U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–291 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 107–1153

ELECTION REFORM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 7, 2001

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

MARK BUSE, Republican Staff Director 

MARTHA P. ALLBRIGHT, Republican General Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director 

MOSES BOYD, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 7, 2001 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Allen ..................................................................................... 70

Statement of Senator Boxer .................................................................................... 67

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67

Statement of Senator Burns ................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement of Senator Carnahan ...................................................... 62

Statement of Senator Cleland ................................................................................. 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Statement of Senator Ensign .................................................................................. 72

Statement of Senator Hollings ............................................................................... 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2

Statement of Senator Kerry .................................................................................... 12

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12

Statement of Senator McCain ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Smith ................................................................................... 65

Statement of Senator Wyden .................................................................................. 3

WITNESSES

Bollinger, John C., Deputy Executive Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America .......................................................................................................................... 74

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76

Bradbury, Hon. Bill, Secretary of State, State of Oregon .................................... 28

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

Conyers, Hon. John C., U.S. Representative from Michigan ............................... 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

Cox, Hon. Cathy, Secretary of State, State of Georgia ......................................... 32

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 34

Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., U.S. Senator From Connecticut ............................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10

Henderson, Wade, Executive Director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 78

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81

Hutchinson, Hon. Asa, U.S. Representative from Arkansas ................................ 25

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27

Meek, Hon. Carrie P., U.S. Representative from Florida ..................................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23

O’Gara, Mary Jane, Board Member, AARP ........................................................... 85

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 87

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from New York .................................... 15

Thornburgh, Hon. Ron, Secretary of State, State of Kansas ............................... 53

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55

Yzaguirre, Raul, President, National Council of La Raza .................................... 89

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91

APPENDIX

Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to: 

John Bollinger ................................................................................................... 105

Bill Bradbury .................................................................................................... 99

Cathy Cox .......................................................................................................... 102

Mary Jane O’Gara ............................................................................................ 106

Ron Thornburgh ............................................................................................... 100

Raul Yzaguirre .................................................................................................. 107

(1)

ELECTION REFORM 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2001

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room SR–

253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain,

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, As we begin to unravel the consequences of the closest and most contested election in our Nation’s 

history, we need to keep in mind that our primary goal should be 

restoring voters’ confidence in the electoral process. We can accomplish that goal only if we carefully and thoroughly determine the 

lessons from this past November, and ensure that every vote cast 

in this country is counted and recorded as accurately as possible. 

On February 15, Senator Hollings and I introduced the American 

Voting Standards and Technology Act to address the overwhelming 

number of precincts who reported serious flaws in their local voting 

system. The shortcomings of our election system are an unfortunate embarrassment to our democracy. Our bill, S. 368, was written to directly confront the root cause of these voting controversies, 

the actual voting machines, and how they operate. 

In the 2000 election, pre-scored punch card ballots were used by 

one in three voters. These archaic votomatic machines, engineered 

in the 1960’s, continue to be employed throughout the country, yet 

their ability to accurately record votes is questionable. Even more 

egregious are the prescored ballot cards that continue to be used 

even after the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, 

NIST, recommended their elimination in 1988. 

Compounding the problems of prescored punch cards, numerous 

studies reveal that throughout the country ballots cast by African 

Americans were nullified at a much higher rate than those of Caucasians. Our witnesses will offer similarly disturbing statistics regarding the disenfranchisement of many segments of our population, particularly Hispanic Americans, elderly Americans, and 

Americans with disabilities. 

How can we encourage young Americans to vote if they believe 

their vote may not be counted? We must modernize our voting machinery and improve our voting process without barraging states 

and local governments with excessive rules and regulations. 

2

Senator Hollings and I do not profess to have all of the solutions 

to solving this issue. We do, however, believe that the states’ voices 

need to be heard, as do the voices of many civil rights groups who 

represent disenfranchised Americans. Surely the 2000 election was 

not the first time in our Nation’s history when large segments of 

our population were systematically shut out of the electoral process. We hope to learn more today from the experiences of these interest groups. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

Senator Hollings. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. 

I welcome the distinguished witnesses. I will file my full statement 

and just summarize by saying that back in 1978 the old Bureau of 

Standards found that the punch card systems, the prescored punch 

cards like those used in Palm Beach were flawed, faulty. That was 

almost 25 years ago. The study was updated in 1988, and I think 

we need another updating. We also need to see what we can do to 

help, working with the other interested committees. 

I take it the Rules Committee will be looking at the times of voting and registration and so forth, but within the technology sector 

I hope we can develop a standard here that the states can all follow 

and fall in line and expedite the cleaning up of these elections. 

So, I thank the distinguished Chairman and the witnesses. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hollings follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA

Democracy—which provides that the power of government ultimately rests with 

the people—unquestionably is the best form of government that we know today. We, 

as Americans, pride ourselves on being the world’s number one adherents of this 

great principle. Indeed, it was our enormous dedication to the creed of Democracy 

that led to the fight for this nation’s independence; to the establishment of our revered constitution; to the right to vote without regard to property qualification; to 

the right to vote without regard to race; and to the right to vote without regard to 

gender. In other words, it is the principle of democracy that has held our nation 

in tact for over two centuries. 

Nevertheless, for democracy to work effectively, not only must citizens have the 

right to vote, the system must be constructed so that their votes count. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. As this past election revealed, there are regrettably human and mechanical flaws in our voting systems. Last November and December stories of overvotes, undervotes, and hanging chads flooded the media. Many 

voters complained that confusing butterfly ballots led them to make unintended 

choices, while others claimed they were denied the opportunity to vote by being left 

off of the registration rolls or through intimidation. 

Although many were stunned by these revelations, unfortunately, these problems 

are not new. The fact is that we’ve had difficulties using punch cards and other machine-readable ballots for more than 30 years. As the record shows, federal officials 

were made aware of these issues as early as 1978, by a National Bureau of Standards study, Science & Technology: Effective Use of Computing Technology in VoteTallying. That study—and another in 1988—found difficulties in vote-tallying stemming from management failures, technology failures, and human operational failures. The 1978 report noted major difficulties in several key metropolitan areas. 

One of the vital recommendations was the elimination of the pre-scored punch card, 

similar to the kind used in Palm Beach County’s Votomatic machines. 

Even though the 2000 presidential election leveled unprecedented attention on 

Florida’s problems, as I’m sure we will hear today, Florida is not alone with respect 

to the prevalence of voting system flaws. Today’s witnesses will outline many of the 

3

same difficulties evidenced in Florida. However, they will also highlight problems 

unique to their states or constituents. The final picture that emerges will undoubtedly be complex, requiring a multi-faceted solution. 

Senator McCain and I have put forward one part of that solution—the American 

Voting Standards and Technology Act. This legislation would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology, ‘‘NIST’’ to: (1) facilitate the development of voluntary standards governing the performance of voting systems; (2) conduct a study 

of factors impacting voter participation by individuals and groups; and (3) implement a program making grants available to states and local governments to aid in 

the updating of voting equipment and to conduct voter educational programs. 

Other Senators have their own bills which offer reforms such as uniform poll closing times, same day registration, overseas military voting reforms, and reaffirmation of the Voting Rights Act, among others. Undoubtedly, this hearing is the first 

of many hearings that the Senate will hold on this matter. Election reform is a complex problem. Senator McCain and I realize that our American Voting Standards 

and Technology Act is only one piece of the pie. In that regard, we look forward to 

working with other Senators who are examining other aspects of the electoral system. 

In conclusion, I feel that I would be remiss if I did not say that though we should 

move expeditiously on the issue of election reform, we do not need to rush. In the 

coming weeks, the Senate is poised for a debate on campaign finance reform. The 

Chairman has his proposal; I have my Constitutional Amendment. We have already 

held numerous hearings, meetings, and discussions on campaign finance reform. So, 

let’s keep our eyes on the prize and proceed with both efforts: campaign finance reform immediately, and election reform as soon as possible. 

As noted, the right to vote is the most fundamental right bestowed upon Americans by the U.S. Constitution. Sadly, there are millions of Americans who lost faith 

in the guarantee and exercise of this fundamental right due to the circumstances 

of the last election. Senator McCain and I do not claim to know how to restore the 

American people’s faith in our voting systems. However, we do believe that setting 

basic performance standards, helping election officials acquire systems which meet 

those standards, and helping voters use those systems will go a long way in ensuring more consistency and reliability in our voting systems. 

As I stated earlier, Democracy is the best form of government we are familiar 

with today. However, we must work continuously to make it work effectively. Indeed 

we must always strive to make our democracy better. Unfortunately, I think maybe 

we have rested on our laurels, and each of us is now hearing from our constituents 

that they are not happy about it. I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses on how we can make our system better.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hollings. Senator Burns, do 

you have a brief comment? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator BURNS. I have a brief comment. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. I am already on another bill sponsored by the principal cosponsor, by Senator McConnell. I am intent on listening to 

the witnesses this morning. I guess one thing I would look for in 

any part of this legislation is that unfunded mandates, because 

counties pay for elections, and I being an old county commissioner, 

elections cost a lot of money, and so I am just going to be very, very 

particular about imposing anything by the federal government on 

counties that—and especially counties who have had a history of 

having no problems, so thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wyden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am in strong support of what you and Senator Hollings want to do. I think it is very 

constructive, and I support it. I would make only two comments 

4

this morning. The first is that this year more than 30 million 

Americans are going to file their taxes online, and millions more 

are monitoring their retirement benefits online. 

This Committee put together the electronic signatures bill, and 

I would just hope that we do not give up on the idea of online voting in this country. I hope that at a minimum we would continue 

to experiment at the local level with different kinds of approaches 

to ensure that there is no fraud. We know that there is a digital 

divide, and that would have to be addressed. However, I would 

hope that we could continue the experiments on online voting, because with Americans using modern technology in so many other 

areas, I do not think we ought to give up. 

Second, a bit of history with respect to vote by mail, and I want 

to thank Senator Hollings and Senator McCain for inviting my 

friend, Bill Bradbury, the Secretary of State for Oregon, to testify 

here today. I am the Nation’s first mail-in United States Senator. 

I was elected in an all-mail vote, and at the time——

The CHAIRMAN. We do not know how to take that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HOLLINGS. What about the females? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. I knew that that would generate some debate. 

What was interesting about that election is that, at the time, almost all the Democrats were against mail-in voting in Oregon, because they thought it would hurt their base. The Republicans supported mail-in voting because they thought it would help their 

base. I was one who thought it was just a good idea and said so. 

However, after I won the election there was an about-face, and all 

the Democrats were for mail-in voting, and Republicans said, oh 

my goodness, we have got to be worried about fraud. 

So what we ought to do is do what you, Mr. Chairman, and you, 

Senator Hollings, are doing, which is work at this in a bipartisan 

kind of way. I think we are going to see these innovations make 

a real difference for this country. We have seen it in Oregon with 

mail-in voting, and I do hope that in spite of this newspaper headline today about online voting, we will continue to fund those experiments. I thank you and look forward to working with you and 

Senator Hollings. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you. Senator Cleland, and by the way, 

for whatever it is worth, my view is that, as you mentioned, it is 

now legal to carry out a transaction, or a legal document, over the 

Internet. It seems to me that over time we should be able to make 

Internet voting secure. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX CLELAND,

U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA 

Senator CLELAND. Mr. Chairman, I have a question, and that is, 

if someone is recalled after having been elected by mail, do we just 

mark, return to sender? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CLELAND. I might say that the distinguished Senator 

from Montana is a former county commissioner. I am a former election official for 12 years in Georgia, and every year we had problems with the punch card system. I am an author of legislation to 

5

provide a knock-out punch to the punch card system, not by putting a burden on counties, but by putting some federal funds to a 

third of the precincts in America that have that system, or are now 

afflicted with that system. The 18 counties in my own state which 

use the punch card system show twice the undervote of the national average. Citizens in my state are being disenfranchised because of the punch card system, and I hope we can punch it out. 

I would say also, we are honored to have my Secretary of State 

from Georgia here today, Ms. Cathy Cox. She is on the second 

panel, and we will have some other words to say about that. I am 

on the wonderful legislation sponsored by Senator Schumer, and 

Senator Brownback, and was there the day we kicked it off. We 

have some wonderful people and some talent here today, Mr. 

Chairman, we can hear from, and certainly we can take action on 

this important issue before the next general election. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cleland follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MAX CLELAND, U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA

I want to thank Chairman McCain and Senator Hollings for holding this hearing 

today on election reform. I appreciate their leadership on this important issue. Mr. 

Chairman, we can all agree that last year’s election was one of the most unusual 

political events this country has ever seen. As a former Secretary of State and chief 

elections official in Georgia, I believe it was also a wake up call for reforming our 

electoral process. I have reviewed the McCain-Hollings’ American Voting Standards 

Technology Act, which directs the National Institute on Standards and Technology 

to develop voluntary standards for the voting process, and provides grants to the 

states to rehabilitate voting equipment and strengthen voter education. The 

McCain-Hollings bill targets reform where help is needed and I am pleased to support it. 

Today, I will introduce my own bill, the Make Every Vote Count Act, to help 

states and localities modernize voting systems, promote uniformity in voting equipment within states and require greater standardization in assuring the voting rights 

of our military personnel. My legislation creates a one-time, $1 billion federal block 

grant for replacement of punchcard voting systems (which are used by 34 percent 

of the Nation’s voters), lever machines (19 percent of voters), and paper ballots (2 

percent of voters) with a more advanced voting system, such as optical scan or electronic systems. Because many errors are caused by inadequate training of election 

workers or education of voters in how to properly cast valid votes, and such errors 

are especially likely when converting to a new system, the bill would allow up to 

one-third of the grant funds to be used for those purposes. Finally, the bill will assure the voting rights of out of state military personnel by protecting their absentee 

ballots. 

Today I have the pleasure of introducing Georgia’s Secretary of State, Cathy Cox, 

to the Committee. Secretary Cox has truly been one of the national leaders who 

have risen to the challenge during the debate on election reform. Her study of the 

Georgia elections, A Wake Up Call for Reform and Change, highlights one of the 

most serious problems experienced last November: the failure of outdated systems 

on which too many of our citizens are forced to use in casting their ballots. The 

error rates from November showed considerable variation between states, depending 

on the type or types of voting system used in each state, and within states, with 

voters residing in counties using 1960’s ‘‘punch card ballot’’ technology experiencing 

the highest errors. Cathy Cox has come up with what I believe is an excellent solution for our state’s problems and I am very pleased that the Committee has called 

on her expertise today. 

The Make Every Vote Count Act—Summary 

The legislation creates a one-time, $1 billion federal block grant for replacement 

of punchcard voting systems (which are used by 34 percent of the Nation’s voters), 

lever machines (19 percent of voters), and paper ballots (2 percent of voters) with 

a more advanced voting system, such as optical scan or electronic systems. 

6

Because many errors are caused by inadequate training of election workers or 

education of voters in how to properly cast valid votes, and such errors are especially likely when converting to a new system, the bill would allow up to one-third 

of the grant funds to be used for those purposes. 

Here’s how the block grant would work——

1. Within 30 days of the bill’s enactment, the Federal Election Commission would disburse the $1 billion as block grants to states under a pre-set formula which bases a state’s allocation on the state’s share of the national 

total of all lever machines, punchcard systems and paper ballots. (Section 

2(d)(1) and (2) and Section 2(g)). (For purposes of the formula, in order to 

make the paper ballot totals comparable to the lever and punchcard machine

totals the number of registered voters in a district using paper ballots is divided by 200, which is a rough estimate of the average number of voters per 

machine in other systems.) Within that same 30-day time frame, a state 

could opt-out of the grant program simply by notifying the Commission. (Section 2(e)). 

2. In order to provide for accountability without imposing a significant federal 

administrative burden, and to stretch the resources made available for voting 

modernization, the bill would require that participating state and local governments together supply 20 percent matching funds for the federal grant. 

(Section 2(c)). 

3. Within 60 days of receiving the federal block grant, a participating state’s 

chief election official would be required to identify a single ‘‘advanced voting 

system’’ which participating counties and municipalities within that state 

would procure. This requirement is intended to provide a means to move toward greater uniformity in voting systems within states, which is the only 

way to insure that everyone’s vote within a given state is counted in the 

same way. (The desire to promote uniformity is the primary reason why lever 

machines and paper ballots—which have lower error rates than punchcard 

systems but are even more antiquated—are also made eligible for replacement.) (Section 2(b)(3)). 

4. Within 90 days of receiving a federal grant, a participating state’s chief election official is required to notify all eligible counties and municipalities of the 

grant’s availability and requirements. The state official is subsequently required to ‘‘expeditiously disburse’’ the funds to these local governments under 

a pre-set formula which bases a local area’s allocation on its share of the 

state’s total of all lever machines, punchcard systems and paper ballots. (Section 2(d)(3)). However, a local area is permitted to opt out of the grant program simply by failing to notify the state official of its acceptance within 30 

days of the notification of the grant’s availability. (Section 2(f)(3)). 

5. The grant would be used by eligible local recipients (counties in most cases 

but municipalities in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and 

Wisconsin) for replacing lever machines, punchcard systems and paper ballots with an ‘‘advanced voting system’’ designated by the state’s chief election 

official. Furthermore, in order to smooth the transition, and to reduce error 

rates, the local area could ‘‘flex’’ at least one-third of its grant for training 

election officials and educating voters about the new system and, once all eligible systems are replaced, the locality could use any remaining funds for 

these same purposes. (These ‘‘flexed’’ funds could also be used to defray any 

local costs associated with implementing the military voting provisions of 

Section 3.) (Section 2(b)(2)). 

6. An ‘‘advanced voting system’’ is defined as one which prevents overvotes, significantly reduces undervotes, provides a permanent record of each vote (for 

possible recounts), significantly reduces recount error in comparison to the 

system(s) being replaced and ensures accessibility for disabled voters. (Section 2(f)(1)). 

7. Any block grant funds not used by localities (either because they opt out of 

the program or because they do not need the full grant amount) may be used 

by the state to enhance voter participation (through a variety of approaches 

including voter registration, training of election officials and upgrading other 

voting equipment not otherwise provided for by the bill) and to defray any 

state costs associated with implementing the military voting provisions of 

Section 3. (Section 2(b)(1)).

Section 3 of the bill is derived, verbatim, from Title VI of Senator Daschle’s bill, 

S. 17. These provisions require that, for purposes of voting, no military member be 

deemed to have had a change of domicile or residence solely because he or she had 

to be absent in compliance with military orders. Furthermore, they provide that 

7

states and localities must permit absentee voting by uniformed service members in 

state and local elections, as is currently required only for federal elections. (Section 

3). As mentioned above, compliance costs associated with this Section may be paid 

for out of the state and local grants under Section 2. (These provisions are intended 

as preliminary steps to redress problems in military voting, pending completion of 

a General Accounting Office study of such problems requested by Senators Cleland, 

Warner, Levin and Hutchinson.)

I would like to welcome our colleagues from the House and the 

Senate. We would like to begin with Senator Dodd because of his 

advanced age. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD,

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator DODD. I thought it was the white-headed caucus here. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be before 

this Committee once again, and to be joined here at the table by 

interested Members of the House and the Senate on this subject 

matter, which I think you properly characterized. This was a troublesome election, and it was not, in my view, just located in one 

state. I think there are some serious problems that have been festering for sometime Nation-wide that need to be addressed. Some 

of them are technical, but some go beyond technicalities. It is not 

just a question, in my view, of crafting a better mouse trap here. 

We also need to recognize that there are some underlying fundamental problems about promoting elections in this country, educating people properly, and making the process more available to 

more Americans. 

So I am pleased to have a chance to appear before you this morning to just share some thoughts about the integrity of our election 

system, and offer some ideas of how we might reform the process. 

Last month, Mr. Chairman, the Senate Democratic Leader, Tom 

Daschle, asked me to head up a working group among Democrats 

to take a look at some ideas in this area. I am joined in that endeavor with my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, among 

others. We are looking at a variety of proposals on how we might 

improve the system. 

What we have learned already, Mr. Chairman, is that this is not 

a Democratic or Republican problem, it is an American problem. 

And I would submit to you and Members of the Committee that the 

solutions to these problems must be appropriately nonpartisan if 

they are going to succeed at all. 

The Senate Rules Committee on which I serve as the Ranking 

Democrat will hold a series of hearings on election reform next 

week, since the Rules Commitee is the proper jurisdiction. The 

Rules Committee has jurisdiction over federal elections. There are 

a number of Members of our Committee and of the Senate who 

have introduced or cosponsored some very thoughtful pieces of legislation, and we will hear from those members next Thursday. 

Now, I am hopeful that we will act to report one or more bills 

in the Senate rather shortly, or soon thereafter. I am introducing 

some legislation, along with my good friend and colleague from the 

House, John Conyers, which we will describe briefly to you here 

this morning, and John will maybe follow on, since it is a companion bill in the House. 

8

We all know that there is a great deal of work to be done in the 

107th Congress. Obviously, the list is long, issues like social security, prescription drugs, education, housing, jobs, and campaign finance reform, which is coming up in a few days, and is a critical 

one. But Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I would 

submit to you and Members of the Committee this morning that 

none of these issues, as important as they are, is more vital than 

the issue of ensuring that each and every qualified American can 

freely and effectively exercise his or her right to vote. 

Now, why do I say that? Because the right to vote is the cornerstone in our democracy. In the words of Thomas Paine, it is the primary right by which the other rights are protected. The struggle 

to secure that right for all Americans has been long and painful. 

Our Nation’s history of disenfranchisement is lamentable. Thirtysix years ago, almost to the day, Mr. Chairman, on March 15, 1965, 

President Lyndon Johnson, speaking before a joint session of the 

Congress of the United States, called for passage of what ultimately became the Voting Rights Act. 

On that evening, Mr. Chairman, he spoke plainly and very forcefully to the American public. ‘‘All Americans,’’ he said, ‘‘must have 

the right to vote, and we are going to give them that right. All 

Americans must have the privileges of citizenship, regardless of 

race, and they are going to have those privileges of citizenship regardless of race.’’

It is the sad message of this last election that the privileges of 

citizenship have yet to be fully guaranteed to all Americans, regardless of race, in my view. In the days immediately following last 

November 7, I read a news article about a young woman who had 

left her home early on Election Day to cast her vote for the very 

first time in her life. She was joined by her mother and father. She 

remarked at the excitement and pride that she felt on that day 

that she would join her parents to exercise this most sacred American right. 

The woman and her family had planned to vote, and then share 

a quiet family celebration on this special occasion for her, but they 

never had that chance, Mr. Chairman. When she arrived at the 

polling place, this young woman, who happened to be an African 

American, was told that her name was not listed among the rolls 

of registered voters, despite the fact that she had gone through the 

process. She waited patiently for minutes, then for hours, as overworked and undertrained poll workers sought to verify that she 

was registered, but they never did, Mr. Chairman. Told that she 

was not going to be able to vote that day, this young woman left 

the polling place in tears. 

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest to you and to my colleagues 

that the story of that young woman is a story we should all take 

to heart. She was crying on November 7, not just for herself but, 

I would suggest, for an election system that failed her, and on some 

level failed our Nation as well. 

If we do nothing else in the 107th Congress, it is my fervent hope 

that we see to it that neither this young woman nor anyone else 

like her again is denied that right to vote. There are several things 

that I think we can be doing. 

9

The next 2 weeks, as I mentioned, the Senate will take up the 

issue of campaign finance reform and, Mr. Chairman, let me say 

publicly once again what I have told you privately and said over 

the years. I commend you and our colleague Russ Feingold for your 

diligent and sincere efforts to make such reform a reality in this 

country, but I would suggest that such a measure is not an appropriate vehicle for debating election reform. I know there will be 

those who may want to bring this up. I care about this issue a lot, 

but I am concerned that we might achieve neither, in effect, if we 

end up trying to link these two. 

Many of us would like to see strong, fair legislation that limits 

the unhealthy influence of money in our electoral system. I, for one, 

am hopeful that such legislation will pass the Senate and House 

and be sent to the President’s desk for signature. But if we learned 

anything last November, it is that it is not only money that threatens to diminish and deny the voice of the average voter. Other 

forces are at work as well, such as antiquated voting machines that 

fail to accurately record voters’ choices, ballots that confuse rather 

than clarify, overcrowded polling places that require voters to have 

the patience of Job, polling places that are inaccessible to the disabled and to the blind, to language minorities, inaccurate voter registration lists, and so-called ballot security measures which have 

the effect, if not the intent, of intimidating and discouraging voters. 

During the past several years, Mr. Chairman, I have had the 

privilege of working with the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, on legislation to address these and 

similar shortcomings of our electoral system. Our bill is premised 

on the idea that the problems of the 2000 election in Florida and 

elsewhere were not only technological in nature. 

Technology is wonderful, and there needs to be change here, but 

this is not just about helping states and localities build or buy better mouse traps, if you will. It is also about addressing, with tough, 

meaningful standards that apply throughout the country, other 

issues where our electoral system is falling short, in voter registration, in recruitment and training of poll workers, ensuring access 

for the disabled and limited English speakers, and removing all 

barriers to voting, including disincentives to working Americans, 

who often must choose between their jobs and exercising their right 

to vote. 

So allow me to make one final point, if I could, Mr. Chairman, 

and that is, we must do all that we can to ensure that we have 

the reform that is meaningful. We must not elevate form over substance, nor can we rush to enact measures which address only the 

technological glitches in the last election. It is critically important 

that we work to enact the strongest set of reforms possible. 

These moments in history only come along rarely. It is because 

of the events of last fall that we are meeting here and we will meet 

in the Rules Committee. I would suggest without the events of last 

November and December we probably would not have addressed 

this issue. Despite the fact that these problems have existed, but 

because they have occurred, we are meeting. We are meeting here, 

we will meet in the Rules Committee, and we must go beyond, in 

my view, just, as I say, coming up with better technology here. 

10

There are some deeper underlying problems to be addressed. Mr. 

Chairman, for 200 years we have run elections with volunteers. It 

is a wonderful commentary about our country. On Election Day it 

is volunteers from Arizona to Connecticut together, in thousands of 

polling places, who assist people to cast ballots. But as we enter 

the 21st Century with over 100 million eligible voters in this country, more than 100 million eligible voters, we need to get beyond 

just volunteerism, and hoping somehow that elections are going to 

work well across the country without making the kind of investments and setting some national standards that I think will help 

us improve this process immensely. 

So when it comes to ensuring the right to vote, we should not 

and must not settle for anything that is even close to second best, 

or else we risk eroding public confidence in a system which threatens to undermine our system of democracy. Mr. Chairman, I thank 

you for the privilege of attending today’s hearing, and I look forward to working with you and other members who are interested 

in this legislation, or legislation like it. With that, I might want to 

turn, if it is all right with my colleague from New York, to John 

Conyers just for some brief comments. It is a similar bill. It is that 

all right with you, John? 

[The prepared statement of Senator Dodd follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD,

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, Members of the Committee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss an issue that is of vital importance 

to the continued health of this democracy—the integrity of our election system and 

the need for election reform. 

Last month, the Senate Democratic Leader, Tom Daschle, asked me to lead a 

working group in our caucus on this same issue to both deepen our understanding 

of and develop solutions to the problems that came to light during the election of 

2000. 

What we have learned already is that this is not a Democratic or Republican 

problem. It is an American problem. And I submit to you that the solutions to these 

problems must be, appropriately, nonpartisan to succeed. 

The Senate Rules Committee, on which I serve as ranking member, will begin a 

series of hearings on election reform next week. 

As the committee with jurisdiction over federal elections, there are a number of 

members of our committee and the Senate who have introduced or cosponsored 

thoughtful election reform legislation, and we will hear from those members, and 

others, next Thursday. I am hopeful that we will act to report one or more bills to 

the Senate for consideration. 

We all know that there is a great deal of work to be done in the 107th Congress—

on issues like social security, prescription medicines, education, housing, and jobs. 

But I submit to you that none of these issues—none of them—is more vital than 

the issue of ensuring that each and every qualified American can freely and effectively exercise his or her right to vote. 

Why do I say that? Because the right to vote is the cornerstone right in a democracy. In the words of Thomas Paine, it is ‘‘the primary right by which other rights 

are protected.’’

The struggle to secure that right for all Americans has been long and painful. Our 

nation’s history of disenfranchisement is lamentable. 

Thirty-six years ago next week, on March 15, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson 

convened a joint session of Congress to call for passage of what ultimately became 

the Voting Rights Act. 

He spoke plainly and forcefully that evening. ‘‘All Americans,’’ he said, ‘‘must have 

the right to vote. And we are going to give them that right. All Americans must 

have the privileges of citizenship regardless of race. And they are going to have 

those privileges of citizenship regardless of race.’’

11

Yet the sad message of this last election is that the privileges of citizenship have 

yet to be fully guaranteed to all Americans regardless of race. 

In the days immediately following last November the 7th, I read a news article 

about a young woman. She left her home early on election day morning to cast her 

vote for the very first time. She was joined by her mother and father. 

She remarked at the excitement and pride she felt that she could join her parents 

to exercise this most sacred right. 

The woman and her family had planned to vote and then share a quiet celebration. But they never had the chance. When she arrived at her polling place, this 

young woman—who happened to be of African-American descent—was told that her 

name was not listed among the rolls of registered voters. 

She waited patiently—first for minutes, then for hours—as overworked and 

undertrained poll workers sought to verify that she was registered. But they never 

did. Told she would not be able to vote, the young woman left the polling place in 

tears. 

I respectfully suggest to my colleagues that the story of that young lady is a story 

we should all take to heart. She was crying on November the 7th not just for herself, but, I would suggest, for an election system that failed her—and on some level 

failed the country. 

If we do nothing else in this 107th Congress, it is my fervent hope that we see 

to it that neither this young woman nor anyone like her is ever again denied the 

right to vote. 

In the next two weeks, the Senate will take up the issue of campaign finance reform. I commend the chairman for his diligent and sincere efforts to make such reform a reality. But I would suggest that such a measure is not an appropriate vehicle for debating election reform. 

Many of us would like to see strong, fair legislation that limits the unhealthy influence of money in our electoral system. I, for one, am hopeful that such legislation 

will pass the Senate and House and be sent to the President’s desk for his signature. 

But if we learned anything last November, it is that not only money threatens 

to diminish and deny the voice of the average voter. Other forces are at work, as 

well, such as:

• antiquated voting machines that fail to accurately record voters’ choices;

• ballots that confuse rather than clarify;

• overcrowded polling places that require voters to have the patience of Job;

• polling places that are inaccessible to the disabled, the blind and to language 

minorities;

• inaccurate voter registration lists; and

• so-called ‘‘ballot security’’ measures which have the effect, if not the intent, of 

intimidating and discouraging voters.

During the past several weeks, I have had the privilege of working with the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, on legislation to address these and similar shortcomings of our electoral system. 

Our bill is premised on the idea that the problems of the 2000 elections in Florida 

and elsewhere were not only technological in nature. This is not just about helping 

states and localities build—or buy—better mouse traps, if you will. 

It is also about addressing—with tough meaningful standards that apply throughout the country—other issues where our electoral system is falling short:

• in voter registration;

• in the recruitment and training of poll workers;

• in ensuring access for the disabled and limited-English speakers; and

• in removing all barriers to voting, including disincentives to working Americans 

who often must chose between their job and exercising their right to vote.

Allow me to make one final point: we must do all we can to ensure that we have 

reform that is meaningful. We must not elevate form over substance. Nor can we 

rush to enact measures which address only the technology glitches in the last election. It is critically important that we work to enact the strongest set of reforms 

possible. 

When it comes to ensuring the right to vote, we should not, and we must not, 

settle for second-best measures—or else we risk eroding public confidence in our 

system of elections which threatens to undermine our system of democracy. 

12

I thank you for the privilege of attending today’s hearing. I look forward to working with you to achieve bipartisan election reform.

The CHAIRMAN. We would be pleased to. May I say, Senator 

Dodd, I agree with your view on not including electoral reform in 

campaign finance reform, primarily because I think we have just 

begun to investigate the problems, and just begun to come up with 

some of the solutions. If there were some very easy, quick fixes 

that could be included, that would be one thing. But to think that 

by the end of March we would be able to address the endemic and 

systemic problems with the electoral system in America, is unrealistic. I think it would not give us a clear understanding of the 

depth and significance of the problem. I look forward not only to 

further participation by this Committee, but primarily to the responsibilities of the Rules Committee, in which you will obviously 

play a major role, and we thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask unanimous 

consent that an opening statement be placed in the record as if 

read. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. Thank you, Senator Kerry. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Kerry follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, thank you for holding this hearing today. It has 

been approximately four months since Americans cast their vote for President, and 

for many, there remains a degree of uneasiness about the whole process. Many 

Americans who voted or tried to vote feel disenfranchised. They believe their votes 

didn’t count and their voices weren’t heard. 

We can be thankful that we are past the days of poll taxes, literacy tests, and 

other discriminatory practices that kept voters away from the polls. But if there is 

even an inadvertent flaw in the design or administration of our voting systems that 

prevents Americans from having their votes counted, it is our utmost responsibility 

to ensure that we remedy the situation. 

There is simply no excuse for the most technologically savvy nation in the world 

to be using voting equipment that is 30 years old. And it is disturbing, to say the 

least, that much of the oldest and least reliable equipment is found in the poorest 

counties across the country. Often, people of color make up the majority of the population in those counties. None of us should ever again be in the position of having 

to explain to urban, minority voters why a portion of their votes didn’t get counted, 

while their white suburban neighbors, using better equipment, could rest assured 

that there were no voting irregularities in their precincts that would have caused 

their votes to be discarded. 

If we can’t promise all of our citizens that their votes will count equally, then all 

of the past work this nation has done to guarantee the right to vote to women, people of color and the poor will have been squandered. 

That is why I am pleased you have gathered these witnesses for this hearing 

today. Perhaps the silver lining to the problems that came to light during the last 

election is that we in Congress are taking a serious look at ways to fix the system 

and ensure that all Americans who register to vote can vote, and that all Americans 

who do vote can be sure their vote counts. 

The first order of business for the federal government is to provide states with 

at least a portion of the resources they will need to overhaul their voting systems. 

State officials, from governors to county supervisors, face competing demands for 

funds every day, as they decide how to pay their teachers, pave their roads, and 

remove their garbage. When it comes to paying for federal elections, buying the 

newest, most reliable technology may be far down on their list of priorities. That 

is why federal government must find a way to provide at least a portion of the reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Mar 27, 2006 Jkt 088291 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88291.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
13

sources states will need to make improvements that are necessary to assure the integrity of our elections. 

