U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

42–796 2008

HEARING ON THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT, SECTION 7: THE CHALLENGES THAT 

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AGENCIES FACE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 1, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

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


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

Vice-Chairwoman 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

Ranking Minority Member 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, Staff Director 

WILLIAM PLASTER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
(1) 

HEARING ON THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT, SECTION 7: THE CHALLENGES THAT PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AGENCIES FACE 

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:07 p.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren (chairwoman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Davis of California, Davis of 

Alabama, Ehlers and McCarthy. 

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

Election Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; 

Kyle Anderson, Press Director; Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative 

Clerk; Daniel Favarulo, Legislative Assistant, Elections; Gregory 

Abbott, Staff Assistant; Gineen Beach, Minority Election Counsel; 

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Good afternoon and welcome to the Elections Subcommittee hearing on the National Voter Registration Act, Section 

7: The Challenges Public Assistance Agencies Face. 

In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act, 

otherwise known as the NVRA, to ‘‘increase the number of eligible 

citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office.’’ Section 

7 of the NVRA requires States to provide voter registration services 

at public assistance agencies or State funding programs that provide assistance to people with disabilities. 

The purpose of section 7 is to supplement the motor-voter provisions by reaching out to individuals who are not as likely to benefit 

from State motor-voter provisions, oftentimes minorities and lowincome individuals. 

The U.S. Department of Justice has, unfortunately, largely ignored enforcement of section 7 violations. Since 1995, many States 

have failed to fully implement voter registration in public assistance agencies. This failure has resulted in voter registration generated from public agencies to decline 79 percent since 1995 according to a recent report by Project Vote and Demos. At its most basic, 

noncompliance with section 7 means the disenfranchisement of milVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:12 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 042796 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\C796.XXX C796

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
2 

lions of low-income citizens and a widening of the gap between the 

registration rates of high- and low-income individuals. 

In September 2005, now-Chairman John Conyers sent a letter to 

then-Attorney General Gonzales, asking for an investigation into 

section 7 compliance. It wasn’t until August of 2007 that the Voting 

Section sent letters of inquiry to 18 States regarding their section 

7 compliance. In the past 6 years, the Department of Justice has 

filed suit against four States, forcing them to conduct massive 

purges of voter registration lists while initiating only one section 

7 enforcement action. 

Disregarding evidence of State noncompliance with section 7 and 

focusing instead on section 8, purging voter rolls seems consistent 

with the Department of Justice’s apparently partisan bent. Although we don’t have the Department of Justice here today, it is 

my intent to send an inquiry on their progress with this requirement. 

There are some States that have voluntarily adopted reforms to 

improve compliance with NVRA section 7, and I am pleased to see 

they are represented on the panel of witnesses. North Carolina’s 

public assistance agencies have experienced a five-fold increase in 

the average number of voters registering in agencies each month 

from 484 to 2,529. Success stories like this are proof that section 

7 can be properly implemented and successful. 

Witnesses before the subcommittee today will provide us information on compliance with section 7 successes and failures. Voting 

is a fundamental right and the purpose of this hearing is to ensure 

access to that right for all eligible voters. 

I would now invite our ranking member, Mr. McCarthy, to make 

any opening statements he may wish. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Madam Chair, no I just appreciate having the 

hearing. I look forward to the discussion. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. I would like then to introduce our first panel. 

We have two witnesses. Johnnie McLean is the Chief Deputy Director for the North Carolina Board of Elections. She has worked 

for the State board of elections for over 12 years, where she has 

served in many capacities, including her work on two election-centered task forces for election reform, as well as North Carolina 

Representative on the EAC Standards Board. 

We also have Catherine Truss with us. Ms. Truss is a Departmental Specialist for the Michigan Department of Human Services 

where she also serves as a coordinator for the Civic Engagement 

Program, a voter registration effort. Ms. Truss has worked for the 

Department of Human Services for 9 years, and in 2006 was 

awarded Michigan Department of Human Services 2006 Star 

Award. 

Prior to her work as a Departmental Specialist, Ms. Truss was 

a Children’s Foster Care Specialist, Performance Management Specialist and a Children’s Protective Services Specialist. She received 

her Bachelor’s in psychology from the University of Montana and 

her Master’s in social work from the University of Michigan. 

We are delighted to have you both here. Your entire written 

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

that you give your oral testimony in about 5 minutes. There is a 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
3 

little box there, and when the orange light goes on, it means you 

have just got 1 minute left; and when the red light goes on, it 

means that you have actually been speaking for 5 minutes. It always strikes you as it has only been a minute. We don’t have a 

heavy gavel, but we would ask that if the red light goes on, you 

try to summarize and conclude. 

STATEMENTS OF JOHNNIE McLEAN, CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, AND 

CATHERINE TRUSS, DEPARTMENTAL SPECIALIST, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

Ms. LOFGREN. So we will begin with you, Ms. McLean. If you 

would please give us your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHNNIE McLEAN 

Ms. MCLEAN. Thank you so much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The microphone also needs to be turned on—there 

we go—and maybe even moved a little bit closer. 

Ms. MCLEAN. How is this? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Much better. Thank you. 

Ms. MCLEAN. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, and distinguished members of the committee. We appreciate the opportunity to be here this afternoon. 

The NVRA was implemented in North Carolina in 1995 and for 

several years was considered to be a model for agency-based registration. It is unfortunate that, as time passed, the emphasis was 

not placed on the agency-based registrations as it should have 

been. Some of this was due to personnel changes in the agencies, 

as well as personnel changes at the State board of elections. 

The State board of elections has always taken very seriously the 

Federal legislation and has worked hard to implement that. The 

NVRA implementation project that began a nationwide effort in 

2004 to enhance and improve voter registration procedures in the 

public assistance agencies conducted some surveys, and as part of 

that, the results of those surveys, in early 2006 identified North 

Carolina as one of many States that was not doing the kind of job 

that it should be doing in the public assistance area for voter registration. 

Initially, we believed that these were isolated incidents of noncompliance. However, when we were presented with the real, hard 

evidence, we learned that there had been something like a 74 percent drop-off in the number of registrations that were being accepted at these agencies. We were shocked to learn that in some of 

these agencies voter registration was not even being offered to a 

single client. 

Gary Bartlett, the Executive Director of the State Board of Elections, met with some of the advocates and wanted to work with 

them in order to make the system work the way it should. A 14- 

point compliance plan was drafted and adopted, and the elements 

of that plan included communication and coordination with public 

assistance agencies, advising the agencies of their specific duties in 

this area, providing updated materials and training for agency personnel; and most importantly, I believe, was tracking the weekly 

agency compliance of the voter registration applications received. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
4 

The updated implementation plan was put into place within a 

couple of months, and some of the steps involved were that we directly communicated with each of the agency heads that had NVRA 

responsibilities. It also was—that effort was assisted by our governor’s office that sent written communication to these agency 

heads, reminding them of their NVRA duty. 

There were monthly telephone conference calls with the advocates. This helped us to stay focused on the tasks that we were attempting, and to keep the joint efforts headed in the right direction. We prepared, modified, provided and updated agency voter 

registration manuals, conducted group training at the NVRA agencies, made PowerPoints available to the advocates and to the agencies. 

We began monitoring weekly transmissions of the reports and 

comparing them with those reports of applications for Medicare, 

which would alert us to any possible problems. We conducted unannounced, random, in-person checks on some of these NVRA agencies. 

