent with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act.20 The accessibility would 

not have to address the growing needs of many ethnic groups beyond the American 

Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian, and Latino communities. There is some additional 

limited mention of addressing language barrier issues in the bill with regard to the 

Election Assistance Commission issuing studies,21 as well as some mention in the 

sections related to grants for research on voting technology ($20,000,000) 22 and pilot programs for testing of equipment and technology ($10,000,000).23 The major grant 

program in the bill, however—the election-fund payment program ($2,250,000,000) 24—does not place requirements on States to meet the needs of voters with language barriers, other than certifying that they, generally, are in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.25

Further, in Title V of H.R. 3295, the bill sets forth certain minimum standards 

for State election systems.26 The bill provides no minimum standards for assuring 

83

27 Id. at Sec. 502(6). 28 H.R. 1170, 107th Cong. (2001). 29 Id. at Sec. 531(a)(5). 30The facts set forth in this article are taken from the amended complaint filed by MALDEF 

in federal district court. The lead attorney on the litigation for MALDEF is Maria Valdez, Senior 

Litigator, in MALDEF’s Chicago office. 

language minorities’ access to voting; whereas, it does provide a requirement that 

new voting systems provide a ‘‘practical and effective means for voters with physical 

disabilities to cast a secret ballot.’’ 27 To summarize, the voluntary grant-incentive 

programs of H.R. 3295 address the issue of language barriers for American citizens 

who have limited English proficiency to some extent, but the mandatory minimum 

standards do not. 

By comparison, H.R. 1170, the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act, goes far to 

protect the rights of citizens who are Hispanic as well as others who have language 

barriers.28 For example, among other provisions helpful to limited English voters, 

H.R. 1170 contains in its minimum standards that voting systems ‘‘shall provide alternative language accessibility for individuals with limited proficiency in the 

English language.’’ 29

H.R. 3295 FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS UNFAIR AND ILLEGAL VOTING SYSTEMS

Background 

In addition to language barriers, Latino citizens face barriers to casting their vote 

by the voting systems that are often used by states and localities in predominantly 

Latino neighborhoods. A lawsuit brought by MALDEF demonstrates this type of 

barrier to voting. MALDEF has filed a civil rights class action lawsuit in the Northern District Court of Illinois on behalf of Latino and African-American voters challenging the non-uniform, arbitrary, and unequal system of voting in Illinois as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.1973, and the Fourteenth 

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.30 The defendants include 

members of the Illinois State Board of Elections as well as a number of local election commissions and voting officials. 

At issue in the complaint is that the type of voting systems that are located in 

predominantly Latino and African-American voting areas are more likely to produce 

errors in voting that are not corrected, than those voting systems available in other 

jurisdictions, thus infringing on the Latino and African-American right to vote. In 

Illinois, most jurisdictions, including some of the jurisdictions with the highest concentrations of Latino and African-American voters, use punch-card ballots. Other jurisdictions use optically-scanned ballots. Most of the jurisdictions that use opticallyscanned ballots provide voters at the time they are at the poll with notice of certain 

errors on their ballots, and provide those voters an opportunity to vote again to correct the errors. This process is called ‘‘error notification.’’

For purposes of the litigation, ‘‘errors’’ refer to the case where a voter’s ballot contains more votes for an office than is allowed by law (an ‘‘overvote’’) or in which the 

tabulating machines cannot accurately read the voter’s ballot. Punch-card ballots 

and optically-scanned ballots without error notification have a higher error rate for 

recording, counting, and tabulating votes, than do optically-scanned ballots with 

error notification. In addition, punch-card ballots have a higher error rate among 

Latino and African-American voters than among non-minority voters. 

In Illinois, the state legislature has refused to change the state law to allow or 

require error notification to voters in election jurisdictions using punch-card voting 

systems. By comparison, state law requires error notification in election jurisdictions 

using optical-scan voting systems where the ballots are counted in-precinct. At these 

precincts, voters can have their ballots placed in tabulation equipment, which will 

return any ballot with an overvote or which cannot be read. Then the voter has the 

opportunity to obtain a new ballot and correct the vote. 