But legislation cannot simply stop with more money. Legislation must ensure that 

states will have guidelines in place that will ensure that voters who speak languages other than English can vote. It must ensure that people with disabilities can 

vote. It must ensure that people of color are not denied the right to vote. 

We must never again read in the Washington Post statistics like this:

• ‘‘As many as one in three ballots in black sections of Jacksonville . . . did not 

count in the presidential contest. That was four times as many as in white precincts elsewhere in mostly Republican Duval County.’’

• ‘‘In Miami-Dade County precincts where fewer than 30 percent of the voters are 

black, about 3 percent of the ballots did not register a vote for president. In precincts where more than 70 percent of the voters are African American, it was 

nearly 10 percent.’’

• ‘‘In many black precincts in Chicago, one of every six ballots in the presidential 

election was thrown out, while almost every vote was counted in some of the 

city’s outer suburbs.’’

It is our responsibility to respond to shocking statistics like these. It is our duty 

to act in a way that each and every one of our citizens is ensured of his or her right 

to vote. We simply cannot do anything less. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. I welcome my friend and colleague from the 

House. Congressman Conyers, welcome. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN C. CONYERS,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MICHIGAN 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Senator McCain, Chairman, and all my friends here at the table, and on the Committee, 

I am delighted to just take a couple of minutes, and I know Senator 

Schumer is due in Rules Committee, and I am due back over in the 

House, and I do not need to—I will ask that my statement be included in the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. And that leaves me only to say that Senator Dodd 

has put his finger on what I think is going to lead us to a very important conclusion here. Number 1, this has been an ongoing problem. Voter reform has sadly been neglected by many of us. The 

Florida spotlight may have brought it to our attention, but this is 

a Nation-wide problem, and it is in that spirit that I come over 

here. 

The things that I am trying to do, and it is a fight between 

time—we need to get reform quickly as we can, and we need to get 

as many essential elements as we can, and what Senator Dodd and 

I are working on in this concept of an Equal Protection of Voting 

Rights Act, which will be before you shortly, probably this week, 

is to (1) allow a voter to check his vote before it is cast. 

I know that I overvoted in the November 7 election, but it came 

back out. You could not confuse that, because that was built into 

the machine. 

(2) To protect against overvoting and undervoting, (3) to produce 

an auditable record so you can track what happened, and (4) make 

it accessible to individuals with disabilities, or language problems, 

so that they can participate, and finally, to make provisional ballots understandable by not only the people that vote but the people 

that work in the polling processes. 

14

We had areas in the country where there was provisional balloting allowed, but the poll worker did not know anything about it, 

so they could not do anything. 

So that, in short, is what I am thinking is a good beginning. It 

is a fundamental question. I know in the Congressional Black Caucus there is no issue that is higher than this, and Congresswoman 

Meek will go into perhaps more detail, but I think that this examination of this question, and that the Senate is taking it up first, 

I congratulate you, because this is the first official hearing that we 

have had. The Congressional Black Caucus has had a hearing, but 

this is, to me, our Nation’s first business. 

I commend again my colleague from Connecticut and hope that 

we can move this expeditiously, as you all have started over here 

today. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN C. CONYERS,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MICHIGAN

There is one word that describes the 2000 elections: a disaster. Because of the 

razor thin margin of the Presidential election, flaws in our electoral system—which 

have existed for a long time—were exposed and our nation waited for weeks to find 

out the winner of the most important election. 

More than anything else, there is one critical thing to remember: election reform 

is not just about machines. There is no doubt we need to replace the machines. But 

there are many more flaws in our election system. 

Throughout the country, voters who committed no crime were illegally purged 

from voting rolls as felons, voters faced police roadblocks and other forms of intimidation, and voters with disabilities were faced with voting conditions that denied 

them the right to vote with privacy and independence that we take for granted. 

Election reform is the first major civil rights issue of the 21st Century. 

In even more routine ways, voters are denied their right to vote. In the 2000 elections, polling places were moved at the last minute with no notice to voters, underpaid and undertrained election personnel were incapable of explaining confusing 

ballots and registration forms were not processed by state officials in a timely fashion. Voting should not be difficult. Election reform should make it easier. 

But, unlike natural disasters, on the fundamental issue of protecting the right to 

vote, the federal government has done woefully little to help the states. 

Because the Supreme Court has indicated that these election irregularities impact 

the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, we must have national standards for all federal elections and, in so doing, provide the states with a model of 

excellence. 

Specifically, I believe—at a minimum—we should require that all voting machines 

in federal elections:

• allow a voter to check his vote before it is cast,

• protect against overvoting and undervoting,

• produce an auditable record,

• be accessible to individuals with disabilities, language minorities, and other individuals with special needs, including the right to vote with privacy and independence.

In every federal election, any voter who believes she is wrongfully being denied 

her right to vote must be permitted to cast a provisional ballot, the ballot should 

be promptly investigated and, if appropriate, counted. 

In every federal election, a voter must receive a sample ballot, instructions for 

casting the ballot and notification of their voting rights. 

Very shortly, Senator Dodd and I will introduce a bill that will do just that, the 

‘‘Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act.’’ Representative Carrie Meek, who is with 

us today, is an original cosponsor. 

We have to help the states get there. It will be costly. I believe it will cost billions 

of dollars to upgrade election machinery and educate voters. 

15

But we shouldn’t shrink away from making this investment in our democracy. It 

is about the legitimacy of our elections. And, while it may cost billions to do it right, 

this week we are talking about a tax cut that costs at least 200 times more. 

We need complete election reform, election reform that addresses voting rights 

issues. And the clock is ticking. The next federal elections are 20 months away. We 

must get started. 

I applaud this Committee and Chairman McCain for taking this important first 

step by holding the first bipartisan Congressional hearing on this issue.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Congressman Conyers. 

We appreciate you taking the time from your schedule to come over 

and be with us today. 

Senator Schumer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We know that you and Senator Dodd both have 

to leave us, and if you do not want to listen to Senator Schumer——

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCHUMER. I am used to that, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate your holding these hearings so quickly, and I want to 

thank you and Senator Hollings, as well as the whole Committee, 

for your leadership on this issue, as this Committee leads on so 

many others, and I want to thank Senator Dodd and Congressman 

Conyers, my good friends, for their strong involvement in this 

issue, and for the issues they hold near and dear. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, my view is that this issue does demand our 

close and sustained attention, and that is why having these Committee hearings so early is so important. I now it is an issue you 

deeply care about, as I do, and many fellow Americans do, and it 

goes to the very nub of our entire existence as America, which runs 

through the blood of all of us. 

I thought Justice Hugo Black sort of summed it up well when he 

said that, ‘‘no right is more precious in a free country than that of 

having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under 

which, as good citizens, we must live.’’ Other rights, even the most 

basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined, and yet our 

last election demonstrated that this precious fundamental buildingblock right now rests precariously on a foundation of rusting equipment, avoidable human error, and official neglect. 

Last week, Governor Jeb Bush’s Task Force on Election Reform 

in Florida released its final report. The report demonstrated that 

punch card machines in some county races had error rates so high 

that nearly 10 percent of the voters failed to have their votes recorded, 10 percent. That is an incredible number in a democracy. 

Most of our elections, or many, are decided by margins of less than 

10 percent. 

We are not just talking about elections like in Florida that were 

that narrow. Now, Florida is not alone. It is not a Florida problem. 

It is an American problem. In my own State of New York lever machines have a low error rate, but they are so old that they frequently break down, leaving long lines of fuming and frustrated 

16

voters, because we do not have a computer system in New York for 

punch cards, and because these old, clunky voting machines take 

so long. 

People wait in line for half-an-hour or 45 minutes after coming 

home from work to get to the desk, they are told their card is at 

another desk, then they have to go back and wait in line again, and 

nothing is more frustrating and disheartening to walk inside a polling place on Election Day and see dispirited citizens who waited in 

line for a long time and then have to go home because the kids are 

there, because they have to get to their second job, unable to vote. 

I voted for the first time in 1969, and I used the same type of 

old broken-down machine that I voted with this year. There has 

been no change in my state. Now, just because we are the world’s 

oldest democracy does not mean we have to use the world’s oldest 

voting technology. 

The problem, though, does not end with machines, as I mentioned—inadequately maintained registration lists, ballots so poorly designed they would flunk a high school design course, phone 

lines too jammed to confirm the registration status of voters, and 

basic human error by poll workers and voters alike. I do not know 

how many of your states are like this. In mine, poll workers are 

paid little and trained less. They are difficult to recruit and even 

harder to retain. We have lots of polling places that are supposed 

to have four people there from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., and you only have 

one, because nobody wants to sit there all day for, I think it is $25. 

I will get the right number and just insert it in the record. 

And many who are our poll workers do not bother to attend the 

minimal training, and they are allowed to work anyway because 

the precincts are so desperate to have them, and so is it any wonder that they tell voters they are not registered when they are, or 

that they cannot change a spoiled ballot when they can? 

Voters, of course, themselves are poorly informed. Far too many 

wake up on Election Day without knowing where to go, what the 

ballot looks like, how to use the machines, or what to do if they 

have questions. As one of Governor Bush’s task force remarked, 

Florida is far from alone in this. ‘‘The state spends $30 million annually to instruct people on how to buy lottery tickets, but allocates 

nothing for state-wide voter education programs.’’

Mr. Chairman, as you presciently recognized, there has to be a 

better way. Shortly after the election, Senator Brownback and I 

came together. We were both concerned about it. We talked about 

it a week after the election and put together a bipartisan election 

reform bill consisting of a study of the problems and a grant program to help states make needed changes. I am proud to say, Mr. 

Chairman, that you have graciously cosponsored that bill and Senator Cleland of Georgia and his Secretary of State, who will testify 

later, have been leaders on this issue and are also working with 

us on legislation. We were able to all work together, Democrats and 

Republican alike, because fixing the machinery of our democracy is 

not a partisan matter. It is a matter of basic civic responsibility far 

deeper than party or political gain. I think if anyone should try to 

make this a partisan issue, it is going to kill it. We do not want 

that. This is too important to allow that to happen, and so we have 

17

now refined the bill and reintroduced it this Congress with broader 

support from Democrats and Republicans. 

Our bill, called FEMA, the Federal Election Modification Act, 

creates an independent blue-ribbon panel to study the way we vote 

and make recommendations on better voting machines, expanded 

mail-in voting, voting on the Internet and other new ideas. The 

commission will recommend how to make sure the polls are accessible to everyone, including disabled voters and people overseas in 

our armed forces, and how we can guarantee that the lists at polling sites include all registered voters, and no one is mistakenly 

turned away. 

To make it easier for people to work and care for their families, 

the commission will explore whether to expand the days or hours 

when we vote, and whether to have an Election Day holiday, as 

many other countries do. 

It will also consider how best to educate voters in the use of election equipment and other aspects of voting. Indeed, the counties 

that took the trouble and spent the money to educate voters about 

the voting experience, about voting, have experienced far lower 

error rates and far greater voter satisfaction. 

Finally, the commission will consider how the federal government on an ongoing basis can best help states and counties administer elections. 

The purpose here is simple. We are not telling any state or locality what to do. We believe, our bill believes that the Constitution 

keeps that right with them, certainly at state and local elections, 

and probably even at federal elections. 

On the other hand, we are not just going to throw money at the 

problem. Rather, we have this commission outline the best system 

or systems It can be a few, because voting in rural Idaho is quite 

different than voting in downtown Chicago, and then provide some 

matching dollars as an incentive, because the fundamental problem 

here is not that localities do not want to update voting reform—

I think in all but nine states it is the counties and towns and villages, the local area that determines voting—but rather, that they 

do not have the dollars, and when they sit down, the town commissioners or the county board, and they look at the need to make the 

schools better and the roads better and so many other responsibilities, voting comes at the bottom of the list. 

Well, that is where we can help, because there is a national interest and a national responsibility if not national, certainly not 

national control, to do this, so every year for 5 years we will offer 

the states up to $500 million to buy new equipment, train poll 

workers, educate voters and implement other changes recommended by the commission. 

It is a lot of money, but it is not even close to what the experts 

say is needed to update us, and if you believe that voting is a basic 

right, that money is well, well spent. 

As I said, we recognize the constitutional prerogatives here. The 

bill does not force anything on the states and counties, but lets 

them choose what aspect of their systems they want to reform, and 

make the funds available. It has gotten broad support from Democratic and Republican county and state officials. You will hear from 

some of them later, including the Secretaries of State of Georgia 

18

and of Kansas, one a Democrat, one a Republican, and it has gotten the support of many different groups, many of them nonpartisan, who care about voting. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to echo the words of President Bush in his State of the Union Address when he called for fair 

and balanced election reform. We believe we have answered the 

President’s call in our bipartisan bill, as you have in yours, Mr. 

Chairman, and it is important for all of us to redouble our efforts 

and keep the attention of this body focused on repairing the nuts 

and bolts at the heart of our self-government. 

Election reform with this hearing begins to move along briskly, 

not conflict with campaign finance reform. If someone offered my 

own bill on the floor with an amendment to campaign finance reform, I would reluctantly vote against it, because I think that 

would bollux things up for both issues, but rather, to move it quickly and alongside campaign finance reform so we can get both done. 

It is important, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, for us to redouble 

our efforts and keep the attention of this body focused on repairing 

the nuts and bolts at the heart of our self-government. Holding 

these hearings is exactly the right way to begin, so I thank you 

again for convening them, and look forward to the important reform that you will begin to build here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Schumer. 

Congresswoman Meek, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARRIE P. MEEK,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA 

Ms. MEEK. Thank you, Chairman McCain. We owe you a debt of 

gratitude for having called this hearing. We have not had a hearing 

on Capitol Hill, with the exception of the Congressional Black Caucus, and so we want to thank you for that, and I admired you when 

you ran for President, I admire you even more now. 

I want to thank the Members of the Commerce Committee for 

being here today. I will submit my entire testimony for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Ms. MEEK. I will talk about a few issues here, but I think because of all the other testimony you have heard I want to try and 

focus in a little bit more on some of the problems that I experienced in Florida, and show you the emphases that are there for reform in the electoral process. 

I agree that there is a strong need for campaign reform. I have 

always been a supporter of that. I am even a stronger supporter 

for electoral reform, in that we do need this with all deliberate 

speed because of the problems the entire country has faced with 

both of these issues. 

I represent Florida’s 17th Congressional District, and I have a 

pin on me today that says, Remember Florida, because Florida did 

show what has happened in this country. Even though it has happened all over the country, this last election brought forth a vivid 

example of the needs to reform this system. 

I am here to express some of the outrage and exasperation of my 

constituents in Miami and in the State of Florida over the failure 

of government to do more about electoral reform. I want to call to 

your attention that members of my race have died because of this 

19

issue. They died because they deserve the right to vote, and there 

were many who tried to stop them. That is why it is so important 

that we focus on this part of it. 

Florida has spent a lot of money on gambling and the lottery and 

other issues, did not spend enough on this particular issue. The 

issue before us I think is not who won or lost the last presidential 

election. That issue is settled. The issue before us is that every 

qualified voter who wanted to vote had an equal opportunity to do 

so. 

Now, some folks do not think that every qualified voter should 

vote, because they do not feel that every voter is qualified, or that 

everyone who wants to vote is qualified. That is untrue. Not every 

voter had the opportunity to vote in this last election. That is the 

crucial thing that Congress must face. 

African American voting rights were diluted in this election. 

Whether by design, or whatever, they were diluted. the voter confidence of African Americans has been severely impacted by this 

last election. There were many people who failed to vote in prior 

elections because first of all they did not feel that they received any 

benefits from voting. 

Now that votes have been cast, and many of their votes were not 

counted, they feel even worse. We were far more likely to have 

their votes invalidated, black voters were, and other voters, because a greater percentage of African American voters lived in 

counties that used outmoded punch cards, and I want to show this 

chart to you that showed that in the districts, that few African 

American voters lived in counties with more than precinct optical 

scanning systems, a technology that prevents voter error by requiring voters to correct mistakes before their ballots can be cast. 

This is an important point to show that that is why there was 

a disparity in black votes not being counted. More Florida voters—

the first chart shows that 73 percent of African American voters 

lived in counties using these unreliable, outmoded, error-prone 

punch cards. These are facts. This is not based with emotion. I am 

merely presenting today the facts, which you must face. No matter 

how many hearings you have, you cannot get away from these 

facts. They will be there. 

Only 59 percent of white voters lived in punch card counties. A 

lower percentage of blacks live in counties with much more accurate optical scanners at each precinct that give voters a chance to 

fix errors in their ballots. 

The second chart shows that a significantly greater percentage of 

black voters had their ballots discarded in the November 7 election. 

The chart will show 16 percent of the ballots cast by black voters 

were discarded in counties using central optical scanning systems, 

compared to only 5 percent of ballots cast by white voters. 

Eleven percent of ballots cast by black voters, Mr. Chairman, 

were discounted in counties using punch cards compared to only 4 

percent of ballots cast by white voters. 

Is this entering the race card in this discussion? Yes, it is, because of the facts, that facts do not lie. the facts show that this was 

done 3 percent of ballots cast by black voters were discarded in 

counties using precinct optical scanning systems, the most modern 

20

technology, compared to only 1 percent of ballots cast by white voters. 

More black voters than white voters had their ballots discarded 

regardless of the type of voting machine used, but as indicated, the 

black discard rate drops dramatically when precinct optical scanning systems are used. 

Simply put, the third chart shows punch card ballots cheat voters, and they are much more likely to cheat African American voters. Voters in punch card counties were nearly three times as likely 

to have their ballots rejected as those in optical scanning counties. 

Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on with these data. These data 

prove the fact that African American voters were not only cheated, 

but they had their basic voting rights, for which many of them 

died, overlooked. I believe that we have come to these serious electoral problems because of a systematic failure of government to 

provide efficient services for the electorate, not only for African 

American voters but for others as well. 

While many of these problems came from inadequate voting machines, many others occurred because government did not do 

enough, and did not seem to care enough to get it right. Hardly any 

counties encourage voting. As a matter of fact, they discourage it. 

In Florida we tried to have early voting, because we knew in the 

African American community the next day after the vote the first 

thing the media was going to say that African Americans failed to 

vote, or they did not come out to vote. You have seen those 

charts—I know I have seen them—showing a disproportionate 

number of African Americans who did not go out to vote for one 

reason or the other. 

Government can do better than this. They could have done voter 

education prior to the election. They could have had easier means 

of allowing people to vote. Minority communities were particularly 

burdened with voting machines and equipment. Ballot procedures 

were unclear and overly complicated. A disproportionately large 

number of votes in African American neighborhoods were disqualified. 

Each of you has heard about Duvall County, where over 20,000 

African American votes were not counted. It is not so much as who 

won or lost, but of those who did not even have their vote counted. 

In Miami-Dade County where I live, the supervisor of elections was 

bitterly opposed to a manual recount, so he refused to count. Therefore, many votes were not counted. 

Mr. Chairman, while it is important to detail the problems that 

occurred in last year’s election, it is more important that you focus 

on what each of us has said today in terms of solutions. There are 

many worthy proposals for federal legislation. I appeal to you, do 

not slowly go through your hearings so that we do not have some 

progress for the 2002 election. Not that you can correct it all by 

2002, but the least you can do is correct some of it, and I would 

say perhaps to just throw out and ban the voting machines, the 

punch card machines. 

I am a cosponsor of the legislation that Representative Conyers 

has offered in the House to create a commission and procedures to 

study. We have quite a bit of data, Mr. Chairman, already there. 

We have quite a few studies that have already been done, and I 

21

encourage the Senate to do as many studies as feasible, but do not 

study the problem to the extent that we do not get solutions soon. 

I feel we need some legislation very soon to eradicate the punch 

card machines, and also, in requiring uniform voting standards, 

and that all voters use the same type of equipment. 

It was heartrendering, Mr. Chairman, to see new Americans not 

having a chance to vote. In my district there are thousands of Haitian American voters who were eager to vote, voting for the first 

time in this newfound democracy of ours. They were not allowed 

to vote because many of them did not have the necessary identification. Many of them did not understand the rules and regulations. 

There was no one there who was trained in Creole to help them. 

Not only Haitians but Hispanics and people of all walks of life were 

not able to do this because of the language barrier. 

I support the use of precinct-level technology that would require 

voters to correct their mistakes before their ballot could be tallied. 

I wish I could take some of you to my district to see some of these 

old people, over 60 years of age, who have never voted, dragging 

themselves to the polls, having to stay in the polls 2 hours because 

they could vote, then when they got up to the poll, someone said, 

your name is not on this list. Why? We don’t know. Can you call 

the local elections office? We can try. They tried, and could never 

get through. 

Imagine these elderly people being turned around who deserved 

the right to vote and could not, because of the care that government has for this fundamental right. We almost—we need to do 

more to ensure that legally qualified voters are not denied the right 

to vote. It is an outrage, Mr. Chairman, what happened in Florida 

with the last election. The voting rolls had been purged, and I say 

purged in quotation marks, because some of the purging that was 

done was not the correct way to purge. Many people who were legally qualified were not allowed to vote. We must have some system, and I intend to file a bill. 

You know how hard it is to get a bill through the Congress. 

Sometimes it takes 5 years to get a bill through the Congress, and 

so I am not ecstatic about all of these bills that are coming up 

around here, but what I am looking for is some action to be sure 

that we help the counties and we help the municipalities to be able 

to afford some of the changes that we know should be made. We 

do it for everything else, so there is no reason why we cannot do 

it for this basic human right. 

I will be offering legislation that will be heard, that before any 

voter could be purged from the voting rolls they will have an opportunity to be heard, to know why they have been purged from the 

voting rolls. We need to tell people what is wrong, and what is the 

offense that is alleged to have disqualified them from voting, and 

give such prospective voters a chance to show that the records used 

to disqualify them are erroneous. That is just basic fairness. 

We need to do a much better job, Mr. Chairman, educating and 

training the voters. You would be surprised that—maybe you have 

never been called, but I have been many times, people asking me, 

how do we vote. They do not ask me who to vote for, but they ask 

me, what happens when we get to the polls? It is not as sophistiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Mar 27, 2006 Jkt 088291 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88291.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
22

cated as you think it is, and government is doing very little to correct these errors. 

We need to ensure that translators are available at the polls to 

avoid a repeat of such massive disenfranchisement as that which 

plagued the South Florida community. Precinct election officials 

must be trained better, and they must have sufficient computer 

and telephone access to voter lists that they can quickly and accurately determine a person’s eligibility to vote. 

Suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, that we need more liberal election laws that will encourage citizens to vote, such election laws as 

same-day registration. You would be surprised what a hard time—

I served 12 years in the Florida Senate—what a hard time we had 

even getting Florida to use motor voter registration. 

People feel that if you allow certain segments of the electorate 

to be able to vote, that they will skew the election in a certain way. 

I want to say to you, forget that. Think about the basic tenets of 

our democracy that everyone should be allowed to vote We should 

explore whether voting on weekends would improve turnout, and 

whether this step would make it easier to give all voters the time 

they need to make an informed choice. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to summarize this—I have submitted the 

rest for the record—to say to you that there has been not an intentional disparate treatment of African American voters, but it has 

occurred, and we do need to quickly and summarily do something 

about this problem. I cannot overemphasize this. 

In late February, the St. Petersburg Times published a poll of African American voters which reflect the African American community’s pervasive mistrust of the electoral process in Florida. The 

poll showed that 84 percent of black voters in Florida believe a 

greater portion of African Americas were rejected or not counted 

than votes by Floridians of other races. This was borne out by the 

statistics I have discussed today. Forty percent of those voters cited 

a coordinated effort by state government to make it more difficult 

for African Americans. We have got to undergird voter confidence. 

Yet, despite these deep-seated concerns, it seems to me, and the 

people throughout Florida that I represent, and my experience in 

Florida, the high-minded talk we so often hear about the importance of voting rights is just pious platitudes and lip service. We 

are exasperated because of our desperate pleas about the disenfranchisement of our citizens and the disqualifications of our ballots and the violations of our election laws, and they were dismissed as irregularities. We can no longer see these oversights as 

irregularities. We must correct them. 

I have been here before, Mr. Chairman, and talked about this. 

We have prayed about this. It has to be corrected, and my generation, like my parents and grandparents’ generations, struggled 

mightily against poll taxes that you had to pay before they would 

let you vote, and literacy tests that required African American and 

only African Americans to recite whole sections of state constitutions, or answer very obscure questions to the satisfaction of examiners. We have come a long way since that time, but now is the 

time that government recognizes its failure, reforms the electoral 

system so that every legal, qualified person who wants to vote will 

get the opportunity. 

23

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Meek follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CARRIE P. MEEK, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

Good morning, Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Members of the Commerce 

Committee and fellow Members of Congress. Thank you for convening this very important hearing. I will submit my longer statement for the record and, because of 

time constraints, will focus my presentation here on just a few issues. 

I represent Florida’s 17th Congressional District which covers large portions of 

Miami-Dade County. My Congressional District runs from the county line on the 

north to the cities of Homestead and Florida City on the south. I’m here today to 

express the outrage and exasperation of my constituents in Miami, Florida, over the 

failure of our government and our electoral system in the 2000 Presidential election 

and to share some of my thoughts as to how we can prevent such a catastrophe from 

ever happening again. 

The issue before us is not who won or should have won the 2000 Presidential election. That issue is settled. We have a new President. Something far more crucial 

is at stake than who won the year 2000 Presidential election—the issue before us 

is whether every qualified voter who wanted to vote had au equal opportunity to 

vote and to have his or her vote counted. We know that they did not. Not every 

voter had the same opportunity to vote. African American voting rights were diluted 

in this election. 

African American voters were far more likely to have their votes invalidated than 

other voters because a greater percentage of African American voters lived in counties that used defective, outmoded punch card voting machines or central optical 

scanning systems. Few African American voters lived in counties with modern precinct optical scanning systems, a technology that prevents voter error by requiring 

voters to correct mistakes before their ballots can be cast. 

Consider the following charts. 

The first chart shows that 73 percent of African American voters lived in counties using unreliable, outmoded, error-prone punch cards, while only 59 percent of 

white voters lived in punch card counties. A lower percentage of blacks live in counties with much more accurate optical scanners at each precinct that give voters a 

chance to fix errors in their ballots. 

The second chart shows that a significantly greater percentage of black voters had their ballots discarded in the November 7th election. 

Sixteen percent of ballots cast by black voters were discarded in counties using 

central optical scanning systems compared to only 5 percent of ballots cast by white 

voters. 

Eleven percent of ballots cast by black voters were discarded in counties using 

punch cards compared to only 4 percent of ballots cast by white voters. 

Three percent of ballots cast by black voters were discarded in counties using 

precinct optical scanning systems, the most modern technology, compared to only 1 

percent of ballots cast by white voters. More black voters than white voters had 

their ballots discarded regardless of the type of voting machine used, but, as indicated, the black discard rate drops dramatically when precinct optical scanning systems are used. 

Simply put, as the third chart demonstrates: Punch Card Ballots Cheat Voters 

and They Are Much More Likely to Cheat African American Voters:

• Voters in punch card counties were nearly three times as likely to have their 

ballots rejected as those in ‘‘optical scanning’’ counties.

• Eighty-eight percent of the 51 Florida precincts where more than 20 percent of the ballots were rejected used punch cards.

• Seventy-eight percent of the 336 Florida precincts where more than 10 percent of the ballots were rejected used punch cards.

• Overall ballot rejection rate for the 43 Florida counties using optical scanning 

technology was 1.4 percent.

• Overall ballot rejection rate for the 24 Florida counties using punch cards was 

3.9 percent.

(Source: December 2, 2000 Miami Herald) 

I believe that we came to have these serious electoral problems because of a systematic failure of government to provide efficient services for the electorate. While 

24

many of the problems arose from inadequate voting machines, many others occurred 

because government did not do enough and did not seem to care enough to get it 

right. Minority communities were particularly burdened with voting machines and 

equipment of the oldest vintage and the poorest quality. Ballot procedures were unclear and overly complicated. A disproportionately large number of votes cast in African American neighborhoods were disqualified. 

Mr. Chairman, while it’s important to detail the problems that occurred in last 

year’s election, it is even more important to focus on solutions. There are many worthy proposals for federal legislation. I will discuss just a few of them. 

I am a co-sponsor of the legislation that Representative Conyers is offering in the 

House to create a Commission on Voting Rights and Procedures to study and make 

recommendations regarding election technology and voting and election administration. This bill also would establish a grant program for states and localities to improve the administration of elections. I believe that Senator Dodd is the sponsor of 

this bill in the Senate. It’s an excellent bill and I commend it to you. 

I believe that we need federal legislation to eliminate punch card voting. The Voting Improvement Act sponsored by Congressman Steny Hoyer and David Price 

would provide the funding required to eliminate punch cards. Further, legislation 

should require uniform voting standards, and that all voters use the same quality 

of equipment. We should fund the nationwide deployment of technology that would 

prevent over-votes and other types of ballot errors. I support the use of precinctlevel technology that would require voters to correct their mistakes before their ballot could be tallied. 

We also must do much more to ensure that legally qualified voters are not denied 

the right to vote. It’s an outrage that, last November, legally qualified voters were 

falsely accused of being felons and denied the right to vote because the State of Florida relied upon inaccurate data from a private contractor. 

I will be offering legislation to require that voters receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before any voter could be purged from the voting rolls. We need 

to tell people what the offense is that is alleged to disqualify them from voting and 

give such prospective voters a chance to show that the records used to disqualify 

them are erroneous. That’s just basic fairness. 

We need to do a much better job of educating and training voters, especially firsttime voters. We need to ensure that translators are available at the polls to avoid 

a repeat of such massive disenfranchisement as that which plagued the South Florida Haitian American community. Precinct election officials must be trained better 

and they must have sufficient computer and telephone access to voter lists that they 

can quickly and accurately determine a person’s eligibility to vote. 

We should explore whether voting on weekends would improve turnout and 

whether this step would make it easier to give all voters the time they need to make 

an informed choice once they enter the voting booth. We also should consider making provisional voting uniformly available so that a voter would never be turned 

away from the polls because a question existed that could not then be resolved concerning that voter’s right to vote. 

While there are many other legislative proposals worth considering, I submit that 

there is simple standard to use in evaluating the various electoral reform proposals. 

We should ask the question: 

Will adoption of this proposal make it more likely that each of our voters receives 

an equal opportunity to vote and to have his or her vote counted? Whenever the 

answer to this question is yes, the bill being examined deserves the most serious 

consideration. 

Mr. Chairman, I cannot overemphasize the depth of the African American community’s concern about the electoral process in Florida. In late February, the St. Petersburg Times published a poll of African American Florida voters which reflects 

the African American community’s pervasive mistrust of the electoral process in 

Florida. 

The poll showed that 84 percent of black voters in Florida believe a greater portion of African Americans were rejected or not counted than votes by Floridians of 

other races, a fact borne out by the statistics I have discussed. Forty percent of 

those voters cited a ‘‘coordinated effort by state government to make it more difficult 

for African Americans to vote’’ as the reason that more African American voters had 

their votes rejected more often, a greater percentage than those who blamed faulty 

voting machines or voter error. 

Yet despite these deep-seated concerns, it seems to me and the people that I represent that, after our experience in Florida, the high-minded talk we so often hear 

about the importance of voting rights is just platitudes and lip service. 

We are outraged because African American voters in Florida did everything they 

were supposed to do—we studied the issues, we did our civic duty and went to the 

25

polls, and we voted—and yet massive numbers of our votes were not counted, and 

in the end, our opinions and decisions did not count.

We are exasperated because our serious, desperate pleas about the disenfranchisement of our citizens, and the disqualification of our ballots, and the violations of our 

election laws were ignored, delayed, denied and dismissed as mere ‘‘irregularities’’ 

and, in many cases, trivialized or reduced to jokes. 

African American voters feel like we have been here before, for this country has 

a long history of keeping us from voting. In my own case, I am 74 years old. My 

grandfather was a slave, who had no rights at all. I grew up in a Southern town, 

Tallahassee, Florida. My father used to take me into the State Capitol Building on 

Inauguration Day—the one day every four years that African Americans were welcomed in that public building. 

Within my lifetime, every conceivable effort was made to keep African Americans 

from voting, and to keep our votes from counting. 

My generation, like my parent’s and grandparent’s generations, struggled mightily against poll taxes that you had to pay before they would let you vote; and ‘‘literacy’’ tests that required African Americans—and only African Americans—to recite whole sections of state constitutions or answer obscure questions to the satisfaction of examiners who could never be satisfied. 

African Americans are alive today who were denied the right to vote in ‘‘white 

only’’ primaries; and who had to search for polling places that were moved with no 

notice in the black community, or moved so far that it was hard to get to them. 

I remember the intimidation of being greeted at the polls by disdainful and 

unhelpful poll workers, or even police officers at the doors. 

African Americans today remember when the district lines for cities and counties 

and legislative districts were gerrymandered and drawn to exclude our neighborhoods or to dilute our vote. We remember how registration records would ‘‘disappear’’ when we showed up to vote and how the law, administrative procedures 

and the ‘‘official discretion’’ of public officials were used to postpone and delay our 

attempts to assert our rights. 

The Voting Rights Act was supposed to change all of that, and government was 

supposed to be protection, helpful and on the side of equality and inclusion. In the 

case of Florida, government has failed miserably. 

It is clear that the phrase ‘‘voting rights’’ is a mere platitude to many of our justices and government officials. One local official was even ignorant enough to opine 

that it was ‘‘not anyone’s fault if they couldn’t understand the directions on the ballot.’’

My message today is this: 

It is a failure of government and our electoral system when any legally qualified 

person who wants to vote is denied the opportunity to do so. 

It is a failure of government and our electoral system when courts, the laws, and 

government officials do not do everything possible to insure that every vote is counted and that the final count is correct. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the Committee’s questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Meek. 

We appreciate your time and effort and energy on behalf of this 

very important issue. 

Our old friend and very patient friend, Congressman Asa Hutchinson. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ASA HUTCHINSON,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful for 

the opportunity to testify and thankful for this Committee’s hearing. I do agree with much of what has been said previously, and 

I will try not to simply reiterate that, but I do believe I can make 

some points that will add to the discussion. 