We are appreciative of the advocates’ willingness to work with us 

rather than to file litigation against us. We certainly were surprised when they presented evidence to us, but we worked with 

them in order to make this work for those citizens that the NVRA 

was designed to address. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. McLean follows:] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
5 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 42796.001
6 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 42796.002
7 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 42796.003
8 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 42796.004
9 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 42796.005
10 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 42796.006
11 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 42796.007
12 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 42796.008
13 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 42796.009
14 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 42796.010
15 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 42796.011
16 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 42796.012
17 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 42796.013
18 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 42796.014
19 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 42796.015
20 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 42796.016
21 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 42796.017
22 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 42796.018
23 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 42796.019
24 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 42796.020
25 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 42796.021
26 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 42796.022
27 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 42796.023
28 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 42796.024
29 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 42796.025
30 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 42796.026
31 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 42796.027
32 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 42796.028
33 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 42796.029
34 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 42796.030
35 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 42796.031
36 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 42796.032
37 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 42796.033
38 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 42796.034
39 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 42796.035
40 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 42796.036
41 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 42796.037
42 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 42796.038
43 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 42796.039
44 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 42796.040
45 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 42796.041
46 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 42796.042
47 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 42796.043
48 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 42796.044
49 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 42796.045
50 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 42796.046
51 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 42796.047
52 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 42796.048
53 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 42796.049
54 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 42796.050
55 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 42796.051
56 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 42796.052
57 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 42796.053
58 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 42796.054
59 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 42796.055
60 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 42796.056
61 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 42796.057
62 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 42796.058
63 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 42796.059
64 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 42796.060
65 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 42796.061
66 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 42796.062
67 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 42796.063
68 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 42796.064
69 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 42796.065
70 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 42796.066
71 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 42796.067
72 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 42796.068
73 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 42796.069
74 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 42796.070
75 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 42796.071
76 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 42796.072
77 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 42796.073
78 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 42796.074
79 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 42796.075
80 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 42796.076
81 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 42796.077
82 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 42796.078
83 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 42796.079
84 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 42796.080
85 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 42796.081
86 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 42796.082
87 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 42796.083
88 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 42796.084
89 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 42796.085
90 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 42796.086
91 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 42796.087
92 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 42796.088
93 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 42796.089
94 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 42796.090
95 

Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. Truss, we would love to hear from you at this 

point. 

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE TRUSS 

Ms. TRUSS. Chairman—— Ms. LOFGREN. You need to turn on the microphone. And to pull 

it a little bit closer to you would be great. 

Ms. TRUSS. Chairwoman Lofgren, Congressman McCarthy, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to testify 

on behalf of the Michigan Department of Human Services and our 

Director, Ismael Ahmed, on our experience implementing the National Voter Registration Act. I would like to spend just a few minutes highlighting some of the pieces that I provided in the written 

testimony to all of you. 

I am going to start by telling you a little bit about what our department does. Each human services department in each State 

works a little differently, so I want to tell you a little bit about us. 

And then I am going to detail some of our work on implementing 

the National Voter Registration Act. 

The mission of the Michigan Department of Human Services is 

to assist children, families and vulnerable adults to be safe, stable 

and self-supporting. To that end, we implement the Federal food 

stamps program, Michigan’s TANF grant; and our caseworkers perform eligibility for Medicaid. We are also Michigan’s public child 

welfare agency. 

In addition, we administer many other human services programs. 

We provide a safety net for families who are in crisis. Many of 

those who come to our department for assistance, though, are 

ashamed of needing help. It is because of the disenfranchising effects of poverty that Director Ahmed has set forth several initiatives meant to empower and engage low-income individuals and 

families. 

We take the National Voter Registration Act very seriously not 

only because it is a Federal mandate, but because it provides a key 

for families to act on their own behalf and become part of the public debate on issues that impact their lives. 

The Michigan Department of Human Services Civic Engagement 

Initiative approaches voter registration activity with a larger 

framework of removing barriers to self-sufficiency and empowerment for our customers. Currently, Michigan has over 100 financial 

assistance offices and over 3,000 case specialists devoted to serving 

financial assistance clients. 

The department has complied with the NVRA, section 7, by including access to voter registration at strategic points in the public 

assistance process. Voter registration forms include as part—I am 

sorry—offering voter registration forms are included as part of our 

public assistance application process. In addition, our workers are 

responsible for offering voter registration to our clients, concurrent 

with application for benefits, redetermination of benefit eligibility 

and whenever a change of address is completed. 

Voter registration activities have been part of our official departmental policy since October of 2004. When Director Ahmed was appointed to his position in August of 2007, he brought with him a 

long history of human services work and working to design strateVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:12 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 042796 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\C796.XXX C796

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
96 

gies to empower low-income individuals. As part of a broader set 

of initiatives to move clients toward greater self-sufficiency, he 

made voter registration a priority for our department. 

In September of 2007, we began to take a strategic and focused 

approach to voter registration activities at DHS. There are several 

goals to our initiative. The primary goal is to further the intent of 

Congress by providing voter registration to low-income individuals. 

In addition, we hope to reduce real and perceived barriers to voter 

registration for our clients, and we hope to empower them by assisting them in making decisions for themselves. 

We have also developed an accountability mechanism through a 

Web-based reporting tool. Previously, local offices tracked their 

voter registration activities and did not report to a central repository. We have shored up that process and we are now asking them 

to report to central office so that we can track their progress. 

In addition, public education and community partnering are two 

important goals of this initiative. We are a statewide department 

that works with local county offices, and because of this, when we 

created the civic engagement team to work on this initiative, we 

wanted to invite representatives from our local and central office 

to be a part of it. The team was also fortunate to benefit from the 

guidance of Lisa Danetz from Demos. 

The charge of our team was to create a plan to enhance DHS 

voter registration activities. The plan has several components: policy revision, results-oriented project management, training and 

technical assistance, public education and community partnering. 

The civic engagement team analyzed our existing policy at the 

time that we kicked off this initiative. We identified revisions that 

would help local office staff better execute their responsibilities, 

and we revised the policy to include aspects of the new initiative 

to enhance department voter registration activities. 

Next, we decided we needed to focus on results-oriented project 

management, and that has to do with the Web-based reporting tool 

that I just discussed with you. The data collected will be used to 

identify high-performing offices, but also help us work with those 

offices that may be struggling. We can also partner local offices together to share best practices. 

Training and technical assistance is another important component of our initiative. We developed training for our local office coordinators, and we have developed training for them to provide to 

all local office staff. 

Public education is another important aspect of our initiative. 

With help from Demos, we have public education materials that we 

have provided to our local offices including posters that can be displayed in lobbies and shared with community partners. We have 

also provided DVDs that can run in local office lobbies. 

We are also securing several Michigan celebrities to lend their 

voices and personas to the effort in the form of radio and television 

spots. Our Office of Communications has developed press releases 

related to the initiative, and we are providing all of our local office 

staff with tips for engaging local media. 

We are also hoping to engage community partners in our effort; 

that is something that we are really excited about. The League of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
97 

Women Voters is extremely interested in working with our local office staff. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very, very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Truss follows:] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
98 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 42796.091
99 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 42796.092
100 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 42796.093
101 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 42796.094
102 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 42796.095
103 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now is the time on our agenda when members can 

ask a few questions. I would like to start out first by saying thanks 

to you for being here today, but also sharing your experience. I 

think what you are showing us is that some attention can yield results, and we don’t have to accept the nearly 80 percent decline in 

the performance of section 7. 

I was thinking as you were talking—and this is the last year I 

will be able to say this—but I have spent more time in local government than I have in Congress. I have served on the Board of 

Supervisors, and I can recall at one time we actually sent voter 

registration cards out with the AFDC checks. We mailed the checks 

every week because so many of the AFDC recipients—ours has got 

a different program name now obviously—they didn’t have cars. If 

they had a car, they wouldn’t be eligible for—I mean, they would 

have too much by way of assets. 

You know, it is very difficult. If you can just imagine being, in 

most cases, a single mother with several small children, no vehicle, 

in a community where public transit is very tough; and to make 

everything happen and—you know, registering to vote wasn’t always at the top of the to-do list. 

And yet to hear from you that in Michigan—and I think, by extrapolation, North Carolina—this is not seen as a burden, but really as part of helping families get on their feet, to have self-confidence and self-sufficiency. It is not a separate thing; it is part of 

what you are trying to do to help people build their own lives. 

So I am just wondering, you know, for States that are noncompliant, what advice would you have for them? I mean, has this been 

resisted by line staff in either one of your States? Or has this been 

embraced? Are there some tricks of the trade you would give to 

others in States that are not performing? 