In the presidential election of 2000, the rate of votes not counted (the ‘‘fall-off 

rate’’) on ballots cast statewide was approximately 3.85%. In jurisdictions using optical-scanning systems with error notification, the fall-off rate was approximately 

0.5%. By comparison, in jurisdictions and wards with significant Latino and AfricanAmerican populations, the fall-off rate was significantly higher. The City of Chicago, 

which used the punch-card voting system without error notification, had a fall-off 

rate of 7%. In the Chicago wards where 65% or more of the residents are Latinos 

and/or African-Americans, the fall-off rates were even higher. In the heavily Latino 

12th ward, the fall-off was 12.6%, and the predominantly African-American 37th 

ward was 12.4%. Similarly, the Township of Cicero, with a significant Latino population and located within Cook County, using a punch-card system without error noVerDate Jan 17 2002 10:56 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\120501\76555.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
84

31 H.R. 3295, 107th Cong., Sec. 101–122 (2001). 32 Id. at Sec. 502(7). 33 Id. 34 H.R. 1170, 107th Cong., Sec. 531(a) (2001). 35 Id. 36The facts set forth in this section are taken from testimony written by Nina Perales, Staff 

Attorney in MALDEF’s San Antonio office. 

tification, had a fall-off rate of 8.8%. The City of East St. Louis, with a significant 

African-American population and which used optical-scan balloting but without 

error notification, had a fall-off rate of approximately 11%. 

To summarize the primary facts in the case, the majority of Latino and/or AfricanAmerican voters live in jurisdictions that use punch-card voting systems or that use 

optical-scan ballots without error notification, which result in substantially higher 

rates of voting error than optical-scan ballots with error notification. A larger proportion of Illinois’ Latino and African-American voters live in such jurisdictions than 

the proportion of Illinois’ white voters who live in such jurisdictions. Moreover, in 

jurisdictions with punch-card voting systems, areas with high Latino and/or AfricanAmerican populations have higher error rates than areas with high non-minority 

populations. As a consequence, Illinois’ Latino and African-American voters are significantly less likely to have their votes counted than non-minority voters. Thus, in 

elections at all levels, including municipal elections, the voting strength of Latino 

and African-American voters is thereby diluted and these voters have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the electoral process, 

to form coalitions with like-minded voters, and to elect representatives of their 

choice. 

The problem identified through MALDEF’s case in Illinois is found in many parts 

of the country. 

H.R. 3295

While H.R. 3295 does provide funds for replacing punch-card machines,31 the solution to the problem of ballots not being counted goes much further than simply 

replacing punch-card machines. The critical component that is needed is an opportunity for a voter to be notified of errors on the ballot while he/she is at the polling 

place, and an opportunity to correct the ballot. The notification and opportunity to 

correct can be done with punch-card machines or with optically-scanned ballots. It 

is possible, as the case in Illinois demonstrates, that jurisdictions could use optically-scanned ballots and still not provide the opportunity to be notified and correct 

ballot errors, such as overvotes and undervotes. 

It is important to focus on the end goal for improving voting machines. It is to 

ensure that when a person casts a ballot, his/her ballot is actually counted and not 

thrown out. It is through the opportunity to notify and correct that this goal is best 

reached. 

H.R. 3295 provides that, if a State uses a voting system that gives voters the 

chance to correct errors, the voter should be able to do so in privacy.32 The bill further provides that ‘‘States, and units of local government within the States, replacing all voting machines within their jurisdiction shall ensure that the new voting 

system gives voters the opportunity to correct errors before the vote is cast.’’ 33 Combining these two provisions means that, unless a State or local jurisdiction replaces 

all its voting machines, it does not have to address the critical issue of voter notification of error and opportunity to correct the error. 