This issue, I would agree, is one that crosses party lines, and certainly geography, and it is appropriate that it be addressed in a bipartisan way. I think it is appropriate to recognize also that I think 

it is within the constitutional framework that this be given consideration at the federal level. Like Senator Cleland, I have served 

26

both as a state and county election commissioner in Arkansas, so 

I am well acquainted with some of the challenges we face on Election Day across the country. 

Arkansas, my state, has made great strides in the past few 

years. Let me just share a few things. Sixty-five percent of our 75 

counties now use optical scan machines. That is compared, of 

course, to the national average of 27 percent. Furthermore, only 9 

percent of Arkansas counties still use punch card systems, compared to a national average of 36 percent. 

Unfortunately, as evidenced by the last election, Arkansas’ modernization efforts seem to have been the exception rather than the 

rule. During the Florida recount, I was struck by the comments of 

a foreign journalist who was asked about his view of the Florida 

recount. He did not express frustration at the length of the delay 

in determining the outcome of the election, but he simply expressed 

amazement that the oldest and strongest democracy in the world 

had not made the necessary investments in the essential tools of 

democracy—modern election equipment. And, if we were embarrassed about anything, I think that certainly is a cause to be embarrassed, and I think this journalist hit upon a key point, namely, 

that to keep our system strong and vibrant, we have to give it a 

booster shot in the arm. 

I do not think it is a time to point fingers or question motives, 

or simply to ignore the problems we have observed in Florida. I do 

want to say, I thought the spirit of the testimony today was very 

appropriate. It was addressing the problem and not engaging in 

finger-pointing. 

As with many other members, I went to Florida and observed the 

recount there, and as I went there and observed the recount I was 

struck by one thing, and that is that there were good people there 

with a very sincere desire to make the system work. But, they were 

working with a flawed system that made their jobs almost impossible. It is early in the legislative session, but we must remember 

that 2002 is only 20 months away. In regards to the election, Congress must take immediate steps to provide assistance to the states 

to help modernize our election equipment. 

The federal government approach should be this, in my judgment: we should be a financial partner with the states, not necessarily a senior partner, but a financial partner. We should allow 

flexibility, and I do not believe that we have to set mandatory rules 

for all of the states. They studied it. They know their system. They 

know what they are capable of in the states. 

I do think we have to set some minimum standards. For example, I think it is appropriate that, to accept federal grant money to 

modernize election equipment, that recipients provide access to the 

disabled. I think it is appropriate that they assure us that they are 

providing systems in their state that will meet the requirements of 

the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. I 

think that we can provide education for the voters. This education 

should appeal to the responsibility of the voters as well as trying 

to teach them how to use the election equipment. So, in furtherance of those goals, I have introduced bipartisan legislation on the 

House side, the Election Procedures Improvement Act, along with 

my cosponsor, Alcee Hastings of Florida, which is a very simple apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Mar 27, 2006 Jkt 088291 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88291.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
27

proach that would provide $1.5 billion to the states and localities 

to help them purchase new voting equipment to modernize their 

election procedures. 

It is not heavy with mandates. It is great with flexibility, but it 

is a minimum investment that we need to make at the federal level 

to assist our states. That is not to say that Congress should not engage in a more comprehensive debate, as some of the proposals 

have suggested. I think there is much more that can be done, much 

more that can be debated, but I believe the grant program is the 

minimum amount that should be accomplished. 

There are many people that are looking at ways to improve our 

election machinery, from the National Association of Secretaries of 

State, to the League of Women Voters, and I congratulate this 

Committee and its chairman for its interest in election reform. I 

am hopeful that Congress will take this opportunity to bring the 

tools of democracy up to the standards of excellence that should be 

expected of the world’s longest surviving and strongest democracy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutchinson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ASA HUTCHINSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee 

today to discuss the need for election reform. This issue is one which cuts across 

state and party lines, and it is very appropriate that it be given serious consideration at the federal level. 

I have served as both a state and county election commissioner in Arkansas, and 

so I am well-acquainted with the challenges faced by election officials across the 

country. Arkansas has made great strides in the past few years, and 65 percent of 

the state’s seventy-five counties now use optical scan machines, compared to the national average of 27 percent. Furthermore, only 9 percent of Arkansas counties still 

use punch card systems, compared to a national average of 36 percent. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the recent presidential election, Arkansas’ modernization efforts seem to have been the exception rather than the rule. 

During the Florida recount, a foreign journalist was asked how his country viewed 

the events occurring in the United States. I found his comments particularly telling. 

He was not concerned about the underlying health of our democracy; rather, he expressed amazement that the oldest and strongest democracy in the world had not 

made the necessary investments in the essential tools of democracy—modern election equipment. This particular journalist hit on a key point that I think many have 

missed because of the rancor that followed the Presidential election—namely, that 

our underlying system of democracy is, in fact, strong and vibrant. However, it 

needs a shot in the arm. 

Whereas the response of some has been to point fingers, question motives, or ignore the problems displayed in Florida altogether, I am convinced that the most productive response to the 2000 election will be for federal, state and local officials to 

take a view similar to that of the foreign journalist—namely, that we have a strong 

system which, at a minimum, needs some fine-tuning. In the short-term, we must 

refrain from engaging in battles of rhetoric and work together, using existing research and data, to identify the areas of greatest need and take the necessary steps 

to prevent a repeat of last fall. 

It is early in the legislative session. However, the 2002 mid-term elections are 

only twenty months away. Congress must take immediate steps to provide the shot 

in the arm our democracy needs, so that our election systems will be ready for the 

scrutiny they will most certainly face at that time. To that end, I have introduced 

bipartisan legislation in the House to provide an immediate $1.5 billion in funds to 

states and localities to help them purchase new voting equipment. 

That is not to say that Congress should not also engage in more comprehensive 

debate about how to address the more contentious issues that surfaced in the 2000 

election. The gentlemen from New York has introduced a proposal in the Senate 

with that very purpose in mind. In fact, scores of bills have been introduced since 

January that provide for more rigorous study of the issue, and allow Congress to 

28

consider more long-term solutions to the problems that surfaced in Florida and elsewhere. 

Groups like the National Association of Secretaries of State, the Election Center, 

the League of Women Voters, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and those represented here today have already begun to examine these 

problems and formulate potential solutions. Although I am disappointed that it took 

a presidential election stalemate to bring this issue to the attention of the American 

public and to us as policymakers, I am hopeful that Congress will take this opportunity to bring the tools of democracy up to the standards of excellence that should 

be expected of the world’s longest surviving and strongest democracy.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Congressman Hutchinson. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your 

support of campaign finance reform. I would call our remaining 

panel. I appreciate the time you have spent with us this morning. 

I want to now ask our next panel, which is composed of the Hon. 

Bill Bradbury, Secretary of State of the State of Oregon, the Hon. 

Cathy Cox, Secretary of State of the State of Georgia, the Hon. Ron 

Thornburgh, Secretary of State of the State of Kansas, to please 

come forward. 

I would like to thank our witnesses, who are responsible for the 

very hard work involved in making elections happen, for being here 

today. We would like to begin with you, Secretary of State 

Bradbury, and your complete statements will obviously be made a 

part of the record. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL BRADBURY,

SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. BRADBURY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great honor to 

appear before the Committee, particularly before a Committee 

where the two Senators from Oregon both serve, Senator Wyden 

and Senator Smith. 

As both of them know, back home the Division of Tourism slogan 

is: ‘‘Oregon, things look different here,’’ and it seems appropriate 

to begin my testimony with that phrase, since it applies as much 

to our election system as it does to our beautiful scenery. Oregon, 

as Senator Wyden said in his opening remarks, is the only state 

in the Nation that votes entirely by mail. No federal attempt to 

solve the very real problems of last fall’s election should attempt 

to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on state and local governments. I would not seek to impose vote-by-mail on another state, 

and I certainly would fight any federal effort to take it away from 

Oregonians. 

Oregon’s 20-year history with vote by mail has proven time and 

again that the system raises voter participation, it decreases cost, 

and it increases the overall integrity of the election system. It is 

also a system that a vast majority of Oregonians love, having been 

adopted through ballot measure by the voters in 1998 with nearly 

70 percent of the voters supporting it. 

However, there are still some critical areas where we can make 

improvements in our efforts to make sure that every vote counts. 

We have all heard plenty of stories from across the Nation about 

troubles with punch card voting, and Oregon is no exception. In 

fact, Oregon’s experience is an excellent example of exactly why 

punch cards must be phased out. 

29

Forty percent of Oregon’s voters cast their votes with punch 

cards, but punch cards are simply not voter-friendly in a vote-bymail environment. The punch card was designed to be used in a 

polling place, with a punch card stylus, but Oregon’s punch card 

voters receive their ballots by mail, without an enclosed stylus. For 

a voter sitting at a kitchen table, holding a ballot book in one hand 

and a punch card in the other, trying to figure out which hole corresponds to which position, for which candidate or measure, can, in 

fact, be a very difficult task. 

There is strong bipartisan support in our state to eliminate 

punch card ballots, and several legislators have proposed bills that 

would do exactly that. The critical issue for us is how to pay for 

the transition. Frankly, the budget in Oregon is so tight this year 

that the speed with which we are able to phase out punch cards 

depends on the amount of federal assistance available. We estimate 

the cost of replacing punch cards in Oregon to be about $2 million. 

If it takes $1 million state dollars to replace punch cards, that 

would mean $1 million cut from higher education, K through 12 

funding, or health care, and that would be a very tough sell to 

make to this legislature. 

Now, I want to say that Oregon is prepared to step up to the 

plate financially, but in order to move quickly enough so that Oregonians will not be voting with punch cards again in the next 

presidential election, we are going to need significant federal assistance. Simply put, the higher the federal match, the quicker we 

accomplish our mutual goal. 

We also need to address election issues that go beyond the mechanics of how ballots are cast. The 2000 general election raised 

questions all over the country about election security and the issue 

of equal access to the voting process. I am certain that creating a 

centralized voter registration system is just as essential as eliminating punch cards in order to make real improvements to Oregon’s elections. In fact, creating a centralized voter registration 

system is my highest legislative priority, and that has very strong 

bipartisan support. Oregon’s voter rolls are currently housed in 36 

separate county data bases, with no real connection. A centralized 

voter registration system would all but eliminate the possibility of 

duplicate voting and significantly reduce the possibility of voter 

fraud. It does, however, carry a $6 million price tag. 

So I urge you, and I urge the Members of this Committee to take 

a broad view in terms of improving the election system, and I hope 

that the focus of this Committee will not just be on how the votes 

of individual citizens have been recorded. I hope that federal assistance will be available broadly to improve states’ abilities to meet 

the needs of their voters. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradbury follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL BRADBURY, SECRETARY OF STATE,

STATE OF OREGON

Back home, the Division of Tourism’s slogan is ‘‘Oregon: Things look different 

here.’’ It seems appropriate to begin my testimony with that phrase, since it applies 

as much to our election system as it does to our scenery. 

As the 2000 presidential election clearly highlighted, there are many different 

ways to record the will of the voters. Ensuring that every state provides its citizens 

30

with an accessible, accurate and secure election process needs to be one of our top 

priorities as a nation, and I commend the Congress for your efforts to help make 

every vote of every American count. 

As Congress considers electoral reform, it is important for you to remember that 

state and local officials conduct national elections. We must retain the authority to 

do so in the manner that most suits our electors. 

In Oregon, that process is Vote-by-Mail. No federal attempt to solve the very real 

problems of last fall’s election should attempt to impose a ‘‘one size fits all’’ solution 

on state and local governments. National standards must recognize and appreciate 

local differences. I would not seek to impose Vote-by-Mail on another state and will 

fight any federal effort to take it away from Oregonians. 

Oregon’s history with Vote-by-Mail has proven time and again that the system 

raises voter participation, decreases costs and increases the overall integrity of the 

election process. It is also a system that the vast majority of Oregonians love. 

Over the past 19 years, Oregon has conducted hundreds of local and several statewide Vote-by-Mail elections. In 1981, the Oregon legislature approved a test of Voteby-Mail for local elections. Vote-by-Mail was made permanent in 1987, when a majority of counties used it for local and special elections. 

In January 1996, Oregon gained national attention by holding the first statewide 

election completely by mail to fill a vacancy in a federal office, electing Ron Wyden 

to the U.S. Senate. 

By the May 1998 primary, 41 percent of registered voters in Oregon were permanent absentee voters. Overall, the state posted a record low turnout at 35 percent, 

with absentee ballots representing nearly two-thirds of all ballots cast. Of those voters who requested absentee ballots, 53 percent returned them. Only 22 percent of 

the remaining registered voters who did not request absentee ballots actually voted. 

Oregon thus became the first state to have more ballots cast by mail than at the 

polls during a polling place election. 

Hoping to improve access to the ballot and increase voter turnout, supporters of 

expanding Vote-by-Mail to all elections submitted signatures to qualify the issue for 

the 1998 General Election ballot. In November of that year, Oregon voters approved 

the measure by a vote of 757,204 to 334,201—nearly 70 percent in favor. Of all ballots cast at the election, 58 percent were cast as absentee, leaving only 42 percent 

of the ballots cast at the polls. 

In May 2000, I oversaw the first all Vote-by-Mail primary in Oregon’s history. A 

total of 900,000 Oregonians cast ballots in the 2000 primary, which was a 16 percent increase over the highest number of votes ever cast in a polling place Primary 

Election. That high 2000 primary turnout reversed a steady twenty-year decline in 

the number of Oregonians casting Primary Election ballots. 

And on November 7, 2000, Oregon had yet another ‘‘first’’ in Vote-by-Mail—we became the first state in the nation to conduct a presidential election entirely by mail. 

Building on the success of the May primary, I issued a challenge to all Oregonians 

to have the highest voter turnout in the nation last fall—and we came close. 

Eighty percent of registered voters cast ballots and we ranked ninth in the nation 

in voter turnout. Of the eight states with higher turnout, only two were larger in 

population than Oregon and both of those states had same-day registration. 

Our Vote-by-Mail system also provides excellent access for disabled voters. Any 

voter who would have difficulty voting for any reason can call a county election official to request assistance. The county elections office sends a bipartisan team to the 

voter’s home to provide assistance at no expense to the voter. Marion County provides a tactile ballot and all 36 counties provide both the ballot and the Voters’ 

Pamphlet on tape. 

Oregon’s Vote-by-Mail system is a positive model for other states with high percentages of permanent absentee voters. For example in Washington State, over half 

of the votes cast in the General Election were cast by absentee ballot. Washington 

election officials essentially have to run two separate election systems: one mail system for the half of the population that votes absentee and a separate polling place 

system for the other half. This means that Washington is paying for both polling 

place employees and postage, which leads to expensive elections. 

The same was true in Oregon until we made the transition to all Vote-by-Mail 

elections. The real triumph of our current election system is that it answered the 

need so clearly voiced when voters overwhelmingly approved the Vote-by-Mail measure in 1998. The result is a process that is more accessible, produces higher voter 

turn out and provides lower costs for its citizens. 

I presume that this Committee will have an appreciation for Oregon’s Vote-byMail system, given that both Senators Wyden and Smith serve on the Committee, 

but we need to make sure that Congress as a whole is aware of the successes and 

differences of Oregon’s voting system as it considers future across-the-board reforms. 

31

Let’s be clear; although I am proud of the very positive steps we have been able 

to take with elections in our state, there are still critical areas where we can make 

improvements in our efforts to make sure that every vote counts. 

We’ve all heard plenty of stories from across the nation about troubles with punch 

card voting, and Oregon is no exception. In fact, Oregon’s experience is an excellent 

example of exactly why punch cards must be phased out. 

Seven of Oregon’s 36 counties still use punch cards. Three of Oregon’s four largest 

counties are included in the group, resulting in over 40 percent of Oregon’s voters 

casting their votes with punch cards. 

But punch cards are simply not voter friendly in a Vote-by-Mail environment. 

The punch card was designed to be used in a polling place with a punch card stylus, but Oregon’s punch card voters receive their ballots by mail. For a voter sitting 

on the living room couch, holding a ballot booklet in one hand and a punch card 

in the other, figuring out which hole corresponds to which position for which can- didate or measure can be a very difficult task. 

For example, a voter looks up Measure 86 in their ballot booklet. They read that 

they have to find and punch number 87 on their ballot if they want to vote ‘‘no’’ 

on Measure 86, or number 88 if they want to vote ‘‘yes.’’ It can be very time-consuming to vote and even more so to double-check for mistakes. If a voter does discover that they’ve punched the wrong chad, they have to write to their election official or travel to their county elections office to request a whole new punch card ballot. 

If our goal is to provide voters with an accessible, voter-friendly election process, 

as it clearly is, punch cards just don’t make sense in Oregon. 

We are one hundred percent committed to improving Oregon’s election system so 

that every voter in our state can be absolutely confident that their vote will count 

the way they intended it to be counted. There is strong bipartisan support in our 

state to eliminate punch card ballots, and several legislators have proposed bills 

that would do exactly that. 

The issue in Oregon is not getting legislative support for phasing out punch cards; 

we already have that. The critical issue is how to pay for the transition. Although 

we appreciate Senator McCain’s efforts to provide federal matching funds for states 

to improve their voting machinery, frankly the budget in Oregon is so tight this year 

that a fifty-fifty match just won’t get us there very quickly. We estimate the cost of replacing punch cards in Oregon to be about $2 million. The fiscal reality in Oregon this biennium is that spending even $1 million on voting machinery to match a $1 million federal grant would mean cutting $1 million 

from higher education, K–12 funding or health care. That would be very tough to 

sell. 

Oregon is prepared to step up to the plate financially, but the speed with which 

we are able to eliminate punch cards is dependent upon the size of the federal 

match. 

In order to move quickly enough so that Oregonians won’t be voting with punch 

cards again in the next presidential election, we will need more federal assistance 

than is currently proposed by this bill. After the chaos we saw in Florida, I hope 

you would all agree that the integrity of our election system is a cost well worth 

paying for. 

We also need to address election issues that go beyond the mechanics of how ballots are cast. The 2000 General Election raised questions all over the country about 

election security and the issue of equal access to the voting process. 

A few Oregonians raised concerns after the General Election that people had 

voted more than once in several counties. Although not one case has been brought 

forward to support these allegations, it raises the issue of voting security and voter 

confidence in the election system. 

Much of the focus of election reform has been on getting rid of punch card ballots; 

I am certain that creating a centralized voter registration system is just as essential 

in order to make real improvements to Oregon’s elections. In fact, creating a centralized voter registration system is my highest legislative priority, with strong bipartisan support. 

Oregon’s voter rolls are currently housed in 36 separate county databases, with 

no real connection between them. We currently have no easy or efficient way to 

check for overlap between these databases. 

Connecting the county voter databases into a statewide voter registration file 

would dramatically improve our ability to check for duplicate registrations and to 

update registrations. When a voter registers at a new address in a new county, a 

county election official would be able to do a real-time search of the entire state’s 

voter registration system to find out quickly and easily if the voter was already registered somewhere else. 

32

A centralized voter registration system would thus give Oregon among the cleanest voting rolls in the country. It would create the possibility to all but eliminate 

duplicate voting. It would significantly reduce the possibility of voter fraud. And the 

end result would be a real increase in voters’ confidence in their election process. 

It does, however, carry a $6 million price tag. 

I appreciate the allocation of block grants for voter education in Senator McCain’s 

bill. We currently do not have funds available for public service announcements or 

public education campaigns to reach voters with information about when they have 

to be registered or when their ballots have to be in the mail. Being able to provide 

these services would help us make sure that every eligible voter has the opportunity 

to cast their vote. 

I sincerely hope that the Congress and state legislatures alike will be able to use 

this period of heightened public attention to the election process as an opportunity 

to make some significant and much-needed changes to the election system. 

I urge you to take a broad view in terms of improving the election system, and 

I hope that the focus of this Committee will not just be on how the votes of individual citizens have been recorded. I hope that federal assistance will be available 

broadly to improve states’ abilities to meet the needs of their voters. I believe that 

it is essential that money be available not just for vote-casting equipment but for 

improvements to the whole range of processes and procedures that affect the integrity of our elections. 

As Oregon’s Chief Elections Officer, I believe that I have to do all I can to ensure 

that every step of the electoral process, beginning with registration and ending with 

the counting of ballots, is fair and friendly to every voter.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Secretary Cox, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY COX,

SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF GEORGIA 

Ms. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss election reform 

with you, and allow me to say thanks to my good friend from Georgia, Senator Max Cleland, who served our state with great distinction as a former Secretary of State. I know that Senator Cleland, 

Mr. Chairman, and many of you are working to find innovative solutions to the problems of outdated and inaccurate election systems. I believe you have my full written testimony and, rest assured, I will be much briefer this morning and, of course, I am 

happy to respond to your questions. 

In the 2000 general election in Georgia, we had many of the 

same problems that received so much attention in Florida. Perhaps 

most importantly, our undervote rate, the difference between the 

ballots cast and the votes recorded in the presidential race, was 3.5 

percent. That number was well above Florida’s undervote percentage, and the rate for the Nation as a whole. 

The CHAIRMAN. What does that translate to in terms of numbers 

of votes? 

Ms. COX. About 94,000 votes in Georgia. Since November we 

have spent a great deal of time analyzing Georgia’s undervote, especially the variations that occurred from county to county and 

from precinct to precinct. Much of the report I attached to my written testimony focuses on this area. That report offers interesting 

insight into a whole range of issues, but let me focus on just one 

of those this morning, and that is the undervote performance of 

opti-scan systems as compared to the infamous punch card. 

Although opti-scan systems offer satisfactory performance in 

some counties, in many other locations optical scan undervote rates 

are extremely high, well above the averages of more antiquated 

systems. 

33

The CHAIRMAN. Could I ask you to pause for a minute? Can you 

put that over on the other side? There is a camera that is blocking 

the view. 

Thank you. Please proceed. 

Ms. COX. In fact, in 21 opti-scan counties in Georgia there were 

undervote rates of 5 percent or higher, and one county in Georgia 

even had an undervote rate of 15 percent using the opti-scan system. 

In addition to our overall analysis of all Georgia counties, we 

were interested in the differences in undervoting that exist by race, 

so we studied presidential undervote percentages in 92 predominantly black precincts, and compared those to predominantly white 

precincts in the same county. We found that across the board 

undervotes are higher in predominantly black precincts than in 

white precincts in the same county, and we call this difference the 

undervote gap. 

The bigger surprise, however, is that the undervote gap was 

higher—that is right, higher in counties that used opti-scan systems than in counties that used the punch card. I have attached 

for your reference a copy of our analysis that provides specific 

county-by-county detail on these findings. 

In punch card counties in Georgia, this undervote gap was 3.7 

percent between black and white precincts. In counties that employed opti-scan, the undervote gap was 5.4 percent, and you see 

on this chart the red letter W represents the white precincts using 

opti-scan, the blue letter B’s represent the black precincts using 

opti-scan, and you see we have got a number of black precincts that 

exceed 8 percent in error rates, many of those well above 10 percent in error rates. 

So the undervote gap between blacks and whites is nearly 2 percentage points higher in opti-scan counties. The reasonable question one would ask when presented with these findings is why? 

Why are voters in predominantly African American precincts more 

likely to cast an undervoted ballot, and why is this variation even 

greater in opti-scan precincts than in punch card precincts, and 

simply, we do not know the answer to that today. 

Anecdotally, we know the types of errors voters can make on 

opti-scan systems. We have seen many times when voters place a 

check mark or an X rather than blackening in a circle, and the optical reader will not read that vote. 

Sometimes, voters trying extra hard to make sure their vote is 

counted will both blacken a circle and write in the same candidate’s name on the write-in line, thus creating to the counting 

machine what appears to be a duplicate vote or an overvote which 

is not counted at all. 

But whatever the cause of the disparity, we believe the data 

makes a compelling argument that further deployment of opti-scan 

systems in Georgia would be bad public policy, and could even be 

considered a decision that disenfranchises minority voters. Clearly, 

our findings cry out for more analysis of this racial disparity in the 

use of voting equipment, and so I applaud the emphasis in your 

legislation, Mr. Chairman, mandating a formal study of these types 

of issues. 

34

So much of the focus coming out of Florida was on the shortcomings of the punch card system, and those shortcomings are undeniable, but in Georgia we now believe that replacing punch cards 

with opti-scan would be the electoral equivalent of jumping from 

the frying pan into the fire. 

The data shows that some populations are far too likely to cast 

an incomplete or a voided ballot when using opti-scan systems. We 

believe that electronic equipment systems that are flexible, accurate, that prevent overvoting and other mistakes, and that feature 

a separate audit trail, offer the best option for improving the reliability of our election systems. I am hopeful that the Congress will 

help provide the resources to assist us in achieving our goal. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share my perspective on this very important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cox follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY COX, SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present testimony for your consideration as you address the critically important 

issue of election reform. I am grateful to be asked to offer some insight into our experience in Georgia as we search for new solutions to make elections more accurate 

and more convenient for all of our citizens. 

Let me also say Mr. Chairman that I applaud your efforts, and that of the ranking member Senator Hollings, in introducing S.368, which would provide us with 

valuable national consensus standards in voting equipment, authorize a study of 

voter participation and emerging technology, and, perhaps most importantly, create 

grants to states to improve voting methods. 

It’s a good bill. As you know, there are a number of other legislative proposals 

before the Congress that address these issues, both in the House and the Senate. 

But I believe your focus on standards, and your call to study the impact of income, 

minority status and other demographic variables on effective participation in the 

election process, are particularly desirable features. I hope they will be included in 

the final product that is enacted at the conclusion of this process. 

I should also commend my good friend from Georgia and a Member of this Committee, who by the way also served with great distinction before me as our Secretary of State, Senator Max Cleland, for his aggressive work to find innovative solutions to the problems of outdated and inaccurate election systems. I know that he 

and Senator Brownback are also preparing important legislation that addresses this 

issue. 

As Georgia’s chief elections officer, it’s been interesting to watch the reaction of 

other election officials, from both the state and local level, to the unprecedented and 

very dramatic events in Florida in the days following the November 2000 election. 

It seems to me that the response of most of my colleagues in the elections field falls 

into one of two groups. 

The first group, and I am happy to say it seems to be the much smaller one, can 

be characterized with one word—and that word is denial. 

From them you may hear the following:

‘‘What happened in Florida couldn’t happen here.’’ 

‘‘The media has blown this out of proportion.’’

‘‘Some voters just make mistakes. There’s nothing you can do about it.’’

‘‘If people just followed directions, none of these problems would occur.’’

‘‘Very few elections are that close anyway. So a few errors here and there don’t 

really matter.’’

‘‘New technology can get you into trouble. It’s better to stick with what we already have.’’

Or Finally:

‘‘We’ve always known no election is perfect. Get over it. All of this controversy 

will die down in a few months.’’

Now, the other group of election officials, and I certainly put myself among their 

number, had a very different reaction when we looked at what happened in Florida. 

35

Describing that group, it reminds me of the ambitious understudy anxiously awaiting her big chance on the Broadway stage. One day she gets the call that she’ll have 

to step into the leading role. Yes, she’s a little bit sorry that the star got sick, but 

she is also really, really glad to finally stand in the spotlight and get the full attention of the crowd. 

As an election official who has been concerned for many years about the problem 

of antiquated and inaccurate voting and vote counting systems, I sympathize with 

Secretary of State Harris and the good people of Florida. I’m sorry for their misfortune. But I am also thrilled that national attention is now focused on this serious 

problem. And I want to make sure we make the most of our big chance. 

Mr. Chairman, comparing ourselves to Florida and the problems that occurred 

there in the design of ballots and the counting and recounting of votes, I can only 

come to one conclusion. 

There, but for the grace of God, go I. 

Because the truth is, if the presidential margin had been razor thin in Georgia, 

and if our election systems had undergone the same microscopic scrutiny that Florida endured, we would have fared no better. And perhaps we would have fared even 

worse. Like Florida, we have several different voting systems. Some are merely outdated. 

Some are true antiques tracing their origins to Thomas Edison and the 19th Century. 

Like Florida, we had thousands and thousands of ballots that registered no vote 

in the presidential race, what we call undervotes. Nearly 94,000 voters that went 

to the polls in November either did not vote for president, made a mistake that voided their ballot, or did not have their vote counted by a machine. 

That is an undervote percentage of 3.5 percent—a number that compares unfavorably with Florida, which had an undervote rate of 2.9 percent—and the overall national rate that has been reported at 1.9 percent. 

Like Florida, we had wide variations in undervote rates from county to county. 

Some counties showed very low undervote totals—one half of one percent or below. 

Others showed high—very disturbingly high—undervote rates of 15 percent. When 

more than one in ten ballots register no choice in the most important race, it doesn’t 

take an election expert to know that something is seriously wrong with the system. 

Like Florida, we had hanging chads, dimpled chads, pregnant chads and other unpleasant features of the punch card system. In fact nearly 1.2 million voters in seventeen Georgia counties, including several of our largest metropolitan counties, use 

the punch card. 

Have we known that chads present a problem? Well, consider this. In Fulton 

County, our largest county that still uses the punch card system, county employees 

long ago gave the counting equipment a nickname. They call it the ‘‘confetti machine.’’ And that’s because when ballots are fed into it, hundreds of chads fly into 

the air as the counting goes on. 

Like Florida, we had recounts. And although our Georgia statute calls for machine 

recounts only, unless a court orders a hand recount, it was evident from the examination of ballots that many voters made inadvertent errors as they made their electoral choice. 

Like Florida, we had voters turned away from the polls who had been properly 

registered. And we had far too many poll workers who were uninformed or poorly 

trained. 

Like Florida, we had problems with the ballot itself. In one opti-scan county, the 

wrong markers were issued and officials had to scramble to recreate all the ballots 

that night when none of them could be counted in the machine. In another, the optiscan ballots got damp, because it was a rainy day, and couldn’t be read by their 

counting machine. And when the county called us, we gave them the advice we always give. Go get some hair dryers and blow dry the ballots. If the consequences 

were not so great, it would be funny. 

And so we know very well that, yes, it could happen in Georgia. And the odds 

are that sometime, perhaps sometime very soon, it WILL happen in my home state 

unless steps are taken now to upgrade our equipment and procedures. 

In the weeks following the November election, our office prepared a report for the 

Governor and Members of the General Assembly entitled The 2000 Election: A 

Wake-Up Call for Reform and Change. Based on new data analysis and the 

views, suggestions and complaints of hundreds of Georgians, from average citizens 

to party leaders to local elected officials, we took a ‘‘warts and all’’ look at the weaknesses in the current system and proposed a number of improvements to address 

these concerns. Our legislation, which would implement most of the reforms we believe are needed, is currently working its way through the Georgia General Assembly. 

36

We have proposed a number of mostly administrative changes to shorten the ballot, speed up the counting of absentees, modify our Primary Election date to boost 

turnout, and other relatively minor changes. 

We also have proposed, as we have in the past, a system of early voting to help 

reduce the confusion and long lines we experience at the precincts in high turnout 

elections. 

But most importantly, we have recommended that Georgia begin now down the 

path towards a uniform electronic statewide voting system, with the goal of full implementation by November 2004. 

We have secured funding in our current midyear budget to move forward with a 

pilot program, to be deployed in municipal elections this year, to field test different 

electronic voting systems. We believe this is particularly important since today, not 

one Georgia county or city uses electronic voting equipment. And we have called for 

a bipartisan commission to help us evaluate the successes and shortcomings of various equipment types, and identify the precise equipment we believe will be best for 

Georgia. 

Our legislation also requires, for the very first time in the history of our state, 

that my office, rather than county governments, provide the necessary funding to 

acquire new uniform electronic equipment. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the acquisition and maintenance of election equipment has, throughout the nation, traditionally been the responsibility of local government. We want uniformity—we think it 

is critical both for policy and legal reasons. And yet it is simply not feasible or advisable for the state to mandate the purchase of equipment but play no role in its acquisition. Many counties in Georgia have not invested in election equipment in 40 

years or more. They lack the budgetary wherewithal to make major new technology 

investments. 

If we want to modernize elections and election equipment, the state and federal 

government are going to have to provide the resources. And yes, we believe funding 

and support from the federal government is critical. I can tell you from my conversations with state leaders and their review of the great demands already placed 

on our state budget, we will not reach our goal of modernized election systems by 

2004 without significant federal grant support. 

I would suggest to you that this is not simply a case where counties and states 

are asking you for federal money to solve a local problem. No, I believe there is a 

compelling national interest in assuring that every county and state in the nation 

has the capacity to insure fair and accurate outcomes in every race on the ballot—

including the race for President. If we take nothing else from Florida’s experience, 

it should be the recognition that these local decisions on equipment and procedures 

can have a dramatic impact on national affairs. 

New public opinion data seems to bear this out. According to a recent CBS News

poll, 65 percent of respondents said elections require ‘‘fundamental changes’’ or 

should be ‘‘completely rebuilt.’’ A Gallup poll found that 67 percent favored ‘‘a complete overhaul’’ or ‘‘major reforms.’’ And just last week, the Miami Herald reported 

their new poll of Floridians that showed 69 percent of Democrats and 62 percent 

of Republicans support Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ proposal to shift to a 

new uniform method of touch screen voting, even though it has an eye-popping price 

tag of 200 million dollars. 

In my discussions with Georgia citizens—young and old, male and female, black 

and white and brown—in every corner of the state, I hear the same views. People 

think this is a problem we should fix. And they think we should fix it now. 

I am reminded of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s favorite quote, which comes 

from the 19th Century French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, ‘‘There go 

my people. I must find out where they are going so that I can lead them.’’

The rationale for investing in new, more accurate voting technology is not simply 

its popularity or even that it is good public policy. There is a compelling legal argument as well. Stanford Law School Dean Kathleen Sullivan’s analysis is right on 

target:

‘‘The Supreme Court has just handed an invitation to lawyers across the country 

to bring an avalanche of lawsuits claiming that existing systems that count people’s vote differently and with different rates of error in different counties violates 

the equal protection clause of the U. S. Constitution. If the 107th Congress does 

not make it a top priority to fix this, and fix it quickly, we are going to see ‘litigation city’ in 2002 and 2004. This is something that really ought not be postponed 

and studied to death, it ought to be acted upon and acted upon quickly.’’