Ms. TRUSS. I think that the identification of the local office coordinator is key. Having someone who is passionate about the initiative in each of the local offices, I think, helps to keep it on the 

radar for the local office staff. 

So that would be one piece of advice. And I know that Demos has 

identified that as a best practice as well. 

Ms. MCLEAN. I think in some instances there are staff that find 

this burdensome initially, but those generally are the staff that had 

been there for a very long time, perhaps before this was implemented. And as new people are brought in and trained and reminded of their duties, then it just becomes a part of their jobs. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask: The EAC was established to help promote things like this. Are there things that in your judgment the 

EAC could and should be doing to promote section 7 compliance? 

Either one of you. 

Ms. MCLEAN. I think that the EAC is doing a very good job of 

what they see as their responsibilities, and I think they are more 

focused—and I hope none of them are in the room; they may not 

appreciate this. I think that they are focused right now on voting 

systems and that type of legislation. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But if our idea is to make sure that every vote 

counts and that America makes a decision that is important for us, 

then not having people registered is important as well, not just the 

voting machine issue. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
104 

Ms. TRUSS. I know that the EAC is looking at on-line live portals 

to help individuals determine whether they are already registered 

or not. I think that could be a really beneficial tool. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Not everyone on public assistance is on line all of 

the time. 

Ms. TRUSS. Right. So I think workers, if they had access to that 

on-line portal while they are assisting clients at the registration 

process, I think that would be beneficial. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That would be—it would be for the workers. 

I would just note that in your written testimony, Ms. Truss, on 

page 4—and I think this is very important and I assume would be 

the case in every State—that the employees are totally precluded 

from trying to influence how people register, or wearing political 

buttons or giving advice of any kind, of that nature. 

Is that the case in North Carolina as well? 

Ms. MCLEAN. Yes, it is. Some of the workers would even go out 

to visit—make home visits and they were advised not to have any 

stickers, bumper stickers, on their car. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think that is an important component. 

With that, I would turn to the ranking member for his questions. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the hearing. 

I think it is rather unique we have—Ms. McLean, you are with 

the elections department and you are with human services, correct—so we get a little of both analyses looking at it from the department point of view and working with the elections. 

Ms. McLean, you used the number, 74 percent drop-off, when you 

did the study. Was that a study you did internally or did someone 

else do that study for you? What was that? 

Ms. MCLEAN. No, sir. That study was done by the NVRA implementation project. The collaboration between Project Vote, Demos 

and ACORN. And it came from a survey that had been devised and 

that they had actually conducted. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So they conducted the survey? 

Ms. MCLEAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Okay. Have we done any survey since this has 

been implemented? 

Ms. MCLEAN. They have done the same survey or have reported 

that, and that is where the number came from, that our voter registrations have increased almost six-fold in the amount of time 

since this reimplementation plan went into effect. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Based upon their survey and their questionnaire? 

Ms. MCLEAN. And based upon the numbers that are being reported weekly by the agencies to the State board. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. And this 74 percent, that was a downturn during, you said, which years? 

Ms. MCLEAN. 2004–2005. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. And in trend, did you see an increase during 

that time or a downward for people on public assistance in North 

Carolina? 

Ms. MCLEAN. There was an increase. And that is why——

Mr. MCCARTHY. 2003 and 2004? 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
105 

Ms. MCLEAN. Right. And that is why I think the numbers were 

so shocking: That in a year when assistance applications were increasing, the voter registration numbers were still declining. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. How does it work there when someone comes in? 

Because when I went to the DMV, they asked me; is that—you just 

ask whoever comes forward? Is that how it works in your State? 

Ms. MCLEAN. In the agencies? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Ms. MCLEAN. Yes, sir. As when they are offering—when they 

first come in, they are provided whatever the application is for that 

particular agency. And also then they offer them the opportunity 

to register to vote. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Is there anything else offered besides voter registration at the end? I mean, are there other things you have to 

offer them? Or no? 

Ms. MCLEAN. None that I am aware of, no, sir. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Have you ever registered one person, I guess, 

more than once? I guess you have probably had that happen. 

Ms. MCLEAN. They are what we refer to as ‘‘duplicate registrations’’; and, yes, we do get some of those. But we take the approach 

that we would rather have the duplicate registrations than none. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Can a noncitizen get benefits in North Carolina? 

Ms. MCLEAN. I believe that they can, but they cannot register to 

vote. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So you ask them that question? 

Ms. MCLEAN. That is one of the questions, yes, for registration 

purposes. It is not one of the questions, I don’t believe, for any of 

the assistance. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Okay. So someone comes in, they get assistance. 

I did the paperwork, I gave it to them; and the person asks. 

What do you say, are you registered to vote, or would you like 

to register to vote? 

Ms. MCLEAN. Would you like to register to vote? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Then they ask, are you a U.S. citizen? 

Ms. MCLEAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. That is on—— Ms. MCLEAN. That is on our registration application, yes, sir. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Does the person handling it ask them that question or is it just on the application itself? 

Ms. MCLEAN. They would ask that question if the person needed 

assistance in reading the application. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So they only ask if they need assistance in reading the application? 

Ms. MCLEAN. I can’t say for certain, but I believe that is the way 

they are supposed to do it, yes, sir. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Ms. Truss, if I am not a citizen, can I get benefits in Michigan? 

Ms. TRUSS. Yes. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Do you do the same thing that they do? 

Ms. TRUSS. Very similar, yes. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Walk me through it just real quick. 

I am sorry, do you do the same thing where someone fills out for 

whatever assistance they are getting; and then the person—do you 

have guidelines on what—because you are telling them not to do 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
106 

one party or the other, what are the guidelines you tell them to do? 

The employee? 

Ms. TRUSS. As part of the financial assistance application process, voter registration is offered. And they are to determine whether the person applying is a citizen or not; and if they are not a citizen, they are not to offer that person—— Mr. MCCARTHY. And they just do that by asking? 

Ms. TRUSS. Asking. 

And we have also built into our training that if they knowingly 

offer someone the opportunity to register to vote that they know is 

not a citizen, they understand that there are penalties associated 

with that. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. One 10-second followup: Did you do any studies 

such as North Carolina did about the 74 percent, or did ACORN 

do a study for you too? 

Ms. TRUSS. Actually, I believe they studied all of the States and 

then reported out in one report on how all the States were doing. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Has the State done any study themselves for 

their own checks and balances? 

Ms. TRUSS. In terms of our voter registration activities within 

the department? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Ms. TRUSS. I wouldn’t say we have done something so extensive. 

What we have done is now shored up our activities, and we are just 

gathering baseline data in terms of voter registrations in our local 

offices reported to a central repository. So we are just sort of at the 

beginning of gathering that data within our State. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, I thank both of you for your testimony. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Before calling on Ms. Davis, I would, without objection, put into the record the report I received from the California 

Secretary of State that outlines the number of registrations per 

county under NVRA. I would note that my county, all of them 

could do better. Santa Clara County last year registered a little 

under 3,000; Kern County registered 14. 

[The information follows:] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
107 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 42796.096
108 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 42796.097
109 

Ms. LOFGREN. So Mr. Davis is recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Let me pick up Chairwoman Lofgren’s comments at the outset. 

She was talking about why this is such a core issue for some of us 

on the committee, and I will add just one thing to what she said. 

There are some parts of the electorate on both the left and right 

who have multiple ways of engaging the political process. Some of 

them on both the left and right can raise money for candidates. 

Some of them on the left and right can blog or have ready access 

to the Internet. But for people who are economically marginalized, 

frankly, voting and voting in good numbers is about the only possible way they have to influence what goes on here and in your 

various State capitals. 

I assume both of you ladies would agree with that general proposition? 

Ms. MCLEAN. Yes, sir. 

Ms. TRUSS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. And the second broad observation that 

I want to make is this; I want to use my State and the two States 

that neighbor us, Georgia on our east and Mississippi on our west. 