H.R. 1170, by comparison, sets minimum standards that require all voting systems used in federal elections provide a voter an opportunity to verify his/her votes 

on the ballot and an opportunity to correct the error.34 The voting system must notify the voter if the voter accidentally voted for more than one candidate for a single 

office or for a fewer number of candidates than the ballot would allow to be cast.35

H.R. 3295 FALLS SHORT IN ADDRESSING THE NEED FOR PROVISIONAL BALLOTS FOR

LATINO VOTERS

Background 

Beyond the specific areas of language barriers and barriers created by certain voting systems, Latinos face a wide range of barriers to full and effective participation 

in the voting process by other practices. An example from Texas will illustrate how 

even when state law provides for provisional ballots, that is not enough to ensure 

that voters will have access to them.36 MALDEF has received numerous complaints 

about election judges not administering elections in accordance with standing laws 

and regulations. Often, judges turn Latinos away from voting polls after telling 

them that they are not on the list of registered voters. Although Texas law allows 

85

37 H.R. 3295, 107th Cong. Sec. 502(3) (2001). 38 H.R. 1170, 107th Cong. Sec. 531(b) (2001). 39 Id.

a voter whose name does not appear on the voting rolls to complete a challenge affidavit and cast a vote, election judges often are unaware of this law and do not provide the voters an opportunity to vote. 

H.R. 3295

While H.R. 3295 appears to address the issue of ensuring that provisional ballots 

are provided, the bill also provides a loophole that essentially makes the standard 

evaporate. The bill provides that States must permit ‘‘in-precinct provisional voting 

by every voter who claims to be qualified to vote in the State, or has adopted an 

alternative which achieves the same objective.’’ 37 By providing States the option of 

coming up with their own alternative to provisional ballots, the bill removes the national standard needed that every voter who believes he/she is registered has an opportunity to file a provisional ballot in a federal election that can be verified later. 

H.R. 1170, by comparison, provides a minimum standard for the country that election officials have to notify voters that they may cast a provisional ballot if their 

name does not appear on the registered voter list and allow the voter to cast a provisional ballot upon written affirmation by the individual before an election official 

that he/she is eligible to vote.38 The vote will then later be verified to determine 

whether in fact there was an error on the part of the election officials or the voter.39

CONCLUSION

While the country focused on Florida’s election system during the months of November and December of 2000, Florida only received that attention and scrutiny because of the presidential election which was decided by the outcome of the close 

Florida vote. In actuality, many voters, and particularly minority voters, face barriers to voting and a dilution of their vote in many elections throughout the states. 

It is time for Congress to take action in the area of election reform, but the reform 

must be comprehensive. Part of the solution is related to voting systems and the 

technology available, as our Illinois litigation points out, but there are many other 

barriers to voting, as exemplified with our examples of language barriers in Florida 

and lack of access to provisional ballots in Texas. In the end, what will serve our 

country and serve its citizens is a comprehensive approach from the federal government to both set some key national standards ensuring that there is a minimum 

states and localities must do in order to ensure equal access to the voting polls, as 

well as provide grant money to states providing the incentive to go beyond the minimum standards to ensure each and every voting age citizen has the full opportunity 

to express his/her opinion at the voting polls. 

While Congressmen Ney and Hoyer should be lauded for pushing forward a bipartisan approach to election reform, their effort falls too short of meeting the needs 

of Hispanic voters to warrant the support of MALDEF, an organization dedicated 

to improving access to the voting process for Latinos. H.R. 1170, sponsored by Congressman John Conyers provides a number of minimum standards regarding access 

to voting systems for persons with limited English, uniform and nondiscriminatory 

voting systems, and access to provisional ballots. These changes must be included 

in any bill passed by Congress in order to make a real difference in ensuring Hispanics access to the most fundamental right in our country, the right to vote.

86


NCLR1A.eps
87


NCLR1B.eps
88


News1A.eps
89


News1B.eps
90


CCB1A.eps
91


CCB1B.eps
92

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


Lioz1A.eps
93


Lioz1B.eps
94


Lioz1C.eps
95


Khanna1A.eps
96


Khanna1B.eps
97


Bryant1A.eps
98


Bryant1B.eps
99


Bryant2A.eps
100


Bryant2B.eps
101


Brew1A.eps
102


Brew1B.eps
103


K.eps L.eps
104


M.eps N.eps
105


O.eps P.eps
106


Q.eps
107


R.eps
108


S.eps T.eps
109


U.eps
110


V.eps
111


W.eps
112


X.eps
113

Æ


Y.eps