Mr. Chairman, I can report to you that ‘‘litigation city’’ to use Dean Sullivan’s 

words, is already rising up in Georgia. This January, the Governor, the State Election Board and I were sued by the ACLU, representing African-American plaintiffs, 

37

claiming that Georgia’s election systems are fatally flawed, that voting equipment 

of all types has high error rates, and that minority citizens are disproportionately 

affected by these shortcomings. The suit seeks to enjoin the State of Georgia from 

conducting any further elections using our current voting technology. 

The Attorney General’s office on behalf of the state has answered that suit, which 

is now in federal district court. While I cannot predict, nor can anyone, the outcome 

of this case, it goes without saying that if the court finds that the plaintiff’s claims 

have merit, the state faces the prospect of expensive, and perhaps immediate, courtimposed modifications to our election systems. And so I believe this litigation lends 

increased urgency to our efforts to upgrade systems in a carefully planned but expeditious manner. 

Since November we have spent a great deal of time analyzing Georgia’s 

undervote, especially the variations that occur from county to county and from precinct to precinct. Much of the report I referenced earlier focuses on this area. Four 

voting systems are currently employed in Georgia: punch card, lever machine, optiscan and paper ballot. Allow me to share with you some of our most important findings:

• There are exceedingly large variations in undervote rates between counties, and 

even among counties that employ the same voting technology. Punch card counties in general have the highest undervote rates, followed by lever machines 

and then optical scan systems.

• Although optical scan systems, the ‘‘newest’’ technology used in Georgia, offer 

satisfactory performance in some counties, in many other locations optical scan 

undervote rates are extremely high—well above the averages for more antiquated systems. In fact, 21 counties that use optical scan technology had 

undervote rates of five percent or higher, including three counties that recorded 

rates of 9, 10 and 15 percent respectively. And the mean average (the average 

of all the county percentages) of optical scan county undervotes is nearly identical to the now disparaged punch card systems.

• While complete data is not available, the numbers we have suggest that overvotes, or duplicate votes (where the voter accidentally makes more than one 

choice in a single contest, or perhaps where the machine improperly reads a duplicate vote that was not in fact made) represent a very substantial majority 

of the variance between ballots cast and votes recorded. Some observers suggest 

that undervotes in the presidential race simply reflect the conscious decision of 

voters to skip that race and make other choices later down the ballot. Our data 

strongly suggests otherwise. In the 13 Georgia counties that compute duplicate 

votes (or overvotes) as a separate category, these inadvertent duplicate selections constituted 61.5 percent of the total undervote. Therefore, the first priority 

of any new technology we consider should be a feature that simply does not permit the elector to overvote.

After completion of our report to the Governor and the General Assembly, we 

were asked by the leader of Georgia’s Black Caucus to analyze more specifically the 

undervote variations that exist by race. And so we began to study undervote (in the 

presidential race) percentages in precincts that had black registration percentages 

of 80 percent or more, and compared those to predominately white precincts in the 

same county. 

We found that, across the board, undervotes are higher in predominately black 

precincts than in predominately white precincts in the same county. For purposes 

of our analysis, we have called this the ‘‘undervote gap.’’ But what is of greatest interest, and we think most significant as we consider equipment options, is that this 

undervote gap was higher, that’s right, higher, in counties that utilized opti-scan 

systems than in counties that use the punch card. I have attached, for your reference, a copy of our analysis that provides specific, county-by-county detail on these 

findings. 

In this study we looked at 92 precincts with voter registration that is 80 percent 

or more African-American. And we compared those predominately black precincts to 

an equal number of predominately white precincts in the same counties. 

In punch card counties, the undervote in white precincts averaged 4.4 percent, 

while the undervote in black precincts averaged 8.1 percent, for a difference of 3.7 

percent—what we are calling the ‘‘undervote gap.’’

In counties that employ opti-scan, the undervote in predominately white precincts 

averaged 2.2 percent, while the undervote in predominately black precincts averaged 7.6 percent, for an undervote gap of 5.4 percent. 

I should point out that this higher undervote gap for opti-scan exists whether we 

look at counties individually or in aggregate. However we slice the numbers, in optiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Mar 27, 2006 Jkt 088291 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88291.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
38

scan counties, there is a greater gap in undervoting by blacks as compared to whites 

than there is in counties that use the punch card. 

The reasonable question one would ask when presented with these findings is 

‘‘Why?’’ Why are voters in predominately African-American precincts more likely to 

cast an undervoted ballot, and why is this even more likely to occur in opti-scan 

precincts than in punch card precincts? 

We simply do not know the answer. Anecdotally, we have observed the kinds of 

errors voters make on opti-scan ballots in precincts of all demographic profiles. 

Sometimes voters place a check mark or an ‘‘X’’ rather than blackening the circle. 

Sometimes voters circle the name of the candidate rather than blackening the circle 

or completing an arrow. (Some systems require a blackened circle, others require 

voters to draw a line which completes an arrow adjacent to the candidate’s name.) 

Sometimes voters, trying hard to make sure their vote is counted, both blacken a 

circle by their candidate’s name AND write-in their candidate’s name, thus creating 

what appears to the counting machine to be a duplicate vote, or overvote. 

Let me acknowledge that this is data from one state only, and that we have not 

yet been able to complete an exhaustive analysis of undervote performance in each 

of the nearly 2,800 precincts in Georgia. But we believe the data we have makes 

a compelling argument that further deployment of opti-scan systems would be bad 

policy, and could perhaps even be considered a decision that disenfranchises minority voters. 

Clearly, our findings cry out for more study of this racial disparity in the use of 

voting equipment—and for that reason especially, I applaud the emphasis in S.368 

on a formal study of these types of issues. 

Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, so much of the focus coming out of Florida was 

on the shortcomings of the punch card system. And those shortcomings are undeniable. In fact, a top priority of our statewide electronic voting initiative is to replace 

punch card systems first. But for Georgia, at least, we believe the data shows that 

replacing punch card with opti-scan would be the electoral equivalent of jumping 

from the frying pan into the fire. In addition to the operational shortcomings of optiscan we already know about—high costs of ballot printing, potential errors from 

using the wrong marker, potential problems with moisture and other environmental 

conditions, the ease of making innocent mistakes that ultimately void a vote—it 

seems clear that some populations are far too likely to cast an incomplete or voided 

ballot when using the opti-scan system. 

For us, this analysis reconfirms our belief that old systems—whether punch card, 

lever machine or opti-scan—should be replaced with current generation electronic 

equipment that minimizes the opportunity for the voter to make a mistake—and 

that has other clear advantages as well. 

I believe this is a critical priority as we look to modernize our election systems. 

One of the most disturbing comments I have heard is the claim that every 

undervote is the choice or the fault of a poorly informed voter. Rather than blaming 

the citizens who pay our salaries and whose tax dollars buy the equipment we select, I believe every election official at every level of government should place maximum emphasis on identifying and acquiring equipment that is convenient, intuitive, easy to use and that reduces to an absolute minimum the opportunity for voter 

error. 

Let’s not forget that voting is not an act we perform every day or every week. 

The most conscientious of us may only vote once every year or two. And so the 

equipment we provide to voters should not require a detailed instruction manual in 

order to be utilized properly. And it should easily accommodate the needs of those 

with limited English proficiency, those who are visually-impaired and disabled, and 

other special needs populations. 

Mr. Chairman, that’s why I am particularly supportive of the provisions of your 

bill that would authorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology to 

study these very issues. To my knowledge, very little if any extensive analysis has 

been performed on the voter-ballot interface, including an evaluation of how equipment is used by different populations. 

In Georgia, we believe that electronic equipment—systems that are flexible, accurate, that prevent overvoting and that feature a paper audit trail to provide an additional level of accuracy in case of a recount—offer by far the best options for improving the reliability of our election systems. We are hopeful that the Congress will 

help provide the resources to assist us in achieving our goal. 

Mr. Chairman, our election systems are broken. The American people expect us 

to step up and fix them—and fix them fast. Nothing is more important to the health 

of our democratic institutions than assuring that elections are fair to all and accurate in their outcomes. I am absolutely convinced that, applying our best thinking 

39

and adequate resources to the problem, we can fulfill this critical responsibility to 

the people we serve. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective on this important issue. 

STUDY OF GEORGIA PRESIDENTIAL RACE UNDERVOTE, PERFORMANCE BY EQUIPMENT

TYPE AND RACE FOR THE NOVEMBER 7TH 2000 GENERAL ELECTION (MARCH 2001) 

Summary of Findings 

In this study we analyzed 92 precincts in 11 Georgia counties distributed throughout the state with voter registration that is 80 percent or more African-American. 

We compared those predominately black precincts to an equal number of predominately white precincts in the same counties. 

This analysis involved computing the difference between the number of ballots 

cast and the number of votes recorded in the presidential race—what is known as 

the ‘‘undervote.’’

We found that, across the board, undervotes are higher in predominately black 

precincts than in predominately white precincts in the same county. For purposes 

of our analysis, we have called this the ‘‘undervote gap.’’

In punch card counties, the undervote in white precincts averaged 4.4 percent, 

while the undervote in black precincts averaged 8.1 percent, for a difference, or 

undervote gap, of 3.7 percent. 

In counties that employ opti-scan, the undervote in predominately white precincts 

averaged 2.2 percent, while the undervote in predominately black precincts averaged 7.6 percent, for an undervote gap of 5.4 percent. 

Thus, the undervote gap between whites and blacks is significantly higher in 

optiscan counties than in punch card counties. 

This higher undervote gap for opti-scan exists whether we look at counties individually or in aggregate. However we slice the numbers, in opti-scan counties, there 

is a greater differential in undervoting by blacks as compared to whites than there 

is in counties that use the punch card. 

These findings suggest that further deployment of optical scan systems could 

serve to increase the gap between white and black undervoting. 

40


307cox1.eps
41


307cox2.eps
42


307cox3.eps
43


307cox4.eps
44


307cox5.eps
45


307cox6.eps
46


307cox7.eps
47


307cox8.eps
48


307cox9.eps
49


307cox10.eps
50


307cox11.eps
51


307cox12.eps
52

THE 2000 ELECTION: A WAKE-UP CALL FOR REFORM AND CHANGE, REPORT TO THE

GOVERNOR AND MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY (JANUARY, 2001) 

Executive Summary 

For weeks following the November 7th, 2000 election, our nation was gripped by 

the unfolding drama of the Florida recount. Those extraordinary events and intense 

media and public scrutiny of the process caused millions of Americans to wonder: 

Are elections in my state any more accurate? Can I be sure my vote was counted? 

Why is election equipment so antiquated? Would a close race in my community 

throw the process into chaos? Isn’t there a better way to cast and count votes? What 

do we need to do to increase the accuracy and integrity of elections? 

The Florida experience should serve as a wake-up call for election officials 

throughout the nation—including Georgia. Could Florida’s problems just as easily 

have been Georgia’s problems? The answer is unquestionably yes. Like Florida, we 

have several different voting technologies. Like Florida, counties in Georgia have 

different methods of counting votes, with differing levels of accuracy. Like Florida, 

tens of thousands of voters cast ballots that did not register a choice in the presidential race. In fact, the percentage of ballots in Georgia that showed no presidential choice (what we call ‘‘undervotes’’) was actually higher here than in Florida. 

And in some counties, more than one in ten ballots registered undervotes. 

Election officials have known for years that much of our equipment is antiquated, 

that sufficient investment in new technology has not been secured, and that different systems can lead to differing levels of accuracy. But, few others outside the 

world of elections management focused on the problem. And little, if any, political 

consensus existed to adopt—and pay for—the reforms needed to make our election 

systems more modern, more user-friendly and more accurate. 

The Florida experience can be a catalyst for reform and change. And so we believe 

the time has come for a thorough accounting of Georgia’s registration and election 

systems—their strengths and weaknesses. That is the rationale behind this report. 

To compile the report, we studied data from the November election and analyzed 

current statutes and procedures. Even more importantly, we sought out and reviewed the criticisms and suggestions of hundreds of interested Georgia citizens, 

election officials, civic groups and participants in the political process. Concerns 

about the accuracy of voting equipment and the integrity of election outcomes are 

by no means the only issues they raised. Many were frustrated by long lines at the 

polls, confusing procedures, broken equipment, problems with registration and host 

of other issues we have compiled in this report. 

We recognize there is not an easy prescription for every problem. Elections are 

complex events with a host of players and interests. But, we believe there are reasonable, practical and affordable solutions that can dramatically improve the performance of Georgia election systems, provide our citizens with more convenience 

and offer Georgians more assurance that their votes will be accurately counted. 

Among our recommendations:

• Adopt Statewide Uniform Electronic Voting Initiative: Authorize, fund 

and deploy by 2004 a Statewide Uniform Electronic Voting Initiative (SUEVI) 

to create a single method of voting consistent in every county in the state. We 

believe new electronic systems offer the best option for error-free, user-friendly 

voting equipment.

• Implement Early Voting: To enhance convenience and reduce election day 

gridlock, implement Early Voting, joining 26 other states that already have 

some form of early or open absentee voting.

• Move General Primary Date: To address declining Primary turnout, move 

the General Primary from July to the third Tuesday in August, a date more 

convenient for Georgia families.

• Overhaul Voter Registration System: Upgrade the state’s voter registration 

database from the slow, unreliable, inflexible, and expensive mainframe system 

to a flexible state-of-the-art server-based system.

• Pursue Poll Worker & Poll Location Alternatives: Seek new alternatives 

to assist counties in securing new poll locations and recruiting and training poll 

workers, both of which now are in short supply.

• Streamline Polling Place Procedures: Consider new procedures to streamline paperwork procedures at the polls and move voters more quickly through 

the voting process.

53

• Consolidate Authority to Remove Deceased Voters from Rolls: Provide 

the Secretary of State new authority to remove deceased voters from the rolls 

and assure a more accurate voter roll, responsibilities that currently lie solely 

with the counties.

• Modernize Voter Information Resources: Utilize new centralized technology 

solutions to offer citizens quicker, easier means to locate their precinct and 

verify their voter registration.

• Reengineer ‘‘Motor Voter’’: Consider options to reengineer the voter registration process at DPS driver’s license facilities to minimize errors and reduce confusion.

We hope you find the following report useful as we look for new solutions to make 

Georgia registration and election processes the finest in the nation. 

Nothing is more important to the health of our democratic institutions than assuring that elections are fair to all and accurate in their outcomes. There is work to 

be done to fully achieve those goals. We welcome your comments and suggestions 

as we undertake that effort together.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Thornburgh, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON THORNBURGH, SECRETARY OF 

STATE, STATE OF KANSAS 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

Committee. It is an honor to appear here today to discuss with you 

the need for election reform in America. 

Following last November’s election, the Nation was quick to appoint dozens of blue ribbon panels, task forces, and select commissions to find ways to change the American system of elections. In 

Kansas, we invited our election reform commissioners to meet at 

the Capitol on the day of the Electoral College meeting on December 18, and our basic conclusion was that in the State of Kansas 

our system works. There was a peaceful transition of power from 

administrations, the constitution was preserved. 

Although the process was flawed and there were errors and problems, the basic system worked, so today before this body I urge 

caution. The November election may not have been pretty, the results may not have come quickly, but quick fixes and convenience 

are not the measure of democracy. America’s confidence in our system has been badly shaken. More speeches, commissions, and blue 

ribbon panels will not restore confidence. Simply plugging in a few 

new machines around the country will not restore confidence. 

We have to take this opportunity to fundamentally improve our 

electoral system. We must ensure that every American has absolute and unobstructed access to the voting process. The Supreme 

Court has told us to adopt adequate state-wide standards for determining a legal vote and procedures to implement them, and there 

must be opportunity for judicial review of these issues as well. 

America needs uniform, voluntary national standards for our voting equipment, voting technology, and processes. America does not 

need the same ballot or the same voting machine in every precinct 

in the country. 

State and local governments must continue to be in charge of our 

election process. Just as our Electoral College system reflects that 

individual states as sovereign bodies are important, so should any 

reform we adopt respect the individual conduct of elections within 

their borders. New technology is needed in many areas in the counVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Mar 27, 2006 Jkt 088291 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88291.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
54

try, but please understand, what works for Los Angeles, California 

is not going to work for Leoti, Kansas. 

This is not a plea to place new technology in every precinct in 

America. As former Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker told me recently, Ron, the pencil on a string works very well in Burdick, Kansas. Don’t you change it. I tend to listen when Senator Kassebaum 

Baker talks to me. 

Funding for issues other than new technology is critical. However, the hard reality is, state and local governments need help 

funding the best systems to ensure safe, secure, and accurate elections. 

All too often, county governments have had to face a difficult 

choice of replacing crumbling roads and bridges, or trying to 

squeeze another election out of an antiquated system. Also, with 

the recent Supreme Court decision regarding equal protection, we 

know we must provide better and more training for our voters, poll 

workers, and canvassers. 

There are a number of instances given in the previous panel of 

voters being denied the right to vote. I propose to you that the law 

is already in place, for those voters should have been given a provisional ballot and been allowed to vote, and then the decision made 

later in the process as to whether or not that vote should have 

been counted. The laws are in place currently to handle that. We 

just need better education of our polling place workers. 

As with all issues in which technology plays an important role, 

people still play a more important role, and that is why, with all 

the talk about voting equipment and imperfect ballot forms and 

hanging chads, the American public in general was more outraged 

by the effects of exit polling and the news media’s premature prediction of winners, activities clearly controlled by human judgment. 

Therefore, we must focus the objective of our reform. Let us recognize there is no access to the voting process if a citizen encounters confusing voting procedures, if the citizen is handed a poorly 

worded or formatted ballot, if they must use unproven equipment 

or technology, or because of any barrier, physical or otherwise, cannot negotiate the process, and finally, they cast a vote the intention 

of which must be divined by speculation or supposition. 

The American voter will only be assured of the ability of our system and the value of our democracy when they know their vote 

cast at the polling place is accurately tabulated, or accurately reflected in the final tabulation. We must do everything we can to assure that our voter registration records are up to date, complete, 

and accurate. 

With some counties in our country currently recording greater 

than 100 percent of their voting age population as registered voters, how can we have confidence in our records as they stand now? 

State and local governments need the ability to keep our voting 

lists clean. Congress must fully fund section 8(h) of the National 

Voter Registration Act of 1993, allowing first-class handling of official election mail at the third-class rate. This simple act will allow 

us to clean up badly outdated voter registration records. 

As the incoming president of the National Association of Secretaries of state, let me be very clear. We know what problems exist 

55

We know the issues, and we want to work with you to be a part 

of the solution. 

I find it amazing that today, 36 years after the passage of the 

Voting Rights Act, we are still debating how to provide every 

American equal access to our most precious right. this time, it is 

up to you and me to get it right. We have the chance to provide 

equal protection for all voters. We have the chance to create uniform, voluntary standards for voting. We have the chance to improve the reliability of our voter registration records. But most importantly, we have the duty to restore America’s confidence. 

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thornburgh follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RON THORNBURGH, SECRETARY OF STATE,

STATE OF KANSAS

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to 

appear today. My name is Ron Thornburgh; I am the Kansas Secretary of State and 

President-elect of the National Association of Secretaries of State. It is an honor to 

appear before you and discuss the need for election reform in America. 

Following last November’s election the nation was quick to appoint dozens of select commissions, blue ribbon panels and task forces to change our American system 

of elections. In Kansas we invited our election reform commissioners to a meeting 

at the capitol. We had the benefit of congressmen and women, journalists, law 

school deans and professors—and the United States Supreme Court decision. And 

our conclusion was that the system works. 

So today, before this body, I urge caution. Our system did provide for the orderly 

transfer of power contemplated by our Constitution. The November election may not 

have been pretty, and the results may not have come quickly, but quick fixes and 

convenience are not the measure of democracy. 

Even though the system worked, America’s confidence in our system has been 

shaken. More speeches, commissions, and blue ribbon panels will not restore confidence. Simply plugging in a few new machines around the country will not restore 

confidence. 

We have to take this opportunity to fundamentally improve our electoral system. 

From the courthouse to the White House, now is the time to act. The three most 

critical areas in need of reform are equal protection, uniform voluntary standards, 

and voter registration. 

Equal Protection 

We must ensure that every American has absolute and unobstructed access to the 

voting process. From the time of registration through the final recount and contest 

of an election, we must provide equal treatment for all. 

The Supreme Court has said we must adopt adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them. The 

court also mandates an opportunity for orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise during the process. You and I alone, no matter how laudable 

our motives, cannot sit in our offices and draft standards. There must be discussion, 

debate, and court review. 

Uniform Voluntary Standards 

America needs uniform voluntary national standards for our voting equipment, 

technologies, and processes. America does not need the same ballot or voting machine in every precinct. 

State and local governments must continue to be in charge of the election process. 

Just as our Electoral College system reflects that individual states—as corporate 

bodies—are important, so should any reform we adopt respect the individual conduct of elections within their borders. In our federal system, states count. 

New technology is necessary in many areas of the country, but understand:

• What works for Los Angeles, California certainly won’t work for Leoti, Kansas. 

This is not a plea to place new technology in every polling place in America. 

As Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker told me recently, ‘‘The pencil on a string 

works very well in Burdick, Kansas, Ron. Don’t change it.’’

56

• Most technology in use today is exceedingly accurate and secure . . . as long 

as the voters follow the rules. When every voter clearly marks the box, completely darkens the oval, or even completely dislodges the chad, the vote counting systems in use today work very well. Our job, as election administrators, 

is to insist upon the development and use of vote-counting systems to determine 

true voter intent.

• Funding for issues other than new technology is critical. However, the hard reality is state and local governments need help funding the best systems to ensure safe, secure and accurate elections. All too often county government has 

had to face the difficult choice of replacing crumbling roads and bridges, or trying to squeeze another election out of an antiquated system. Also, with the recent Supreme Court decision regarding equal protection, we know we must provide better and more training for voters, poll workers, and canvassing boards 

to ensure logical, uniform and equal enforcement of election law.

As with all issues in which technology plays an important role, people still play 

a more important role. 

Perhaps that is why, with all the talk about voting equipment, imperfect ballot 

forms and hanging chads, the American public in general was more outraged by the 

effects of exit polling and of news media’s prematurely predicting winners—activities clearly controlled, by human judgment. 

We must focus on the objective of our reform efforts. I say our objective must be 

to ensure that every American has absolute and unobstructed access to the voting 

process. 

I suggest that the Supreme Court agrees with those who share this view. Let us 

recognize that there is no access to the voting process if a citizen:

• encounters confusing voting procedures;

• is handed a poorly worded or formatted ballot;

• must use unproven equipment or technology;

• is given bad predictions or apparent results before the election is over any place 

in our country;

• because of any barrier, physical or otherwise, cannot negotiate the procedure; 

and finally

• casts a vote, the intention of which must be divined by speculation or supposition.

While creating standards, I urge everyone involved to dismantle any barrier to the 

voting process, not just the ultimate barrier when the voter’s intention is wrongly 

determined. 

These issues can only be addressed with a long-term commitment to resolving our 

problems and rebuilding the public confidence in our system. Confidence cannot be 

won with a few studies and position papers. The American voter will only be assured of the ability of our system and the value of our democracy when they know 

their vote cast at the polling place is accurately reflected in the final tabulation. 

Voter Registration 

We must do everything we can to ensure our voter registration records are accurate, complete, and up-to-date. With some counties recording greater than 100 percent of their voting population as registered voters, how can we have confidence in 

our records? When an election official knows a potential voter does not live where 

our records show, yet we cannot adjust the records, how can we have confidence in 

our records? 

Better maintenance of our voting records will do much to protect the integrity of 

our electoral process. Until we can guarantee every name on the list is accurate, 

we have work to do. State and local governments need the ability to keep our voting 

lists clean. Current law, in many cases, prevents such basic measures of protection. 

Congress must fully fund section 8 (h) of the National Voter Registration Act of 

1993 allowing first class handling of official election mail at the third class rate. 

This simple act, saving millions of dollars nationwide, will also provide the opportunity to cleanup badly outdated voter registration records. 

In our next election, America must be assured we have done everything possible 

to address the problems of our last election cycle. Federal, state and local governments want to provide the best voting systems in the world. 

As President-elect of the National Association of Secretaries of State, let me state, 

we know what problems exists, we know the issues, and we want to work with you 

to be a part of the solution. 

57

I find it amazing today, thirty-six years after the passage of the Voting Rights 

Act, we are still debating how to provide every American equal access to our most 

precious right. This time it is up to you and me to get it right. 

We have the chance to provide equal protection for all voters. 

We have the chance to create uniform voluntary standards for voting. 

We have the chance to improve the reliability of voter registration records. 

We have the duty to restore America’s confidence.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Secretary Thornburgh. 

Secretary Bradbury, is there anything that sets your vote-bymail system apart from the absentee balloting systems used by 

other states? 

Mr. BRADBURY. There is a dramatic difference. If you compare 

Oregon’s vote-by-mail system with what we saw in the State of 

Washington last fall, you get a clear picture of the difference. There 

is an increasing use of absentee ballots, which are basically voteby-mail, in the State of Washington and a number of other states, 

but they have a very different system for counting them than we 

use for vote-by-mail. You get a much quicker count of the votes in 

a vote-by-mail state than you get in a state that has half their 

votes coming at the polling place and half their votes being cast by 

absentee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Secretary Cox, Secretary Thornburgh mentioned 

the need to improve voter registration records. What role does 

voter registration play in your plans to modernize the system? 

Ms. COX. Well, fortunately, in Georgia I think we are ahead of 

the game. When Senator Cleland served as our Secretary of State 

and Georgia adopted the standards for the Federal Motor Voter 

Act, we were one of the first states to centralize our voter registration system and put together a state-wide computer system so that 

the Secretary of State’s office now maintains all of our voter registration lists. 

That has allowed us to weed out duplicates, to send information 

to the counties monthly to eliminate the names of deceased people 

and convicted felons, to prevent duplicate registrations when someone moves an address, so it is the heart of the election system, and 

I think it is imperative that all states have a good system so that 

they can prevent duplications, but fortunately for Georgia, we are 

there. 

The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned in your opening statement that 

there was a greater undervote gap in counties that have employed 

opti-scan machines rather than punch cards. That sort of flies in 

the face of conventional wisdom. Do you have any explanations for 

your findings? 

Ms. COX. It was a surprise to us, Mr. Chairman, when we began 

to look at these numbers. I think part of the problem has to do 

with the ease for a voter to make a mistake on an opti-scan system. 

A person with a Ph.D can pull their own pen out of their pocket 

and mark the ballot, and the opti-scan reader may not detect that 

type of ink or lead, and the vote does not get cast. 

We saw and heard from a lot of counties where voters put a 

check mark or an X on that circle, so that if you looked at that ballot you could certainly tell the intent of the voter, but we do not 

have a manual count law, so if the machine does not read it, it is 

just out. 

58

I suppose because punch cards have been used for a longer period of time in Georgia than opti-scans, that we do have voters who 

are more familiar with the punch card systems, and it does have 

its efficiencies, buy we obviously are seeing major problems with 

voter mistakes on the optical scan. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think your statement emphasizes the complexities and the difficulties in addressing the problems of the undervotes. I think it is necessary that through working with the Secretaries of State, we conduct a very in-depth study of this problem, 

so that the fixes we implement are effective, and we do not act too 

rashly. 

Did you calculate the undervote gap in counties using lever machines or paper ballots? 

Ms. COX. We only have two counties that use paper ballots, so 

we really did not analyze those. We looked at it somewhat in lever 

machines, but we had data we were not sure was 100 percent reliable so we did not fully calculate that. We saw some lever machine 

counties that had an undervote rate of over 10 percent, some that 

were almost close to zero, and all I can speculate is that we had 

some faulty lever machines out there where wheels were simply 

not turning, and you have no audit trail to go back and be able to 

recount or reevaluate those ballots, so we did not see on the whole 

scale a wide variance between lever machines as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Secretary Thornburgh, what is the State of Kansas doing to address the voter registration problems you mentioned, such as those counties whose voter registration is greater 

than 100 percent of the population? 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Well, let me clarify, Mr. Chairman. I am 

proud to say no counties in Kansas have a greater voter registration than 100 percent. There are, however, some in the Nation that 

are doing so. 

We are trying to comply with the National Motor Voter Act of 

1993 as best we can. One of the greatest difficulties that we have 

is counties being able to fund the mailing, the verification mailing 

that proves that a voter lives where they say they live, and many 

counties are cutting that as a means of cutting cost within county 

government, so if we were to provide federal funding, I think we 

would try to do very basically what Georgia has done and centralize the voter registration process, or the voter registration 

maintenance process so that we could do a lot of the cleanup 

through the national change of address program as well as others. 

The CHAIRMAN. In your testimony, you stated that the American 

election system worked this past November. Do you stand by that 

statement? 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Yes, sir. If I may fully explain——

The CHAIRMAN. Even in light of the disturbing studies that have 

surfaced detailing the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans, 

you still believe that to be true? 

Mr. THORNBURGH. I would submit the process was flawed and 

that there were errors made both in judgment and in the way the 

technical process worked, and there were Americans 

disenfranchised. However, I would also submit that our Constitution was preserved, that the Electoral College system as designed 

by our founders did work, that the basic process that allowed for 

59

the peaceful transition from one administration to the next was allowed to happen. That is what I mean by the basic system worked. 

However, the process has been flawed, and those are the issues we 

need to address. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we are very 

pleased that Bill Bradbury is here, and I will have some questions 

for him about vote by mail in a moment. 

It was reported over the weekend that perhaps 40 million Americans are going to file their tax returns online this year, and I, for 

one, am not ready to throw in the towel on this question of online 

voting. I would be interested in hearing from all of you, as Secretaries of State, what kind of experiments you would like us to try 

out so as to keep moving this ball down the field, recognizing that 

clearly it is going to take some more work to get there? Do any of 

you have some ideas on the kind of experiments you would like to 

see done in this area? 

Mr. BRADBURY. Mr. Chair, Senator Wyden, it is good to see you. 

I share your enthusiasm for including in our election system online 

voting. I think it is important that we not move to solely online 

voting, because that would be very discriminatory to a lot of people 

who are not computer savvy. I think that there are issues that 

really are going to need to be dealt with first at a national level, 

or even an international level, in terms of hackers’ access to election systems. If there is a way to create a system that cannot be 

severely hacked, I think we are moving in the right direction. 

There are obviously things that we need to do before we have online voting, such as a centralized voter registration system. But 

there is a much larger question of how we track ballots, how we 

ensure that hackers cannot disrupt the election system in implementing online voting, so I would like to see some testing in that 

area. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. If I may, Senator, I would like to add, one of 

the areas that we need to address very quickly in our country is 

the issue of military voting. One of the greatest trends that was 

most disturbing in the last election was the threat of denying our 

military men and women the opportunity to have their votes cast 

and counted, and so as we look for opportunities to provide online 

voting, I certainly think our military men and women serving overseas may be a great opportunity to do so. 

However, I understand one of the greatest issues we have to address with online voting is that it is vastly different from a commercial transaction, and that a commercial transaction we are allowed to know both ends of the transaction, where with a vote, I 

have to know that it is you sitting at that PC casting a vote, and 

I have to know how you voted so I can tabulate that vote, but I 

cannot know how you voted, to protect the integrity and the privacy of your vote, and until we can resolve that catch 22, I think 

we have to move very cautiously in online voting. 

Senator WYDEN. Let us do this. Unless Ms. Cox wants to add 

something, I would like the Secretaries of State to get this Committee your ideas for some experiments, some additional experiments on online voting. I just do not want to see us give up at this 

point. A country that has shown again and again we can lead ought 

60

to be able, with this level of technological expertise, to develop secure online voting. Today, right now, there are millions of citizens 

who monitor their retirement benefits online. Let us not just give 

up. We need the expertise at the state level. 

I have a question for you, Mr. Bradbury. I think Oregonians like 

you strongly support a vote by mail, but there are concerns, and 

you addressed several of them. Senator Smith and I were concerned about what happened in his home county, Umatilla, this 

year, where thousands of voters had difficulty deciphering the ballots. You made some very good suggestions about what to do about 

that, but we also know that this year Oregon was one of the last 

states to verify its ballot count. I had a lot of folks asking me why 

that was, and I think it would be helpful for the record for you to 

state why. 

Mr. BRADBURY. I think the first thing you have to understand 

about the presidential election in Oregon is that it was exceptionally close. There was a margin of 6,000 votes between Al Gore and 

George Bush. Additionally, there are no exit polls in Oregon because people are not exiting from any place but the mail box, so 

there are no exit polls the networks could use. The fact is we had 

more votes counted in Oregon by Friday after the election than we 

had seen at that time in previous polling place elections. It was 

just so close that we did not know who had won, until we got certified results. 

Senator WYDEN. Ms. Cox, I believe you and the Secretaries of 

State are now in support of a uniform poll closing statute. 

Ms. COX. I do not know that we have actually—our resolution did 

not actually adopt an endorsement for that, but everyone is very 

interested in it, and thinks it is an idea definitely worth considering. 

Senator WYDEN. I am in support of this and have a lot of history 

with this issue. Several times in the eighties and nineties, I was 

able to get the major presidential candidates, their campaigns, to 

not make any statement until after the polls closed; Nonetheless, 

what we found again and again is that exit polls undermine the 

value of these projects, and it seems to me with the explosion of 

new media, that even with a uniform poll closing law you are going 

to continue, particularly in the West, to have a lot of Americans 

know a great deal about the results of the election before the polls 

close. What would you do about that? 

Ms. COX. Well, I think that is one of those issues that is going 

to have to be dealt with primarily by the media themselves. I can 

tell you from personal experience in discussing the idea of a uniform closing time with different groups in Georgia, I see across-theboard support for it, even if it meant closing at 9 p.m. in Georgia 

so that you would close a little earlier on the West Coast. I think 

that Georgians, the Georgians I have discussed it with, think that 

is a very worthwhile idea. 

Senator WYDEN. Do either of you want to add to that? 

Mr. THORNBURGH. I may add very briefly there has been discussion with the National Association of Secretaries of State, and we 

are greatly concerned about the decline in voter turn-out in the 

West because of early projections, and I think we have moved in 

the area of media projections from actually reporting results on the 

61

East Coast to reporting projections and exit polling, and I think 

there is a vast difference between those, and if nothing else, we can 

negotiate with the media to at least talk about real results rather 

than projections. 

There is a 20 to 25-year history of the National Association of 

Secretaries of State negotiating with the national broadcasting entities and it has been met with less success than we had hoped for. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Burns. 