I am from Alabama. As of 2004, the last few years for which I have 

seen the data, in those three States, approximately 58–59 percent 

of African-Americans who were eligible to vote, meaning over the 

age of 18 with no legal impediments or disqualifications, less than 

60 percent of them were actually registered. Whereas for Caucasians, the numbers of those eligible voters registered tend to be in 

the mid-70s. 

Are the numbers similar to that, Ms. McLean, in North Carolina, 

or do you happen to know? 

Ms. MCLEAN. I really couldn’t tell you the exact percentages, but 

I do believe they would be similar to what you were saying. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. And, Ms. Truss, Michigan is obviously 

not a southern State, but you have a large African-American inner 

city in Detroit. Do you happen to know the comparable numbers of 

blacks eligible to vote versus those registered in Michigan? 

Ms. TRUSS. I don’t have that available, but I would be happy to 

get that information and report back to the subcommittee. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. The reason I make the observation is because obviously we have removed virtually every major legal impediment to someone voting based on race. Every now and then a 

State will try to backtrack in that area, but we have done a pretty 

good job of rooting them out. 

But it seems that economic marginalization still remains and 

that that is, frankly, as powerful an impediment today as hard de 

facto laws and rules were in the 1960s. I believe that. 

So I just want to underscore the chairwoman’s comments about 

why this is important from a public policy standpoint. And the 

questions I want to ask have to deal with something else that 

Chairwoman Lofgren and I spend a lot of time focused on. Both she 

and I serve on the House Judiciary Committee; so one of our roles 

is to oversee the Department of Justice, and one of our constant 

sources of concern is what piques their interest and what doesn’t. 

So to put this in the context of today’s hearing, based on some 

material the committee has gathered, from 2001 to 2007 DOJ initiVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:12 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 042796 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\C796.XXX C796

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
110 

ated one section 7 enforcement action, in the entire country, and 

they promptly settled that one. 

During that same time period, DOJ brought suit against four 

States relying on different sections, including section 8, which deals 

with purging the voter rolls. Can you comment, Ms. McLean, on 

what that says to you, the fact that DOJ initiated one section 7 enforcement action in 6 years? What do you take from that? 

Ms. MCLEAN. I would like to think that that means that most everybody appeared to be trying to do their jobs. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. You would like to take that from it. 

Is there a less charitable interpretation out there? 

Ms. MCLEAN. That is what I would like to take from it. Yes, I 

would. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think the witness is trying to not become involved in that. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. The point I want to make—obviously, we 

hope that States are doing their jobs, but I think this is not contested. During this same period of time when, in most States that 

aren’t North Carolina and Michigan, there has been a big drop-off 

in the number of Section 8-eligible people who have been registered 

to vote. There continue to be these lagging gaps between minorities 

that are eligible to vote and those who are actually voting. 

So it would seem to me if the proposition was correct, that these 

States don’t have good numbers because they did such a wonderful 

job in the 1990s and got everybody registered, that frankly we 

would see those gaps close. Wouldn’t you agree with that, Ms. 

McLean? 

Ms. MCLEAN. I would agree with that. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. And, Ms. Truss, I would assume you 

would agree with that piece of logic, too? 

Ms. TRUSS. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you. Thank you both for being 

here. 

Ms. McLean, I am just wondering—I appreciate and greatly applaud the efforts that you are bringing forward. If I am not mistaken, one of the key ingredients is the training of staff. 

Ms. MCLEAN. That is correct. We found that staff needs to know 

how to do this and why they are doing this. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Will there be follow-up so that you are 

able to go back and really look at those numbers and figure out, 

okay, what are some of the things that we would expect to have 

happen and what would be the surprises? I mean, what is going 

to be different 2 years from now if you were going to testify on this 

and you wanted to tell us the results? 

What do you think from the plan, from what you have put in 

place and your analysis as you move forward—and I am hoping 

that that will be there—that you would be able to suggest? 

Because part of the difficulty, too, is that as we have all said, 

when survival is your highest priority, sometimes other things are 

not as important and yet critical in terms of understanding the 

needs of any electorate. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
111 

And so how will we evaluate, you know, your primed efforts 

here? 

Ms. MCLEAN. Well, I think one of the things that we have 

learned from this process is that we had assumed that the agency 

voter registration was on autopilot and that we assumed that these 

agencies were doing the jobs that they were expected to do. We 

have learned from that that we need to continuously stay focused 

on the activities of these section 7 agencies. Requiring them to report, comparing the reports to other reports that we receive from 

a different agency will enable us to identify if there is a potential 

problem out there that someone has dropped the ball, so to speak. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. And what would you expect to be the 

greatest reason for dropping the ball? 

Ms. MCLEAN. I would think probably lack of realization that this 

is a Federal mandate. It is not just another State agency that is 

asking you to do something else in your job. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Do you, and Ms. Truss as well, do you 

have a sense of why—you know, why maybe it is difficult for people 

to register? Why don’t people register? 

We may take it for granted that people want to register. What 

do you all think? 

Ms. TRUSS. I think that for those of us who have been voting 

since we were of the age that we could vote, we understand that 

it is a powerful experience, and we understand how engaging it is 

and how it makes us a part of our local community, part of our 

State, the decisions that are made on our behalf and on a national 

level. 

And I am not sure that, like you said, when you are just kind 

of subsisting and you are really just going about your day trying 

to get from A to B that that really becomes a part of your experience. So I think what is powerful is to get engaged and try to have 

the experience and then to feel that feeling that those of us who 

have done it get from it. 

So I think it is just a matter of maybe it has just not been part 

of their experience. So initiatives like the one in Michigan and the 

one in North Carolina hopefully will engage a more diverse group 

of people who haven’t had that experience and that will sort of fuel 

the initiative to continue. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Anything else we should be doing? 

Ms. TRUSS. I agree with Ms. McLean that we need to continue 

to train. I think that you really have to keep this kind of initiative 

going, and it can’t be just something you start at one point and you 

just assume that it is going to continue on. You have to revisit. You 

have to look at the data, go back, fix what is broken or make things 

better, take best practices from one place and share them with others. 

I think it is just something you have to stay focused on, and I 

know that that is really important to our director. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very, very much. You are both role 

models for other States. And we certainly do appreciate your being 

here. And please take back to your States our admiration for your 

efforts; we hope to publicize them as models for others. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
112 

Let’s now call the second panel forward, if we could. Let me introduce the witnesses as they are sitting down. 

Lisa Danetz is Senior Counsel at Demos and has spent the last 

5 years as a voting rights and campaign finance lawyer with their 

affiliate, the National Voting Rights Institute. Her past and current work includes litigation and negotiation with States regarding 

implementation of the National Voter Registration Act, constitutional litigation to promote and defend campaign finance reforms, 

legislative drafting and FEC enforcement work. 

Ms. Danetz received her Bachelor’s degree from Yale University 

and her Juris Doctorate, cum laude, from New York University 

School of Law. 

Michael Slater is the Deputy Director of Project Vote where he 

focuses primarily on ensuring the voting rights of low-income and 

minority Americans. During his tenure with Project Vote, Mr. 

Slater has helped lead a successful effort to overturn laws in seven 

States restricting voter registration, including Project Vote v. 

Blackwell, as well as contributed to the passage of election legislation in half a dozen States. 

Mr. Slater directs Project Vote’s NVRA implementation project, 

which seeks to ensure that States are in compliance with the public 

agency registration requirements of the National Voter Registration Act. 

And finally we have David B. Muhlhausen, who is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation’s Center For Data Analysis. 

Dr. Muhlhausen specializes in criminal justice policy, as well as 

evaluating the performance of government programs. 

Prior to his work with the Heritage Foundation, Dr. Muhlhausen 

worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as a manager 

at a juvenile correctional facility in Baltimore. 

Dr. Muhlhausen received his Bachelor’s degree from Frostburg 

State University and his Doctorate degree in public policy from the 

University of Maryland, Baltimore County. 