Senator BURNS. I just have one question. In Montana we have 

six counties that use punch, none that use a lever any more, 12 

who use paper, and Mr. Thornburgh, don’t laugh at Leoti, because 

I shift a lot of cattle to Tribune, and I am pretty familiar with that 

country out there—I think you are too. The Smiths out there are 

good friends—and the rest all use opti-scan, which is about 80 percent of the voting people in Montana use that, and we have little 

or no complaints. 

I have one question. Given the experience in Florida, when a 

manual count was reordered and we observed on television these 

folks on hanging chads and ones that were pregnant and ones that 

were not pregnant, and all the different terms that they used, you 

said that your problem with the opti-scan, sometimes they were 

checked, Ms. Cox, and sometimes they put an X. Should a visual 

or manual recount be ordered? How would those X’s and checks be 

counted? 

Ms. COX. Well, I think that is the central problem raised by the 

United States Supreme Court’s opinion, that Florida had no standard for what counted and what did not count. Georgia does not either, other than in Georgia you can only get a manual count by 

court order. You have got to prove there was some flaw, or some 

problem that should call for a manual count. 

But truthfully it sets up a scenario where you do have votes that 

are voided, when clearly anyone looking at it could easily determine the voter’s intent, and we have a matter of court law that 

says you are supposed to determine a voter’s intent, but yet we 

cannot manually count them. 

Senator BURNS. Should a court order be issued? Now, you are the 

Secretary of State. How would you count that ballot that had a 

check or an X? 

Ms. COX. Well, I certainly think the human intellect is generally 

superior to the machine intellect, and if a person can easily look 

at that ballot and determine without any question how the voter 

intended to vote, then I believe that vote should count, but we have 

set up a mechanism, because of growing populations, that we have 

depended on machinery that we now understand has great deficiencies. 

Senator BURNS. The reason I ask that question, I think that was 

the crux of the stories out of Florida. It was not given, whether 

anybody was denied access to the polling places or the procedure 

in which they used—even the ballot that they said confused people, 

the butterfly ballot, second-graders got through it all right, so I 

would imagine everybody else could. 

I still think we still have some responsibility to the voter to be 

informed on how the ballot operates and what they want to do, but 

62

I was interested in your testimony that in the optics, and they did 

not fill in the circle, they used that, how would you count them if 

a court order, they had to be manually counted? I think that is the 

crux of this hearing, and the crux of the problems we have in our 

voting system. 

I thank you for that, and I appreciate it, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. That is the only question I have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Cleland. 

Senator CLELAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. May I 

just say before I get started that I would like to enter into the 

record the statement of Senator Jean Carnahan, who had another 

committee meeting, with no objection. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carnahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEAN CARNAHAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI

Thank you Senator McCain and Senator Hollings for convening these hearing on 

this most important subject. 

Voting is a fundamental right of Americans, and one of the cornerstones of our 

nation’s democracy. 

In the 1964 decision Reynolds v. Sims, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, ‘‘The 

right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic 

society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.’’

It is as true today as it was then. Yet, as we learned in November, our democracy 

remains a work in progress. 

We are all familiar with what happened in Florida:

• Outdated voting machines and confusing ballots;

• Too few poll workers with too little training.

• Voters who ruined their ballots and were denied replacements.

• Reports of voter intimidation and police checkpoints set up near voting precincts.

We saw what could go wrong in Florida. But the truth is, it could have happened 

anywhere. 

So we should take this rare opportunity, when the public is focused on election 

issues, to strengthen our democracy. Our voting procedures and equipment need to 

be brought into the 21st century. 

Our Secretary of State, Matt Blunt, has created a special commission to lead Missouri’s election reform effort. But we need national leadership as well. 

The Constitution calls for a decentralized system that puts states in charge of 

elections. But the federal government can do more to encourage and empower states 

to improve the voting process. 

As we move forward, I ask that we look closely at critical issues, including:

• Implementing uniform statewide standards;

• Upgrading current election systems and technology;

• Increasing voter education;

• Improving voter access and procedures for disabled voters; and

• Protecting the voting rights of our nation’s military personnel.

This is not a partisan issue. Many of the proposals from Republicans and Democrats are very similar. We can agree on the need for experts to study the problems 

and recommend solutions. We can agree on increased funding for state and local 

governments to modernize voting equipment. And I am optimistic that we can find 

even more common ground. 

We need to approach this issue thoughtfully but expeditiously. A study should inform our actions, not delay our actions. 

63

Our goal is not just to fix voting machines, but to restore faith in our democratic 

system. Because ultimately, our democracy depends on public confidence in our elections. If we want a healthy democracy—an example for all the world—we must act 

together in the spirit of bipartisanship to ensure that the mistakes of the past are 

not repeated. 

I thank my colleagues, and I have a number of questions for the Secretaries of 

State who are here today.

Senator CLELAND. Mr. Chairman, I might say that a lot of my 

preconceived notions about technology solving our problems have 

just been exploded today. It crashed and burned. Not only is Thomas Edison’s basic lever system of voting, invented in 1900, looking 

better and better, but the paper ballot is looking better and better. 

It may be that we are tackling the ultimate question here, is technology and the implementation of technology doing us a favor, or 

are we being rendered a disservice? 

Additionally, if you look at that map which my staff has assembled, we have the most incredible crazy quilt pattern of voting technology, or the lack thereof, throughout America. 

May I say that I have reviewed the McCain-Hollings American 

Voting Standards Technology Act, which directs the National Institute on Standards and Technology to develop voluntary standards 

for the voting process and provides grants for the states to rehabilitate voting equipment and strengthen voter education. There is no 

question about the need for this, and I am proud to be a cosponsor 

of this legislation, Mr. Chairman. 

Today, I would like to introduce my own bill, the Make Every 

Vote Count Act, to help states and localities modernize voting systems, promote uniformity in voting systems within states, and require greater standardization in voting rights for our military personnel. I am on the Armed Services Committee, and certainly we 

ought to make sure that those who fight to defend the ballot ought 

to have total access to it. 

My legislation creates a federal block grant for replacement of 

the punch card voting system. If you look at the map, some 34 percent of all the precincts in America use the punch card system. 

About 19 percent of precincts use the lever system, again, invented 

by Thomas Edison in 1900, and about 2 percent use the paper ballots. The real question is, how are we able to use technology today 

to help our voting system? 

I was actually shocked by my dear friend Cathy Cox, who is the 

distinguished Secretary of State in Georgia, who stated that under 

certain circumstances with minority populations in Georgia, the 

opti-scan equipment is not a plus, but a minus. My understanding 

is, if you do not have a majority of minority citizens using that 

equipment, it actually tends to be a plus. There are certain counties like Wynett and Cobb that have a low undercount rate vis-avis larger counties like Fulton and Kalb that have the punch card 

system which has a higher undercount rate. 

So, I am sensing that there is no real silver bullet here which 

is one reason I am introducing this legislation. We want to allow, 

as Mr. Hutchinson said from the House, flexibility at the state 

level, but states, I think our panelists have agreed, need some federal funds to get on with the business of squaring away our voting 

equipment. 

64

I just want to say again that Ms. Cathy Cox has done a benchmark piece of work here not only for Georgia but for our Nation. 

Her study of the Georgia elections, a wake-up call for reform and 

change, highlights the most serious problems experienced last November. We have got to move on from a failed system where certain citizens, up to 10 to 15 percent in my own state, based on the 

voting equipment they were using, were actually being denied the 

right to have their vote count. 

And, of course, I do believe personally it is time to provide a 

knock-out punch to the punch card system. I will say that Senator 

Schumer probably hit it on the head that the oldest democracy in 

the world does not need to constantly depend on the oldest voting 

equipment in the world to exercise that democratic right. 

Ms. Cox, tell me now, where are we? I thought that the punch 

card ballot system, which was introduced in the sixties in my own 

home county—Mr. Bradbury, I have gone through that awful trauma of trying to vote absentee with a punch card which was backed 

up by some little piece of styrofoam, and included in the mail with 

some stylus. I just want you to know, I punched the dickens out 

of those holes to try to make sure my vote counted. And then, when 

I put it in the mail, I still was not sure. That is my home county, 

the second biggest county in Georgia where that system has been 

in place since the mid-sixties. When it was first introduced, it created havoc in a congressional election. There were 1,200 overvotes, 

and the congressional winner was thrown out of office and the 

other person won. You could clearly determine the intent of the 

voter, but as you ran the punch card through, it was easy to see 

that you could vote twice. You could, in effect, defeat the system, 

and that is what worries me about the punch card system. 

And now, Ms. Cox, about the optical scan system that you can 

defeat. At least with the Thomas Edison voting equipment it was 

programmed correctly. You could only vote once for a candidate in 

a particular election. Yet, with the optical scan equipment and the 

punch card system, you can vote once, you can vote twice, you can 

vote wrong, or you can vote and have it not counted. So Ms. Cox, 

we are in a thicket here. Lead us out of it. Give us your recommendations. 

Ms. COX. Well, we are somewhat in a thicket, but there is so 

much better equipment available today, various variations of electronic equipment that are almost electronic lever machines, will 

prevent you from ever overvoting, just like the lever machine, if 

properly set up, would not allow you to overvote. 

Lots of the electronic equipment on the market today is almost 

as foolproof as you could probably make a voting machine. It minimizes, I think to the great extent possible, the opportunity for a 

voter to make an innocent mistake. It will not allow you to 

overvote, and it gives you some of the feedback that you have never 

been able to get from voting equipment before. After you vote the 

whole ballot, most of these systems will pull up a screen that says, 

these are all of your choices, are these correct, in case you made 

a mistake. 

You have a chance, in the privacy of that voting booth, to correct 

those mistakes, rather than opti-scan, which at best you go put it 

into a counting machine and it kicks it back. Someone may have 

65

to violate the privacy of your ballot to tell you that you made a mistake, and then you have got to go back and delay the process by 

going back to the voting booth. 

That is why I like the electronic equipment, and our election reform bill in Georgia is actually going to be voted on by the Georgia 

Senate today, so I am hopeful things are going well back in Atlanta, but we are hoping to experiment with some of the electronic 

equipment in some city elections this November and the legislature 

has funded that pilot project for us already, and we are hoping to 

put together a bipartisan commission that will view all of the different types of equipment out there, hopefully with bills like yours 

and Senator McCain’s and other pending bills that may give us 

some evaluation of all of this equipment on a national level. 

This time next year, we hope to implement one of these types of 

electronic systems state-wide in Georgia over a 2 to 3-year period, 

so we have it in place in every county by the next presidential election. 

Senator CLELAND. Thank you very much for your service. Thank 

you for your study and your insight. We will depend upon wonderful people like you and our panelists to lead us forward. 

Speaking of the Georgia Senate in closing, I had the pleasure of 

serving there at one time. Jimmy Carter said that when he went 

to the State Senate in 1962 the first bill that he saw debated on 

the Senate floor was that you could not vote in Georgia if you had 

been dead longer than 3 years, so we have come a long way. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH,

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. 

Thank you, Bill. It is particularly good to have you here. I apologize, I was called to another committee and a commitment I could 

not avoid, but I have read your testimony, and I appreciate that 

you would come here to provide it. 

Senator Wyden, I think, asked my first question, which is really 

a concern. I voted last night in a local election in Oregon at home. 

We have these punch-out ballots, and I must tell you, when I saw 

Florida’s difficulties I almost envied the simplicity of their butterfly 

ballots, which were roundly criticized but those are much easier 

than what we have in Umatilla County. I wonder if you have identified an approach for vote-by-mail that is more user-friendly? 

Mr. BRADBURY. It is clear to me that the optical scan system is 

more user-friendly for vote-by-mail than the punch card, because 

the punch card, as you said, is really quite a challenge for Oregon 

voters. By voting at home rather than in a voting booth, the voter 

is trying to find hole number 61 to vote no on measure 62. It is 

very difficult, and I think it leads to voter confusion. We have statistics, actually, that run a little bit counter to Secretary of State 

Cox’s, in that our statistics would show that 1 percent of the optical 

scan ballots are undercounts for President, and 2 percent of the 

punch card ballots are undercount for President. It just seems to 

go a little different way state by state. 

66

Senator SMITH. As I look at this map, there are just a few states, 

or a few counties in Oregon that have punch-outs, and I guess 

what I am wondering is, was there any increase in the number of 

votes thrown out this time, and were they identified in particular 

counties? Do you have the ability to tell us that? 

Mr. BRADBURY. I can tell you that the undervote for President 

was 1 percent in optical scan counties, and in the seven counties 

that use punch cards it was 2 percent, so it was twice as high. 

Senator SMITH. That is probably just a function of the machine. 

I mean, every chad I punched last night I had to tear off afterwards, every one of them, and I can only imagine that a lot of the 

undervotes came from my county. 

How many people total voted in the election? 

Mr. BRADBURY. 1.6 million ballots. 

Senator SMITH. And how many ballots were thrown out? 

Mr. BRADBURY. I do not think I have that statistic. Not very 

many ballots are thrown out in Oregon, because every ballot is prescreened by a bipartisan election board that is, in fact, bipartisan. 

Our election boards have four members, two from each major 

party, not three members, like Florida. We have chad patrols in 

punch card counties that clear off the hanging chad before the ballots are put into the machine. I do not have the number you asked 

for, but I do not think it is very high. 

Senator SMITH. Maybe you can provide it to me, but I believe I 

have heard a number of 29,000 ballots in the whole State of Oregon, and I would hate to think, in an election as close as that was, 

that I was one of those 29,000. I am wondering if you can give me 

an update on the central data system that you are seeking? Is the 

legislature going to be forthcoming with the money? 

Mr. BRADBURY. I think that is the issue. It will cost $6 million 

for Oregon to have a centralized voter registration system. What 

that system would do is network the 36 county systems into a virtual state-wide file. Getting $6 million to do that is going to be a 

very tough thing to get out of a legislature where clearly that 

money is going to come from K through 12, or higher education, or 

health care. 

Senator SMITH. If you need any help lobbying them, let me know, 

because I will be your ally on that, because I cannot think of anything more important to our state government than having confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. I think there are 

a lot of people who really want to feel more comfort than they currently do. 

If you were to predict where we will go with vote by mail, will 

it be to opti-scan? If one of these bills passes, is that where we will 

go as a state? 

Mr. BRADBURY. Well, I think it is going to be really important 

that the legislation not mandate where we go, and I think that 

technology needs to have an opportunity to improve. It is clear to 

me that there is bipartisan support in Oregon as well as there is 

apparently bipartisan support here in Congress to do away with 

punch cards. When that happens, I think we are very likely to 

move to an optical scan system as it is really the only other system 

that is currently available in commercial quantity. 

67

Senator SMITH. It seems clear to me the bills that are before you 

would not pay for the data bank that Oregon desperately needs, 

but I think the state just needs to do that on its own, but on the 

other hand, converting to this other system, at what percentage, 

what share do you think would be fair between a federal and a 

state match? Is it 50–50, 75–25? 

Mr. BRADBURY. As I said in my testimony, we can move faster 

with a higher federal match, more in the range of 75–25. We could 

clearly get things done more quickly so that the reform is completed before the next presidential election. 

Senator SMITH. I am on a bill that is 75–25. I am delighted to 

hear that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Boxer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and my 

colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I really do want to thank you and add 

my voice. You have started to look at this, and it is not a pretty 

picture. There is no clear answer. That is why it is a little painstaking, but I think we really need to look at this. 

I have a few comments. First, I would ask unanimous consent 

that my statement be placed in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to explore ways that we, 

as elected officials in Congress, can help make sure that every person’s vote counts 

in this country. Last year’s election opened all of our eyes to the fact that our election system, while designed to give each person the ability to cast a vote, often fails 

in part because of antiquated voting equipment and confusing ballots. 

While no system will ever be perfect, we should make it a top priority that no 

voter be disenfranchised, as they were in Florida this past November. Looking at 

how new technologies can help in this effort is a great start. We certainly need to 

know how the different voting systems impact voter turnout and election results. 

In fact, last November after the election, I asked GAO to study how various voting 

and balloting systems compare in terms of fraud, error rates and other voting irregularities. I also asked them to discuss the feasibility of voting on the Internet, and 

whether such a system would be more or less susceptible to these problems. GAO 

plans to complete this report by the summer. 

Since we are talking today about the range of voting technologies currently available, I am pleased to report that in the 2000 election, Riverside County in my home 

state of California acted as a test bed for a new high-tech computerized touch-screen 

voting system. This system proved to be very user friendly and was able to tally 

its votes in record time, with a high degree of accuracy. I actually heard stories from 

some of my elderly constituents, that while they were nervous before using these 

new computer voting systems, they left the polls raving about how easy these new 

machines were to use. 

Again, I am very pleased that we are looking at how new technology can help our 

election system, but we should also keep in mind that old voting machines and ‘‘butterfly’’ ballots are only part of the problem. We must also look closely at other factors that affect our election process such as how states educate people manning the 

polls and whether voters understand the registration process. Recruiting qualified 

poll workers, and making sure they are trained, is difficult for local authorities to 

do and yet a crucial component of whether any system works. Simplifying the registration process, as we did with the Motor- Voter Act in 1993, is also essential if 

we truly want our consitituents to exercise their right to vote. 

Mr. Chairman, we are now truly living in the information age, and I hope that 

we do whatever we can to encourage the innovation and use of technology that 

68

makes it easier to vote, reduces fraud, ensures the privacy of voters and, most of 

all, guarantees that all votes count.

Senator BOXER. On November 15, I wrote a letter to David Walker, Comptroller General of the U.S., and asked the GAO to do a report and an analysis of what happened Nation-wide. I have asked 

them to look at the various voting and balloting systems. We have 

a preliminary analysis of that here today, but not from the GAO. 

I think the private sector did this comparison of the results of those 

systems. Today, we are hearing, Mr. Chairman, contrasting views. 

Ms. Cox is saying the opti-scan is worse than the punch cards, Mr. 

Bradbury is saying punch cards are worse, and Mr. Thornburgh is 

saying, don’t worry, be happy, essentially. 

So, I want to see what really happened, an analysis of which system appears to operate more efficiently, and the feasibility of voting on the Internet, in which my friend Ron Wyden and I really 

agree upon. We should not just say no. We have got to look at 

Internet voting. 

Mr. Chairman, you may not be aware of this, and frankly I was 

not until after the election, that in my home state, Riverside acted 

as a test bed for a new high tech, computerized touch-screen voting 

system in the last election. 

The system, just the first analysis of it, proved to be very userfriendly and was able to tally its votes in record time with a high 

degree of accuracy. I actually heard stories from elderly constituents who were really very nervous about it who later raved about 

it. They were ready to surf the net when they walked out of the 

polling place. However, I worry about, being from California, power 

outages and things like that compromising the system, but these 

are problems we may be able to meet quickly. 

Of course, the Chairman is very familiar with California, and I’m 

glad that he will be there on Monday to promote campaign finance 

reform. 

Let me go through a few more points. I wish Senator Burns was 

here, because I think he really minimized the problems in Florida. 

I think if you listen to Jeb Bush and Carrie Meeks, you hear that 

these are serious problems that had to do with ballot design and 

people being stopped and not being able to vote; people being 

purged. As Ms. Cox points out, there was no standard for recount. 

I think Senator Burns made the point that these recounts do not 

work, and Ms. Cox debated him. 

I think we should take a look at Washington State. There was 

a major recount in our Senate race there and nobody complained 

about it. I would say this, let us take the case of a presidential 

election and use our chairman as an example. Using an opti-scan 

system, a very enthusiastic McCain voter walks in and uses the 

pencil and fills in the dot next to John McCain. Then, not being 

terribly sophisticated, perhaps not educated they see write-in, and 

get really excited and write in John McCain. So they voted essentially twice for John McCain, the same person. This happened in 

the election to John McCain; it happened to George Bush; it happened to Al Gore. Those ballots get thrown out. 

Now, it does not take a master’s degree in poli-sci to know that 

that person wanted to vote, in this case, for John McCain. It is not 

as complicated as figuring out a chad. You could pretty well say 

69

that is a vote for John McCain. I think to just say that manual recounts do not work is not the case. It seemed to work well in Washington. 

I do believe in the wisdom of people. The makers of the machines, Mr. Chairman, said themselves that the machines certainly 

are not perfect, and that people are an important check. That was 

testimony in one of the court hearings. 

So, I guess what I want to say is, to Ms. Cox perhaps, or any 

of the panelists here, what if we did not have write-in on that same 

piece of paper? I think it is confusing. What if we just said, this 

is the opti-scan ballot, and on the way out people are asked, would 

you like to vote for someone else who was not on the ballot? Then, 

you stopped and did that. It is a thought, but it seems to me thousands of ballots were thrown out as being overcast. Can you envision any type of fail-safe system where you could remove that, because it is very few people that do write in, and perhaps they could 

have another way to do that. 

Ms. Cox, could you comment on that idea? 

Ms. COX. Senator Boxer, I believe there is some kind of opti-scan 

system where the write-in line is not under each race. It is perhaps 

at the end of the entire ballot, a section to write in. It is a little 

more difficult for the voter to connect that back up with a Senate 

race, or a state legislative race, but it does probably minimize the 

chance for that gung-ho voter to write in the same name, and we 

had numerous votes where we heard about that were exactly what 

you described happened. 

Senator BOXER. So, you think it would be an immediate improvement just have it boxed off and print do not write in here unless 

you did not vote for one? I am concerned. Any other comments? 

Mr. BRADBURY. Well, Senator Boxer, in Oregon, the provision we 

have is that a bipartisan election board with four members, two 

Democrats and two Republicans, look at the ballot to determine 

voter intent before it is counted. If it is rejected by the machine 

that ballot is looked at again, and it is usually very easy to determine the voter’s intent. Like the case you just outlined, where they 

punched John McCain and wrote in John McCain, that that person 

wanted to vote for John McCain. 

Senator BOXER. In Ms. Cox’s case, she has to get a court order, 

as I understand it, to deal with that. I see my time is up. Can I 

conclude with this: I just wanted to say—I did not mean to cut you 

off, Mr. Thornburgh, on that question, but my time is up. 

I just wanted to comment on your statement, and I wrote it 

down, that there was a peaceful transition of power and nothing is 

really that broken. You said it was a successful election. I would 

just like to say, the fact that there was a peaceful transition of 

power is a credit to our people, and our people are amazing. However, I would have to report to you that there was deep discontent 

among many people after that election, much more aimed at the 

system in terms of the outdated modes than the early projections, 

which people were annoyed about. In the end, what counts is who 

voted, and the fact that all of those millions of votes were not 

counted. I do not mean to in any way misinterpret your comments, 

because you did say we have work to do. However, I just want to 

leave you just with this Senator saying that I am not as complaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Mar 27, 2006 Jkt 088291 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88291.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
70

cent about the way this thing ended, and I think that we must act. 

It is going to be hard, but with the leadership of our Chairman and 

others, I think we will be able to do something. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Allen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, first and foremost for 

holding this very timely and appropriate hearing, and there are 

few issues, as far as our democratic republic, as important—nothing is more important than the right of citizens, legally qualified 

citizens in our republic to vote under an electoral system that is 

as fair and as accurate as possible. 

Any system, we want to make it as fair and accurate as possible 

and, as I was listening to all the different ways that people were 

fiddling around with whether it is punch card ballots or the lever 

action ballots or paper ballots, any system is only as verifiable and 

credible as the people who are administering it, and it is important 

to have people from both sides, from all parties involved in the 

matter. 

My first election where I won, I won by 25 votes and was subject 

to a recount and had all sorts of these different types of machines 

and ways being utilized, from paper ballots, where the great worry 

was with paper ballots they would just throw out the ones that are 

hand-counted, and they have always more ballots than there are 

voters, and then they just could stick those in. No one cheated, 

nothing was wrong with it, but that had happened. On voting machines with the levers, there are places in Virginia where people 

went to jail where there were more people voting on machines than 

there were registered voters. That is how they caught them. They 

just got over-zealous in it. 

Now, for any citizen to believe, or wonder, as Senator Smith was 

wondering, whether his or her vote would not be counted, I think 

the sanctity of the ballot box and the system would work. If there 

is any question on that, I think it undermines the foundation upon 

which our government rests and stands, and I think any such ineptitude that we have seen and worry about, any ineptitude in properly administrating free elections I think can undermine the respect for and the legitimacy of the government of the people. 

Now, I would like to use this time to raise the issue of uncounted 

military ballots. The absentee ballots from those who are serving, 

and the recent controversy in Florida, has brought to light a problem that has apparently existed for a long time. 

This is not something new that arose in this election, and it is 

little wonder that retired General Norman Schwartzkopf spoke out. 

He called it, quote, a very sad day for our country when servicemen 

and women find that, quote because of some technicality out of 

their control, they are denied the right to vote for the President of 

the United States, who will be their commander-in-chief. 

Now, in my view it is not only sad, it is outrageous, and I think 

it is wrong, and I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that this Committee 

could hold a hearing that will look into combining some modern 

communications technology such as the Internet and the military’s 

71

encryption system to provide for electronic voting systems for military personnel, and I think that has been stated by both——

Senator WYDEN. Would the Senator yield without losing time? I 

just want to commend you for an idea that I want to work with 

you on. 

Senator ALLEN. Senator Allard from Colorado has a measure, 

and I think Senator Hutchison has signed on to it as well, and I 

would like to turn to our Secretaries of State on this issue of absentee military ballots. 

You observed, as I am sure we all did, the issues in Florida as 

far as ballots being counted or not counted for technical reasons, 

because of—such as a lack of a postmark. How would the absentee 

military ballots have been treated differently in your state, and we 

could start with Ms. Cox from Georgia. 

Ms. COX. Thank you, Senator Allen. My understanding of the 

history, and I would stand to be corrected, is that back in the early 

1990’s the federal government made an effort to make sure that everyone in the military had about a 40-day window, 40 to 50-day 

window to obtain absentee ballots. 

The states were given an option as to whether that 40 to 45 days 

was fully in advance of Election Day, or whether some states like 

Florida would extend the time for receipt of those ballots 10 days 

beyond the Election Day, which is why the postmark became a critical issue in Florida. It is not a critical issue in Georgia, because 

our absentee ballots are available 45 days in advance, and they 

must be received by Election Day, so the post mark is really not 

an issue here. 

But for those states that opted—because Florida has a September primary, they would not have time to get absentee ballots 

ready early enough, they opted to use the 10-day-or-so window 

after the Election Day, so those ballots could still come in and be 

counted. Were the margin not so close, it really would never have 

come to light in Florida, but that military issue may be another 

issue that would be more appropriately addressed on the federal 

level than by individual states doing everything we can to maximize the opportunity of our military personnel to vote. 

Senator ALLEN. So in your situation in Georgia, in the event that 

somebody mails it off 3 weeks before the election, if it does not arrive by 7 o’clock, I assume, on Tuesday, election night, it is not 

counted? 

Ms. COX. That is right. 

Senator ALLEN. Secretary Thornburgh. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Thank you, Senator Allen. I would suggest 

there are a couple of things we could look at. Kansas and Georgia, 

in that we require by law that all federal service ballots for military personnel and for American citizens living overseas must be 

sent 45 days prior to the election, all ballots have to be received 

by the close of polls on Election Day, and so the issue of the postmark does not come into play in the State of Kansas, either. 

However, there are still cases where I believe we need to make 

improvements, and that is, there are segments within the military 

community—for instance, submariners often take tours of more 

than 45 days. At that time, they simply do not have the capability 

of receiving the ballot. Special forces, access to a fax machine is 

72

rather limited in many instances in that case. I think we do have 

to develop the technology to allow electronic voting at a minimum 

within those segments of our military community, and within the 

entire military with overseas voting. 

Senator ALLEN. Mr. Bradbury. 

Mr. BRADBURY. Oregon is very similar to the other states, in that 

we mail ballots to military personnel at least 45 days ahead of 

time, and they have to be in our hands by 8 p.m. Tuesday evening 

on Election Day. 

The other thing we do is, we put our entire voters’ pamphlet online. Our voters really need a voters’ pamphlet to understand some 

of the ballot measures. The online voters’ pamphlet is available to 

overseas’ personnel as well, and it is available when they get their 

ballot. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you all, and thank you, Mr. Thornburgh, 

for your support of using new technologies. Thank you all. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Allen, I think we should vigorously pursue this proposal. I noticed a NSF report out today, which states 

that it is not secure to vote over the Internet. I am of the view that 

technology should solve most of the objections raised in this report. 

Senator Ensign. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to get your 

comments. I have been in a few close races in the last few years, 

including 1998, where my Senate race that I lost narrowly was a 

little over 400 votes, and if Nevada would have been the subject 

of scrutiny by the rest of the country, we would have been the embarrassment instead of Florida this year. 

We had literally all of the different types of voting machines. We 

had the optical scan units where we had the problem in Washoe 

County. I thought it was very interesting, here we have a map that 

has been prepared, and the map is not even accurate, because 

Clark County, where Las Vegas is, has the electronic ballots, and 

it is on this map, I think, as data votes, so the things that we 

talked about, or that we found out, and the lessons we learned I 

think can go a long way towards solving the problems in the rest 

of the country as well. 

One of the reasons that you hear about races like Senator Boxer 

talked about in Washington State, where there was a recount in 

the Senate race. Well, you did not really hear anything about that, 

there were not problems, sometimes that is not because there are 

not problems. Sometimes that is because the politics of it, you cannot say there are problems. That was certainly the case in my senate race. You just have to say, well, there were problems, but we 

have to go on and live another day, otherwise you would kill yourself politically. 

Well, in Washoe County what happened was that we had such 

severe problems there we ended up going through manual recounts, 

and the ballots were printed improperly, were slightly off, and so 

some would not go through the machines. Clark County, which is 

where Las Vegas is, has the Sequoia Pacific machines. Now, the 

problem with these Sequoia Pacific machines, they work beauVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Mar 27, 2006 Jkt 088291 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88291.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
73

tifully, except when you go to do a recount, because you have no 

idea whether the machines malfunctioned, because there is no 

paper trail. 

It seems to me whatever we do, Mr. Chairman, as far as recommendations, that if you go to electronic machines, which I think 

really are the answer, it is the technology that you have to have 

some kind of a paper backup, not that the voter gets, because I 

know there are problems. You do not want people taking how they 

voted outside and then have somebody intimidate them, how did 

you vote, and then, prove it to me, but where it prints out in front 

of the voter and then it drops down into a box. 

And then if you are in a close race, you recount 1 percent, and 

if it looks like the machines have—randomly you do 1 percent, and 

if the machines worked well, then you know they worked, and then 

you just let the machines recount, instead of doing a hand recount. 

That was, I think, the great lesson we learned, although we have 

not changed to this paper backup, and I hope we do that in our 

state. I know it is very expensive, especially for a lot of small counties, but I would like your comments on if you think that is the direction we need to go. 

Ms. COX. Senator Ensign, in Clark County you have an 

undervote rate of 0.6 percent, 6/10ths of 1 percent, and you compare that to some counties in Georgia that had 15 percent 

undervote, that is why I really like this electronic technology. Some 

of the earlier versions did not have that independent audit trail. 

Most of the newer versions do, and in fact the legislation we are 

introducing in Georgia would require that any of the electronic systems have that independent verification system. 

Senator ENSIGN. Good. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Senator, I would agree there are certainly 

cases in this country where technology is the answer to the problems that lay before us. I would also recommend again that we do 

not forget about some of those issues as basic poll worker training 

and basic canvassing board training, creating uniform standards 

for recounts, creating uniform standards for canvassing. Those 

types of elements are going to be just as important as the technology is going to be as well. 

Mr. BRADBURY. Senator, just to remind you, we do not use polling places any more in Oregon. We vote by mail, so if you set up 

an electronic system in a polling place, that does not address the 

issue for us. 

Senator ENSIGN. I realize Oregon is a completely different animal 

in a lot of ways, but certainly in the voting. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to express—one of the other 

things we have found in Nevada that works very successfully, although I think they do it too early, is we have something called 

early voting. Early voting was started three election cycles ago, and 

they do it 2 weeks ahead of time, and they set it up in the shopping 

malls, at DMV, at various places around the state, and the citizens 

love it. They love it so much, almost half of the vote now is done 

early, and that is so convenient. I voted early this year. 2 weeks 

is maybe too early because a lot of things can happen in those last 

2 weeks in an election. It is probably too early, but a week in advance is probably a pretty good idea. 

74

As far as the absentee ballots between electronic balloting and 

everything, our polls close at 7 o’clock. By 7:30 we know almost 

every race in our state, and even the presidential race, which was 

only a 2-percentage point difference in Nevada this year, we knew 

that by 8:30, so there are some things that are working out there. 

Our system is certainly not perfect by any stretch of the imagination in Nevada, but we learned some lessons in 1998 that I think 

have helped us, but I think every state has a long way to go in reforming the election process. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Ensign. 

Before dismissing the panel, I want to thank you for your efforts 

to identify the problems with the low voter turnout amongst young 

Americans. I hope you will continue your efforts to identify ways 

in which we can motivate them to be involved in the political process. Even though there was fairly good turnout this time, there was 

still very low voter turnout among younger Americans. We look forward to working with you in the future. I thank the panel. 

Our next panel will consist of Mr. John Bollinger, deputy executive director, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Mr. Wade Henderson, 

executive director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Ms. 

Mary Jane O’Gara, board member of the AARP, and Mr. Raul 

Yzaguirre, president, National Council of La Raza. Please come up 

to the table. 

Mr. Bollinger, will you please begin? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. BOLLINGER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA 

Mr. BOLLINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. 

Thank you very much for asking the Paralyzed Veterans of America to testify at what we believe to be an extremely important hearing. 

Virtually all of our members use wheelchairs, so over the years 

we have become acutely and sometimes painfully aware of some of 

the accessibility issues involved in voting, and I will focus my comments this morning on accessibility for people with disabilities as 

it pertains to voting. 

The community of people with disabilities is both large in number and broad in scope. In terms of the various kinds of disabilities, 

obviously, beyond mobility impairments there are cognitive impairments, speech, hearing, dexterity, vision, and there are subcategories of all those, so whatever election reform is considered, first 

and foremost it has got to be inclusive, I believe, of all of those disabilities. 

PVA has worked very closely with your staff in regards to S. 511 

in the 106th Congress. While the introduction of that bill led to efforts to voluntarily improve access to voting for people with disabilities, we believe it is time for even stronger efforts. Being able to 

vote, it has been said a number of times this morning, is one of the 

most basic and important rights we have as citizens, and to think 

that anyone would be unable to vote simply because the voting 

booth or the place of polling is not accessible is something that I 

believe should have zero tolerance. 