STATEMENTS OF LISA DANETZ, SENIOR COUNSEL, DEMOS; MICHAEL SLATER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PROJECT VOTE; AND 

DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Ms. LOFGREN. We welcome the three of you and you heard the 

advice to the prior witnesses about the light system. So we would 

note that your full written statements are part of the record of this 

hearing and invite you to give oral testimony of about 5 minutes. 

And if we could begin with you, Ms. Danetz. 

STATEMENT OF LISA DANETZ 

Ms. DANETZ. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member 

McCarthy and other members of the Subcommittee on Elections of 

the House Administration Committee for inviting me to testify 

today. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Is the microphone on? Why don’t you pull it a little bit closer? 

Ms. DANETZ. Is that better? I have to be honest; nobody has ever 

told me that I didn’t project well. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
113 

In my time at Demos, I have worked extensively on efforts to ensure better compliance with and implementation of the NVRA’s requirements, especially with regard to public assistance agencybased registration. I have advised State elections and human services officials about compliance, brought litigation to ensure compliance and spoken and written about the issue. 

In particular, I have had the opportunity, as you just heard, to 

work with the States of Michigan and North Carolina on their efforts; and I wish to formally commend them to you for their voluntarily undertaking the implementation of best practices with respect to agency-based voter registration. 

In North Carolina, the improved procedures led to over 34,400 

voters registered at the State’s public assistance agencies in the 

first year after the reimplementation process started. That is an almost six-fold increase in the average number of voters being registered each month at North Carolina’s public assistance agencies. 

The work of Demos and our partners during the past several 

years has demonstrated, unfortunately, that not all States are like 

North Carolina and Michigan and that the early promise of the 

NVRA has not been sustained with respect to voter registration at 

public assistance offices. 

Chairwoman Lofgren has already indicated the 79 percent decline since implementation of the law. And for whatever reason, 

many States are no longer offering voter registration opportunities 

at their public assistance offices. 

I think it is important to look past the numbers, however, because it is not just numbers that suggest that there is noncompliance. When we go into the States to see what is happening firsthand, we see local offices that do not offer the opportunity to register to vote, local offices that do not even have voter registration 

applications at the office, staff who are entirely unaware of their 

obligations, voter registration services offered in the office but not 

for services offered by the Internet, mail, over-the-telephone ways 

in which many services are offered now; and also local offices that 

don’t use the statutorily required declination form, which is specified by the statute. 

Every State, I think, should be able to accomplish results similar 

to that attained in North Carolina by implementing certain practices that largely ensure, one, that local workers know their responsibilities; and, two, that they are held accountable for performing them. 

Such practices include the formation of an NVRA improvement 

team with a designated Chair; the designation of local NVRA coordinators, as Ms. Truss already discussed; sending of instructions to 

agency and office personnel; regular training and performance reviews of staff; as well as regular reporting and monitoring of performance data. 

The statute specifically tasks the Justice Department with enforcement of the NVRA. And we know from experience that such 

enforcement can be quite effective. In 2002, DOJ brought a lawsuit 

against Tennessee for that State’s failure to provide voter registration services at public assistance agencies. As a result of the consent decree entered to settle the litigation, Tennessee’s public assistance agencies’ numbers of voter registration applications skyVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:12 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 042796 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\C796.XXX C796

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
114 

rocketed. In the 2-year period preceding the last Presidential election, public assistance agencies received almost 174,000 voter registration applications. In the most recent period, they received almost 121,000 voter registration applications. That was one in five 

of all public assistance registrations in the Nation that came from 

Tennessee. 

Given the success of litigation in increasing voter registration applications at public assistance agencies, it is remarkable that the 

Justice Department has been largely absent since that 2002 case 

against Tennessee. 

In the past several months, there have been some more encouraging signs of Justice Department interest. And we are hopeful 

that the recent steps indicate a renewed willingness on the part of 

the Justice Department to resume more vigorous enforcement of 

section 7. 

I will just end by saying that with the examples of North Carolina and Michigan, as well as a renewed commitment to full enforcement of the NVRA, I believe we can realize the congressional 

intent and help hundreds of thousands of additional voters participate in the political process. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Danetz follows:] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
115 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 42796.098
116 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 42796.099
117 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 42796.100
118 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 42796.101
119 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 42796.102
120 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 42796.103
121 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144 42796.104
122 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 145 42796.105
123 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 42796.106
124 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 147 42796.107
125 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 42796.108
126 

Ms. LOFGREN. We will turn now to Mr. Slater. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SLATER 

Mr. SLATER. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking 

Member McCarthy and members of the Subcommittee on Elections. 

My name is Michael Slater. I am Deputy Director of Project Vote. 

Project Vote is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that 

promotes registration and voting to Americans who are historically 

underrepresented in the electorate. 

It is an honor to be here today to present testimony on the National Voter Registration Act, a law meant to ensure that all Americans have equal access to voter registration opportunities. 

As the subcommittee knows, Congress passed the NVRA with the 

intent to increase registration by removing State barriers to voter 

registration opportunities. The act also requires States to offer 

voter registration at motor vehicle departments, section 5, and at 

public assistance agencies, section 7. 

Congress included section 7 in the NVRA because it has the potential to offset the longstanding underrepresentation of low-income citizens in the electorate. The House committee reporting on 

the NVRA explained that the inclusion of section 7 was to ensure 

that the poor and persons with disabilities who did not have driver’s licenses would not be excluded from those for whom registration would be convenient and readily available. 

Section 7’s promise of a more representative electorate is as important today as it was in 1993. Of all adult citizens from households with annual economics below $25,000 in 2006, approximately 

40 percent were unregistered, compared to only 20 percent from 

households with incomes greater than $100,000. The registration 

rate for non-Hispanic whites was 71 percent in 2006, but only 61 

percent for non-Hispanic blacks, 54 percent for Latinos and just 49 

percent for Asian Americans. Nonwhites are less registered in large 

part because they are disproportionately low income. 

Just as the promise of NVRA is relevant today, so too is its potential. Fully 34 percent, or 64 million, voting-eligible Americans 

were not registered to vote in 2006. 

A study by the Washington secretary of state shows that section 

7 can play an important role in reaching them. In 2007, election 

officials in Washington compared their list of registered voters to 

the list of adult citizens who received public assistance. Their comparison found that of the 1.2 million adult citizens who used public 

assistance programs in 2006, more than 780,000 were not registered to vote. Even if the State’s data-matching efforts missed 

some registered voters, Washington’s report indicates that a significant proportion of the State’s 1.4 million unregistered citizens can 

be reached through public assistance agencies. 

Unfortunately, as my colleague, Ms. Danetz, has testified, there 

is substantial evidence that the 79 percent decline since 1975 in 

the number of voter registration applications from section 7 agencies is the result of State’s noncompliance. 

In the past 4 years, we have talked with State human service directors who have no knowledge of the NVRA, with election officials 

who have acknowledged that their States are no longer in compliVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:12 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 042796 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\C796.XXX C796

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
127 

ance and with agency staff who stopped offering voter registration 

years ago. 

In 2006, Project Vote began to assess the availability of voter 

registration at agency offices and conduct client interviews. Out of 

56 public assistance offices in six States, only 21, less than half, 

could produce a voter registration application upon request. 

The evidence collected by Project Vote surveyors is telling. In 

Denver, one agency worker told us their office had been out of 

voter registration forms for 7 or 8 years. In St. Louis, an agency 

worker told our surveyor their office did not offer voter registration 

and suggested that she look voter registration up in the phone 

book; while a worker at another St. Louis office directed us to contact the Urban League. In Seattle, an agency worker simply said 

they used to offer voter registration but no longer did. 

Surveys of clients confirm the problem. Of the 386 clients we surveyed whose transactions were covered by the NVRA, only 73, less 

than 20 percent, had been provided with an opportunity to register. 

Noncompliance by States has been facilitated by the failure of 

the Justice Department to enforce the provisions of section 7. Since 

2000, the Justice Department has brought only one lawsuit to enforce its public agency provisions, although recent conversations indicate there might be some change in that. 