75

In trying to exercise the right to vote, people with disabilities 

face structural, technological, and attitudinal barriers. The Voting 

Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 requires 

polling places and registration facilities to be physically accessible 

to all people with disabilities. Between 1986 and 1992, the Federal 

Election Commission collected data on accessibility through self-reporting by local jurisdictions. Physical barriers include lack of accessible parking, unramped stairs, raised thresholds, and lack of directional signage. 

At an oversight hearing in 1994, the FEC reported that for the 

1992 general election 14 percent, or close to 20,000 polling places, 

were physically inaccessible to people with disabilities. Physical accessibility continued to be a problem in the 1998 elections. In a 

project involving close to 400 people in 40 states who offered firsthand accounts of their experiences, we discovered that 11 percent 

reported locations with no accessible path of travel, 42 percent reported no accessible voting booths, and inability to use standard 

booths. 

This report also indicated a tremendous problem for voters who 

are blind or visually impaired. 81 percent had to rely on others to 

mark the ballot for them. 

Just last year, in February of 2000, the federal court in New 

York found that two counties every polling place except one was 

physically inaccessible. In March of 2000, the Philadelphia City 

Paper reported that over 1,200 of their 1,681 polling places in 

Philadelphia were physically inaccessible to voters with disabilities. 

Voters who are blind or visually impaired may gain access to the 

facility only to be denied the ability to vote privately and independently, and I can speak personally in my case. I can have access to 

our voting facility, but I do not have independence. I do not have 

privacy when I cast my vote. 

We believe that comprehensive voting system standards that include accessibility of design for people with disabilities are definitely needed. So many years after the Voting Rights Act, the Voting Accessibility Act, and the ADA, the purchase and use of new 

equipment that is not accessible to all is simply unacceptable. 

Many proposals to reform the electoral process are currently before this Congress, and we hope that reform will certainly be enacted, and we hope it will be done in time for the 2002 elections, 

and whether this reform is comprised of grants to purchase new 

voting technology, or the development of voting systems, it must 

address full access to voters with disabilities. 

We request that any reform legislation include development of 

accessibility guidelines. S. 511 proposed that the access board develop minimum guidelines, and we strongly encourage that this 

Committee include such a provision. 

In closing, I ask that as you consider all of this, Congress take 

into account all people with disabilities who have the right to vote. 

Do not allow this opportunity to pass without addressing the needs 

of so many American citizens who deserve to be heard, and I would 

offer not only in the case of PVA, but I know many disability organizations across the country will be more than happy to assist in 

a number of ways as we go down this road, so thank you for your 

efforts. We look forward to working with you. 

76

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bollinger follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN C. BOLLINGER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, Members of the Committee on Commerce, 

Science and Transportation, it is an honor and privilege for me to appear here today 

on behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA). I am John C. Bollinger, Deputy Executive Director of PVA. PVA is a Congressionally chartered Veterans Service 

Organization with over 20,000 members. Our members are honorably discharged 

veterans of the United States Armed Services who have incurred spinal cord injury 

or disease resulting in paralysis. Virtually all of our members use wheelchairs for 

mobility and all are individuals with disabilities as defined by the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA). 

Today’s hearing is timely, as complications in the 2000 elections led to this Congressional call for election reform. Many citizens, including voters with disabilities, 

felt that because of outdated voting machines and ballot confusion, their votes were 

not counted. This Committee must ensure that all voters, including those with disabilities, have access to an effective voting process. 

PVA has a long history of advocating for the right to vote. Our members know 

first hand, as do all veterans who served our country, the sacrifices that must be 

made to safe guard our democracy. We ask now that members of this Committee 

ensure that PVA members and others with disabilities are able to vote with the 

same privacy, dignity and independence as all other Americans. 

PVA last testified in 1994 before the then House Subcommittee on Elections on 

the final oversight hearing of the Voting Accessibility Act of 1984 (VAA). This Act’s 

intent was to improve access to voting for people with physical disabilities by removing architectural barriers at polling places and voter registration facilities. But ten 

years later, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) testified at that hearing, ‘‘14 

percent of the precincts, close to 20,000 polling places, were physically inaccessible 

to voters with disabilities.’’ This statistic represents serious disenfranchisement of 

thousands of voters with physical disabilities. The primary barriers noted were lack 

of accessible parking, inadequate directional signage, unramped stairs, and high 

thresholds—all barriers that are not difficult or expensive to remove. In PVA’s testimony, we recommended that the FEC continue to monitor the progress of compliance with VAA and, with technical assistance from the Access Board, develop standards for access. 

Mr. Chairman, during the 106th Congress, you introduced legislation to eliminate 

barriers that people with disabilities face in the electoral process. The bill, S. 511, 

would have expanded the coverage of the Elderly and Handicapped Voting Accessibility Act of 1984 so that all people with disabilities were protected from discrimination. It states that all polling places are to be physically accessible, and that all polling methods permit individuals who are blind or visually impaired to vote independently. S. 511 directed the Access Board to develop minimum guidelines for states 

to determine accessible standards in polling places and methods. Enforcement provisions of the Act designated State Chief Election Officers as the party responsible 

for ensuring compliance with the Act. PVA worked closely with your staff to sculpt 

this legislation and we stand ready to work with you on introduction of similar legislation in the 107th Congress. 

The introduction of S. 511 seemed to be a ‘‘wake up call’’ to the election community about their responsibilities to provide access to voters with disabilities. As a 

result the ‘‘National Task Force on Elections Accessibility’’ was formed. Lee Page, 

Associate Advocacy Director for PVA, and Gary Bartlett, Chief Election Officer for 

the State Board of Elections of North Carolina, co-chaired the task force for the last 

two years. The task force, through collaboration of election officials and disability 

advocates, produced tools to better educate election officials on the requirements of 

the Voting Accessibility Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA.) 

The Task Force published the guidebook ‘‘Voting: A Constitutional Right for All 

Citizens’’ to assist election officials to achieve equal access for all citizens. This report is based on a document originally published in 1986 by the National Organization on Disability. The guidebook lists the goals and principles of the National Task 

Force, which were jointly agreed upon by election officials and disability advocates. 

The primary principle states that voters with and without disabilities are equally 

entitled to the right to full participation in elections and to the privilege of casting 

their votes privately and independently. Further, no polling place in the United 

States should be physically inaccessible to voters with disabilities. The task force 

also produced a ‘‘best practices’’ checklist to identify barriers at the polling place and 

77

an instructional video CD-Rom that identifies attitudinal barriers that discourage 

people with disabilities from voting. 

Despite these voluntary efforts, barriers continue to prevent qualified people with 

disabilities from voting. In the 1996 election, 11.6 million Americans with disabilities (of 35 million registered) did vote. In that election, 50 percent of the general 

population voted, while only 30 percent of registered voters with disabilities actually 

voted. While some reasons for the low turnout are beyond the control of voting officials, e.g., a dependence on public transportation and voter apathy, structural, technological and attitudinal barriers likely contribute to the 20 percent deficiency in 

voting by people with disabilities. 

In 1999, PVA helped coordinate the Report of the National Voter Independence 

Project as a member of the Coalition for Accessible Political Elections. This report 

provides anecdotal reports from 377 voters with disabilities in 40 states of barriers 

they encountered in the November 1998 elections. The survey focused primarily on 

aspects of accessibility, the overall experience in voting, and whether respondents 

had any difficulty in registering to vote. Eleven percent reported locations with no 

accessible path to the facility. Forty-two percent reported no accessible voting booths 

and inability to use standard booths. This report also indicates a tremendous problem for voters who are blind or visually impaired—81 percent had to rely on others 

to mark their ballot for them. The report concludes that, to achieve equal access, 

all polling places need to be physically accessible to all people with disabilities, and 

voters who are blind or visually impaired must be able to vote independently and 

confidentially. Mr. Chairman, I request that this report and other related documents 

be included in the record. 

Only a year ago, in February 2000, a federal court in New York State found that 

in two counties every polling place except one was physically inaccessible. In March 

2000, the Philadelphia City Paper reported that 1231 (73 percent) of the 1681 polling places in Philadelphia were physically inaccessible to voters with disabilities. 

Information from the 2000 Presidential election relating to access is only anecdotal at this point. But just a few examples demonstrate barriers that existed only 

a few months ago. A citizen in Mansfield, Ohio reports, ‘‘There is no accessible path 

at my polling place. . . . I have had to vote outside because I am a paraplegic and 

could not get in the door. But this was only after ‘making a fuss’ to the point where 

law enforcement was called because poll workers would not bring a ballot out to me 

in the snow (just outside the door) so I could vote . . . Voting in Ohio has been a 

horrible experience for me ever since I moved here.’’ From Oakland, California, ‘‘The 

polling place is up a driveway with uneven pavement and grass and bumps. The 

actual place is in a garage, and there were no booths at the right height for a person 

in a wheelchair or scooter. So I had to ask my personal care attendant to go into 

the inaccessible booth for me, and I had to tell her my choices from outside the 

booth. I was not happy about it because it did not give me my privacy or independence.’’ In Allentown, Pennsylvania, ‘‘It is degrading and humiliating to have one of 

the officials go in the booth with you and then speak real loud so everyone in the 

room and waiting line can hear her announce each candidate. Even though I whisper my answers I feel very ‘exposed.’ I have asked for consideration in this to no 

avail. The official in charge . . . now remembers my name, and says real loud, ‘You 

are legally blind, right?’ There is no attempt at privacy or dignity at all . . . Yet, 

I refuse to be bullied into accepting an absentee ballot and not be able to vote with 

the mainstream.’’ In Orange Park, Florida, ‘‘The last time I went to my polling 

place, I had to go to a store room to fill out my ballot. I have a sight impairment 

and my care giver had to read the ballot to me. . . . I requested a ballot for vision 

impaired and was told there weren’t any. . . . I tried to speak to the poll manager, 

but he was too busy to speak with me. I spoke with the Supervisor of Elections and 

was told that larger type ballots had never been asked for, so they don’t provide 

them . . . I now use an absentee ballot, which is still not in print large enough for 

me to read without aid.’’ Report of the National Voter Independence Project (2000 

Draft). If the general public had to tolerate this type of treatment, no doubt the 

turnout would be as low, if not lower, than the 30 percent of voters with disabilities 

who go to the polls. 

A 1998 NOD/Lou Harris survey of Americans with disabilities reports that 75 percent of people with disabilities have never been asked to register to vote by a service 

provider as required by the NVRA (Motor Voter Law). All too often people with disabilities are told that they should vote by absentee ballot or at the curb. Absentee 

ballots are not an adequate substitute for actually going to the polls, particularly 

when the voter is in the jurisdiction on election day. Further, this most recent election brought to light deficiencies in counting absentee ballots, again raising the possibility that the votes of people with disabilities who are encouraged to use this 

method do not count. 

78

The structural and technological barriers discussed above are hardly insurmountable. Ramps, accessible booths (with privacy screens), easily maneuverable controls, 

and appropriate signage enable many voters with mobility impairments to vote 

independently. For people with vision impairments, easy solutions as simple as 

large print ballots and magnifying lenses will solve many problems. More advanced 

technology, even touch screen equipment, is now accessible to people with vision impairments. Legislation cannot overcome the attitudinal barriers, but many disability 

organizations would willingly train polling place staff and volunteers to avoid this 

type of treatment. 

Information on improving access is readily available. In 1996, PVA and Paradigm 

Design Group produced the report, ‘‘Ensuring the Accessibility of the Election Process’’. This report, distributed by the FEC, provided information and guidance to election officials on access to the election process for people with disabilities. The publication explains relevant federal laws and provides applicable architectural guidelines. It demonstrates how to ensure polling place access, from accessible parking 

along an accessible path of travel to an accessible voting booth. National organizations that are able to provide assistance are identified. 

PVA believes that comprehensive voting systems standards that include accessibility design guidelines for people with disabilities, are needed. So many years after 

the Voting Rights Act, the Voting Accessibility Act, and the ADA, the purchase and 

use of new equipment that is not accessible to all is unacceptable. 

In 1999, then Governor George W. Bush signed such a bill into law in Texas. The 

Texas Election Code requires all voting systems purchased after September 1,1999, 

to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and to ‘‘provide a practical and effective means for voters with physical 

disabilities to cast a secret ballot.’’ Requirements for accessibility and authorized 

methods for a secret vote are specified. 

Many proposals to reform the electoral process are currently before this Congress. 

Reform will most certainly be enacted, and in sufficient time to affect the 2002 elections. Whether this reform is comprised of grants to purchase new voting technology, or the development of voting system standards, it must address full access 

for voters with disabilities. We request that any reform legislation include the development of accessibility guidelines. S. 511 proposed that the Access Board develop 

minimum guidelines; PVA encourages this Committee to include such a provision. 

These guidelines must provide for private and independent voting by voters with 

disabilities. We also urge that a single state election official be designated for compliance with the legislation. 

We ask that in your considerations, this Congress take into account not only paralyzed veterans, but all people with disabilities who have the right to vote. Do not 

allow this opportunity to pass without addressing the needs of so many American 

citizens who deserve to be heard.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Henderson, thank you. 

STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Wade Henderson, the executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil 

rights. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is the Nation’s 

oldest and most diverse coalition of civil and human rights organizations. I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the 

conference to discuss the need to ensure that all Americans have 

equal access to the right to cast their ballots and to have their 

votes, once cast, accurately counted, and I would like to request, 

Mr. Chairman, that my entire statement be made a part of the 

record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you. More than 35 years have passed 

since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In that time, 

our Nation has made significant progress in making the act’s promise of one person, one vote a reality for all Americans. The serious 

and extensive irregularities reported in November, however, make 

79

clear that we still have a long way to go as a Nation, and while 

yesterday’s poll taxes and literacy tests are long gone, they have 

been replaced by punch card machines and inaccurate voting list 

purges as barriers to minority enfranchisement. 

The need for today’s discussion should be apparent to all. The 

right to vote is among the most fundamental of all freedoms guaranteed the American people. Without it, we are not a republic, not 

a democracy. For this reason, reports of voting irregularities in 

Florida have captured widespread attention. Barriers to minority 

voting participation, however, are by no means limited to Florida. 

Because of the need to ensure the integrity of our democratic processes is national in scope, federal attention and action are both appropriate and necessary. 

Now, in my testimony today, I will first review briefly some of 

the problems that make clear the pressing need for action. I will 

then identify some fundamental principles that must be included in 

any effective reform proposal. Now, across America, voters, especially minority voters, were effectively denied the franchise in a variety of ways. Minority voters often faced a significantly greater 

risk that their votes would not be counted accurately. 

In Cook County, Illinois, for example, an analysis by the Washington Post concluded that only 4.9 percent of ballots were invalidated in precincts with minority populations of less than 30 percent, while the invalidation rate nearly doubled to more than 9 percent in precincts with a minority population of 90 percent or more. 

In Florida, as we heard today, punch card balloting systems used 

in counties with substantial African American populations, such as 

Miami-Dade and 24 other counties, are alleged to have a substantially higher error rate than other systems. Nearly 4 percent of ballots in Florida counties using punch card systems were recorded as 

having no vote, while the no-vote rate under the optical scan systems used elsewhere in Florida was only 1.43 percent. 

Second, Asian American, Haitian American, Latino American, 

and other language-minority voters were denied language assistance to which they are entitled. In many jurisdictions covered by 

the Voting Rights Act, language minorities are entitled, upon request, to bilingual materials and other assistance of bilingual poll 

workers. 

In New York City, however, Chinese-speaking voters reported 

that ballots at several polling sites inaccurately translated candidates’ party identifications, and others reported that absentee 

ballots contained mistakes in the Chinese language instructions. 

Those problems were replicated in many parts of the country. 

Eligible voters were wrongly purged from the polls. For example, 

Florida ordered the purging of ex-felons and other ineligible voters 

from official lists of eligible voters prior to the November election. 

During this process, however, many qualified voters were wrongly 

identified as ineligible to vote and, for example, a number of African American and Latino voters reported that they were told by 

poll workers that they had been dropped from the polls because 

they were ex-felons, even though they had never been arrested, 

much less convicted of any crime. 

Fourth, eligible voters were wrongly denied the opportunity to 

vote because voter registrations and change of address information 

80

were not processed in a timely and accurate manner. That has 

been discussed extensively. Eligible voters, moreover, were barred 

from voting because complete and accurate lists of eligible voters 

were not available at each polling place. The Kansas City Star reported that in St. Louis, for example, voters whose registration was 

not on record at their polling places had to travel to the election 

board’s downtown office, where several hundred people waited up 

to 3 hours just to confirm their registration. 

Voters who realized that they had inaccurately marked their ballots before casting them were wrongly denied the opportunity to 

correct them. That has been substantially documented in a number 

of jurisdictions. Many voting systems are inaccessible to persons 

with disabilities, as my friend John Bollinger has said, and do not 

allow many voters with disabilities to cast a secret ballot. 

Now, according to the Federal Election Commission, there are at 

least 20,000 polling places across the country that are physically 

inaccessible to voters with disabilities and, moreover, the punch 

card machines, as has again been noted, are particularly difficult 

for persons with vision impairment or arm or hand mobility impairments. 

Now, unfortunately, time permits only a partial listing of these 

reported irregularities, but even this incomplete discussion demonstrates the extent and severity of the problem, and the need for 

reform. Such barriers to voting inflict double pain. First, they effectively disenfranchise a significant number of eligible voters and, 

second, they fuel the perception that minority voters, and that persons with disabilities, are not really welcome to participate fully in 

our Nation’s democratic institutions. A system riddled with such 

irregularities fosters cynicism about our Nation’s commitment to its 

professed ideal that every vote counts. 

Now, in terms of meaningful reform, we think it is important 

that a number of steps be taken and, because the need to ensure 

the integrity of our democratic process is of national significance, 

these reports make clear of the need for congressional action. 

Now, we are very mindful of concerns about overreaching in 

terms of the ability of the federal government to dictate to the 

states appropriate steps in state elections, but it is important that 

the federal government strike a balance of responsibility between 

what it must supervise with regard to federal elections and the responsibility of the states. 

Second, we are aware that several proposals, legislative proposals to remedy the problems of Election 2000 are already under 

discussion, and we welcome the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to 

work with you and other Members of the Committee in trying to 

fashion specific details. 

Now, I should note at the outset, however, that the issue of election reform we think is too important to be considered with other 

initiatives. Some have suggested, for example, that Congress 

should consider election reform in combination with the issue of 

campaign finance reform, which will come to the Senate floor in the 

next few weeks. The leadership conference member organizations 

have differing views on the question of campaign finance reform. 

However, we are strongly of the belief that this issue should not 

be considered at the same time that campaign finance reform 

81

comes to the floor. We think it has to be evaluated on its own merits. 

Second, as these important discussions move forward, let me just 

identify some of what we think are the fundamental principles that 

any reform legislation should consider. First, any comprehensive 

election reform proposal must be in place in time for the 2002 election. We have to ensure that we learn from and act upon rather 

than repeat the painful mistakes of last November. 

Second, any reform proposal must adhere to the principle of one 

person, one vote, because we know that that obviously is a fundamental democratic principle. What this means is that the right to 

cast one’s vote as well as the right to have it counted has to be preserved, and that means, of course, that we have to do away with 

systems like the punch card machines, which we know have a disproportionate and unacceptably high error rate. 

Third, any reform proposal must address procedural, as well as 

technological obstacles to voting. Now, minority voters faced at 

least three barriers in the last November election, first, the use of 

outdated voting equipment with significant failure rates, second, 

inadequate and often discriminatory voter registration and purging 

practices, and third, human factors that led to ill-prepared and 

overburdened poll workers that inappropriately turned away voters. All three of these things have to be addressed. 

Fourth, any reform proposal must not limit or conflict with existing civil rights laws, like the voting Rights Act, the National Voter 

Registration Act, or the Americans With Disabilities Act, and Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act. 

And then last, assuming all of these things are considered, my 

testimony goes into several specific recommendations for facilitating the ease with which our citizens are enabled to vote and to 

participate, such as extending the time of voter registration, providing same-day registration where appropriate, addressing other 

mechanisms that have proven to be barriers to full civic and voter 

participation. 

Last, the practice of ex-felon disenfranchisement should be eliminated. Not only is disenfranchisement one of those issues that really affects persons who have completed their sentences, it is inconsistent with basic democratic principles, and we believe it has a 

disproportionate impact on persons who are, indeed, trying to recoup their lives and to participate fully in civic life in this country. 

The leadership conference welcomes, as I said, Mr. Chairman, 

the opportunity to work with you. It is impossible to overstate the 

importance of what you are doing today with this hearing, since, 

in order to have continued confidence in the integrity of our democratic process, we have to ensure that the elections that we all 

cherish and recognize are at the heart of what we do as a Nation 

be preserved, and that their integrity be enhanced. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Henderson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEADERSHIP

CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Wade Henderson, Executive 

Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. I am pleased to appear before 

82

you today on behalf of the Leadership Conference to discuss the need to ensure that 

all Americans have equal access to the right to cast their ballots—and to have their 

votes, once cast, accurately counted. 

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) is the nation’s oldest and most 

diverse coalition of civil rights organizations. Founded in 1950 by Arnold Aronson, 

A. Phillip Randolph, and Roy Wilkins, LCCR works in support of policies that further the goal of equality under law. To that end, we promote the enactment, and 

monitor the enforcement, of our nation’s landmark civil rights laws. Today the 

LCCR consists of over 180 organizations representing persons of color, women, children, organized labor, persons with disabilities, the elderly, gays and lesbians, and 

major religious groups. It is a privilege to represent the civil and human rights community in addressing the Committee today. 

More than 35 years have passed since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 

1965. In that time, we have made significant progress in making that Act’s promise 

of ‘‘one person, one vote’’ a reality for all Americans. The serious and extensive 

irregularities reported last November, however, make clear that we still have a long 

way to go. While yesterday’s poll taxes and literacy tests are long gone, they have 

been replaced by punch-card machines and inaccurate voting list purges as barriers 

to minority enfranchisement. 

The need for today’s discussion should be apparent to all. The right to vote is 

among the most fundamental of freedoms guaranteed the American people. Without 

it, we are not a republic, not a democracy. For this reason, reports of voting irregularities in Florida have captured widespread attention. Barriers to minority voting 

participation, however, are by no means limited to Florida. Because the need to ensure the integrity of our democratic processes is national in scope, federal attention 

and action are both appropriate and necessary. 

In my testimony today, I will first review some of the problems that make clear 

the pressing need for action. I will then identify some fundamental principles that 

must be included in any effective reform proposal. 

Overview of Voting Irregularities in the 2000 Election 

Across America, voters—especially minority voters—were effectively denied the 

franchise in a variety of ways: 

Minority voters often faced a significantly greater risk that their votes would not 

be counted accurately. In Cook County, Illinois, for example, an analysis by The 

Washington Post concluded that only 4.9 percent of ballots were invalidated in precincts with a minority population of less than 30 percent, while the invalidation rate 

nearly doubled—to more than 9 percent—in precincts with a minority population of 

90 percent or more. 

Similarly, a lawsuit recently filed in Georgia on behalf of African American voters 

in DeKalb, Fulton, and Cobb counties alleged that the punch-card machines used 

in predominantly African American counties had an error rate more than double 

that of optical scanning machines used elsewhere in Georgia. 

In Florida, too, punch-card balloting systems used in counties with substantial African American populations (such as Miami-Dade and 24 other counties) are alleged 

to have a substantially higher error rate than other systems. Nearly four percent 

of ballots in Florida counties using punch-card systems were recorded as having no 

vote, while the no-vote rate under the optical-scan systems used elsewhere in Florida was only 1.43 percent. 

Asian American, Haitian American, Latino, and other language minority voters 

were denied language assistance to which they were entitled. In many jurisdictions 

covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, language minority voters are entitled, upon request, to bilingual materials and/or the assistance of a bilingual poll 

worker. In New York City, however, Chinese-speaking voters reported that ballots 

at several polling sites inaccurately translated candidates’ party identifications; others reported that absentee ballots contained mistakes in the Chinese-language instructions. 

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund monitors observed that some 

New York polling sites had no interpreters at all, prompting some voters to leave 

without casting a ballot due to the absence of language assistance; interpreters at 

other sites were observed to provide inaccurate or improper directions. 

And in some Florida counties, Haitian American and Latino voters reported that 

their requests for language assistance were denied. 

Eligible voters were wrongly ‘‘purged’’ from the rolls. Florida, for example, ordered 

the ‘‘purging’’ of ex-felons and other ineligible voters from official lists of eligible voters prior to the November election. During this process, however, many qualified 

voters were wrongly identified as ineligible to vote. For example, a number of African American voters reported that they were told by poll workers that they had 

83

been dropped from the rolls because they were ex-felons—even though they had 

never been arrested, much less convicted, of any crime. 

Other eligible minority voters reported that they were provided no reason for their 

purging; they were simply turned away on the grounds that their names did not 

appear on the list of registered voters. Moreover, many of these purges occurred 

very late in the process—i.e., after the individuals purged had already voted in the 

September primary—thus offering little, if any, corrective opportunity. 

Eligible voters were wrongfully denied the opportunity to vote because voter registrations and change-of-address information were not processed in a timely and accurate manner. Asian American voters in New York reported that they completed 

their registration forms, but were never provided confirmation of their registration, 

nor information about the location of their polling places. 

Similarly, in Ohio, African American voters reported that they were not notified 

that their polling places had been changed; when they tried to vote at their old polling places, they were turned away and denied even the opportunity to cast provisional ballots. 

Minority voters in Florida and elsewhere have reported that they submitted timely and complete voter registration packages (or notices of change in address), only 

to be turned away at the polls because there was no record of their registration or 

move. As Fumiko Robinson testified before the NAACP in explaining her feelings 

while driving Florida voters to the polls on election day, only to have them turned 

away: ‘‘[I]t was almost as if I brought people to the poll to be embarrassed.’’

Eligible voters were barred from voting because complete and accurate lists of eligible voters were not available at each polling place. The Kansas City Star reported 

that, in St. Louis, ‘‘voters whose registration was not on record at their polling 

places had to travel to the election board’s downtown office, where several hundred 

people waited up to three hours just to confirm their registration.’’

In some Florida counties, certain registered voters were placed on an ‘‘inactive’’ 

list and were not included on their respective precincts’ lists of voters. These unlisted voters were able to vote only if their precinct polling official contacted the central county office to confirm eligibility. Many of the telephone lines were busy for 

extended periods of time, however, thus thwarting eligibility verification. And while 

some precincts were apparently provided with laptop computers to enable 

pollworkers to access directly the list of inactive-yet-eligible voters, observers reported that few, if any, laptops were assigned to majority black precincts. 

Voters who realized that they had inaccurately marked their ballots before casting 

them were wrongfully denied the opportunity to correct them. When voters realize 

that they have inaccurately marked their ballots before submitting them, the law 

entitles them to a second—and even a third—ballot to correct any such errors. However, numerous Florida voters have reported that their requests for new ballots 

were denied. 

Many voting systems are inaccessible for persons with disabilities and do not allow 

many voters with disabilities to cast a secret ballot. According to the Federal Election Commission, there are at least 20,000 polling places across the country that are 

physically inaccessible to voters with disabilities. Moreover, punch-card machines 

are particularly difficult for persons with vision impairments or arm or hand mobility impairments. 

The list goes on and on. Voters who did not have identification or who did not 

appear on eligible lists were improperly denied the opportunity to vote by affirmation or affidavit. Voters already in line when polling places closed were denied the 

opportunity to cast their ballots. Unfortunately, time permits only a partial listing 

of the reported irregularities. But even this incomplete discussion demonstrates the 

extent and severity of the problem—and the need for reform. 

Such barriers to voting inflict double pain. First, they effectively disenfranchise 

a significant number of eligible voters. Second, they fuel the perception that minority voters and voters with disabilities are not really welcome to participate fully in 

our nation’s democratic institutions. A system riddled with such irregularities fosters cynicism about our nation’s commitment to its professed ideal that every vote 

counts. As a result, many minority voters concluded that some votes matter more—

or less—than others; that every vote does NOT count; that the system does NOT 

work. As Donnise DeSouza, who was denied access to the polls on Election Day, described her feelings in testimony before the NAACP: ‘‘I felt very outraged. I felt I 

had been stripped of something important and personal to me and I felt violated. . . .’’

Principles for Meaningful Reform 

Because the need to ensure the integrity of our democratic processes is of national 

significance, these reports make clear the need for Congressional action. While we 

84

are mindful of concerns regarding federalism and the appropriate balance of responsibility between the federal government and the states, we strongly believe that 

Congress has the authority—and the responsibility—to maintain the integrity of 

federal elections and ensure that states and localities have the resources to improve 

election technology and administration procedures. To this end, we urge the enactment of legislation that would encourage the adoption of upgraded, accurate equipment and uniform, nondiscriminatory standards for election administration in all 

federal elections. 

We are aware that several legislative proposals to remedy the problems of Election 2000 are already under discussion, with more on the horizon. We welcome the 

opportunity to work together with this Committee and others in Congress on the 

specific details of these efforts. 

We note at the outset, however, that the issue of election reform must be considered separately from any other legislative issue. Some have suggested that Congress 

should consider election reform in combination with the issue of campaign finance 

reform, which will come to the Senate floor in the next few weeks. While the Leadership Conference has taken no position on campaign finance legislation, we strongly believe that the issue of election reform is of such critical importance that it requires full and fair evaluation on its own merits, apart from any other proposal. 

As these important discussions move forward, let me identify some fundamental 

principles that must be included in any meaningful reform proposal: 

First, any comprehensive election reform proposal must be in place in time for the 

2002 elections. We must ensure that we learn from and act upon—rather than repeat—the painful lessons learned in 2000. To this end, the federal government must 

supply adequate resources on the front end to permit states and localities to make 

the upgrades and changes necessary to ensure that all Americans have equal and 

meaningful access to the right to vote in the 2002 elections. 

Second, any reform proposal must adhere to the principle of ‘‘one person, one vote.’’

The right to vote is a right guaranteed to all Americans, regardless of their race, 

their neighborhood, their income, or their level of education. This applies both to 

the right to cast one’s ballot and the right to have that vote, once cast, counted accurately. We must acknowledge and address widespread evidence that punch-card machines and certain other voting systems carry disproportionately—and unacceptably—high error rates. Federal funding should be made available to encourage state 

and local jurisdictions to upgrade election equipment to ensure that all votes are 

counted accurately and equally. For example, federal efforts should encourage states 

and localities to adopt election technology that produces no more than a 1 percent 

error rate. 

Third, any reform proposal must address procedural as well as technological obstacles to voting. Minority voters faced at least three types of barriers to full and equal 

voting participation this past November: (1) the use of outdated voting equipment 

with significant failure rates; (2) inadequate (and often discriminatory) voter registration and purging practices; and (3) human factors that led ill-prepared and 

overburdened poll workers to inappropriately turn away qualified voters. We must 

both modernize the machinery of voting and improve procedures for the administration of elections. Both of these issues deserve significant attention and funding at 

the federal level. 

Fourth, any reform proposal must not limit or conflict with the Voting Rights Act 

and the National Voter Registration Act, nor any other existing civil and voting 

rights statute, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and the Handicapped Act. Indeed, any effective reform proposal 

must include a commitment to and investment in full and vigorous enforcement of 

these laws—for example, ensuring that minority language voters and voters with 

disabilities receive the assistance to which they are entitled. In addition, funds distributed by the federal government for election reform must be considered federal 

financial assistance for the purposes of applying the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964. 

With these baseline principles in mind, a number of more specific measures deserve careful consideration as we explore ways to encourage the development of uniform, nondiscriminatory procedures for election administration:

• Registering to vote should be simple and easy. Current registration procedures 

too often discourage, rather than encourage, voting. For example, under current 

practice, voter registration often closes 30 days before the election. Providing for 

same-day registration or otherwise shortening registration deadlines (i.e., keeping registration open until shortly before Election Day) would encourage voter 

registration. Procedures better facilitating change-in-address notification (e.g., 

85

1 ‘‘Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda’’. A report 

commissioned by the National Science Foundation on a workshop October 11–12, 2000 by the 

Internet Policy Institute. 

by allowing voters who change addresses within the same state to file a changeof-address and vote on Election Day without re-registering) would further ease 

registration difficulties.

• Voting itself should be as simple and easy as possible. Voters should be made 

aware of their rights to request assistance, to correct their ballots if they believe 

they have made an error, and to alternative identification procedures if they do 

not have a photo identification.

• To encourage full civic participation, we should support changes designed to 

ease long lines and other time pressures on voters (e.g., making Election Day 

a federal holiday, ensuring that anyone in line at closing time is allowed to vote, 

extending voting hours, holding multi-day and/or weekend elections).

• In light of last fall’s extensive reports of inaccurate and/or incomplete voter 

lists, federal legislation should encourage the development of uniform mechanisms to ensure that persons whose names do not appear on the list of registered voters at the polling place may still cast a provisional ballot without 

undue delay—subject to challenge if they are shown to be ineligible to vote.

• Federal legislation should encourage development of standards to ensure that 

decisions to purge certain voters from the rolls are carefully verified. For example, the National Voter Registration Act prohibits certain types of purges—i.e., 

those needed to verify addresses—within 90 days of an election. The same 90-

day rule could be applied to all types of purges, including those for ex-felons. 

Moreover, state or local governments are better equipped to carry the burden 

of verifying that registered voters are actually not entitled to vote before purging—rather than placing the burden on the voter to establish his or her eligibility.

• The practice of ex-felon disenfranchisement should be eliminated. Not only is 

the disenfranchisement of those who have completed their sentences inconsistent with basic democratic principles, it disproportionately harms minorities 

and thus dilutes the gains of the Voting Rights Act. Moreover, the Florida experience helps demonstrate that restoring the franchise to ex-felons who have 

served their time will also eliminate the significant number of ‘‘false positives’’ 

that wrongly denied the vote to individuals who were not ex-felons, as well as 

save millions of dollars in administrative costs.

Finally, we recognize that we have not addressed issues related to voting over the 

Internet, even as states and localities are increasingly likely to turn to high-tech solutions to election challenges. We note that while such technology offers significant 

opportunities to eliminate certain voting irregularities, we must also be mindful of 

possible racial, ethnic or income disparities in voter access commonly characterized 

as aspects of the digital divide. We are also concerned with the security and integrity of election systems with Internet voting, a concern highlighted in a recently released study commissioned by the National Science Foundation.1 The Leadership 

Conference is currently studying this issue, and plans to share our observations and 

recommendations in the near future. 

Conclusion 

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights welcomes the opportunity to work with 

this Committee and others in Congress on election reform consistent with the principles we have outlined. It is impossible to overstate the importance of this endeavor, since continued confidence in the integrity of our democratic processes will hinge 

on our success or failure. Together, we must ensure that the painful lessons learned 

in 2000 are not forgotten, and that the ideals of 1965 are not abandoned.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. O’Gara. 

STATEMENT OF MARY JANE O’GARA, BOARD MEMBER, AARP 

Ms. O’GARA. Mr. Chairman, my name is Mary Jane O’Gara. I am 

a member of the board of directors of AARP. On behalf of the association, I thank you for inviting AARP to offer its views regarding 

86

the use of technology to address some of the major issues related 

to voting and election reform legislation. 

The right to vote is the most basic of all political rights. The recent presidential election illustrated the many inconsistencies that 

threaten the integrity of the election process at all levels of government. While all of the problems revealed cannot be addressed in today’s hearing, many can be ameliorated. It is important, however, 

that fair, bipartisan policy solutions in related areas be devised to 

accompany any technological innovations. 

Examples of related areas are discrimination in the registration 

and voting process, inconsistent interpretation and application of 

regulations, varying hours of operation and access, variances in notification about voting status and local polling sites, accessibility 

and user friendliness of registration and polling sites and equipment. 

The effectiveness of each of the federal statutes governing voting 

in this country can be improved through technological innovations. 

Technology can enhance the fairness of statutory implementation 

and enforcement. Still, issues like access and the climate of both 

registration and polling sites are precursory concerns. Voting and 

registration procedures should be as user-friendly as possible for all 

Americans. In that regard, Congress must ensure that such procedures are fair, acceptably uniform, accessible, and protected 

against fraud and preventable mistakes. 

Under the NVRA, states must allow individuals to register to 

vote at a variety of state agency locations such as the Department 

of Motor Vehicles, and through the mail. Based on available data, 

lower increases in registration rates can be attributed to less aggressive implementation of the law for various reasons. 

Technology could improve processing, verifying and sharing of 

registration information among various agencies. These benefits, 

however, would be nullified if the atmosphere discourages or frustrates applicants. Misinformation, lack of information, and/or confusing and inconsistent information foster a discouraging atmosphere. 

That said, AARP believes that technology can make the most significant and immediate contribution to voting and election reform 

in the area of balloting and verification of voter registration. With 

respect to balloting, technical innovations could make ballots and 

voting systems more accessible, and their use more easily understood by voters. Specific assistive devices, telecommunication devices for the deaf and large type instructions could be integrated 

to assist people with disabilities, and compensate for barriers to 

participation. Equipment design could help with dexterity problems, so common among older persons. 

Ballots and voting systems should minimize human and mechanical errors and allow for effective monitoring. While systems improved by technology, such as Internet voting, optical scanners, and 

touch-screen technology, are less vulnerable to manual fraud, they 

must be protected from internal and external tampering. Objective 

monitoring to detect tampering is essential. 

Voters can and should be more thoroughly informed about the 

mechanics of voting. Internet and on-site training tools are existing 

technologies that can be used to this end. Investment in public eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Mar 27, 2006 Jkt 088291 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88291.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
87

cation could also decrease the likelihood of voter error, especially 

if voters are given the opportunity for a ‘‘dry run’’ before actually 

casting a ballot. Voter turnout might even increase as a result. 

Finally, in the area of voter registration, strong protections 

against fraud and bias can be established through technology that 

permits instant voter verification of registration status. Systems 

that permit voters to verify registration, polling and registration 

sites, and hours of operation could virtually eliminate most human 

discrimination factors that impede some voters. 

Because technological innovations can be costly, the federal government can play a role in financing needed innovations. Any federal funding for voting and election reforms should be conditioned 

upon satisfying specific procedural standards, best practices in election administration, and the elimination of practices that suppress 

voter participation. Further, it is important that technological and 

administrative initiatives to reform registration and voting processes be equitable in their impact on all classes of potential voters. 

AARP understands that technology is not the only solution to the 

problem of voting and election reform, but it could make a significant difference. 

We appreciate this opportunity to offer our views on this potential improvement, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my remarks, and 

I would be happy to respond to questions if you have any. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. O’Gara follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY JANE O’GARA, BOARD MEMBER, AARP 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

My name is Mary Jane O’Gara and I am a member of the Board of Directors of 

AARP. On behalf of the Association, I thank you for inviting AARP to offer its views 

regarding the use of technology to address some of the major issues related to voting 

and elections reform legislation. 

The right to vote is the most basic of all political rights. The recent Presidential 

election of 2000 has brought to the forefront of the public’s attention the many inconsistencies that presently exist in the voting systems throughout the nation at all 

levels of government. These inconsistencies threaten the integrity of the election 

process. While all of the problems and inconsistencies revealed in the recent elections cannot be addressed within the scope of today’s hearing on technology solutions, many can be ameliorated. However, it is important that fair, bipartisan policy 

solutions in related areas be devised to accompany any technological innovations. 

Examples of related areas are:

• discrimination in the registration and voting process,

• inconsistent interpretation and application of regulations;

• varying hours of operation and access;

• variances in notification about voting status and local polling sites;

• accessibility and user-friendliness of registration and polling sites and equipment;

• varying guidelines and criteria for mail-in and in-person registration and voting; and,

• differing circumstances about when verification is essential to register or vote.

Technological innovations are likely to be costly for most jurisdictions. AARP believes the federal government has a role to play in financing needed innovations. 

Any federal funding for voting and election reform should be conditioned upon satisfying specific procedural standards (‘‘best practices’’) in election administration and 

the elimination of practices that suppress voter participation, including but not limited to areas mentioned above. 

AARP would like to lay out the principal policy areas that we see as needing reform, and proceed to address how technology might address some of those. The 

88

major federal statutes governing voting in this country such as the Voting Rights 

Act (VRA), the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the National Voter Registration Act 

(NVRA) establish voting rights and registration policy. While these statutes do not 

address questions of technology, technological innovations could have a tremendous 

impact on the fairness of how those statutory policies are implemented or enforced. 

Critical issues such as access to and the climate of both registration and polling 

sites are precursory concerns that are directly related to the utility of any voting 

technology innovation. In that regard, we believe Congress must take steps to ensure that voting and registration processes are:

• Fair (non-discriminatory and equitably interpreted, applied and enforced);

• Acceptably uniform (based on reasonably consistent, mandatory guidelines within constitutional limits);

• Accessible (such that persons with physical or other limitations are not discouraged from participating); and

• Protected against fraud (deliberate manipulation) and preventable mistakes 

(e.g. design flaws).

The recent election brought to light the fact that voting mechanisms lack uniform 

standards and in many locations have failed to keep pace with new technologies. 

Further, registration difficulties, physical barriers and other problems often disproportionately prevent minorities, the frail elderly and persons with disabilities 

from voting or from having that vote counted. Voting and registration procedures 

should be as user-friendly as possible, especially to accommodate the large number 

of Americans that move or temporarily relocate each year. 

Since the NVRA became effective in 1995, states have been required to allow individuals to register to vote when they apply for a driver’s license or other type of 

permit and to make registration forms available at a variety of state offices as well 

as through the mail. Preliminary studies on the law’s impact suggest that registration rates have risen 3 to 13 times higher than in previous years. In states where 

the rise is relatively low, much of the variance can be attributed to some states having been less aggressive in implementing the law. While technology could improve 

the systems by which information about registration applicants could be shared 

among various agencies, processed and verified, those benefits are likely to be nullified if the atmosphere discourages or frustrates applicants. Such an atmosphere 

may be fostered through misinformation, lack of information or confusing and inconsistent information. One common example of practices that discourage voter participation is varying the hours and location of registration and polling sites without sufficient public notice. 

Another area of law that could benefit from improved technology would be the 

Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act. The statute’s voluntary 

state reporting guidelines remain although mandated reporting sunset in 1995. 

Thus, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) can no longer require reporting. Technology could make such reporting requirements simple and easy to share within and 

across jurisdictions, enabling voters to be directed to alternative accessible sites. Unfortunately, lack of a mandate or resources to encourage states present a barrier. 

In the 1992 general elections, the last elections for which the law required an FEC 

report to Congress, 42 of 52 states and other electoral jurisdictions evaluated the 

accessibility of polling places using FEC criteria or criteria sufficiently similar to 

permit cross-state comparisons. Of the polling places evaluated, 14 percent were reported inaccessible, compared with 16 percent in 1990, 21 percent in 1988 and 27 

percent in 1986. Stairs without ramps remain the greatest physical obstacle. And 

while we expect the percentage of inaccessible sites to continue to drop as a result 

of the ADA, technology could play an invaluable role in facilitating the collection 

and sharing of this information, leading to increased voting participation among the 

millions of older and disabled persons who face these barriers. 

Having said that, AARP believes that the most significant and immediate contribution that technology can make to reform of the voting and election process is 

in the area of balloting and verification of voter registration. With respect to balloting, technology can afford all Americans the ability to express their electoral preference through the following types of improvements:

• Ballots and voting systems can be made more accessible to and easily understood by the voters. Extra efforts, such as equipping polling places and balloting 

devices with large-type instructions and telecommunications devices for the 

deaf, may be necessary to assist people with disabilities. Similarly, technological 

innovations should be designed to compensate for barriers to access by persons 

89

with visual and other disabilities, such as the problems of dexterity that are so 

common among older people.

• Voting systems can and should be instituted that minimize human and mechanical errors while allowing for effective monitoring. The current manual systems 

afford many opportunities for intentional and unintentional human interventions that can result in unlawful or invalidated ballots. Systems improved by 

technology (such as internet voting, optical scanners, and touch screen technology) are less vulnerable to manual fraud. They must, however, be protected 

from internal tampering (programmer manipulation) and external tampering 

(hackers). This makes it essential that such innovations be built with the capacity for objective monitoring to ensure that any tampering will be detected. Such 

monitoring results must be officially witnessed, certified and made publicly 

available. Similarly, technology such as optical scanners already exists to minimize human error in expressing one’s voting preference. AARP does not endorse 

any specific technology for eliminating human error; there are a variety of applications that permit the development of systems that are sensitive to physical 

and other human limitations.

• Voters can and should be more thoroughly informed about the mechanics of voting. The capacity already exists for technology to provide advance information 

via the Internet or even on-site training through special modules. Access to such 

training could be provided through a wide variety of public and community 

based agencies. Indeed, education and training innovations could effectively address other sensitive voting rights issues, such as language barriers. Investment 

in such public education would not only provide direct education to the voter, 

it would also decrease the likelihood of voter error—especially if voters were 

given the opportunity to do a ‘‘dry run’’ before actually casting a ballot. Indeed, 

such voter education might increase voter turnout.

Finally, in the area of voter registration, strong protections against fraud and bias 

can be established through technology that permits instant verification of registration status. For example, dispensing protected codes on stickers for all new registrants that can be verified could reduce the number of eligible voters being refused 

the right to vote. Systems that permit voters to verify their registration status along 

with the location and hours of both central registration sites and assigned polling 

sites could virtually eliminate most human discrimination factors that impede some 

voters from exercising their franchise rights. 

While AARP understands that technology is not the only solution to the major 

problems of voting and election reform in this country, it clearly could make a significant difference. However, federal funding will be essential in making it possible 

to implement any technological or other reforms that may become law. AARP believes that those areas with the most significant demonstrated problems receive priority for any funds available for making system and guideline changes. Finally, initiatives to reform registration or voting processes must be equitable in their impact 

on all classes of citizens who are either voters or potential voters. 

This concludes my remarks. AARP stands ready to work with Congress, the Administration and state governments to reform our voting and elections systems so 

that all Americans can have confidence that they can participate in the vote and 

have their preferences in elections accurately counted. I would be happy to respond 

to any questions that you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. O’Gara. Thank you 

for being here. 

Last, and certainly not least, my old friend Raul Yzaguirre. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF RAUL YZAGUIRRE,

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA 

Mr. YZAGUIRRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 

to present our comments. I ask that the full text of my testimony 

be entered into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. YZAGUIRRE. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today to support a thorough revision of the voting process. The 

right to vote is fundamental civil right for all Americans. The NaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Mar 27, 2006 Jkt 088291 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88291.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
90

tional Council of La Raza supports efforts to remove barriers that 

inhibit Americans, especially the more vulnerable in our society, 

from exercising the right to vote. We believe that the discrepancies 

observed in Florida were not limited to that state. 

Many other states with close elections, New Mexico, for example, 

have some jurisdictions that use voting machines and procedures 

similar to those found in Florida. Furthermore, we have received 

evidence of irregularities found in other states like New York, 

which disproportionately affected language minority voters. We 

suspect that these irregularities represent the proverbial tip of the 

iceberg waiting to be uncovered in subsequent close elections, unless they are addressed now. 

The right to vote is guaranteed to all United States citizens by 

the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This 

right is extended to all people, including those for whom English 

is not their mother tongue. Despite these provisions of current law, 

there is evidence that some jurisdictions do not comply with federal 

language assistance provisions. 

For example, in testimony before the United States Commission 

on Civil Rights, the Puerto Rico Legal Defense and Education Fund 

reported that many registered Latino voters who had voted in immediate past elections went to the polls and were told their names 

could not be found on the rolls. Many voters not found on the rolls 

were not able to cast their votes. In violation of both federal and 

Florida laws, election poll workers often did not offer the use of alternative method of voting, i.e., the paper affirmation ballot. 

Some registered Latino voters went to their usual voting poll 

sites, only to be told that their names were not found. They were 

sent to other polling sites miles away, where again their names did 

not appear on the rolls. Many new Latino voters who had registered in a timely manner were not processed by government 

agencies. Because they did not receive their voter identity cards, 

they were not given an assignment of a poll site. They could not 

vote. 

Spanish-speaking Latino voters received no bilingual assistance 

at most polling sites. In most precincts, the entire election staff 

spoke English only and could not assist language-minority voters. 

In certain precincts, election staff told Latino voters to present 

more pieces of photo identification than non-Hispanics, even 

though no such legal requirement exists under Florida or federal 

law. 

Mr. Chairman, these kinds of problems were not just limited to 

Latinos in that state. Other language minorities, including Haitian 

Americans for whom language assistance is authorized in several 

jurisdictions under state law face serious barriers to voting. Testimony by Marleine Bastien before the NAACP describes lack of language assistance, other irregularities. Overall, Ms. Bastien described an atmosphere of intimidation which generally discouraged 

Haitian Americans from casting their vote. 

Nor were such irregularities limited to the State of Florida. A report presented on December 22 of the year 2000 to the New York 

Board of Elections by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund observed inaccurate translations, lack of Chinese interpreters, Chinese characters on the ballot too small to read, probVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Mar 27, 2006 Jkt 088291 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88291.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
91

lems processing voter registration forms, and lack of bilingual materials. 

The National Council of La Raza supports prudent, bipartisan 

election reform legislation that will: (1) create a substantial 

multiyear federal grants program to upgrade election technologies, 

(2) protect the voting Rights Act and National Voter Registration 

Act while ensuring that any activities under the new legislation are 

consistent with these existing laws, (3) set federally approved best 

practices for grant-eligible technologies, which includes standards 

to ensure accessibility, accuracy, and nondiscrimination, (4) structure priorities setting criteria to assure that jurisdictions with the 

most significant problems receive needed funding. 

NCLR is eager to see election reform that secures the right of all 

Americans to vote. Election reform should be guided by current 

law, ensuring access to the language-minority voters. It should not 

become a vehicle for adding barriers to any part of the voting process, whether it is voter education, registration, or casting a vote. 

We urge you to ensure additional unnecessary measures to, quote, 

confirm, or, quote, verify the eligibility of voters which have a clear 

disparate impact on Latinos or language minorities not be imposed. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership on this issue, and 

for your valiant work in electoral reform. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yzaguirre follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAUL YZAGUIRRE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA

I. Introduction 

Chairman McCain, Ranking Minority Member Hollings, and the Committee, on 

behalf of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), thank you for holding this hearing on an issue that is very important to the Latino community. NCLR is the nation’s largest national Latino civil rights organization, which is an ‘‘umbrella organization’’ for more than 250 local affiliated community-based organizations (CBOs) 

and about 30,000 individual associate members. In addition to providing capacitybuilding assistance to our affiliates and essential information to our individual associates, NCLR serves as a voice for all Hispanic subgroups in all regions of the country. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to support a thorough revision of the voting process. The right to vote is a fundamental civil right for all 

Americans, and NCLR supports efforts to remove barriers that inhibit Americans, 

especially the most vulnerable in our society, from exercising their right to vote. 

All Americans are concerned about the election irregularities observed during the 

2000 presidential election. Hispanic Americans share these concerns. Although they 

have not been as widely-publicized as the experiences of some communities, we believe that too many Latinos were unfairly denied the opportunity to vote, or had 

their votes discarded, through no fault of their own. Since the media spotlight was 

cast on Florida’s electoral process, we have learned about outdated voting machines, 

understaffed polling places, inexperienced poll workers, and confusion that left some 

registered voters’ names off the books. We learned about polling places that moved 

without adequate notice—literally in the middle of the night—leaving hundreds of 

voters without knowledge of where to go to cast their vote. Some duly registered 

voters whose names were improperly purged from the rolls were denied an affidavit, 

or they were not offered one, and thus were unfairly excluded from the process. 

Language minority voters who requested the assistance of a bilingual volunteer 

or materials at the polls, as is their right in many jurisdictions, were denied such 

assistance. Reports indicate that in some counties, minority voters were asked for 

photo identification while White voters were not required to show any form of ID. 

Many polls in disproportionately minority precincts were closed even though voters 

were still in line; other polls had lines so long that some voters left the polling 

places without casting their vote. 

Moreover, we believe that the discrepancies observed in Florida were not limited 

to that state. Many other states with close elections, New Mexico for example, have 

92

1 NCLR is grateful for the assistance of the Asian American Legal Defense Education Fund 

(AALDEF), the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in preparing this testimony. NCLR is working in coalition with 

AALDEF, PRLDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), 

the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (NAPALC), the National Association of 

Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the Asian Law Caucus, the League of United Latin 

American Citizens, the National Puerto Rican Coalition, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, and other organizations to monitor developments on election reform. 

The views cited herein are those only of NCLR, and may not represent the opinions of other 

organizations. 2 In 1975 Congress added minority language provisions to the Voting Rights Act, and recognized that large numbers of American citizens who primarily spoke language other than English 

had been effectively excluded from participation in the electoral process. The denial of the right 

to vote among language minority citizens was ‘‘directly related to the unequal educational opportunities afforded them, resulting in high illiteracy and low voting participation.’’ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 

1973aa–1(a). 3Testimony of Mr. Jackson Chin, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, before the 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, January 11, 2001.

some jurisdictions that use voting machines and procedures similar to those found 

wanting in Florida. Furthermore, we have reviewed evidence of irregularities found 

in other states, like New York, which disproportionately affected language minority 

voters. We suspect that these irregularities represent the proverbial ‘‘tip of the iceberg,’’ waiting to be uncovered in subsequent close elections unless they are addressed now.1

II. Hispanic and Language Minority Concerns with the 2000 Election 

The right to vote is guaranteed to all U.S. citizens by the Fifteenth Amendment 

to the U.S. Constitution. Every voter has the right to cast an informed and effective 

vote. This right is extended to all people including those for whom English is not 

their mother tongue. Language minorities are ensured protection and full participation in the electoral process by two separate provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 

1965—Section 203 and Section 4(f)(4).2 Despite these provisions of current law, 

there is evidence that some jurisdictions do not comply with federal language assistance provisions. The following selected examples illustrate the pervasiveness of the 

lack of compliance with the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. 

In testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in January 2001, the 

Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund reported the results of its investigation in Florida; specifically, it found that:

• Many registered Latino voters who had voted in immediate past elections went 

to the polls and were told their names could not be found on the rolls. Consequently, they were not allowed to vote, were sent home, or were required to 

wait many hours while election poll workers sought unsuccessfully to contact 

supervisors for approval to allow these voters to cast their votes. In other cases, 

their grievances were ignored.

• Many voters not found on the rolls were not able to cast their vote. In violation 

of both federal and Florida laws, election poll workers often did not offer the 

use of the alternative method of voting the paper affirmation ballot.

• Some registered Latino voters went to their usual voting poll sites only to be 

told that their names were not found. They were sent to other polling sites 

miles away, where again, their names did not appear on the rolls. Voters became frustrated, confused, and gave up—leaving without voting.

• Many new Latino voters who had registered in a timely manner were not processed by government agencies. Because they did not receive their voter registration identity cards and were not given an assignment of a voting poll site, they 

could not vote.

• Latino voters who went to the polls after work and arrived between 15 and 25 

minutes before the official closing hour were told they could not vote and were 

turned away.

• Spanish-speaking Latino voters received no bilingual assistance at most polling 

sites. In most precincts, the entire election staff spoke English only, and could 

not assist language minority voters.

• At certain precincts, election staff told Latino voters to present more pieces of 

photo identification than non-Hispanics, even though no such legal requirement 

exists under Florida or federal law.3

93

4Testimony of Ms. Marleine Bastien, before the NAACP, November 11, 2000.

Mr. Chairman, these kinds of problems were not just limited to Latinos in that 

state. Other language minorities, including Haitian Americans for whom language 

assistance is authorized in several jurisdictions under state law, faced serious barriers to voting. Testimony by Marleine Bastien before the NAACP on November 11, 

2000, in Florida, describes in great detail the hardship experienced on Election Day 

by the Haitian American community. Ms. Bastien, a Haitian American community 

leader in South Florida, spent part of her day on Election Day at a Creole radio 

station receiving calls from Haitian American voters who called complaining about 

the treatment they encountered at polling places. Later, Ms. Bastien went to one 

of the polling places voters complained most about and witnessed the experiences 

of Haitian American voters; she testified that:

• Lack of language assistance: There were forty-seven precincts located in areas 

where the majority of the population is Haitian or of Haitian descent, for whom 

Creole is their native language. State law mandated that ballots be printed in 

Creole to serve the Haitian American community living in those forty-seven precincts. At the precinct she visited, Ms. Bastien indicated that many Haitian 

American voters left without voting because the ballots confused them and 

there was no one to assist them. Even though there was a Creole-speaking volunteer willing to assist Haitian American voters, the polling place supervisor 

denied assistance to the voters, claiming that none were entitled to special 

treatment. Ms. Bastien showed the polling place supervisor a pamphlet printed 

by the Florida Department of Elections, which authorized a procedure to secure 

volunteer language assistance to people who needed it, but even then, Haitian 

American voters were denied assistance.

• Other irregularities: Many Haitian Americans voted, or tried to vote, for the 

first time last year. Many were turned away from polling places because they 

did not have their voting card. They were asked to show identification documents even though they were registered to vote. Other Haitian American voters 

were unable to vote because they stepped out of line and they were told they 

had lost their chance to vote. Many voters were denied their right to vote because their polling place closed earlier than 7:00 p.m., the official closing time. 

Some Haitian American voters who were able to vote reported that poll workers 

collected their voting cards instead of instructing them to put the voting cards 

in the box. People were left to wonder whether their voting cards were discarded. Overall, Ms. Bastien described an atmosphere of intimidation, which 

greatly discouraged Haitian Americans from casting their vote.4

Nor were such irregularities limited to the State of Florida. A report presented 

on December 22, 2000 to the New York Board of Elections by the Asian American 

Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), found that the failure of the Board 

of Elections to prepare adequately for heavy turnout city-wide created severe problems for Asian-language voters. On November 7, 2000, AALDEF attorneys and volunteers monitored 20 polling sites in New York City; they observed:

• Inaccurate translations. The Chinese translation for ‘‘Democrat’’ and ‘‘Republican’’ were reversed. Paper ballot requested by absentee voters also contained 

mistakes in the Chinese-language instructions.

• Lack of Chinese interpreters. At polling sites across the city, particularly those 

places with dense Asian populations, there were insufficient numbers of interpreters to serve Chinese-speaking voters.

• Chinese characters on the ballot too small to read. Obviously, the fundamental 

purpose of language translations is undermined when the characters are 

unreadable on the machine ballot.

• Problems processing voter registration forms. Asian Americans experienced 

many problems in registering to vote. Many newly-naturalized citizens never received a voter confirmation postcard from the Board of Elections. Thus, they did 

not know the location of their polling sites. In registering to vote, a number of 

Asian American voters complained that they were asked to show proof of U.S. 

citizenship before their voter registration forms would be processed, even 

though White registrants were not asked for such proof.

94

5Letter from AALDEF to Mr. Daniel DeFrancesco, New York Board of Elections, December 

22, 2000.

• Lack of bilingual materials. A number of polling sites and election districts did 

not have Chinese language materials or did not use them effectively, as mandated by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act.5

These are clear examples of the lack of compliance of some jurisdictions with the 

language assistance provisions and other protections of the Voting Rights Act or 

state law. We believe they are no less important than the irregularities experienced 

by other Americans in the 2000 election, and we expect that any election reform legislation considered by the Congress should address them. 

III. Election Reform 

The National Council of La Raza supports prudent, bipartisan election reform legislation. NCLR has been working in concert with the League of Women Voters and 

a broad coalition of civil rights organizations interested in improving the electoral 

process. We believe that several key elements must be included in an election reform bill, which would guarantee that the voting process is accessible to all eligible 

citizens. These key elements are as follows:

1. Create a substantial, multiyear federal grants program to upgrade election 

technologies, including:

• Improved voting equipment and associated counting mechanism

• State-wide technologies on a uniform basis, such as computerized voter registration lists 

2. Protect the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act, while 

ensuring that any activities under the new legislation are consistent with these 

existing laws.

3. Set federally-approved ‘‘best practices’’ for grant-eligible technologies which include standards to ensure:

• Accessibility and convenience for the voter, including voters with disabilities

• Accuracy, including safeguards for maintaining voter rolls

• Nondiscrimination, including full participation of language minorities, racial 

and ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities

4. Structure priority-setting criteria to ensure that jurisdictions with the most significant problems receive needed funding. 

IV. Recommendations 

Consistent with these principles, and speaking from the perspective of the Latino 

and language minority community, NCLR urges the enactment of legislation that:

1. Fully protects and compliance with existing civil rights laws, including the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act.

2. Encourages the compliance and implementation of language minority assistance 

provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

3. Provides statewide multiyear federal funding for program to upgrade election 

technologies, including improvement of voting equipment and associated counting mechanism, and technologies on a uniform basis, such as computerized 

voter registration lists.

4. Does not impose additional, unnecessary barriers to voting.

NCLR is eager to see election reform that secures the right of all Americans to 

vote. Election reform should be guided by current law ensuring access to language 

minority voters. It should not become a vehicle for adding barriers to any part of 

the voting process, whether it is voter education, registration, or casting a vote. We 

urge you to ensure that additional, unnecessary measures to ‘‘confirm’’ or ‘‘verify’’ 

the eligibility of voters—which have a clear, disparate impact on Latinos or language minorities—are not imposed. 

In the past we have seen legislation that attempts to cross-reference the citizenship of registered voters and voter registration applicants against Social Security 

Administration and Immigration and Naturalization Services databases. Because of 

the well-documented inaccuracies with such databases, reliance on these systems for 

verification of citizenship will result in massive numbers of ‘‘false negatives,’’ i.e., 

legitimate U.S. citizens whose status may not be verifiable through computer 

95

matches. These systems lack the capacity to confirm the status of significant categories of both native-born and naturalized U.S. citizens. Other proposals would authorize registrars or poll workers to challenge the identity or citizenship status of 

persons seeking to register or vote, based on the mere suspicion that such persons 

may be ineligible. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, such proposals 

would inevitably thwart the fundamental purpose of the election reform effort, 

which should be focused on expanding—and not further limiting—the ability of all 

Americans to participate fairly and equally in the electoral process. 

I thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and the Committee once again for 

providing NCLR an opportunity to share its views on election reform.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, and the witnesses. I want to apologize for the lateness of your appearance, because you represent 

those who are in most danger of losing the ability to exercise our 

most precious right. Your testimony is important. 

As you know, this is the first in a series of hearings to be held 

by the Commerce Committee. The Rules Committee will also hold 

hearings. I want to comment to you that I believe that the concerns 

expressed by this panel should be given the highest priority as we 

consider the much-needed electoral reform. Mr. Henderson, I do 

take your recommendation and that of other members and witnesses very seriously. We need to implement these reforms by the 

2002 election. 

At the same time, I believe that the testimony presented this 

morning concerning optical scanning has indicated to us that perhaps the readily apparent solutions are not, indeed, readily apparent. Reforming this process will require a full and in-depth study 

of the problems and the results of the last election. 

I think that all members of this panel can play a vital role in 

helping to shape legislation that will be necessary to cure the obvious ills of this system. The bad news is, those ills have been there 

for a long time. It is unfortunate that it took this kind of publicity 

to goad the Congress and the American people in to action. The 

good news is, I believe we will act. But I do not believe we can act 

to ensure fairness to all unless you are intimately involved in the 

process as we shape legislation. 

Finally, could I just mention the military ballot. As Mr. Henderson and Mr. Yzaguirre certainly understand, a very large percentage of our military happen to be Hispanic and African American. 

We want to make sure that they are adequately informed, and that 

the procedures enabling them to vote are streamlined in whatever 

way possible. 

The fact that an American happens to be in Saudi Arabia, or on 

an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, should not 

be a reason why they should not vote, rather a reason for us to 

take extra steps to ensure that they are able to vote. These Americans are out there defending the rest of us. 

If there are any final comments, we would like to start with you, 

Mr. Bollinger. 

Mr. BOLLINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thanks for 

having this hearing, and thanks for having us testify today. I guess 

my only parting comment would be, with at least four laws on the 

books now addressing to some degree voting rights for people with 

disabilities, and a lot of good intentions, we still have a long way 

to go, and we look forward to playing a role with you as you create 

96

legislation, and wish you well, and hope that we can accomplish 

quite a bit between now and the next election. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Henderson. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank you 

again for the hearing, and thank you for your comments about your 

commitment to proceed expeditiously to try to address these problems. 

Third, I think your point about the military is absolutely on target and, indeed, including a streamlining of the military vote procedure is an important part of protecting the civil rights of all Americans. 

Then last, my written testimony addresses this issue, but I did 

not mention it in my oral summary, and that is the issue of Internet voting. I heard this morning with other panels, Members of the 

Committee, of course, encouraging review of Internet voting and 

the possible development of Internet voting, and certainly while the 

use of technology to improve our lives and to improve the process 

of voting is important, I have to take note of the National Science 

Foundation study which was noted yesterday, which suggests proceeding down this area with some caution. 

And while the National Science Foundation did not mention this, 

certainly we are aware of existing disparities in the use of Internet 

and other computer-based technology in ways that trouble us, that 

pursuing Internet voting as an exclusive alternative to some of the 

problems that we have identified may, in fact, exacerbate those disparities among people of racial and linguistic minorities, and also 

of persons because of their income or class who have not had as 

much full participation in the use of Internet technology, so we are 

concerned about the issues of the digital divide and how they could 

have impact in this area. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. O’Gara. 

Ms. O’GARA. I think the question of fairness is critical as we go 

ahead in looking at technological change. I was very disturbed this 

morning to hear that the disenfranchisement that occurred using 

technological innovations in Georgia, especially as they relate to 

minority voters. Was there not a chance provided to educate and 

inform them prior to the election? It would seem to me that possibly many of those people did not know how to use the machines. 

I do not know; that is just my feeling. But I was worried about 

that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and we learned a lot from that panel. 

Mr. Yzaguirre. 

Mr. YZAGUIRRE. Thank you, Senator. Two points. 

I want to stress how important an issue this is for our community. We are the least-represented, politically speaking, community 

in this country, and so if we are going to become part of this society 

as now perhaps the largest minority in this nation, we need access 

to the voting process, and your presence here emboldens me to say 

something that I probably should not be saying, but I want to 

make a comment. 

Speaking as somebody who served in the Armed Forces for 4 

years, in the Air Force, and proud of my record, and proud of my 

involvement, I thoroughly agree with you that we need to protect 

97

the voting rights of our military, but there seems to be a subtext 

that somehow those votes are more important than other votes, 

and I just want to make sure that, you know, whether you are in 

the Armed Forces or in a ghetto or working the fields, your vote 

is equally important, so I want to make sure that we consider all 

populations as equally important in the voting process. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad you made that point. As we encourage 

their participation, we also need to take the same measures to prevent the abuse of any voting procedures. Because an abused vote 

or a vote fraud, no matter where it occurs, is unacceptable. 

I appreciate your making that point, and in our zeal to make 

sure that members of the Armed Forces are given every opportunity to vote, we must also guard against any fraudulent practice, 

and I thank you for making that point. 

I thank the panel. Thank you for your patience and thank you 

for your participation. I believe that this will be the first of many 

instances of your involvement in this very important issue. I thank 

you. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Committee adjourned.] 

(99)

APPENDIX

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO

BILL BRADBURY

Question 1. Oregon’s Vote-by-Mail approach is very impressive, particularly in its 

ability to increase voter turnout and to improve accessibility for Americans with disabilities. However, problems still persist with the use of punch-card machines. What 

machines would you encourage the state to buy if money was not a concern? 

Answer. We are strongly supporting legislation now moving through our Legislature that would require counties to replace punch-card systems prior to the 2004 

election cycle. That legislation does not mandate the use of any specific technology. 

However, the other 29 counties in Oregon currently use optical scan technology and 

we believe that the clerks in punch card counties would opt for that technology as 

well.

Question 2. How will Oregon approach election modernization should federal 

funds not be made available before the 2002 and 2004 elections? 

Answer. Given the fiscal realities currently being faced by the Oregon Legislature, 

I do not anticipate that they will appropriate sufficient funding to replace punch 

cards during the current Legislature. However, at least one of the punch-card counties in Oregon had planned to replace their equipment prior to 2004 even before national attention was focused on its shortcomings. Absent significant federal dollars 

becoming available, I would anticipate that most of the seven punch-card counties 

in 2000 would still be using the technology in 2004.

Question 3. Beyond simply providing funding, what role do you believe the federal 

government should play in this modernization process? What do you think would 

be most helpful to states? 