In short, States are denying low-income Americans an opportunity to register to vote that Congress afforded them in 1995. The 

results have been, in part, an electorate that continues to skew towards the affluent and a democracy impoverished by it. 

Fortunately, there is good news. A few simple steps can bring 

States into compliance and generate significant numbers of registration from eligible Americans. Ms. Danetz has already identified a number of those, and I would simply like to share some results from a few States: 

In Iowa, where executive leadership, a simple reporting system 

and a commitment by staff resulted in the number of applications 

from public assistance agencies more than doubling in the election 

cycle following reforms. 

In September 2005, Oregon implemented a set of reforms focusing on identifying and training NVRA coordinators in each office. 

The result was a 65 percent increase in registrations from counties 

and programs we examined. 

In January 2008, the Election Division and the Department of 

Human Services again collaborated to train another cohort of 499 

NVRA coordinators. 

And New Mexico has started the first but still incomplete steps 

to reinvigorate agency registration. Their results yielded 672 voter 

registration applications in February of this year compared to just 

102 registrations from 2007. 

And let me conclude by saying the research shows that when 

States take section 7 seriously, individuals respond by registering 

to vote. Our job today is to get all States to take section 7 seriously 

so all Americans have an equal opportunity to register to vote in 

2008. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Slater follows:] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
128 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 42796.109
129 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 42796.110
130 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 42796.111
131 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 42796.112
132 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 42796.113
133 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 42796.114
134 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 42796.115
135 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 42796.116
136 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 42796.117
137 

Ms. LOFGREN. And finally we will turn to Dr. Muhlhausen. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. My name is David Muhlhausen. I am a Senior 

Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation. I thank Chairwoman 

Lofgren, Ranking Member McCarthy and the rest of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. 

My testimony presents preliminary findings from a forthcoming 

report on the relationship between welfare caseloads and voter registrations at State public assistance offices. The views I express 

and this testimony are my own and should not be construed as representing any official position of the Heritage Foundation. 

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 required States to 

allow eligible persons to register to vote at various government 

agencies, including public assistance offices. Since the initial reporting period of 1995 to 1996, the number of persons registering 

to vote at public assistance offices has declined. This trend has led 

some to speculate that the decline is the result of States failing to 

provide individuals the opportunity to register to vote at these offices. Another possible explanation is that welfare reform caused 

the decline in registrations. 

The analysis presented in my written testimony tests the hypothesis that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 contributed to the decline in public assistance voter registrations. Welfare reform led to a substantial decrease in welfare caseloads, which in turn may have led to fewer 

voters registering at public assistance offices. 

Chart one of my written testimony plots the trends in the average number of AFDC/TANF participants and the average number 

of voter registrations at public assistance offices in the States from 

1995 to 2006. As illustrated in the chart, the decline in registration 

closely follows the decline in AFDC/TANF participation. 

While the association between welfare caseloads and voter registration seems obvious, other factors may explain the relationship. 

To check for other explanations for the decline, my research analyzes a panel data set of 45 States and the District of Columbia 

over 12 years. My analysis controls for welfare participation rates, 

socioeconomic factors and political election cycles. Controlling for 

those factors, AFDC/TANF participation has a statistically significant association with public assistance voter registrations. A 1 percent decrease in AFDC/TANF participation is associated with a 

half a percent decline in voter registrations. 

Other factors that appear to influence public assistance voter 

registrations are a State’s minority population, Presidential and 

gubernatorial election years. Changes in food stamp participation; 

women, infant and children, WIC, participation; unemployment 

rates and income per capita do not appear to have any statistically 

measurable association with public assistance voter registrations. 

Based on the analysis of the data, declining AFDC/TANF caseloads 

from 1995 to 2006 made a substantial contribution to the decrease 

in public assistance voter registrations. 

Unlike previous research, my study is panel regression analysis 

to estimate the relationship between AFDC/TANF participation 

and other factors that influence public assistance registrations. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
138 

Controlling for other factors, a 1 percent decrease in AFDC/TANF 

participation is associated with a half a percent decrease in public 

assistance voter registrations. 

While research on this topic is new and in need of further analysis, Members of Congress should not easily dismiss the major role 

of welfare reform in declining public assistance voter registrations. 

I thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Dr. Muhlhausen follows:] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
139 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 42796.118
140 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 42796.119
141 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 42796.120
142 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 42796.121
143 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 42796.122
144 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 42796.123
145 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 42796.124
146 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 42796.125
147 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now we will come to our time for questions. I will 

begin. I appreciate the testimony of all of the witnesses, and certainly, Dr. Muhlhausen, I am—obviously, the number of people on 

assistance would have an impact, but it seems to me until we have 

registration forms and asking people, we would not really see that 

impact. 

So I guess—my question really would be, I guess, to Ms. Danetz. 

You have done these studies all over the country. Have you looked 

at California? 

Ms. DANETZ. I have not specifically looked at California. Our reports address California, however. I believe Project Vote has been 

in California, however. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Slater, have you been—I am looking at these 

figures that the Secretary of State sent over. And the State of California has about 38 million people. It is a lot of people. 

In 2006, 51,713 were registered under section 7. In 2007, that 

dropped to 31,584. So far for 2008, it is 7,600. That strikes me as 

very low numbers for a State as large as California. 

In my own county in 2006, it is about 1,900,000 people in Santa 

Clara County. We have got 7,858 in 2006; only 2,886 in 2007; and 

so far in 2008, just 65. 

And in Kern County, I will tell you—in 2006, there were 89; 

2007, it dropped to 14; and so far in 2008, it is zero. 

So are these numbers that would indicate a sufficient effort being 

made, or what can you tell us about California? 

Mr. SLATER. I had an opportunity to talk with Secretary Bowen 

about that very issue about a month ago, and she shared our concerns that perhaps California was not in compliance, probably in 

two ways. 

One, they are probably not collecting data that they need to to 

report on their activities. I do find it hard to believe, for example, 

that LA County, regardless to what extent they are complying, is 

only helping 74 people in a 2-year period that has 30 percent of the 

State’s population. So I assume there is a compliance issue, but I 

also believe that it is probably true that they are not offering voter 

registration as consistently as they ought to. 

I mean, California is registering about as many people as the 

State of Oregon, which is significantly smaller. If we take a look 

at Oregon, which I think is doing a good but not great job, we see 

that they are registering about eight or nine people per 100 individuals, adult citizens who are on food stamps. If California registered people at the same rate, they would have registered 183,000 

people. 

So I think there is just a significant difference between the two 

States on implementation. So it is a concern for us, and we are trying to address that issue, but we do not have hard survey data like 

we do in other States. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am wondering, I think our Secretary of State 

does a fine job, I mean, but there has to be a coordination between 

the human service agencies and the Secretary of State. The human 

service agencies are run in each of the 58 counties, really, not by 

the State. 

How would you approach—you know, I guess, probably, 80 percent of the population of California is in 10 counties. But what adVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:12 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 042796 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\C796.XXX C796

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
148 

vice could you give me, as a Californian and chair of the Elections 

Subcommittee, for approaching that project if we wanted to take 

responsibility for our own State? 

Mr. SLATER. Our experience and the experience of Demos is that, 

in each State where they have implemented real reform, it is because the executive branch and the Secretary of State’s office have 

worked together closely to develop a plan and then to exercise some 

real political leadership in organizing the agency heads and agency 

staff to then implement that plan. I think that is what is needed 

in California. It is kind of a Cabinet-level executive team that really handles rolling out the reimplementation of NVRA. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, you mentioned, Ms. Danetz, that the Justice 

Department did not seem terribly interested when you presented 

the evidence of section 7 noncompliance in the 2004–2005 time 

frame. 

Could you quantify what impact this disinterest may have had 

on the rights of low-income Americans to register? 