Answer. Clearly federal funding is critical to our ability to replace punch cards. 

I want to ensure that the federal government continues to recognize the important 

differences among the states, such as vote-by-mail, and ensure that any federal solution does not trample on innovation in the states.

Question 4. You mentioned that when a voter makes a mistake using a punch 

card, under Oregon’s Vote-By-Mail system, that he or she must write the county’s 

elections office or travel to that office to request a new ballot. How are requests handled if they are received after election day? 

Answer. By law, all ballots must be received by an elections official prior to 8:00 

p.m. on election day to be counted. Therefore, any request for a new ballot coming 

after the deadline would be denied.

Question 5. While a centralized voter registration system would clearly be beneficial to your state, what measures are currently in place to reduce the likelihood 

that voters will vote multiple times in several counties? 

Answer. We provide a strong legal deterrent, in that voting more than once is a 

class C felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Enforcement is made more difficult by the lack of a centralized system. That is why the 

adoption of a centralized voter registration system is my highest legislative priority.

Question 6. Have you made any overtures to advise states interested in adopting 

a system similar to Oregon’s Vote-by-Mail system? Have any expressed interest? 

Answer. We have received inquiries from all over the country about our vote-bymail system. We are quick to point out to those who are interested in such a system, 

that we had twenty years of experience with vote-by-mail in local elections prior to 

its adoption in 1998 for all elections. We strongly recommend against a complete 

change from polling places to vote-by-mail without a transition period of several 

election cycles.

Question 7. Several witnesses from our second panel testified that millions of 

Americans were disenfranchised for reasons based upon the color of their skin or 

their physical disabilities. Does your state have systems in place to assess the needs 

100

of minority voters, bilingual voters, or voters with disabilities? Do you have adequate numbers of trained poll workers to address the varied needs of these voters? 

Answer. There is no prohibition of any voter receiving assistance in completing 

their ballot by anyone. Additionally, there is a provision in law (Oregon Revised 

Statutes 254.445) that requires a county clerk to provide to any voter unable to complete the ballot the assistance of two people (one form each of the major political 

parties) to assist in completing the ballot. For those individuals who are unable to 

leave home, that assistance is provided at their home. The counties have not experienced widespread difficulties in finding and training people to assist voters.

Question 8. A bipartisan task force in Florida has recommended both a uniform 

statewide system and spending $20 million to lease equipment in time for the 2002 

election. Would you please comment on the task force’s recommendation and how 

similar actions would impact your respective states? 

Answer. While I believe that there would be benefit to having a uniform statewide 

voting system, I do not believe that the costs outweigh the benefits. I commissioned, 

jointly with the Oregon Association of County Clerks, a task force to study the 2000 

General Election and make recommendations. A copy of the Oregon Elections Task 

Force Report can be found on the Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division web 

page at http://www.sos.state.or.us. The task force concluded that further study of 

a uniform vote tally system was needed. I would rank moving to a uniform system 

well below the need for a centralized voter registration system and the need to replace punch cards. 

Question 9. Have you studied the impact of using optical-scanning equipment on 

site, accessible to your voters, to allow them to correct mistakenly filled-out ballots? 

Does this provide an effective alternative to simple punch-card systems, at a lower 

cost than other equipment? 

Answer. Since we vote-by-mail, there is not a ‘‘site’’ for the vast majority of voters. 

Although we do provide drop sites for ballots, many of those are unstaffed receptacles similar to a blue street-corner mailbox. There is an additional logistical problem in moving away from centralized counting. The law requires the clerks to verify 

each signature on the ballot envelope prior to opening and counting the ballot. Decentralizing the counting of ballots would significantly complicate the verification of 

signatures and ensuring that the voter casts only one ballot. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO

RON THORNBURGH

Question 1. How do you intend to develop the type of vote counting system mentioned in your testimony, at the state level? Would you like to see vote counting 

added to a list of voluntary national standards, established at the national level? 

Answer. 

a. I have introduced legislation in the Kansas Legislature to improve the vote 

counting process, particularly in promoting uniformity in procedures among 

the counties. 

b. I have developed a plan and am seeking state funding to improve training 

of county election officers and county boards of canvassers to promote uniformity in ballot distribution and tabulation and to reduce errors in these 

processes. 

c. I am developing printed guides to enhance uniform compliance with existing 

state laws on vote tabulation, recounts and election contests. 

Some general guidelines at the national level for vote counting could be useful, 

but specific rules must be made by states, taking into account the voting systems 

used and existing state laws governing the electoral process.

Question 2. How has Kansas addressed the need for increased funding for poll 

worker and voter education, as part of its effort to improve the election process? 

Answer. I have developed a ‘‘Six-Point Plan for Election Improvement’’ in Kansas. 

I am seeking a modest legislative appropriation to cover the costs. The Plan includes 

development of guides for vote tabulation, training sessions for county election officers, a four-state Midwest Election Officials Conference (with Missouri, Iowa and 

Nebraska), and a technology exposition to familiarize county election officers with 

the latest technology available.

Question 3. In your testimony you mentioned the importance of ensuring ‘‘equal 

protection.’’ What specific measures have you taken in Kansas to achieve this goal? 

And how do you propose other states work to provide all of their citizens with ‘‘absolute and unobstructed access to the voting process?’’

101

Answer. When we receive reports that someone has been illegally denied access 

to the ballot, my office works with local officials to investigate those matters and 

to provide information to local prosecutors. 

When considering new voting equipment for certification, one consideration is its 

accessibility. In my experience nearly all the voting equipment brought to me for 

certification in Kansas in recent years has been designed to enhance accessibility 

for disabled persons. There has been much improvement in this area in recent 

years. When counties consider adopting and purchasing new equipment, my office 

emphasizes to them the importance of accessibility in making their decisions. 

I think all states should cooperate with the Federal Election Commission in the 

updating of the voting equipment standards. States must work with various private 

associations that promote access for disabled persons to constantly improve access 

and meet the needs of disabled persons within the limits of local budgetary concerns. 

States must work with their respective local election officers to continually review 

their polling sites for accessibility.

Question 4. Would you address the need for a uniform statewide voting technology, similar to that proposed by Secretaries Cox and Harris, to ensure equal protection under the Constitution? 

Answer. As I stated in my testimony before your Committee, I do not favor a uniform, one-size-fits-all voting system for the entire nation or even for the entire state 

of Kansas. I support the development of voluntary national standards. Many different voting systems can exist within a given set of standards, each system complying with those standards and also meeting the requirements of the respective 

state laws. 

I support the right of a given locality to choose the system that’s right for that 

locality from a list of available, certified voting systems. Each locality is the best 

judge of its own demographic and budgetary realities that dictate their decisions.

Question 5. Several witnesses from our second panel testified that millions of 

Americans were disenfranchised for reasons such as the color of their skin or their 

physical disabilities. Does your state have systems in place to assess the needs of 

minority voters, bilingual voters, or voters with disabilities? Do you have adequate 

numbers of trained poll workers to address the varied needs of voters? 

Answer. Kansas has specific laws requiring the accommodation of disabled voters. 

We do not have specific laws regarding minority voters or bilingual voters. 

Voters do not register their racial or ethnic characteristics or their disabilities 

during the voter registration process. Special needs are assessed at the point where 

the ballot is requested, either at the polling place or during the absentee/early voting process. Voters needing assistance may request it from a poll worker or another 

person of the voter’s choice. 

Kansas has no special rules governing bilingual ballots. We are subject to federal 

regulations on this, and to my knowledge no jurisdictions in Kansas have met the 

qualifications to require bilingual ballots. 

Our local election offices have adequate numbers of poll workers to address the 

varied needs of voters.

Question 6. Have you studied the impact of using optical-scanning equipment, on 

site, to allow voters to correct mistakenly filled out ballots? Does this provide an 

effective alternative to simple punch-card systems, at a lower cost than other equipment? 

Answer. In Kansas, 81 of 105 counties use optical scanning ballot systems. Some 

of them use a central-count system and some use a precinct-count system. I have 

thought for years that optical scan systems are an effective alternative to punch 

cards. As stated earlier, we have had no punch card systems in use in Kansas for 

many years. 

Precinct scanning systems do have an advantage of identifying a mismarked ballot and enabling the voter to correct it. However, a disadvantage is that such systems require more scanning hardware and thus have a much higher implementation 

cost. 

The cost of systems is relative to the number of units required, the number of 

precincts, and the number of voters per precinct. I am not aware that optical scan 

systems are more expensive than punch card systems.

Question 7. A bipartisan task force in Florida has recommended both a uniform 

statewide system and spending $20 million to lease equipment in time for the 2002 

election. Would you please comment on the task force’s recommendation and on how 

similar actions would impact your state? 

102

Answer. State laws would have to be changed in Kansas to provide for a uniform 

state voting system because current law authorizes the county to make this decision 

for itself. 

Further, as stated in my testimony I do not support imposing the same voting system on each state or even on each county and locality within a state. 

A uniform system might be right for Florida; it appears from the 2000 election 

experience that Florida had less uniformity in voting and tabulating procedures 

than did some states.

Question 8. You expressed the need for improved voting equipment and technology. Is it likely that states will be able to install new equipment and technology 

in time for the 2002 or 2004 elections, even if federal matching funds are made 

available? 

Answer. It is possible to purchase and install new equipment in a given locality 

in time for the 2002 election, but we must act now. As a practical matter, it might 

make more sense to wait until 2004, especially in areas which have not experienced 

serious problems recently.

Question 9. Beyond simply providing funding, what role do you believe the federal 

government should play in this modernization process? What do you think would 

be most helpful to states? 

Answer. Beyond providing funding, the federal government can commission ad hoc 

studies to identify the problems and propose solutions and can authorize permanent 

agencies, such as the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Voting Assistance Program, to oversee disbursement of funds. 

Further, these permanent agencies can update standards for voting equipment 

and procedures. 

The most helpful type of federal involvement would be to: (1) provide funds on 

an ongoing basis with few strings attached, and (2) consult with state and local election officials to identify needs and solutions. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO

CATHY COX

Question 1. Many states, including Florida would like to shift to a uniform electronic voting system.

(a) What evaluation process are you using to determine which technology is 

most suitable for your state?

Answer. There are a number of ways we have begun to evaluate the performance of various election systems, both those currently in use in Georgia and systems we may wish to deploy in the future. As mentioned in my testimony, we 

have spent a good deal of time evaluating the performance of the four systems 

currently in use in Georgia—punch card, opti-scan, lever machine and paper 

ballot—and have looked closely at the question of how likely voters are to cast 

an accurate ballot when using the various equipment types. We also have scrutinized precinct level data to see if we can find patterns in undervoting by race 

or geographic region. 

Our analysis has also included extensive discussion with county election officials and others involved in the elections process and information sharing with 

other states and counties about their experience with equipment types. Our conclusion is that Georgia should adopt a uniform electronic voting system because 

we believe it offers the best opportunity to minimize voter confusion and errors 

in the computation of votes. 

Our election reform legislation, SB 213, which passed the General Assembly 

last week, establishes a mandate for uniform voting equipment by 2004, authorizes a pilot project to field test different types of equipment in municipal elections this fall and establishes a 21st Century Voting Commission, a bipartisan 

group to assist our office in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of machinery from several different suppliers.

(b) Will you establish minimum performance standards for voting machines before you purchase them?

Answer. Clearly, any equipment we consider for lease or purchase must meet 

certification standards at both the state and federal level. We also believe, and 

have written into our new reform bill, that any new electronic systems we deploy must have an independent audit trail—a manual printout of voter choices 

103

which will provide a back-up in case of equipment failure, election contest or 

recount, etc.

(c) How will you prioritize the order in which precincts receive new or refurbished machines?

Answer. The order and speed of equipment replacement will be extremely dependent on the status of state and federal funding. While we will ask the new 

Voting Commission to examine this question, we anticipate that top priority will 

be given to counties that currently use punch card ballots.

(d) What is the projected total cost to the State of Georgia?

Answer. Cost estimates for the purchase of equipment statewide have ranged 

from $20 to $200 million. In a leasing arrangement the cost structure would 

vary considerably. Our new reform package provides that the state will acquire 

equipment, but counties and municipalities will be responsible for certain infrastructure expenditures (electricity, phone lines, etc.) to effectively deploy the 

equipment we acquire.

Question 2. Have you studied the benefits of using optical-scanning equipment on 

site, to allow voters to correct mistakenly filled-out ballots? Does this provide an effective alternative to simple punch-card systems, at a lower cost than other equipment? How does having opti-scan machines on-site affect the undervotes percentage 

rates? 

Answer. While many of the counties that operate precinct-based optical scan 

equipment have the capability to program their machines to reject overvoted ballots, 

in practice few, if any, counties actually do so. County election officials have indicated they believe such a practice would create delay and confusion, with electors 

being put back into lines for ballots in an already crowded precinct. Such ballot 

‘‘kick out’’ capabilities, even if utilized, do not allow an elector to correct an accidentally undervoted ballot. 

In Georgia, we have found that the alleged benefits of the ballot rejection feature 

of precinct scanners are not typically realized in the real world of elections. This 

practice also presents significant problems for the secrecy of the ballot selection, 

since a poll worker will nearly always need to examine the ballot to be able to describe to the voter what caused the ballot to be kicked out. It is simply not a practical solution to tell an elector—‘‘Your ballot was rejected, I cannot tell you why, you 

need to start over with your voting.’’ 

All optiscan equipment, however it may be configured, lacks two capabilities of 

the electronic equipment we prefer. It does not prohibit overvoting at the time the 

choices are being made, and it does not provide feedback to the voter, with confirmation screens to verify choices, during the voting process. No opti-scan equipment in 

use in Georgia will indicate to the voter that they cast an accidental undervote. 

The presidential undervote percentages for the two types of optiscan systems in 

Georgia are as follows:

Central Count Optiscan—46 counties 

Absolute average: 3.5 percent 

Mean average: 4.2 percent 

Precinct Count Optiscan—21 counties 

Absolute average: 2.1 percent 

Mean average: 5.2 percent

While the absolute percentage of undervote is lower in precinct count locations, 

there is wide variation in performance from county to county. In fact, 9 of the 21 

precinct count optiscan counties had undervote rates of 5 percent or higher, including rates of 6.2 percent, 6.4 percent, 7.7 percent, 9.1 percent and 15 percent in five 

respective counties.

Question 3. You expressed the need for improved voting equipment and technology. Is it likely that states will be able to install new equipment and technology 

in time for the 2002 or 2004 elections, even if federal matching funds are made 

available? 

Answer. With federal matching funds in hand, we believe it is feasible to begin

deployment of new equipment in some counties by 2002, but we certainly do not expect the process to be completed that soon. The legislation recently enacted sets as 

our goal full deployment, in all 159 counties, by July of 2004. That is an ambitious 

goal, but one we believe can be achieved if budget dollars are made available.

104

Question 4. Beyond simply providing funding, what role do you believe the federal 

government should play in this modernization process? What do you think would 

be most helpful to states? 

Answer. The federal government can play a valuable role in assisting states in 

the testing and evaluation of equipment—that which is currently available on the 

market and that which will be entering the marketplace in the future. Our admittedly limited analysis of the racial disparities in undervoting, (although we believe 

more comprehensive than that performed by any other state election official) and 

the influence that voting equipment has on those variations, points to the need for 

a much more comprehensive national evaluation of the impact of equipment on successful voter participation. This component of Senator McCain’s bill would be especially helpful going forward. We need to apply the Nation’s best, most sophisticated 

analytical resources to study not only issues of speed, accuracy and ballot security, 

but also how the voter interface impacts different populations of voters.

Question 5. While you spoke at length about the need for improved technology, 

you did not mention the need for improved voter and poll worker education. Is this 

a concern in Georgia? What steps are you taking to address this need? 

Answer. Although my testimony did not touch on this issue, please note that our 

January 2001 report, The 2000 Election: A Wake-Up Call For Reform and Change,

which was submitted to the Committee, discusses these issues at considerable 

length. Technology alone will not produce the more fair and more accurate elections 

we desire. In Georgia, as in most states, serious problems exist with the recruitment, training and retention of poll workers. Our report, while offering no ‘‘magic 

bullet,’’ offers several suggestions to strengthen the ‘‘people side’’ of elections—from 

recruiting teachers and high school students to work at the polls, to mandating 

training for poll workers and producing standardized training materials to better 

prepare them for the demands of election day, to expanding outreach efforts and encouraging more participation by statewide associations, civic clubs and youth 

groups. Additionally, the Georgia General Assembly just passed legislation that we 

sponsored to increase the training requirement for election officials from 12 hours 

biennially to 12 hours annually. Increased training is also set forthestablished for 

poll workers and deputy registrars. 

Much more also must be done to educate electors on how to vote a valid and accurate ballot. Today, such efforts are nearly impossible because of the crazy quilt of 

differing voting systems deployed in Georgia’s 159 counties. One of the greatest virtues of a new uniform system will be our ability to broadly and clearly communicate 

to voters, well before election day, exactly how the equipment works, what they will 

be asked to do when they arrive at the polling place and how they can be sure their 

electoral choice is accurately tabulated.

Question 6. You mentioned that it doesn’t take an election expert to know that 

when you have more than 1 in 10 ballots register no choice, something is seriously 

wrong with the system. Did Georgia have similar high numbers of undervotes in 

previous elections? What was done to address the problem? 

Answer. We arrive at our presidential undervote numbers by subtracting the total 

number of votes cast in that race in a county or precinct from the total number of 

ballots issued in that county or precinct. The ‘‘apples to apples’’ comparison to assess 

whether undervote rates were higher, lower or the same in previous elections would 

be 1996. Unfortunately, the statewide ‘‘ballots issued’’ data was not compiled until 

1998, so we simply cannot say how the 2000 election experience compares with previous presidential years. It is certainly our belief that the problem of unacceptably 

high undervoting is not new, but we do not have the data to confirm that belief.

Question 7. Several witnesses from our second panel testified that millions of 

Americans were disenfranchised for reasons based on the color of their skin or their 

physical disabilities. Does your state have systems in place to assess the needs of 

voters from minority, bilingual, or disabled communities? Do you have adequate 

numbers of trained poll workers to address the varied needs of voters? 

Answer. As I noted in my testimony, our data indicates that undervoting is more 

common in predominantly African-American precincts. However, the data does not 

bear out the claim made by some that only areas of high minority population have 

severe problems with casting accurate ballots. In Georgia we saw very high undervoting rates in areas with very small minority populations as well as counties with 

more diverse populations. 

One of the mandates for the new 21st Century Voting Commission will be to assess the impact of elections systems on all of the communities referenced in your 

question. We do not have enough trained poll workers today to address the varied 

needs of voters. We also do not have systems that can be easily configured to accomVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Mar 27, 2006 Jkt 088291 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88291.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
105

modate the needs of the disabled and those who do not read English well. We believe the electronic equipment, or DRE’s, we plan to deploy provide much more attractive options to accommodate the needs of the disabled and language minorities.

Question 8. A bipartisan task force in Florida has recommended both a uniform statewide system and spending $20 million to lease equipment in time for the 2002 

election. Would you please comment on the task force’s recommendation and how 

similar actions would impact your state? 

Answer. As a fundamental principle I think the people of Florida should craft solutions that best meet the needs of their state, and Georgia should do the same. 

For our state, I believe an interim measure that would adopt optiscan as a temporary uniform solution would be unwise, because of the high error rates experienced in many current optiscan counties and the higher undervote gap between 

black and white voters in these areas. A uniform statewide system is not just desirable, it is mandatory, and with the passage of our reform package Georgia may be 

the first state in the nation to enact legislation that mandates a uniform system 

by 2004. We also hope to move toward a new system of voting equipment only 

once—i.e., we do not wish to educate Georgia’s four million voters about one type 

of equipment in one election, and then do so again two years later for another type 

of equipment. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO

JOHN BOLLINGER

Question 1. Last summer Senator Harkin and I requested that GAO conduct a 

study to determine the number of disabled Americans who were disenfranchised 

during the November 2000 election. Although the results from that study will not 

be released until this spring, I am interested to learn if PVA or the National Organization on Disability conducted their own review? 

Answer. PVA did not do an independent study of its members after the election. 

The National Organization on Disability did sponsor a poll conducted by Lou Harris 

after the election. That poll found that during the 2000 election, only 14 million of 

the 35 million people with disabilities of voting age voted. Only 62 percent of eligible 

people with disabilities are registered to vote, as opposed to 78 percent of the general population.

Question 2. Would you describe the typical voting experience of Americans with 

physical disabilities? How is the process different for visually impaired voters? Do 

all disabled voters receive the same protection under the law? 

Answer. The voting experience for Americans with physical disabilities can be 

quite challenging. If there are no physical barriers to entry such as lack of accessible parking, accessible signage, unramped stairs, or raised thresholds, the person 

could enter the polling place. The ability to cast a ballot independently often depends on the person’s disability and/or the voting mechanism. People with severe 

upper body or extremity limitations may have difficulty reaching and operating a 

ballot machine. Flat surfaces for writing or filling out forms may be too high for voters using wheelchairs. Blind and visually impaired voters rarely have audio descriptions of the ballot and/or machine. Without this guidance, the voter must rely on 

the assistance of others, a companion, poll worker or stranger. There is no guarantee that the vote has been cast as per the voter’s instruction. 

Furthermore poll workers sometimes draw attention to the voter with a disability 

by trying to provide special assistance. Escorting voters with any disability to the 

front of the line or to the voting booth is not uncommon. Loud or unnecessary explanations may be well intentioned, but bring unwanted focus to the voter. And oral 

repetition of the directions of a voter who needs assistance eliminates any possibility 

of privacy. 

Under current law, only those with physical disabilities have a limited course of 

action under the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 

(VAEHA). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act would apply in any election operated with the assistance of federal funds, and Title II of the ADA applies to state 

and local elections. These latter two laws have ‘‘program access’’ as a standard. This 

has been open to interpretation and could still allow such practices as curbside voting and poll worker assistance.

Question 3. Would you explain the advantages of Oregon’s vote-by-mail system for 

citizens with physical disabilities? What other states serve as good role models? 

What types of voting technologies are most effective for your constituents? 

Answer. The primary advantage of a vote by mail system is that all voters are 

using the same method of casting their ballots. Everyone has the time to make their 

106

decisions and all ballots are cast in the location of the voter’s choice. The downside 

of this system is that print or punch card ballots limit the ability of a voter with 

limited use of hands or a voter with a vision impairment to vote independently. 

In September, 1999, the Texas Election Code was amended by adding Section 81 

.55—Adoption of Accessible Voting Systems. This section requires voting systems to 

comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Other states recognize that they still have physical barriers at the polls. North Carolina, for instance, recognizes the importance of accessible polling places and has done much to educate their jurisdictions and poll workers. 

PVA does not endorse one voting system or another. We have not taken a survey 

of our members to determine which voting machine best suits our members. We do 

note that the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (28 CFR Part 36, Appendix A) provides 

guidelines for accessibility, including reach ranges, operating mechanisms, clear 

floor space, etc.

Question 4. You mentioned that many barriers for Americans with physical disabilities are not insurmountable. Do you have any specific thoughts or comments 

regarding how to lower the costs of ensuring that voting locations are compliant 

with ADA? 

Answer. Under the VAEHA, (sec. 3. (a)) . . . ‘‘Each political subdivision responsible for conducting federal elections shall assure that all polling places are accessible to the elderly and handicapped.’’ If the polling place has significant physical 

barriers, the polling place should be moved to an accessible facility. Relocating polls 

happens all the time for other reasons and can be done at no cost. 

However, if no accessible polling place is available, then the poll should remove 

barriers. According to the final FEC oversight report (9/13/94), many of the barriers 

at the polls were unramped stairs and thresholds, lack of accessible parking and directional signage to the accessible entrance. Restriping parking lots, installing 

ramps and improving signage are simple, inexpensive solutions that the ADA requires of most places of public accommodation. The Department of Justice provides 

technical assistance; this is available on their website at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/

ada/publicat.htm. Publications specifically on barrier removal, parking spaces, 

small businesses and small towns, and tax incentives, provide information on compliance with the ADA. The Job Accommodation Network (800–526–7234) also provides advice on simple solutions for barrier removal. Though the Job Accommodation Network is geared towards employment of people with disabilities, it has a 

wealth of information on general and specific accommodations. Information can be 

found at http://janweb.icdi.wvu.edu/.

Question 5. You mentioned in your statement that legislation could not overcome 

‘‘attitudinal problems.’’ How much of the overall voting challenges for physically disabled Americans can you attribute to attitudinal problems? 

Answer. Again, PVA has not formally studied the problems our members encounter in voting. Attitudinal problems affect people with disabilities in many situations. 

Most people with disabilities can relate stories of being spoken to loudly and slowly. 

Well-meaning people often talk to the companion of the individual with a disability, 

or will physically take hold of an individual. In voting, such actions isolate and draw 

attention to the voter who is trying to carry out an extremely private process. 

Failure to remove architectural barriers may be caused by attitudes and assumptions by election officers with decision-making authority. For instance, voters with 

disabilities are often encouraged to vote by absentee ballot or at curbside. A few 

steps may not be perceived to be a barrier if assistance is available to carry a voter 

up into the polling place. And if personal assistance is available to those unable to 

complete the voting process independently, efforts are not likely to be undertaken 

to find a solution that allows independent voting. 

These problems can most often be resolved by training that focuses on respect for 

the individual and his/her privacy in the voting process. Publications on disability 

etiquette are available at http://www.jan.wvu.edu/media/etipresent.html and http:/

/www.epva.org/VideoslPublications/publicationltab.htm. Many local disability related organizations would be willing to assist in this training free of charge. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO

MARY JANE O’GARA

Question 1. In your prepared testimony, you refer to emerging technologies which 

can protect against fraud and bias by instantly verifying voter registration status. 

Is this technology currently available? If so, are any states employing it? 

107

Answer. The technology to verify voter registration currently exists and is used 

by several states, including Georgia, as was mentioned in the statement of the Georgia Secretary of State. AARP has not undertaken a formal study of how many states 

employ such technology. The same technology is commonly used by such enterprises 

as car washes where customers pay in advance and are given a printed code that 

is entered into a code box as verification of payment prior to moving their vehicles 

into the wash facility. Similarly, officially registered individuals could be assigned 

such codes to authenticate their registration, especially when recent registrants 

have not received registration cards through the mail.

Question 2. Are you concerned that states may gradually adopt new voting machines with state-of-the-art technology which are not be user-friendly to the elderly? 

What types of new technology would disadvantage your members? 

Answer. AARP is not overly concerned that state-of-the-art technology will be unfriendly for older voters, but we believe it important to remind innovators of the special requirements of older and disabled voters as they design new systems. Innovations should address problems related to print size, print contrast, and keyboard 

comfort, and polling stations should be adjustable for voters with vision, hearing 

and ambulatory impairments—or special stations to address these needs should be 

available.

Question 3. What is your opinion of Oregon’s Vote-by-Mail system? Were the ballots designed sufficiently for people with visual and other disabilities? 

Answer. AARP has not reviewed the Oregon Vote-by-Mail system. With regard to 

the ballot design, we have heard some complaints about the Oregon ballot posing 

difficulty for persons with both visual and physical impairments, but lacking a careful review, AARP does not have any recommendations or position at this time.

Question 4. You expressed in your written testimony that the ‘‘most significant 

demonstrated problems’’ should receive priority for any available federal funds. How 

would you define the ‘‘most significant demonstrated problems?’’

Answer. AARP has not specifically defined the most significant voting problems. 

Ideally, an objective, national body would be commissioned to study the problems 

we outlined on the first page of the AARP statement. That body should propose 

methods and procedures for measuring and weighting various impediments in the 

voting process. The commissioned body would be positioned to identify and suggest 

problems to be addressed with the federal funds available to states for state-selected 

priorities.

Question 5. You mentioned the need for ‘‘objective monitoring’’ of new voting technologies. Will this type of monitoring prevent programmer manipulation and hacking? Will it require extensive training of those responsible for monitoring the voting 

system? Will smaller and poorer voting areas be more vulnerable due to a lack of 

skilled personnel in those areas? 

Answer. Objective monitoring is critical to being able to ascertain whether any 

manipulation has occurred and address accusations of partisan or other special interest manipulation. Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to design a system that 

cannot be manipulated or ‘‘hacked.’’ Still, that should not be a deterrent to innovation. Although training would be required for a core cadre of professionals responsible for monitoring and evaluating the technology itself, those persons would not 

necessarily be the same as those responsible for monitoring and overseeing elections 

administration. Indeed, when the individuals responsible for maintaining and protecting the integrity of the technology are relatively objective technocrats, their services can be made available to any area or community regardless of the location or 

the voters’ ethnicity, race, religion, language or education level. The need for technical expertise ought not be burdened with a residency requirement. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO

RAUL YZAGUIRRE

Question 1. What new technologies do you think offer the best approach for addressing the specific needs of bilingual and multi-lingual communities? 

Answer. We do not claim expertise on this subject.

Question 2. What role do you think improved voter and poll worker education 

plays in improving the access of minority communities to the election process? 

Answer. We believe education for both voters and poll workers is a key component 

to improve accessibility of minority voters to the election process. Education would 

benefit voters by reducing the likelihood of intimidation and encouraging participation. It also equips poll workers with voting rights knowledge that would facilitate 

108

their job on Election Day and prevent them from inadvertently engaging in unlawful 

discrimination. However, we also believe that vigorous enforcement is needed to 

punish violations of the Voting Rights Act.

Question 3. In your testimony, you mentioned complications which may arise from 

cross referencing registered voters and voter registration applicants against Social 

Security and INS data bases. Would you suggest an alternative method, or methods, 

which you believe would be more effective? 

Answer. We are not persuaded that major new procedures are, in fact, needed to 

verify citizenship status. Current law authorizes any number of officials to challenge 

the eligibility of any voter, provided that the voter is allowed to use a provisional 

ballot and the question is resolved after-the-fact. This permits time, for example, for 

newly-naturalized citizens to present their certificate of naturalization, or for nativeborn citizens to find and present their birth certificate. In addition, larger investigations are entirely appropriate where there is probable cause that widespread fraud 

may be taking place. The problem with attempts to authorize pre-voting verification 

systems is that well-documented errors and inconsistencies in these databases will 

inevitably bar eligible persons from voting. For example, an initial computer match 

of the INS database with Orange County’s voter registration lists purportedly revealed ‘‘tens of thousands’’ of questionable voters, according to a widely-cited House 

Administration Committee press release. After the records were checked manually, 

it turned out that at worst a dozen or so citizens mistakenly registered to vote after 

they had completed the naturalization process but before they were sworn in. In the 

absence of a single study, or a single civil or criminal court proceeding, which has 

produced documented evidence of a major problem, and given the massive potential 

disenfranchisement inherent in pre-voting computer match schemes, we do not believe there is any rational basis for enacting any new ‘‘ballot integrity’’ proposal.

Question 4. Are there any existing lawsuits filed by La Raza or other Latino organizations which challenge as individual state’s compliance with the Fifteenth 

Amendment? 

Answer. We have not filed any lawsuits. We understand that the Puerto Rican 

Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) is in the process of developing litigation in a number of counties in Florida which violated the Voting Rights Act, the 

National Voter Registration Act, and/or Florida state law. They are currently assisting individual voters with evaluating where to file complaints under the law.

Question 5. Do you believe that Latino voters who were turned away at the polls 

this past November, when they arrived between 15 and 25 minutes before official 

closing time, were singled out because of the color of their skin? Were Caucasians 

allowed to vote if they arrived at the same time? What evidence do you have to affirm this statement? 

Answer. We understand that PRLDEF is still compiling evidence in preparation 

for potential litigation. Based on the research and statements cited in our testimony, 

in at least some cases Latino and Asian voters were singled out for discrimination—

not solely on skin color but also based on surnames and speech accents.

Question 6. What do you believe is the largest impediment, for the Latino community, in the voting process? 

Answer. For those who already have obtained citizenship, the barriers experienced 

by Latinos are similar to other groups—poverty, education attainment, etc. For a 

significant number of Hispanic citizens whose first language is not English, lack of 

language-accessible voter education, registration, and ballots deter many from casting their vote.

Question 7. Beyond the specific examples cited from New York and Florida, in 

what other states have you received complaints from minority communities? Do 

New York and Florida appear to be the worst cases? 

Answer. We believe New York and Florida may be the worst cases based on the 

evidence we received, although as we noted in out statement, we suspect similarities 

in other states.

Question 8. Are there currently any voting systems, across the country, which you 

would cite as model programs for the way in which they address the needs of the 

minority and minority language communities? If so, how do you think we can best 

implement those lessons elsewhere? 

Answer. We do not claim expertise on this subject.

Question 9. During your testimony, you mentioned problems with language translation. Given the current discussion on establishing statewide uniform voting systems, how important is it the new systems are multi-lingual? 

109

Answer. Multilingual technology is essential in guaranteeing accessibility and 

participation of all language minority voters. We believe that any new technology 

should take into account the needs of limited-English-proficient citizens. 

In addition, it may be appropriate to discuss here the continuing need for language assistance in the electoral process. Some well-intentioned but uninformed persons have questioned the need for such assistance, asserting that since the naturalization process requires foreign-born persons to demonstrate some level of proficiency in English, language assistance is unnecessary. They further assert that jurisdictions are incapable of providing appropriate assistance given the nation’s increasing diversity. There are several problems with this line of argument. First, several categories of persons—including those persons over a certain age who have 

lived in the U.S. for a lengthy period—are exempt from the English language requirement. Second, current law specifically notes that naturalization applicants are 

expected to have a ‘‘basic’’ understanding of English and civics. Given the growing 

complexity of the language of ballot propositions in most jurisdictions, we believe 

it makes sense to have oral assistance and/or bilingual ballots to help assure that 

naturalized citizens fully understand the issues they are being asked to address. 

Similarly, many naturalized citizens have low levels of education and literacy, even 

in their native language; in these cases, the availability of oral assistance is essential. Finally, the Voting Rights Act and state-local laws authorizing language assistance do not create an individual voter entitlement to such assistance. Most such 

laws require language assistance only in jurisdictions with significant concentrations of language minorities, usually based on Census data. In other words, the law 

requires language assistance only where it is cost-effective. In this context, we believe it is vitally important the electoral reform supports, and does not undermine, 

the ability of citizens whose native language may not be English to participate in 

the voting process.

Æ