Ms. DANETZ. Sure. You can see from the results in Tennessee the 

impact that the Justice Department involvement has on a State’s 

public assistance-based voter registration applications. In that 

State, before DOJ involvement, there were, I think, 49,000 or 

50,000, and then that went up in the next presidential election 

cycle to almost 174,000. 

So, certainly, in a State-by-State way, any place that DOJ decides to get involved there is going to be a measurable improvement, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of additional people can be registered. 

Moreover, I think that when the Justice Department engages in 

enforcement litigation or compliance litigation, it sends a message 

to other States that this is something that is going to warrant attention. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired, so I will turn now to Mr. 

McCarthy for his questions. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. 

First, Madam Chair, I have received written testimony from 

Brad King, Co-Director of the Indiana Election Division. I will just 

ask unanimous consent——

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, that will be entered into the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
149 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 here 42796.126
150 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 here 42796.127
151 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 here 42796.128
152 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 here 42796.129
153 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 here 42796.130
154 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 here 42796.131
155 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187 here 42796.132
156 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 here 42796.133
157 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 here 42796.134
158 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 here 42796.135
159 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 here 42796.136
160 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 here 42796.137
161 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 here 42796.138
162 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 here 42796.139
163 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 here 42796.140
164 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 here 42796.141
165 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 here 42796.142
166 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 here 42796.143
167 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 here 42796.144
168 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 here 42796.145
169 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 here 42796.146
170 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 here 42796.147
171 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 here 42796.148
172 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 here 42796.149
173 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 here 42796.150
174 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 here 42796.151
175 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 here 42796.152
176 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 here 42796.153
177 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 here 42796.154
178 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 here 42796.155
179 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 here 42796.156
180 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 212 here 42796.157
181 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 here 42796.158
182 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 here 42796.159
183 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 here 42796.160
184 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 here 42796.161
185 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 here 42796.162
186 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 here 42796.163
187 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you so much. 

I appreciate all of the testimony today. I have found the hearing 

quite interesting. 

Dr. Muhlhausen, in reading your report and in looking at your 

graph how it directly coincides with the number of participants and 

with the number of registrations, you used a regression analysis. 

Is that what you said you utilized that was different? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Yes. What I did was we took the data available for each State over a 12-year period, from 1995 to 2006, and 

your dependent variable is the number of voter registrations per 

population times 100,000. So it is their rate, so States are comparable. You look and see how that variation changes among 

States, and you control for welfare participation in the sense of 

AFDC/TANF caseloads, WIC caseloads, food stamp caseloads, demographic characteristics of the State, income, unemployment, and 

political election cycles such as senatorial elections, gubernatorial 

elections, presidential elections and off-year elections. 

After we control for all of those issues, what we find is that the 

regression explains about 70 percent of the variation in caseloads 

among the States. One of the significant variables is AFDC/TANF 

caseloads, and it suggests that, as AFDC/TANF caseloads decrease, 

so do public assistance registrations. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So, the reform they had within there, you saw 

caseloads go down? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Yes. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. Slater, is that correct? In your research, did you use this regression analysis ever? 

Mr. SLATER. No. What we looked at was data collected by the 

FDC and then the EAC. They track registrations from public assistance agencies. So the numbers that we are using show a decline, and our interest was in trying to establish why that decline 

occurred. 

So what we did is we went into the field, and we asked public 

assistance providers, we asked agency directors, we asked clients, 

‘‘Are you being offered a chance to register to vote?’’, ‘‘Do you know 

about this law?’’, ‘‘Are you providing these services?’’ We found 

from our field experience that the answer is, no, they are not doing 

that. 

So, in comparison, I would say that the research from the field 

essentially trumps a statistical analysis. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Even though earlier you said that California 

seems—there is probably a lot of data problem of not reporting it. 

Did you put that into your research, as well, or not? 

Mr. SLATER. I am sorry, I do not understand. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. The question Chairwoman Lungren asked 

you——

Ms. LOFGREN. That is Lofgren, not Lungren. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Sorry, I apologize—was about California on the 

reporting of the number. You said you talked to the Secretary of 

State, and you felt it probably wasn’t all not doing the job but that 

it was probably the data coming in. 

So I am just asking you, regarding the data, did you correlate for 

that? Or what did you do about that? I assume, if California has 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
188 

a data problem, there are probably some others about not reporting. I know they have to do a lot of paperwork. 

Mr. SLATER. Well, what I said about California is that the statistics lead us to believe that that is the case. Now our job is to follow-up on that and do some surveys and develop some additional 

hard evidence. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Okay. You guys do voter registration as well, 

right? That is your main focus for low-income? 

Mr. SLATER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. And you did over 1 million in the last presidential cycle? 

Mr. SLATER. 1.1 million in 2004, that is correct. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. And your goal this time is how many? 

Mr. SLATER. 1.2 million. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. And it is mainly focused on low-income, correct? 

Mr. SLATER. Low-income and minority communities, that is correct. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Does that correlate into any of the drop, as well? 

Do you think you are taking some people off the rolls as well from 

registering on the work you have done as well? 

Mr. SLATER. Well, my preference, actually, would be for the State 

to do all of this. We would be happy to be out of the voter registration business if public agencies would do their job. 

Our belief is that the registration rates have not fundamentally 

changed. In part, that is because of mobility rates among low-income Americans. They move frequently enough that they need to 

constantly reregister. So there is kind of a ready pool of low-income 

Americans that need to register to vote. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So low-incomes are very mobile? 

Mr. SLATER. Yes. There is about a 25-percent mobility rate. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Do you think there is any responsibility on an 

American citizen to register? I mean, do you think it is a right of 

everybody or is it a responsibility of an individual to register to 

vote? 

Mr. SLATER. I certainly thing that people have a responsibility to 

pay attention to politics, and I think they have a right to vote. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. You made a comment that struck me kind of odd 

inside your statement, that people were not treated fairly. That always upsets me. I think people should be treated equal and fairly. 

Is there any other place that people are offered for voter registration, I mean, from other avenues, from middle-income and others? 

Mr. SLATER. Right, the Department of Motor Vehicles. I think 

that is one of the points that we like to make, which is that we 

have a law that is working effectively for Department of Motor Vehicles, which services people who can afford a vehicle or who have 

access to one. The point about section 7 is that it is able to get at 

all of those other people. 

So to implement a law in one area that affects one group of people but to not then implement it in another area we think is just 

unfair, and we ought to solve that problem. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So you think it is not the low-income who are 

being unfairly treated but that it is the others? Is that what your 

answer would be? 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
189 

Mr. SLATER. No. I am saying that we believe the States are doing 

a pretty good job at the Department of Motor Vehicles. They are 

not doing a very good job at public assistance agencies, and that 

is where we have an inequality in access to voter registration opportunities. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. The DMV does a better job than all of the others? 

Mr. SLATER. Much better. Somewhere between 40 to 50 percent 

of all applications in America originate from the Department of 

Motor Vehicles now. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Have you done any studies in regard to DMVs, 

Mr. Muhlhausen? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Actually, one of the things I am interested in 

is looking at whether or not there is a substitution effect. That is 

what I am going to try to address in my forthcoming report, because I think that the way people register to vote has likely 

changed. I remember I used to register to vote by going to the 

county office and filling out the paperwork. Now when I move and 

when I change my driver’s license, I register there. 

So I think that the ways people register, especially with the advances in community mobilization efforts by certain groups, may 

actually substitute for the need to register to vote at public assistance offices. I think it is something that needs to be considered in 

thinking about this decline. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. When will your report be done? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I cannot give you a hard date. I have to finish 

writing it and do some additional analysis and receive feedback. So 

it will be out this year, preferably sooner rather than later. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, I know I went over my time, Chairwoman 

Lofgren. I apologize. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is all right. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I would note, without objection, we will make the Project Vote 

and Demos report part of our record. 

[The information follows:] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
190 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 226 here 42796.164
191 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 227 here 42796.165
192 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 228 here 42796.166
193 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 229 here 42796.167
194 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 230 here 42796.168
195 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 231 here 42796.169
196 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 232 here 42796.170
197 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 233 here 42796.171
198 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 234 here 42796.172
199 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 235 here 42796.173
200 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 236 here 42796.174
201 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 237 here 42796.175
202 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 238 here 42796.176
203 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 239 here 42796.177
204 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 240 here 42796.178
205 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 241 here 42796.179
206 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 242 here 42796.180
207 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 243 here 42796.181
208 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 244 here 42796.182
209 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 here 42796.183
210 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246 here 42796.184
211 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 247 here 42796.185
212 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 here 42796.186
213 

Ms. LOFGREN. I also recognize Mr. Davis for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Dr. Muhlhausen, I am reluctant to engage in too long a colloquy 

with you. A veteran Member of Congress told me one time, if you 

ever get in an argument with a statistician, if you ever catch him 

in an error, he will just say something incomprehensible, and nobody will understand. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I will try my best not to do that. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Well, ignoring my own advice, let me try 

to work through a hypothesis here, and maybe you or someone else 

can tell me why I am wrong. 

You would agree with me that people who are working are more 

likely to register to vote than people who are unemployed, wouldn’t 

you? As a statistical matter, would you expect that to be the case? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, you would expect that, but it’s not what 

I found in my research. I found that unemployment rates were 

unassociated with registering to vote at public assistance offices. 

People who are unemployed but still in the labor force may, in fact, 

register to vote at other places besides——

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Well, I am not just focusing my narrow 

question on where people register or even on the narrow questions 

you identify in your report but just as a general proposition. If 

someone is working, it would seem to me that there would probably 

be a variety of statistical evidence showing that they are more likely to be registered to vote than someone who is unemployed. 

Are you telling me that you disagree with that? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. No, I do not. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Okay. Well, then—— Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. That is not the hypothesis. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. But you would not challenge that? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. No, I would not. I think that is a reasonable 

expectation. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Okay. Another reasonable expectation: 

People who are not eligible for public assistance, meaning they 

make too much money for it, are probably more likely to register 

to vote than people who are eligible for public assistance. 

Does that sound like a reasonable proposition to you? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I think that is borne out just by people with 

higher incomes are more likely to vote. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Okay. So it would seem that, if one wanted to really push your hypothesis, the best thing to do—and perhaps Ms. Danetz or Mr. Slater could weigh in on this—it would 

seem to me the best way to test your hypothesis would be to look 

at people who have left TANF because their income levels have 

gone up or people who have left TANF because they are employed 

to see if you see a rise in the voting population among those 

groups. 

Have you done any of that analysis? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I am not aware of any data available that 

could be used for that, though I think that is a worthy research 

topic. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Well, let me tell you why that is significant for us policymakers and not just a worthy research topic. We 

have a dispute here. We have Ms. Danetz and Mr. Slater who are 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
214 

saying the reason that the voter registration levels at these public 

assistance agencies has fallen down is because of institutional resistance, given agencies not doing enough. You are telling us that 

maybe we shouldn’t jump to that conclusion, and you are telling us 

that it may simply be that, if fewer people are eligible for the public assistance rolls, fewer of them can take advantage of voter registration activities. 

So I guess, if I can really sum it up in a nutshell, I have heard 

welfare reform blamed for a lot of things; it would seem that, 

today, we are hearing it blamed for less people getting registered 

to vote. 

Now, if that is the case, it would seem to me that we need a lot 

more statistical rigor than, frankly, what we are hearing. I am not 

necessarily faulting you as a person, but there is something about 

your methodology that seems to me, frankly, flawed. 

Ms. Danetz, do you follow my point? 

Ms. DANETZ. I am not a statistician, but I believe so. 

I would simply say that, in the same time that voter registration 

has declined at public assistance agencies, TANF may have gone 

down but other public assistance programs’ caseloads and, more 

specifically, applications, redeterminations and changes of address, 

which is the relevant point at which the opportunity to register to 

vote must be offered, have increased. 

So my understanding—I was only able to glance briefly at Dr. 

Muhlhausen’s testimony. My understanding is that there are some 

methodology issues there. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Well, the point I would make is it just 

seems, Dr. Muhlhausen, the flaw in what you do is that it is descriptive, but for you to be prescriptive, for you to give us something that we can use as policymakers, you would need to measure 

people who have left the rolls. If the situation is that these people 

are registering to vote but that they are registering to vote on their 

own as they move to a higher strata in society, I do not know that 

we would be as troubled by that, frankly. I do not think we care 

how people get registered, as long as they get registered. 

I think the concern that we would have, especially on this side 

of the aisle, would be if for whatever reason people are not getting 

registered through public assistance and they are still not getting 

registered even as they move up the economic strata. It would 

seem that that is the point worthy of being tested. 

Mr. Slater, you are wanting to jump in. 

Mr. SLATER. No, I would agree with that. To add to what Ms. 

Danetz pointed out, I think what we are missing from Mr. 

Muhlhausen’s model, food stamps, the largest program. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. That is not true. My model controls for food 

stamps and for WIC. 

Mr. SLATER. Well, I stand corrected then. 

Also, it looks at registrations. It does not look at all of the covered transactions, which I think is probably the appropriate point 

to look at. We need to know how many people are applying, how 

many people are recertifying and how many people changed their 

addresses in order to understand the total volume of transactions 

and the relationships. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
215 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Well, I would just end, Madam Chairwoman, by saying this much. I would go back to what I said to the 

previous panel. The gap between people eligible to vote and those 

who are registered in low-income communities and minority communities appears to be as acute today as it was 10 or 15 years ago. 

I doubt anyone would dispute that. In fact, it may have worsened 

in many States. 

So it seems to at least one person in this room who is not a statistician that the larger public policy problem is that we have targeted one way to get more people registered; that way no longer 

seems to be yielding the results that we want. And I think that 

that is the broader problem. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I do want to let 

Dr. Muhlhausen respond just briefly before we adjourn. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Sure. 

Congressman Davis, I think your questions were very thoughtful, 

but I would like to add that the methodology that I used was not 

descriptive. The method I used by the organization and by my colleagues here was descriptive, and it does not control for factors 

that influence changes in voter registrations, which my methodology uses. It is commonly accepted. It is called a regression analysis. It looks at the changes in various variables and how it influences others. 

As far as I know, mine is the first study to actually be sophisticated enough to draw inferential conclusions about the relationship 

between registrations and welfare and other factors that are going 

on in the States. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much to all of the witnesses for 

your—oh, Mr. Ehlers has just walked in. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Ehlers, if you want to engage in 

questions. I do not know if you have been listening to the hearing 

on C–SPAN or the Web. You are not required to ask a question. 

Mr. EHLERS. First of all, my apologies for being late. I was in a 

very distressing meeting, learning all the weaknesses of our security system for airplanes. But I will not get into that now. Let me 

just say the best thing to do is just walk. [Laughter.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is a long walk home from here. 

Mr. EHLERS. I know. 

Thank you for having the hearing. I think it is a very worthwhile 

issue and something that has to be addressed. 

As you know from my concerns before, my chief concern was trying to make it as fraud-proof as possible, not so much out of fear 

that individuals would try to game the system but that this may 

lend itself to various operatives to develop ways to use it for fraudulent purposes. And I think, whatever we do in this, we have to 

make sure to keep in mind the potentialities for fraud by various 

groups. 

With that, I will yield back. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Congressman Ehlers. 

At this point, we will thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. 

Note that the record will be open for 5 days. If members have 

additional questions that they would like to submit to you, we will 

forward them to you. If that occurs, we would ask that you try and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
216 

respond as promptly as possible so we can get the responses as 

part of the hearing record. 

I do believe that this is an important topic. There has been a decline in registration rates among low-income individuals. Clearly, 

our North Carolina and Michigan witnesses have told us it is possible to do better, and I think we will be exploring ways to make 

that happen. 

One of the things that people do not realize is that our witnesses 

are volunteers. They are here to help this committee do a better 

job and to help the Congress move the country forward. So we do 

appreciate your willingness to help in that way. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING