S. Hrg. 111–1126 

COMPILATION OF HEARINGS AND MARKUPS 

HEARINGS AND MARKUPS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RULES 

AND ADMINISTRATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

February 11, 2009; March 11, 2009; May 13, 2009; June 10, 2009; 

June 10 and 11, 2009; and July 15, 2009 

( 
COMPILATION OF HEARINGS AND MARKUPS 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

66–336 2012

S. HRG. 111–1126 

COMPILATION OF HEARINGS AND MARKUPS 

HEARINGS AND MARKUPS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RULES 

AND ADMINISTRATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 11, 2009; MARCH 11, 2009; MAY 13, 2009; JUNE 10, 2009 

AND JUNE 10 AND 11, 2009; AND JULY 15, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Chairman 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JEAN PARVIN BORDEWICH, Staff Director 

MARY SUIT JONES, Republican Staff Director 

JENNIFER GRIFFITH, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON A. ABEL, Chief Counsel 

ADAM D. AMBROGI, Administrative and Legislative Counsel 

VERONICA GILLESPIE, Elections Counsel 

CAROLE BLESSINGTON, Administrative Assistant to the Staff Director 

SONIA GILL, Counsel 

JULIA RICHARDSON, Counsel 

JOSH BREKENFELD, Professional Staff 

LAURYN BRUCK, Professional Staff 

SHAUN PARKIN, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

PAUL VINOVICH, Republican Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL MERRELL, Republican Elections Counsel 

ABBIE PLATT, Republican Professional Staff 

TRISH KENT, Republican Professional Staff 

RACHEL CREVISTON, Republican Professional Staff 

LYNDEN ARMSTRONG, Chief Clerk 

MATTHEW MCGOWAN, Professional Staff 

Note: Archived webcasts of all hearings and an electronic version of this report are 

available at http://rules.senate.gov. 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

February 11, 2009 

ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 1 

Hon. Robert Bennett, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of 

Utah ...................................................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Pat Roberts, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas ............................... 3 

March 11, 2009 

HEARING—VOTER REGISTRATION: ASSESSING CURRENT PROBLEMS 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Robert Bennett, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of 

Utah ...................................................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Mark Warner, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia ........................... 12 

Hon. Tom Udall, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ......................... 13 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Mr. Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor, Department of Government, Harvard 

University, Cambridge, MA ................................................................................. 14 

Mr. Curtis Gans, Director, Center for the Study of the American Electorate, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 15 

Mr. Nathaniel Persily, Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law and Political 

Science, Columbia Law School, New York, NY ................................................. 16 

Hon. Chris Nelson, Secretary of State, State of South Dakota, Pierre, SD ........ 18 

Ms. Kristen Clarke, Co-Director, Political Participation Group, NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Washington, DC ..................................... 20 

Mr. Jonah H. Goldman, Director, National Campaign for Fair Elections, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC ....................... 22 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF: 

Mr. Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor, Department of Government, Harvard 

University, Cambridge, MA ................................................................................. 40 

Mr. Curtis Gans, Director, Center for the Study of the American Electorate, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 62 

Mr. Nathaniel Persily, Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law and Political 

Science, Columbia Law School, New York, NY ................................................. 76 

Hon. Chris Nelson, Secretary of State, State of South Dakota, Pierre, SD ........ 82 

Ms. Kristen Clarke, Co-Director, Political Participation Group, NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Washington, DC ..................................... 97 

Mr. Jonah H. Goldman, Director, National Campaign for Fair Elections, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC ....................... 107 
Page

IV 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Roll Call, ‘‘Voter Registration System Needs to Be Modernized,’’ Robin 

Carnahan and Trey Greyson, Submitted by Chairman Charles E. Schumer . 160 

Testimony of Dr. Larry J. Sabato, Director, University of Virginia Center 

for Governmental Studies, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Submitted by Senator Robert Bennett ..................................... 162 

Statement Submitted by American Association of People with Disabilities 

(AAPD) .................................................................................................................. 166 

Statement Submitted by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) ..................... 186 

Statement Submitted by Association of Community Organizations for Reform 

Now (ACORN) ...................................................................................................... 191 

Statement Submitted by Advancement Project .................................................... 197 

Statement Submitted by De ̄mos ............................................................................. 206 

Statement Submitted by Fair Vote ........................................................................ 215 

Statement Submitted by League of Women Voters (LWV) .................................. 225 

Statement Submitted by National Defense Committee ........................................ 227 

Statement Submitted by National Disability Rights Network ............................ 243 

Statement Submitted by United States Public Interest Research Group (U.S. 

PIRG) .................................................................................................................... 318 

Statement Submitted by Project Vote .................................................................... 323 

Statement Submitted by Scott J. Rafferty ............................................................. 328 

Statement Submitted by Student Association for Voter Empowerment 

(SAVE) .................................................................................................................. 331 

Statement Submitted by The Reform Institute .................................................... 333 

Statement Submitted by Women’s Voices, Women Vote ...................................... 336 

May 13, 2009 

HEARING—PROBLEMS FOR MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTERS: WHY 

MANY SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES CAN’T VOTE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 343

Hon. Saxby Chambliss, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ...................... 346 

Hon. Ben Nelson, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................ 348 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Ms. Gail McGinn, Acting Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense, Washington, DC ............................................................... 349 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Pat Roberts, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas ............................... 357 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Ms. Pat Hollarn, Retired Elections Director, Okaloosa County, Shalimar, FL .. 359 

Mr. Don Palmer, Director, Division of Elections, Florida Department of State, 

Tallahassee, FL .................................................................................................... 361 

Lt. Col. Joseph DeCaro, USAF, Eglin Air Force Base, FL ................................... 363 

Mr. M. Eric Eversole, Attorney, Washington, DC ................................................. 365 

Mr. Robert Carey, Executive Director, National Defense Committee, Alexandria, VA ................................................................................................................. 367 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 380

Hon. Robert Bennett, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of 

Utah ...................................................................................................................... 383 

Hon. Saxby Chambliss, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ...................... 384 

Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska .............. 387 

Hon. Pat Roberts, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas ............................... 389 
Page

V 

Hon. Dianne Feinstein, a U.S. Senator from the State of California .................. 390 

Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ................. 392 

Ms. Gail McGinn, Acting Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense, Washington, DC ............................................................... 395 

Ms. Pat Hollarn, Retired Elections Director, Okaloosa County, Shalimar, FL .. 408 

Mr. Don Palmer, Director, Division of Elections, Florida Department of State, 

Tallahassee, FL .................................................................................................... 412 

Lt. Col. Joseph DeCaro, USAF, Eglin Air Force Base, FL ................................... 421 

Mr. M. Eric Eversole, Attorney, Washington, DC ................................................. 426 

Mr. Bob Carey, Executive Director, National Defense Committee, Alexandria, 

VA .......................................................................................................................... 435 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement Submitted by Democrats Abroad ......................................................... 451 

Statement Submitted by Everyone Counts ........................................................... 455 

Statement Submitted by Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas 

(FAWCO) ............................................................................................................... 467 

Statement Submitted by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) .... 470 

Statement Submitted by Overseas Vote Foundation (OVF) ................................ 472 

Statement Submitted by Pew Center on the States ............................................. 536 

Statement Submitted by Mr. Alec Yasinsac, Dean, School of Computer and 

Information Sciences, U. of South Alabama, Mobile, AL .................................. 584 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York to Committee witnesses .............................................................................. 608 

Hon. Ben Nelson, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska to Committee 

witnesses ............................................................................................................... 613 

June 10, 2009 

HEARING—NOMINATION OF JOHN J. SULLIVAN TO BE A MEMBER OF 

THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 621

Hon. Robert Bennett, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................. 622 

Hon. Saxby Chambliss, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ...................... 622 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Mr. John J. Sullivan, Nominee to be a Member of the Federal Election 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 622 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 630

Mr. John J. Sullivan, FEC Nominee ...................................................................... 632 

June 10 and June 11, 2009 

EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION 

OF JOHN J. SULLIVAN TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ........................................................................................... 637 
Page

VI 

July 15, 2009 

LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS MEETING TO CONSIDER S. 1415, THE ‘‘MILITARY 

AND OVERSEAS VOTER EMPOWERMENT ACT’’ 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 639

Hon. Robert F. Bennett, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ......................... 641 

Hon. Ben Nelson, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................ 641 

Hon. Mark Pryor, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ............................ 642 

Hon. Saxby Chambliss, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ...................... 642 

Hon. Tom Udall, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ......................... 643 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Robert F. Bennett, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State 

of Utah .................................................................................................................. 648 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Summary of Amendments Submitted by Senator Bennett .................................. 649 

Statement Submitted by Alliance for Military and Overseas Voting Rights ...... 651 

Statement Submitted by M. Eric Eversole ............................................................ 654 

Statement Submitted by Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas, 

Inc. (FAWCO) ....................................................................................................... 655 

Statement Submitted by Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) .................................. 657 

Statement Submitted by Operation Bravo Foundation ........................................ 658 

Statement Submitted by Overseas Vote Foundation (OVF) ................................ 660 

Statement Submitted by Pew Center on the States ............................................. 661 
(1) 

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2009 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:37 a.m., in Room 

301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

Chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Durbin, Nelson, Pryor, Udall, Warner, Bennett, and Roberts. 

Staff present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Jason Abel, Chief 

Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Adam Ambrogi, 

Counsel; Carole Blessington, Assistant to the Staff Director; 

Brenna Allen, Professional Staff; Lynden Armstrong, Chief Clerk; 

Justin Perkins, Staff Assistant; Mary Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul 

Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Michael Merrell, Republican 

Elections Counsel; Abbie Platt, Republican Professional Staff; Trish 

Kent, Republican Professional Staff; Rachel Creviston, Republican 

Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. The Rules Committee will come to order 

and I want to wish everyone good morning to our first Rules Committee meeting of the 111th Congress. 

The first thing I want to do is express appreciation to Senator 

Feinstein for the fabulous job she did and hard work. She is moving on to the Intelligence Committee. They are lucky to have her. 

I also want to thank the outgoing staff director, Howard 

Gantman, for all his hard work and the staff is, I have learned at 

the early stages, is just truly a professional group and so professional that they handle most things without bothering the chairman, the ranking member or the other members, and that is great. 

So I thank all of you for the great work that you have done, and 

since we are keeping almost all of the staff, that you will do. 

I would also like to say how much I am going to look forward 

to working with Senator Bennett during this Congress. He is just 

one of the finest people around here, and Senator Roberts, you are 

lucky to be mistaken for him from time to time and maybe you will 

grow a few inches. 

The Committee, this year we have a number of important issues 

to consider, election administration, campaign finance, oversight of 

the Senate, legislative branch functions, executive agencies and a 

host of other important issues, so it is going to be a busy year. The 
2 

ranking member and I look forward to dealing with these issues as 

well as working with all of you. 

Good morning. Thank you for coming, Senator Udall. The freshmen members of the Committee, I believe the new members of the 

committee have 100 percent attendance. 

Senator BENNETT. Yes. 

Chairman SCHUMAN. Which is very good. Wish we could say that 

for the rest. Anyway, so it is going to be a good—it is going to be 

a good year and I want to welcome both Senator Roberts of Kansas, 

our new Republican member, and our two new members from the 

Democratic side, Tom Udall and Mark Warner. Thank you both for 

being here. It is three great new members who have lots of experience in many different ways and I know they will contribute well 

to the Committee. 

Now I am going to turn it over to Senator Bennett to make a few 

remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

certainly echo and associate myself with your comments with respect to Senator Feinstein and her staff. This was as pleasurable 

a committee assignment as I have had in the Senate and as congenial a relationship as I have had with a chairman. I want to look 

forward to the same relationship with you. I think our personal 

friendship suggests that that will be the case. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Agreed. 

Senator BENNETT. Even when we may disagree on policy issues. 

I say welcome to the new members and as I have commented, service on this Committee will do you no good whatsoever in terms of 

your relationship with your constituents, who do not care at all 

about the issues of administration of the United States Senate, but 

when people want rooms or other accommodations, it makes you 

very, very popular with your colleagues. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Until the decision is made. 

Senator BENNETT. Until the decision is made. But it is an interesting committee. It has an interesting jurisdiction and I think particularly with respect to some of the election issues, it might turn 

out to be one of the more stimulating experiences you have in this 

Congress. 

So we welcome you and appreciate your participation. With that, 

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to proceed with the agenda where we 

adopt our rules for the year. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Great, that will be terrific. I wonder if any 

of our colleagues would like to make any statements? Senator 

Udall? Senator Warner? 

Senator UDALL. My staff sent me over with an one-hour speech 

and I am going to forego that. 

Chairman SCHUMER. By unanimous consent the entire speech 

will be placed in the record. 

Senator UDALL. Okay, thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. However long it may end up being. 

Senator Warner? 
3 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be on the Committee. I do not know if this shows that I drew the long straw or 

the short straw, but I am happy to be here. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator, you always seem to draw both. 

Senator Roberts? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS. I have the dubious privilege of being the longest serving member on the Ethics Committee in the history of the 

United States Senate. I was wondering if I could switch with somebody? 

Thank you, Chuck, and it is good to be on the Committee. I did 

not expect this privilege, but I will try to do my very best and I 

have already received the donut and a cup of coffee, just like that, 

so things could not be any better. I look forward to working with 

you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator, and Senator and I 

know each other from our House days when we played in the gym 

everyday and he set the best picks. He is the most solid and subtle 

pick, picker—I do not know what the word is—maker of picks on 

the basketball court. I think many a Democrat was injured crashing into him. 

Senator ROBERTS. I think you called it a foul at the time. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes, indeed. I was trying to be polite. Okay, 

well why don’t we get started? I want to thank you. 

Our agenda this morning is the adoption of the Committee Rules 

of Procedure and then the approval of an original resolution which 

with fund the Rules Committee during the 111th Congress. 

As for the rules of procedure, they are virtually the same as last 

Congress and I do not think there is any dispute. Senator Bennett 

and I have agreed that they worked well last year and we ought 

to just keep them. 

The second item is the approval of the budget. As many members 

are aware, the Rules Committee recently sent a letter to the Committee chairman, ranking members regarding their budgets for the 

111th Congress and the letter included guidance from the leadership on the amount of funds that would be available for expenditures and I am pleased to report that the Rules Committee resolution is within the guidelines set by Senators Reid and McConnell. 

Most of the committees got very nice allocations. I am also 

pleased to inform the Committee that the other committees will be 

reporting resolutions that were within the leadership guidelines, so 

everyone is pretty happy. We do not have anybody protesting and 

that is all to the good. 

According to the Committee’s rule procedures, we need seven 

members to begin discussing Committee business and we need ten 

members to conduct the Committee business for today. We want to 

welcome Senator Pryor, who is the sixth member, so one more, and 

Senator Feinstein is on her way. Good. 

We need 10 members to report legislation, but when seven members are present, we can begin to discuss the agenda items and at 

that time, I am going to entertain a motion to adopt the rules of 

procedure and approve the original resolution authorizing expenditures for the Rules Committee for the 111th. 
4 

So we do not have a quorum, but if the members would indulge 

and wait a few minutes and see if Senator Feinstein comes by, we 

can then just at least move the resolutions. Here is Senator Nelson, 

and we are truly privileged to have Senator Nelson here because 

I was in Senator Reid’s office just about a half hour ago and he was 

on the phone with Senator Nelson talking about the important 

work Senator Nelson is doing on the economic recovery package. 

So we appreciate your taking the time to being here Ben, and we 

have been joined also by Mark Pryor, great member. Would either 

of you like to say anything? Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. I would say, Mr, Chairman, thank you. Ever 

since you took over my public relations effort and taken over officially, my coverage has been increased dramatically and I just 

want to thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. You have done a great job and you deserve 

it. Senator Pryor, how is your coverage? 

Senator PRYOR. I’ll always [inaudible] improved. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Great. Okay, just for Mark and Ben, we 

need seven. 

Senator ROBERTS. We have seven. 

Chairman SCHUMER. We have seven. Thank you, Senator Roberts. You are already contributing in a very material—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt the rules 

and resolution. 

Chairman SCHUMER. We can move them, but we cannot vote on 

them until we have 10 members. But we will—— 

Senator NELSON. Second. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Second. Thank you, Senator Nelson. We 

will try to just convene a vote right off the floor to get the 10 members to adopt the rules. So we have the motion. It is seconded and 

we will let you know when we will meet on that. 

We are expecting both Senators Durbin and Feinstein, which will 

bring us to nine, so if members wouldn’t mind waiting a couple of 

minutes. Let’s say if we don’t have nine by 10 of 11, we will just 

adjourn; how is that? Because if we have nine, we will just somehow dragoon the 10? 

Senator BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that 

with seven we can adopt the resolution, the rules, but we cannot 

adopt the funding resolution. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Is that correct? That is correct. Good. Okay, 

well then let me ask, does anyone wish to have a roll call vote on 

the rules of the Committee? If not, let me just ask all in favor, say 

aye. 

[A chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Opposed, nay. And the motion is agreed to, 

so the rules of procedure adopted. The original resolution is approved and reported. 

Now we will just wait for the funding resolution. 

Senator BENNETT. That is correct. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Let me, while I am doing that, introduce 

our new chief of staff, Jean Bordewich. Please say hello to everybody. 

Ms. BORDEWICH. Hello. It’s nice working with everyone. 
5 

Chairman SCHUMER. Jean is one of the most capable people I 

have met and we know each other since we were 19 years old and 

we were interns here in Washington. You will be happy to know 

on this side of the aisles, I was an intern for a Republican senator, 

Senator Charles Goodell, of Jamestown, New York. 

Senator BENNETT. I remember him. 

Chairman SCHUMER. He was a fine person. His son is now the 

commissioner of the NFL and still remembers the Buffalo Bills and 

how important they are. And Jean Bordewich worked for Congressman Richardson Pryor, who was a Democrat from Greensboro? 

Ms. BORDEWICH. Greensboro, North Carolina. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Greensboro, North Carolina, and we became friends then and have stayed in touch. I am really privileged 

that she decided to take this job and I think we will all be lucky. 

Our counsel is Jason Abel, another very, very capable person. 

Those are the two new people and the rest of the staff are all from 

Senator Feinstein and Senator Bennett’s tenure because they did 

such a great job there was no need to change staff. 

Senator Warner? 

Senator WARNER. As a new member of the committee and of the 

Senate, and if you have two minutes to kill, can you give us a little 

quickie overview of—I think I understand the jurisdiction of the 

Committee, but if you could explain it again and what you think 

we might be taking on. 

Chairman SCHUMER. The Committee, of course, has jurisdiction, 

I guess you divide it into two parts, one is the legislation jurisdiction, one is the administrative jurisdiction. 

The administrative I think everyone is familiar with in the sense 

that it deals with budgets, it deals with rooms, it deals with parking spaces. But the amazing thing is, it deals with many, many 

other issues that we never have to really worry about because the 

staff does such a great job. 

I mean, for instance, they are in charge of all of the Capitol 

grounds, the Visitor’s Center, the restaurants, things like that. 

Some meet with the police chief every few days just to make sure 

everything is going correctly there. 

One of the issues that we might face, some have wanted to—Senator Durbin, thanks for coming, Dick. Somebody has said we have 

an old coal burning heating facility and some have moved that we 

upgrade it. Of course, it is a large expense. 

So there are those kinds of issues that come before us, the 

Smithsonian, so many others. The Library of Congress is in our jurisdiction. They are very interesting issues; I did not realize them 

until the other night. We had a briefing and the number of different issues that say Jean has to deal with everyday that we do 

not have to bother. These are not partisan issues. These are just 

sort of picking up the garbage, as they say. 

The other is the legislative issues which are very, very interesting. It is in a few areas. Anything to do with elections. There 

is obviously all kinds of issues of election law reform. President 

Obama has been interested in these issues and I expect we are 

going to be pretty active in that area this year in terms of elections, in terms of voting and things like that. 
6 

Second obviously is campaign finance reform, another issue that 

always seems to bubble up. That is an issue again that we have 

jurisdiction over and probably there are things that have to change 

in terms of campaign finance reform, places where it is broken. 

And the third, which is sort of legislative, is an issue I think we 

are going to be talking about more and more, is the rules of the 

Senate and how the Senate works and how it is governed. And 

again, cannot do anything if you cannot come to bipartisan agreement on rules of the Senate because the rules need two-thirds 

change. But there may be a need to change some of those rules. 

Those, I would say, would be the three major areas of jurisdiction 

and I think each of them will sort of be bubbling this year, election 

law reform clearly, campaign finance reform and even rules of the 

Senate in terms of how we function. 

So that is basically the jurisdiction of the Committee, and if you 

can come up with any new jurisdictions that will not get our fellow 

Committee members angry on other committees, feel free. 

Dick, do you want to say anything? 

Senator DURBIN. It is an interesting committee and does have 

some important considerations, issues to consider, I should say. I 

had a public financing proposal with Senator Specter in the last 

Congress that we would like to return to. I hope that that will be 

part of the conversation. 

Senator Feinstein was kind enough to give us a hearing. I would 

like to see in light of the intervening Supreme Court decision if we 

can go back to this and see if it needs to be modified. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right, the whole area of public finance with 

the law that was passed, McCain-Feingold, a couple of years ago, 

does need a review because there were certain things they thought 

would happen did not, certain other unexpected consequences that 

occurred, and then some like Senator Durbin and Senator Specter 

think the whole thing should be changed around and we ought to 

move to public financing. These are very important issues and certainly it is something we are going to look at. 

We have now three, six, eight. 

Senator BENNETT. We have nine. 

Chairman SCHUMER. We have nine? 

Senator BENNETT. We have nine. 

Chairman SCHUMER. No, we don’t. One, two. 

Senator BENNETT. We have eight. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Eight? 

Senator BENNETT. Eight. 

Chairman SCHUMER. You know, even if Senator Feinstein—is 

anyone else expected? I am not going to keep us here. 

Well, I think I am not going to make people wait. We will try 

to have the vote on the funding off the floor. It was nice of all of 

you to come. We did adopt the rules. We only needed seven for 

those before Dick and Ben came in, but thank you for coming and 

we will just try to convene a quick little meeting on the floor to 

adopt the funding resolution, if that is okay. I think it is unfair to 

make people wait any further. 

So thanks very much for coming and we will continue to have 

muffins, because it brought a pretty good turnout. Thank you. 
7 

[Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., the committee was adjourned and reconvened at 5:27 p.m. in the Capitol on this same day. Present: 

Senators Schumer, Dodd, Feinstein, Durbin, Murray, Pryor, Udall, 

Bennett, Hutchison, Chambliss, Alexander and Roberts.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The Rules Committee will come to order. 

Earlier today, we approved our Rules of Procedure, and now that 

we have at least 10 members, I will entertain a motion to adopt 

the original resolution authorizing biennial expenditures for the 

Rules Committee. Is there a motion? 

Senator BENNETT. I move, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Is there a second? 

[A chorus of speakers.] I second. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Since there has been no request for a roll 

call vote, this will be a voice vote. All in favor, say aye: 

[A chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Opposed, nay. 

[No response.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The motion is agreed to—the original resolution is approved and ordered reported. Since there is no further 

business, the Committee is adjourned subject to the call of the 

chair. 

[Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
8 

VOTER REGISTRATION: ASSESSING CURRENT 

PROBLEMS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2009 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C. 

The Committees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Pryor, Udall, Warner, and Bennett. 

Staff present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Jason Abel, Chief 

Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Adam Ambrogi, 

Counsel; Carole Blessington, Assistant to the Staff Director; 

Brenna Allen, Professional Staff; Lynden Armstrong, Chief Clerk; 

Matthew McGowan, Professional Staff; Mary Jones, Republican 

Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; 

Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Michael Merrell, Republican Elections Counsel; Trish Kent, Republican Professional Staff; 

and Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. The Rules Committee shall come to order, 

and good morning to one and all. And I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Bennett, I look forward to a close and amiable 

working relationship, whether we agree or disagree on issues, as is 

his way, in the future. 

Anyway, this morning our topic is voter registration. If voting is 

the heart of democracy, registering Americans is the lifeblood of 

our Republic. But it seems as if we have had some serious circulation problems. What the butterfly ballots and hanging chads were 

in 2000 is what voter registration problems are today. 

Today we will hear new groundbreaking reports of astounding 

problems with our voter registration system. Hidden from the excitement of the past election was the fact that millions of voters, 

through no fault of their own, were shut out of this process due to 

deeply-rooted problems that need to be fixed. 

We will hear from our witnesses and more details, but the numbers are staggering. Professor Ansolabehere’s research reveals that 

as many as 7 million eligible and registered voters were denied the 

right to vote, whether it was a photo ID requirement, list purges, 

no match, no vote comparisons, or simply because they moved from 

one home to the other and their registration did not follow. His astonishing report also estimates that as many as 9 million additional people were prevented from registering due to deadlines and 

change of residency requirements. 

Now, each one of these alone does not seem like an egregious violation, although to the person it might be, but put together, you get 

massive disenfranchisement, and this is undemocratic, unacceptable. And, of course, as we know, 7 million is often enough to swing 

a federal election. 
9 

Since World War II, the popular vote in 8 of 16 presidential elections could have swung the other way, and hundreds of times over, 

states could have swung as well if 7 million people who were supposed to vote did not. 

Voter registration errors know no party or ideology, so listen to 

a few stories. 

There is the serviceman and his wife who move from base to base 

and are not allowed to vote because they did not arrive at their 

new residence to meet the deadline to register. In other words, the 

Army tells them October 15th you have to be somewhere else November 1st. And yet, the voter registration deadline was October 

15th in the new place where they are going. They cannot even vote 

for their commander and chief, who will determine whether or not 

the soldier is sent off to war. 

Then there is the hardworking father holding down two jobs to 

put food on the table for his kids, who skips dinnertime to go and 

vote, only to be turned away simply because his name was confused 

with that of an ineligible convicted felon. 

There is the tradesman who finds his name is not on the list because his handwriting was not clear on his voter registration form. 

So an A becomes a U, and there is no match for his drivers license, 

and no vote. 

In fact, Joe the Plumber of the 2008 election fame was nearly denied the right to vote last November because his name was misspelled on the voter list. Now, it was a hard name to spell, so I am 

not blaming anybody, but it is just a fact. 

There is a student who attends a university in Virginia only to 

be told he cannot register to vote at his new domicile, and if he 

does, he could lose financial aid. 

There is a woman who shows up to vote only to find out she was 

not even registered due to an error made by a third party registration organization who misplaced the form or sent it in too late. 

I cannot tell you how many times in New York I have heard the 

refrain, I registered to vote, and when I showed up, I was told my 

name was not on the list. So we seem to be stuck in the mud on 

certain issues. 

As I said, each of these stories, they are a little bit poignant, but, 

you would think, okay, that happens. But when you add them up 

to 7 million, or 9 million names, it is a lot more troubling than 

that. 

In the 21st century, people should not be denied their constitutional right to vote because of problems caused by an antiquated 

voter registration system that was set up in the 19th century by 

the Whig Party. That is who set up our voter registration system, 

which we still use today. And, of course, the Whigs are not even 

around anymore. 

It is truly remarkable that with the technology we have today 

that someone could be turned away at the polls simply because he 

or she has moved to a different county or has bad handwriting. If 

they move to a different country, they should not vote. But if they 

move to a different county, they should, or if there is bad handwriting. 

It is not to blame our local election officials who work hard to 

make sure the trains run on time on Election Day. In fact, just yes-
10 

terday, two secretaries of state, Carnahan, Democrat from Missouri, and Greyson, a Republican from Kentucky, very clearly described the problem state election officials face with voter registration. 

I ask unanimous consent their column and roll call be entered 

into the record. So without objection, it is. 

[The information follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The question of last minute registration, 

the massive amount of data entries involved, are a lot to place on 

local county officials with limited resources. And additionally, the 

amount of money spent on maintaining current voter registration 

lists places a strain on state governments already struggling with 

the current economic crisis. Part of the problem may be that the 

states and counties need more resources to ensure that all eligible 

voters can be registered and all those registered can vote. 

So today we examine these problems. I cannot imagine what it 

was like for millions of voters, some of whom attempting to vote 

for the first time last year, were told they were not registered correctly and could not cast a ballot, particularly after waiting in line 

for an hour or two, maybe on a cold or rainy evening. I cannot 

imagine what it was like for these folks to be denied the right to 

vote in this historic election. So this should not happen, not in the 

United States of America. 

We are not going to talk about solutions today; we are just going 

to talk about anyone can talk about what they want, but the focus 

of the hearing is just on the problem. And there are other problems 

as well. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk 

about schemes to defraud and register people who should not be 

registered. And that is something we are going to want to look at 

as well because I think we have to address both sides of the problem. 

But today we are going to look at this particular problem. And 

I thank all our witnesses and want to turn things over to, first, my 

colleague, Senator Bennett for a statement, then Senator Warner 

after him. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

appreciate your calling a hearing. I think it is appropriate that we 

hear these issues. And I would take slight issue with one comment 

you made in your opening statement. I think there are still Whigs 

around. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BENNETT. I will go no further as to identify where or 

who, but my study of history and the attitude of the Whig Party 

leaves me to believe that there are those who still hold that ideology. 

Now, we have two compelling and sometimes competing interests 

with respect to this whole question. We want everyone who is legally qualified to vote to be able to vote. And we want him or her 

to be able to vote as easily and smoothly as we possibly can. At the 

same time, the whole purpose for having people register in advance 

is to create some kind of mechanism that will allow election offi-
11 

cials to prevent those who are not legally qualified to vote from voting, and sometimes this becomes a trade off. 

In an effort to get everyone to vote, we relax registration requirements and, thereby, open the door to vote fraud; or, conversely, in 

an effort to prevent vote fraud, we tighten registration requirements, and thereby run the risk of keeping people away who belong 

there. 

This is not a new issue. When I was a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, we held a hearing on this issue and one 

of the witnesses on that occasion was Dr. Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies, 

and one of the more well recognized names when it comes to these 

issues. 

I would like in my opening statement to quote a few things from 

Dr. Sabato, and then would ask unanimous consent that his entire 

opening statement be included in the record. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection. 

[The statement of Dr. Sabato follows:] 

Senator BENNETT. He makes the same point I just made. He said 

when we look at the registration system and voting process, we 

have to balance two conflicting values. One, the goal of full and informed participation in the electorate, and, two, the integrity of the 

system. And he goes on to say, to the extent we keep expanding 

the participation right and make it easier and easier for people to 

register to vote, we almost certainly increase the chances for voter 

fraud. So, in a sense, it is a trade off. To move completely in the 

direction of one value as opposed to the other is foolhardy. 

Then he goes on to list a number of examples of people in the 

2000 election who cast illegal votes. If I might, there are the corresponding, one-on-one personal observations of the kind you have 

just cited of people who ran into difficulty with registration. And 

he says, it does not stop with Florida and Wisconsin. As I suggested, fraud did not just appear during the 2000 presidential election. Just a glance at the past decade shows many examples of 

electoral fraud. 

Then he goes on to list some. Extensive absentee ballot fraud in 

Alabama; hundreds of phony registrations in California; nearly a 

thousand illegal votes in New Jersey, including some people who 

are unregistered and others who are dead; significant absentee ballot fraud in Philadelphia; votes stolen from the elderly and infirm 

in Texas, and the list goes on and on. 

Then he says in separate quotes, whether fraud is Democratic or 

Republican, or located in the north or the south or the west, the 

effect on American democracy is similar. While electoral hankypanky affects the outcome in only a small proportion of elections, 

mainly in very tight races, one fraudulent ballot is one too many 

for the integrity of the system and the confidence that people have 

in the system. 

So this is the balance that we have to address. We want, as I 

said, registration to be as open and as easy as it can possibly be 

for those who are entitled to vote, but at the same time, we want 

registration to be effective enough that those who are interested in 

controlling fraud have the tools that they need to deal with that. 
12 

That is the balance that I hope we will strive to strike as our 

legislative activity goes forward following this hearing and other 

hearings that you may have scheduled. And I appreciate your diligence in addressing the problem and will do whatever I can to see 

that we have as productive and probing a hearing as possible. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I want to thank Senator Bennett, and I 

agree with the thrust of his statement. Both are problems, and I 

think we have to address both. And there is sort of a yin and yang 

here that you have to find the happy balance to. 

Senator Warner? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to add my 

voice as well and say thank you for calling this hearing and echoing both what you and Senator Bennett have said, this yin and 

yang between registration and fraud. 

I am not going to be able to stay for the whole hearing, but I do 

want to point out two issues that I hope the panel will address and 

would love to pursue. One, and the chairman mentioned this in his 

opening comments, Virginia has become a little bit of ground zero 

for the battle between local registrars trying to determine what is 

appropriate for college students, sometimes out-of-state college students, who choose to registrar in their college hometown rather 

than their parents’ hometown. We have, perhaps, in the Commonwealth given a little bit of disjointed guidance. 

So I would love to hear from the panel, what appears to be both 

trends in the law and best practices, on how you get that balance. 

We clearly want students to participate; if they are living 9 or 10 

months a year in a certain locale, what kind of residency requirements are looked at. On the other hand, if they are simply passing 

through and often time there are concerns at the local government 

level that you may end up having, in fact, undue influence because 

of the student population in the community. So I would love to 

hear comments on that issue. 

The second and this is Virginia also. Like other states, but I 

think Virginia because we are proud to have some of the highest 

concentration of military of any state in the country, we have lots 

and lots military families who continue to be challenged with not 

only registration but unclear rules about when and how they have 

to get their ballots posted, when and how registrars would receive 

those ballots. 

As recently as the 2008 election cycle, again, this proved to be 

quite a bone of contention. And I would love to hear any comments 

from the panel on how we can better grapple with the very unique 

challenges that our military families, particularly those who are 

posted overseas, can make sure that, one, they get registered in the 

first place, and two, that there is no undue burdens on them participating in the electoral process. 

So, again, while I am not going to be able to stay for the hearing, 

I do appreciate the chairman calling this and anxious to hear comments on those two questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. And I think those are two very 

important issues that we hope to explore. 
13 

Senator Udall? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR UDALL 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Schumer and Ranking 

Member Bennett. Thank you both for your statements. And let me 

just say that I think you have reached the right balance here in 

terms of talking about the direction we should go. I think we all 

want everybody to fully participate and we want to get people registered and give them that opportunity. But we want to make sure 

that we have fair elections without fraud, and that is really the 

way to go. 

Two of the issues in New Mexico that I think are of some concern 

have to do with provisional ballots and absentee ballots. And I notice across the country, we are seeing the same thing. When you 

get into the area of how you make sure that absentees are handled 

in such a way that it is uniform and, as the Supreme Court would 

say, you had equal protection in these kinds of situations, that is 

a concern. And then the provisional ballots are also growing to a 

significant degree. I hope that you have an opportunity to comment 

on both of those and give us some guidance as to where you think 

we should head. 

Once again, I think the chairman is right-on in holding this hearing and proceeding on this, and I anxiously await the testimony of 

our very distinguished panel. 

Thank you, Chairman Schumer. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you for your excellent statement, 

Senator Udall. 

Now we are ready for the witnesses. I am going to briefly introduce each one, ask them to each put their entire statement in the 

record, speak for five minutes, and then we will have time for questions. So if you could try to tailor your remarks to meet the fiveminute goal, we would appreciate it. 

First, Stephen Ansolabehere—I know that is a hard one to say— 

is a professor of government at Harvard University and political 

science at MIT. Formerly, he served as co-director of the Caltech/ 

MIT Voting Technology Project. He is an expert on American elections, public opinion and voting behavior. 

Curtis Gans is the director of the Center for the Study of the 

American Electorate within the Center for Democracy and Election 

Management at American University. In addition to being a professor at American University, he often appears as a recognized expert on talk shows to discuss a variety of voting issues. 

Nathaniel Persily is a professor at Columbia Law School. He is 

a nationally recognized expert on election law and is the founder 

and director of the Center for Law and Politics at Columbia Law 

School. 

The Honorable Chris Nelson. Mr. Nelson has been serving as 

South Dakota’s Secretary of State since his election in 2002. Before 

being elected to this position, Secretary Nelson served as South Dakota’s state election supervisor. 

Kristen Clarke is co-director of the Political Participation Group 

at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. Before joining 

the NAACP, Ms. Clarke worked for the Civil Rights Division at the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 
14 

Last but not least, Mr. Jonah Goldman. Mr. Goldman is director 

of the National Campaign for Fair Elections at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. His responsibilities include leadership in 

the Election Protection Coalition, the National Network for State 

Election Reform, and the Lawyers’ Committee election reform advocacy and litigation docket. 

Mr. Ansolabehere, Professor, thank you. And, again, your entire 

statements are introduced into the record, so you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN ANSOLABEHERE, PROFESSOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Committee, for holding this hearing and paying attention to 

this issue. 

In 2001, the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project found that 

4 to 6 million Americans tried to vote but could not, or did not have 

their votes recorded, owing to problems with voting equipment, registration, absentee balloting and polling place operations. The largest of these problems was registration followed closely by voting 

technology. 

The Help America Vote Act facilitated the upgrading of voting 

technology throughout the United States, punch card and lever machines were phased out, and the Federal Government assisted 

states and counties with their purchase of optical scan and electronic voting equipment. 

Voting technology accounted for about 1.5 to 2 million lost votes 

in 2000, and today that figure appears to be around 500,000. That 

is a substantial improvement thanks to the intervention of the 

Help America Vote Act. That is the good news. 

Registration, unfortunately, remains as large a problem as ever. 

In 2008, to put the matter in perspective, there were 230 million 

people of voting age in the United States, an estimated 212 million 

eligible voters, that is citizens, non-felons who are also voting age, 

an estimated 168 million registered voters, and 133 million people 

who actually voted. To put matters another way, 44 million Americans were not registered to vote, though they could have been, and 

another 35 million Americans were registered to vote but did not 

vote. 

The registration and authentication system in the United States 

remains a significant source of difficulty for many voters. Of the 79 

million Americans who are eligible but did not vote, most certainly 

did not vote because they chose not to vote for lack of interest. 

Even still, administrative problems prevented or discouraged millions of Americans from voting. 

Based on the results of the Cooperative Congressional Election 

Study, which Senator Schumer discussed, I project that 9 million 

Americans did not vote because they had recently moved or because the date for registering to vote had already passed and they 

were not registered. Two to 4 million Americans were discouraged 

from attempting to vote because of various administrative problems 

relating to the authentication of voters and registration, and another 2 to 3 million Americans were registered to vote, attempted 

to vote, but could not vote because of problems with registration, 

acquiring absentee ballots, or voter identification. All totaled, it ap-
15 

pears that 4 to 7 million Americans could not vote, even though 

they attempted to vote or wished to vote in the 2008 election. 

There are other chronic problems as well related to the system, 

especially accessibility of the system for the disabled and for military personnel, and there are emerging problems, especially the 

growing number of people who have trouble getting absentee ballots. This is of particular note because absentee balloting is on the 

rise, especially in the American west. In 1972, roughly 5 percent 

of Americans voted with absentee ballots. In 2008, roughly 30 percent voted with absentee ballots. 

My written testimony focuses on the problems associated with 

the system for voter registration and authentication. The conclusion is a discouraging one, as many of us in this community, both 

as scholars and policymakers, just a short while ago took major 

steps to improve these systems. Even still, many people encounter 

problems with voter registration and voter authentication today, 

and those problems appear to be as large as eight years ago. 

Currently, the states are in the middle of a major upgrading of 

voter registration systems in the United States begun under the 

Help America Vote Act. Some have completed this process but 

many have not. Most communities have yet to see the benefits of 

those systems, but there is certainly the possibility, as statewide 

registration systems are implemented properly, we may eventually 

observe the gains in registration systems similar to what occurred 

with voting technology. 

Based on my experience over the past eight years, I fully believe 

that a cooperative effort of local election officers, secretaries of 

state and the federal government can reduce, substantially, the difficulties that millions of Americans encounter when trying to register and vote. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ansolabehere follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Professor, and thank you for 

your excellent report as well. We are honored that you released it 

at the committee. 

Mr. Gans? 

STATEMENT OF CURTIS GANS, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR THE 

STUDY OF THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE 

Mr. GANS. I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member for, a) holding this hearing and, b) inviting me to 

participate in your deliberations. Anything I say here will not reflect on the men and women who run our elections, the secretaries 

of states and chief election officers, down to the people who man 

the polls on election night. They are all decent, they all want to 

help, both with the integrity and the voting process. 

I agree strongly with both the Chairman and Ranking Minority 

Member as to what the purpose of our election law ought to be. It 

ought to maximize voter participation, it ought to maximize the integrity of the process, and it ought to maximize citizen faith in that 

process. 

I am going to give you three sets of numbers that say we are a 

long way from that. One is 74 and 50. A ballpark estimate of the 

percentage of eligible Americans is 74 percent, and that in turn 
16 

means that there are 50 million Americans who are not registered 

and cannot vote. 

The second I am going to have to read. It is 115, 104.2, 103.6, 

100.3, which is the number of names—the percentage of names on 

the registration list of the eligible voters in the District of Columbia, Alaska, Illinois and South Dakota. Ten other states have registration lists of 95 to 100 percent. And if anybody believes those 

numbers, there is a bridge across the East River in the state of our 

chairman that I would like to sell you. There are at least 20 million 

names on the registration list who should not be there, who have 

died or moved or are not legitimate voters. 

The last set of figures is 139 and 172. The United States ranks 

139th out of 172 democracies in the world. That is not a great picture of a voting system that works. 

We also have each year a series of problems, voter lists that do 

not contain names that should, do contain names that should not 

be on them, zealous registration people on the liberal side putting 

people on lists that should not be, zealous people on the other side 

discarding registrations of people that do not agree with them. 

We have millions of dollars spent for people like Jonah to monitor elections for poll watches and for lawyers willing to move at 

the drop of a hat to challenge any deviation. We call it fraud and 

we call it intimidation and suppression, and all of them have a 

grain of truth. 

We will not, so long as we have a list based system, remedy any 

of these problems fully. We should consider what has worked in 

Mexico. And what has worked in Mexico is a government provided 

and paid for national, mandatory, biometric identification card and 

system. That would enfranchise everybody who is eligible, and it 

would get rid of every one of the problems people have raised with 

the electoral system, except vote buying and election administration malfeasance. 

The objections to those are money and privacy. This will cost $14 billion. We do not do $14 billion for our voting system, but we do 

it for national defense, and it could be justified on national defense 

because we should know who is coming into the country and who 

is in the country. And if we establish it, it would eliminate or reduce identity theft. It would provide for accurate census without 

enumeration. It could help with criminal prosecution and wrongful 

conviction exoneration. It could do a variety of things except get rid 

of the common cold and halitosis. It also would rationalize the various identity systems that are already being mandated or in place. 

This is a far-out idea, but I think people ought to consider it because I think it is the way that we can actually deal with all of 

these problems. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gans follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. I thank our witnesses for both interesting, 

informative testimony within the time limit, two out of two. 

Professor Persily? 

STATEMENT OF NATHANIEL PERSILY, PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA 

LAW SCHOOL 

Mr. PERSILY. Let me echo the thanks of my fellow witnesses to 

this committee. It is always a pleasure to be an election law pro-
17 

fessor who is giving testimony not in the middle of a meltdown, 

and it gives us a chance to think in a sober way about some of 

these problems that we have already been discussing. 

I just want to make three brief points, and I have given you 

longer testimony for the record. First I want to look at the effect 

of registration laws on turnout, and then, secondly, to look at registration problems that we saw on Election Day. And then, finally, 

to talk a little bit about the litigation as a description of the magnitude of the registration problem. 

First, the effect of registration on turnout. The effect of registration on turnout is not simply by the registration system itself. The 

United States continues to make it more difficult than any other 

industrialized democracy to vote. And the reason is not because we 

simply have registration; other countries have registration. It is the 

combination of that registration system with the high mobility of 

our population and the fact that the government does not take an 

affirmative role in registering people to vote. Those are the factors 

that make the United States unique. The incredible mobility of the 

U.S. population is one of the chief reasons that we see relatively 

low voter turnout. 

To give you some sense of the relationship between the variables: 

90 million eligible voters move every five years. All of those voters, 

if they want to vote at their new address, assuming they are not 

in an EDR state, have to take an affirmative step in order to register to vote. It is not a surprise, then, that people who have lived 

in their residence for five years or more turn out at rates of about 

75 percent. Those who are recent movers to a new state or new 

county: only about half of those people tend to turn out to vote. 

But the effect of mobility, or the combination of mobility and registration laws, is not seen just in the aggregate numbers. You can 

see it on discrete populations, and several members of this committee have already mentioned military voters. Congress has spent 

a lot of time looking at uniformed and overseas voters in this context because of the problems that those voters face. 

You can also get a sense of this—and this is also from Steven 

Ansolabehere’s Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, which 

is the effect on military voters even inside the United States, who 

face registration problems and voting problems at a higher rate 

than the general population. And that is because they are more 

likely to be moving before Election Day than the average population. 

Most political scientists have spent a lot of time looking at the 

discrete effects on low-income groups, or particularly the relationship of registration laws on education. But when we look, for example, at these military voters who experience about 1.7 times the 

rate of registration problems when they go and attempt to vote and 

that also turn out at a rate 10 percent lower than the general population, we get a sense of the nature of this problem. 

Secondly, let me talk a little bit about the registration problems 

at the polls in this past election. Unfortunately, we do not have the 

kind of concrete data that we would really like in order to assess 

the magnitude of the problems in this past election. We know, for 

example, that between 20 and 31 percent of the election related incidents that happened at the polls this year were registration re-
18 

lated. You can get a sense of that from, say, the CNN incident reports or some of the other incident reports that different election 

protection organizations were running. 

We know, for example, that in the 2004 election, that 1.9 million 

provisional ballots were cast and that the secretaries of state say 

that the chief reason behind the non-counting of a third of those 

provisional ballots was because of a registration problem. 

We only really have data now from about 14 states on the rate 

of provisional ballot usage in the 2008 election, but we even know 

from just those 14 states that 800,000 provisional ballots were cast. 

And that gives you some glimpse as to the possibility of the relationship of the registration problem to the number of provisional 

ballots. 

Then, finally, let me talk a little bit about the litigation in this 

past election. This is sort of a statement against interest because 

this is how we election law professors make our living. Let me talk 

about three categories of litigation that happened in this election, 

all related to this problem that you are investigating here today. 

The first is what I think was the most common form of litigation, 

at least during this election cycle, and that was lawsuits dealing 

with purges and mismatch lists when you compare the voter registration lists to some other lists, whether it is drivers licenses, social security lists, et cetera, where you found a dramatic number 

of mismatches. 

The second is the very famous now set of cases dealing with 

third-party registration drives, the kind that Senator Bennett was 

talking about, dealing with ACORN and some of these other groups 

that allegedly had registered voters who did not exist. 

Then the final type of litigation that we saw were sort of the garden variety registration lawsuits, those cases where there is a technical defect in registrations or that there are problems such that 

people do not get to vote. 

Between the litigation and the voter turnout and these registration problems at the polls, I think we get a sense at least the magnitude of the problem in the 2008 election. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Persily follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you again. Excellent testimony. 

Mr. Nelson? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRIS NELSON, SECRETARY 

OF STATE, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is 

truly a privilege to be before this committee and I appreciate the 

opportunity. I think it is vital that you hear from the perspective 

of a state election official. 

November 4, 2008 was a historic day in America; nearly 133 million cast their vote. That is 9 million more than voted in 2004 and 

25 million more than voted in the Year 2000. Voter registration 

systems across this country, managed by state and local election officials, handled that increase in registration and turnout, and they 

stand ready to handle future increases in registration and turnout. 

I want to spend just a few moments talking about what I believe 

is right about our current voter registration system. The purpose 

of that system, obviously, is to provide a list of those eligible to 
19 

vote in each precinct. Voter registration provides order to our election system. I believe there are nine elements in our system that 

are crucial, and I would like to visit briefly about each one of those. 

They contribute to the reliability of the system. 

Number 1. Voter registration is easy and accessible. Voter registration is available at election offices, driver license agencies, 

public assistance agencies, other public agencies, military recruitment offices, and on the Internet. 

Number 2. The system relies on a paper card or form that is 

signed by the voters. Questions about the accuracy of the system 

can be taken back to that original registration card. Much has been 

talked about having a paper trail of the ballot on Election Day. It 

is equally important that we have a paper trail of the voter registration process with each person that registers. 

Number 3. The registration card contains an oath which must be 

signed by the citizen, swearing to their eligibility and their citizenship. State and local officials have very little access to citizenship 

information. We rely heavily on the oath signed by the voter. 

Number 4. The voter registration system is local. Voter registration cards are maintained as official records at the local agency. 

Those local officials know that each of those registrations represent 

somebody’s right to vote, and if there is information that is missing 

on those cards, local officials do everything they can to get that resolved. 

Number 5. Voter registration data is verified. The Help America 

Vote Act requires verification against drivers license lists or social 

security data. Incorrect information or simple typos can be caught 

and easily corrected. 

Number 6. Voter registration is aggregated into a statewide voter 

registration file that assists us in eliminating duplicate voter registrations. It also allows states, such as South Dakota, to use that 

data to allow citizens to, through the Internet, verify their registration status, find their polling place, and view their sample ballot. 

Number 7. The current registration system establishes a chain of 

responsibility for that data. Local officials know where to find the 

original registration information, they know how the data is incorporated into the registration file, they know how that file is used 

to create the precinct registration lists, and with that knowledge, 

they can track down and answer questions about why someone is 

on the list or is not on the list. 

Number 8. The voter registration system is transparent. The 

public, the candidates, the media, the political parties understand 

how names are added to the list and how names are removed from 

the list. And I would suggest that any attempt to remove that 

transparency from the current system will create and lead to deep 

suspicion about the integrity of the system. 

Number 9. Voter registration is part of the fabric of our American political system. The requirement for voters to be registered 

causes political parties and other groups to do voter registration 

drives. Those drives heighten the awareness about the upcoming 

election, and I believe that is good. 

The voter registration system in America today is the best and 

cleanest that it has ever been, despite some of the issues that we 

have heard about. The nine elements that I have talked about play 
20 

an important part in our successful registration system. The removal of any one of these elements risks the integrity of the system. 

With rights come responsibilities. In the area of voter registration, state and local election officials have the responsibility of 

maintaining an accurate and clean election registration list. Individual citizens have the simple but powerful responsibility of filling 

out a voter registration card to avail themselves of their right to 

vote. It is a system that works and works well. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you again for 

this opportunity and your consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Nelson. 

Again, I think excellent outline. 

Ms. Clarke? 

STATEMENT OF KRISTEN CLARKE, CO–DIRECTOR, POLITICAL 

PARTICIPATION GROUP, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND AND 

EDUCATIONAL FUND 

Ms. CLARKE. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to come and speak with you 

today about some of the problems that continues to plague our nation’s voter registration system. 

The final data that emerged in the 2008 election cycle reveals 

that only 61 percent of Americans eligible to vote cast ballots in 

this historic election. That is 1 percent more than in 2004. LDF believes that many more people would have liked to participate and 

we should undertake to see that in future elections they have the 

opportunity to do so. 

Almost 13 percent of all eligible voters in our country are not 

registered at present. If we are to be regarded as the world’s leading democracy, we must work to fix the breaks in the system and 

ensure that we reach the millions of eligible but not yet registered 

voters who are locked out of the system. I want to take my time 

to highlight some of the key problems by focusing on some of the 

issues and problems happening on the ground. 

First, purge programs and unreliable database matching systems 

have created enormous obstacles for voters. As states have moved 

to implement the requirements of the Help America Vote Act, we 

are witnessing the technological advancements themselves being 

used and abused to match and remove voters from registration 

lists. 

Let me point to an example. A recent purge program carried out 

in Louisiana resulted in a purge program that matched voters by 

using interstate databases to compare the first name, last name 

and date of birth of Louisiana voters with individuals from other 

states. Predictably, the system proved unreliable, yielding a number of false matches. And at the end of the day, more than 12,000 

voters were purged from the state’s rolls. A significant number of 

them were African American voters, many of them impacted by 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

The study confirmed that these kinds of matching programs are 

extremely error prone and not based on sufficiently unique criteria 

that would prevent voter disenfranchisement. Most purge programs 
21 

like Louisiana’s disregard the fail-safe provisions that are built into 

the National Voter Registration Act that generally require election 

officials to give proper notice and wait two federal election cycles 

before striking voters from the rolls. 

In addition, poorly designed state voter registration applications 

and arbitrary rules by local election officials also pose a substantial 

threat. During our advocacy efforts this election cycle, we identified 

a number of jurisdictions in which officials rejected registration applications for reasons that have no bearing whatsoever on eligibility. Immaterial omissions often resulted in a number of the rejections. 

In Indiana, for example, election officials were directed to reject 

registration applications if an applicant failed to mark a check box 

confirming their citizenship or their voting age. This was done despite the fact that voters sign an affirmation under penalty of perjury at the bottom of the form confirming that they are citizens and 

confirming that they are of voting age. These actions prompted successful litigation to stop officials from acting on these grounds, but 

the problem continues. 

Another example emerges out of Alabama where the Secretary of 

State instructed local election officials to reject applications from 

persons who possess drivers licenses but chose instead to list the 

social security number of the voter registration form. Thus, voters 

who provided a social security number were rejected for not listing 

their drivers license number when registering. 

The take away here is that voters should not penalized for poorly 

designed voter registration applications that capture duplicative information from applicants. We need to streamline the design of registration applications and eliminate the game of gotcha that leads 

to the rejection of so many would-be voters. 

Another example emerges out of Louisiana where officials reported rejecting as much as 20 percent of new registration applications because a database match revealed inconsistencies with the 

spelling of a name or in the full drivers license or social security 

number. Potential voters should not be penalized for administrative 

errors like these that have no bearing on voter eligibility. 

The challenge we now face is determining how to reform and repair the system in a way that will be more inclusive and provide 

opportunities for broad and meaningful participation for the millions of eligible but not yet registered citizens among us. While we 

turn now to corrective action, we must remain mindful of the particular challenges faced by those who are among the most vulnerable among us, the poor and our nation’s racial and ethnic minorities. The future of American democracy remains tied to our ability 

to resolve some of the barriers that I have discussed today. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clarke follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. An exquisite sense of timing. You ended exactly at five minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Goldman? 

And you gave very good testimony, more importantly. 
22 

STATEMENT OF JONAH GOLDMAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

CAMPAIGN FOR FAIR ELECTIONS 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a little bit intimidated by the example. I will make sure that I am inside the five 

minutes also. 

I want to thank you and Senator Bennett also for not only bringing this hearing together, as Professor Persily said, at a time when 

it is not in the middle of an election cycle, but when we have the 

opportunity to deliberate on these really important issues, which 

are policy issues and not political issues. 

As you suggested, our voter registration system needs modernization. At the dawn of the 19th century, long before Alexander 

Graham Bell made the first phone call, as you suggested, Mr. 

Chairman, the Whig Party was first advocating for our current 

voter registration system. And despite whether there are or there 

are not currently Whigs around, we know one thing, that both the 

registration system and the Whig Party are relics of the past. 

Our registration system is inefficient. It sets election officials up 

for failure by diverting resources and energy from crucial tasks and 

it prevents more eligible voters from casting a ballot than any 

other part of the election process. 

As governments at all levels fight to stretch every penny, this 

Congress has recognized that streamlining essential process is critical for moving forward in this new economy. Counties and states 

across the country are wasting millions of dollars every election 

cycle administering an outdated and expensive paper-based voter 

registration process that puts our election system at risk. Modernizing the registration system will improve democracy and allow 

communities to reinvest resources in critical functions like keeping 

more teachers in the classroom and more cops on the street. 

There are two culprits, paper and timing. Each registration requires an individual paper form. A third to a half of these forms 

arrive in registrars’ offices just before the deadline. The inefficiency 

of the registration system has a domino effect, causing confusion at 

the polls and infecting every aspect of the voting process. 

The biggest impact is on voters. We have already heard up to 9 

million voters are prevented from voting at one stage or another 

because of the registration process. Registration problems affect everyone, but also, as we have heard already, it is felt more distinctly 

in some communities. Military and overseas voters have terrible access to registration facilities. Older voters and those with disabilities cannot get absentee ballots unless registration rules are updated. And young voters are frequently left off rolls because they 

move often but also because they are unfamiliar with the process. 

The current system of voter registration is a bureaucratic nightmare. In an election system with more than 7,000 local election offices, just getting the paper application to the right place is no 

small feat. 

Last year, Mr. Chairman, in your state of New York, for example, a hundred thousand forms collected by third-party registration 

groups were mistakenly sent to the State Board of Elections in Albany. The board had to sort through those forms and forward them 

to the correct local offices. Some 3,500 of those forms were found 
23 

in the New York City Elections Office after Election Day. Of 

course, those voters were not on the registration list. 

Registration deadlines have caused significant issues. Adam, an 

active serviceman from Mississippi, submitted his registration before the deadline as he was leaving for his tour. When he came 

home, there was no record of his registration, the deadline had 

passed, and he could not vote. 

Purges often have removed long-time voters from registration 

rolls. James, he had been voting at the same poll location in Alabama for decades, but when he got to the polls on Election Day, 

he was told that he was not registered. An election official told him 

that his office had received calls from about 20 other voters who 

had similar problems. These experiences were shared by countless 

voters across the country. 

Through Election Protection, I have had the honor to interact 

with hundreds of talented election officials. In jurisdictions of all 

sizes, whether run by Republicans, Democrats or nonpartisan professionals, the story remains the same. The inefficiencies of the 

registration system are a fundamental concern because they undermine election officials’ ability to effectively serve their voters. 

All that manual data entry cost money and adds opportunities 

from the states. Often more than half the registration budget goes 

to hiring temporary employees and assigning full-time staff to capture information from handwritten applications and eliminate duplicate registrations. This process costs even small jurisdictions, 

like Forsyth County, Georgia, hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

The cost grows to over a million dollars in medium sized jurisdictions like Franklin County, Ohio and is a multimillion dollar endeavor in large counties like Los Angeles. 

Even with these extraordinary measures and costs, the system is 

far from foolproof. Voters can show up at the polls and find their 

name has been wrongly entered or dropped, forcing them to cast, 

as we have heard before, provisional ballots. Election officials then 

must reconcile the mistake by using other data to identify the voter 

before counting the ballot, which adds further costs and delayed 

certification. 

These costs have a debilitating effect on the rest of the election 

system. For example, in Columbia, Ohio, the Board of Elections 

stopped notifying registrations with incomplete applications of the 

opportunity to correct them because it just cost too much. Even 

then, as Matt Damschroder who oversees elections in Franklin 

County says, phones that would otherwise be picked up are not, 

leaving voters’ questions unanswered. Because of the inherent 

delays in processing paper registration forms, Los Angeles has to 

spend $56,000 in every countywide election to send supplemental 

voter rosters to poll inspectors by overnight mail. That delay makes 

it difficult to order and distribute ballots. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for all you are doing to move 

us towards a more efficient and equitable process to exercise our 

vote. Each election in the voter registration system, this relic of our 

pre-Civil War past, blocks millions of Americans from casting a ballot, distracts election officials, and needlessly wastes millions of 

dollars at a time when state and local budgets are stretching every 
24 

penny. Congress has the power and the opportunity to modernize 

this antiquated system. Thank you for taking the first step today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldman follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Good job, Mr. Goldman; seven seconds off. 

Not bad, not too shabby, given how it usually is around here. 

Okay. I want to thank the six witnesses. I thought the testimony 

was excellent from the witnesses that I asked to come and that 

Senator Bennett asked to come, and very much appreciated. 

Now, to me, the astounding fact here was the reports both by 

Professors Ansolabehere and Persily, that large numbers of people 

just could not vote. And this is not relegated to a state; it shows 

the problems are everywhere. And I am certainly mindful of what 

Mr. Nelson said, that there is a lot that works with the system. 

Most people do vote and vote well, but in democracy, everybody has 

to vote. 

So I would like to ask the witnesses whether they agree, each of 

you, just with the statement that we have substantial numbers of 

eligible voters being excluded from the rolls. It is a simple statement. I will just ask each of you for a yes or no answer, and then 

I am going to let anybody say whatever they wish. Okay? 

Go ahead, Mr. Ansolabehere. 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Yes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Gans? 

Mr. GANS. Yes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Persily? 

Mr. PERSILY. Yes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. No. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Ms. Clarke? 

Ms. CLARKE. Absolutely. 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. Then we will first ask Mr. Nelson. 

You disagree with the other five witnesses. You think that—do you 

think—I mean, I guess explain. Their studies are pretty good. They 

are not biased or political, so explain to me your answer. I am not 

asking the percentage. I am asking just that we have, at least by 

their reports, in the millions of people who are eligible to vote, 

want to vote and cannot. 

Mr. NELSON. I do not believe that anybody is excluded. There are 

obviously millions that have been testified to that are not on the 

list for various reasons, but I do not believe that we have a system 

that purposely excludes anybody. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Oh, I agree with that. 

Mr. NELSON. And are there issues within the system that need 

to be looked at and addressed? Absolutely. And there are a number 

of things that have been brought up here that I would love to question the witnesses on because they do not make sense with what 

I know about how the system works. 

Chairman SCHUMER. But the instance of, say, the military solider who was assigned, wants to vote, and did not. Now, the system 

is not purposely excluding him. And Ms. Clarke focused on Louisiana and Georgia, and there are allegations that some of these 

rules are done to deliberately exclude people. 
25 

But let’s leave that aside. Let’s assume that we are not talking 

about intent here. We are just talking about the fact that the way 

the system works that there are people who want to vote, try to 

do what they can to vote, but cannot. You do not disagree with 

that. 

Mr. NELSON. There may be some. But let me use your example 

of the military voter—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Sure. 

Mr. NELSON. —that is transferred on October 15th to a new location, gets to their new location too late to register. They can certainly vote absentee prior to leaving their current location. They 

are opened to do that in any state. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well—— 

Mr. NELSON. So they are not excluded from the process. 

Chairman SCHUMER. You know, I have voted by absentee ballot. 

It is not so easy. You have to call—you have to get the form from 

the election board. It sometimes takes a long period of time. It is 

cumbersome. And in New York, I think we have a pretty good absentee ballot system. 

You also have—the example I gave is the soldier is told—let’s 

just say he is registered to vote, or she is registered to vote, at the 

military base in which they live. On October 15th, they are told 

they have to be somewhere else by November 1st, and the deadline 

for absentee ballots is over. 

Mr. NELSON. If I might—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. We do not have—every state, am I correct, 

does not allow people to decide to vote absentee within a week or 

two. You sometimes have to apply for that absentee ballot in advance. 

Mr. NELSON. I am not aware of any state that would have a twoweek restriction on absentee balloting. In South Dakota you can 

absentee vote up until 3:00 on election day. I am not aware of any 

state that has a two-week black out. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I am not sure, but somebody check me. In 

New York, you have to apply for the absentee ballot in advance. 

Is that right? 

Professor Persily, you are from New York. 

Mr. PERSILY. I cannot remember exactly what it was in New 

York. I should say that I tried to vote and I was actually told I was 

not on the registration list only two years ago in New York. And 

it was the night before the election official—having an election law 

professor be the one being turned away from voting. 

But with respect to absentee ballots, there are several states 

where, first of all, you have to have cause, obviously, in some states 

to request an absentee ballot. And there is huge variety on different states. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes. I think, in all due respect, Mr. Nelson, 

there are states that would not allow that military voter to vote; 

not through intent, but in others. 

Mr. Goldman, would you sum up—tell us the restrictions on that 

particular situation? I know you have studied this a lot. 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Absolutely, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that we all do agree that, generally, a system that was 

created in the 19th century was created in a way that should be 
26 

fair. The problem is that it was created in the 19th century when 

there were horse and buggies dragging folks from place to place to 

try to register voters; now we are on learjets. And I think that that 

is something that we need to understand, is that we are really 

talking about a 21st century political process in a 19th century system that, as you say, is the lifeblood of the process. 

The voters who call us are voters who want to vote. They want 

to vote desperately. And in 2008, we received 240,000 calls. Over 

300,000 more people were serviced by Election Protection through 

our Web site. And they were telling us stories, military voters, telling us about how they—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. So the example that I gave is not an unusual—or is not an out of the question one, right? 

Mr. GOLDMAN. No, it is not unusual at all. 

Chairman SCHUMER. It probably happens hundreds of times. 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Sure. It happens—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. At least hundreds, probably more. 

Mr. GOLDMAN. It happens more than hundreds of times. We get 

those calls from all over the country, from service members who 

have moved, who are transferred right at the end of the deadline. 

But also, as I suggested in the testimony, from service members 

who register before the deadline as they are supposed to, and then 

come home from their tour of duty to get to the polling place excited to, as you suggested, vote for their boss, their commander and 

chief, and get to the polling place and their names are not on the 

rolls. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. 

Let me just ask, before I turn it over to my friend and colleague, 

Senator Bennett, to both Mr. Persily and Mr. Ansolabehere—because I do think while there is bad intent maybe, there are some 

people on either side, some who want to exclude people from voting, some who want to falsely register people. 

But would it be right to say that most of the people who are excluded are not excluded by intent, by design, but rather because of 

the cumbersomeness of the system, the system is not modernized 

and things like that? 

Do you agree with that, Professor Persily? 

Mr. PERSILY. I do. 

Chairman SCHUMER. How about you? Does your study show 

that? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Yes, and other studies we have conducted. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Would you disagree with that, Ms. Clarke? 

Ms. CLARKE. No, I agree with that. I think that—part of the 

problem is that election officials have too much discretion, and they 

abuse that discretion, or you have a case in South Dakota where 

it appears that Mr. Nelson enforces rules very liberally and other 

states where similar rules are enforced in a very restrictive manner 

that locks voters out. 

We need to figure out a way to make these rules more uniform 

across the board. 

Chairman SCHUMER. But you would agree there is not a grand 

conspiracy on either side. There are some people who have bad intent, but mostly this occurs because we have not modernized or are 
27 

just negligent. There are new examples that keep coming up that 

we do not realize. 

Is that fair? 

Ms. CLARKE. I agree with that. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Bennett? 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, and thank you all for 

your excellent testimony. I do have some quibbles here and there 

that I would like to do my best to deal with. 

Mr. Goldman, stop talking about a 19th century system. We have 

changed it. I had to fill out a provisional ballot in Utah, and in the 

19th century there were no provisional ballots. I had applied for an 

absentee ballot and forgot it. So I showed up at the polls and they 

said, you cannot vote because you have already voted absentee. I 

said, well, I never mailed it in. Okay. You come over here, fill out 

a provisional ballot and we will see. 

That is a system that is not in the 19th century. There have been 

an awful lot of changes in this. So you have valid points. Do not 

diminish their validity by that kind of pejorative statement. 

Chairman SCHUMER. But just to quibble with my good friend, in 

the first half of the 19th century, nobody voted in Utah. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BENNETT. That is true. We were infested with Mormon 

crickets, if I could use another term that has been in the news. 

Mr. Ansolabehere, I would like to know more about your methodology because we have had a lot of numbers thrown out here. You 

use the number 7 million. In your written testimony, you are talking about 4 to 5 million who could not or did not vote. Mr. Goldman 

said 9 million. Mr. Persily said we do not have concrete data. 

We are using numbers, and in Washington the tendency is, once 

a number is thrown out, regardless of how tentative it may be, it 

gets locked in. The press picks it up; it ends up in a headline. Having been in the headline, it then ends up in a bunch of speeches 

and it becomes gospel. 

Right now, you are the only source that I can find, and I would 

like to understand your methodology a little better. You talk about 

33,000 respondents. I want to know how that sample was drawn 

and how it was verified. And all of your extrapolations come from 

those 33,000; is that correct? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. I followed two methods. One is—I also follow—we have the survey that we did in fall of ’08, which is the 

only publicly available survey at this moment. The other survey 

that we are waiting on is the Current Population Survey that the 

Census produces. We follow the Current Population census’ methodology in terms of question design and also the methodology for 

projecting from the survey out to figures on total number—— 

Senator BENNETT. I am sure you do. I am more interested in the 

sample. 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. The sample was part Internet and part 

phone to validate. And we also validated the study by comparing 

the statements of how many people voted for each candidate 

against the total vote shares that those candidates received in 

every state. And all of the states, except one, were within the margin of error, and the one was Kansas. So there was something 

about the sample in that state. But that will happen sometimes. 
28 

Senator BENNETT. Whom did you go after? How did you know to 

call 33,000 people? Were they self-selected? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. It is a national random sample. In some 

sense, all surveys are self-selected because all surveys are voluntary. But, yes, national random sample of the population in the 

United States, the adult population in the United States. 

Senator BENNETT. You called them? And how many of the 33,000 

you called said I did not have any problem and lived in South Dakota? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. How many of the 33,000 said I did not have 

any problem? 

Senator BENNETT. Yes. 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Well, let’s focus on the 4 to 5 million number. So the 4 to 5 million are the number of people projected out 

from the survey who said that they had tried to vote but could not, 

for whatever reason. 

Senator BENNETT. I understand that, but you are talking 33,000 

people. What percentage of them lived in Mr. Nelson’s state and 

said they had no problem? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. I do not know how many in South Dakota. 

Senator BENNETT. No, I am not saying specifically South Dakota, 

but what percent said they had no problem? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. What percent said they had no problem? 

Probably about 96 percent said they had no problem. 

Senator BENNETT. So you are extrapolating—let’s say 4 percent 

of the 33,000, of the 4 percent, you are extrapolating the 7 million 

figure you gave us here. 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Right, and that is about what Census does 

when they do the Current Population Survey projection as well. 

The Current Population Survey, when you look at the statistical 

abstract of the United States or the reports produced by CPS 

through the Census Bureau, give you projections for how many million people are registered. That is where the number 142 million 

people registered comes from, from the last election cycle and so 

forth. That is where they get the citizens voting age population 

numbers. There is no official record of how many citizens there are 

in the United States; it all comes from those surveys. 

Senator BENNETT. Oh, I understand that. 

Can you not get the number registered by contacting all 50 

states? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Actually, no you cannot. Even the National 

Association of Secretaries of States produce a report, and all that 

was given from some states, like Texas, were ballpark numbers. 

Senator BENNETT. Mr. Nelson, can you tell him how many are 

registered in your state? 

Mr. NELSON. Five hundred and thirty-three thousand. 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Yes, some states you can, but you cannot get 

it in all—— 

Senator BENNETT. I will not pursue it any further. 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. On top of that, there are problems of duplications, which South Dakota, as was testified, had more people on 

the rolls than they had in the citizens voting age population. So 

there is an impossibility there, and it is just because people move. 

There is no requirement that somebody update their registration. 
29 

Very quickly, as Nate testified, the registration lists become obsolete. Currently I am doing a study in L.A. County where we are 

auditing the rolls there, and it looks like about 6 to 10 percent of 

the names on the list, just the names, are no longer valid addresses. In addition, there are another 10 percent where the registration 

seems to be incorrect, according to the—— 

Senator BENNETT. Your written testimony suggests that there 

are 30 million obsolete and duplicate answers on the list. And you 

agree that these 30 million should be removed? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Something should be done to reduce them. 

I do not know how to do that. That is I think an issue with how 

to do purges properly. I think there has been huge improvements 

in the states since 2001. 

Senator BENNETT. Well, I do not want to drill any further on this 

or take more time. 

Mr. Gans, I am interested in your solution, which is basically 

calling for a national ID card for everything, for social security, for 

immigration, for everything. And that is probably a bigger issue 

than we are going to deal with here. 

Chairman SCHUMER. My Ranking Member, I also chair the Immigration Subcommittee. Who knows? 

Senator BENNETT. Okay. 

Mr. GANS. Mr. Chairman, I have run this one by Doris Meissner, 

who sort of likes it for the immigration purposes. 

Senator BENNETT. Yes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. May I interrupt, Lindsey Graham and I put 

in a proposal for a biometric social security card to deal with the 

immigration problem a couple of years ago. So the two actually do 

dovetail. It gets opposition from a variety of places, but it also gets 

some support. 

Senator BENNETT. Yes, both of those are true. 

Just one last—you are aware that in Australia, they solve this 

problem by making voting mandatory. If you do not vote, you get 

fined. 

Now, I do not quite know how they handle the lists, but this was 

brought home dramatically when an Australian politician came to 

see me some years ago to talk about strategies. And having been 

one who had run campaigns in Utah, I immediately said, well, the 

first thing you have to do is identify who your voters are to get 

them out. And he said, no, that is not a problem. I said, what do 

you mean that is not a problem? He said, we have mandatory voting; everybody gets out. 

I think the fine is 50 Australian dollars or something. I cannot 

remember. Do not take that, if there is anybody noting this down, 

because that was a lot of years ago. But when the Australians did 

some government reform some years ago, one of the reforms they 

put in place was mandatory voting. 

Does anybody have a reaction? 

Mr. GANS. Yes, I do. 

Senator BENNETT. Okay. 

Mr. GANS. I have two reactions. One reaction is that I think the 

right to vote implies the right not to vote. And I also—three reactions. I also think if we boost the numbers, we will hide the problems. And the third thing is, even if you have mandatory voting, 
30 

you would still have a list that you have to make accurate. The 

thrust of my testimony is essentially to start conceiving of another 

paradigm because otherwise you will be in Rube Goldberg Number 

27. 

Senator BENNETT. Okay. Well, I agree with you that the right to 

vote also includes the right not to vote, and I am not advocating 

for the Australian system. And this gets back to the question of extrapolating numbers; how many people did not vote because they 

chose not to vote as opposed to an assumption that if they did not 

vote, it was because of some breakdown in the system. 

Now, Mr. Persily, you are nodding your head. Do you want to 

comment on that? 

Mr. PERSILY. Well, let me first—since I have a little knowledge 

of Australia, I have to at least give my two seconds on that, which 

is that although they have mandatory voting there and they have 

fines, almost no one gets prosecuted, and yet the have extremely 

high voter turnout. About 4 percent, I think, of the ballots are cast 

for no candidate. They are called donkey ballots, which we would 

call undervotes here in the U.S. I guess here a donkey ballot means 

something completely different. 

Chairman SCHUMER. They should call them kangaroo ballots. 

Mr. PERSILY. But one thing I think you are getting a sense of 

from the testimony here is how much we do not know. I mean, we 

do have a good glimpse of, I think, the problem, both through litigation, from the number of respondents who are saying they faced 

problems, the number of people who call into these help lines, et 

cetera, and the number of provisional ballots, which gives you a 

sense of the registration and voting gap. 

So the first step here is to—we do not actually even know how 

many people voted in this last election. We have 12 states that do 

not even provide certified vote totals. So you hear this number 133 

million bandied about. There is a significant margin of error even 

in that. And then as previous witnesses were saying, with respect 

to the registration lists, yes, there is going to be a gap between, 

say, 20 million people who are on the registration rolls and the 

number of people who say that they are registered. 

What we really need is to have a census of election administrators. We need to know at the precinct level how many people vote 

for which candidates by which method, military, Internet, provisional, et cetera, and then we can really get a handle on the scope 

of all these problems. 

Senator BENNETT. And then we have the problem Mr. Gans 

talked about, where there are more names on the lists than there 

are people living in the jurisdiction. 

Mr. PERSILY. Yes. 

Mr. GANS. We have that. And the other thing, in response to 

your question of my colleague here, is whether you take my colleague’s figure on my right or my figures, we either have 44 million 

or 50 million people who are not registered who are citizens eligible 

18 and over. And that is a problem, as is the problem of 20 million 

names that are on registration rolls that should not be on. Both of 

those need to be dealt with. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you all very much. 
31 

Chairman SCHUMER. Let me go to a second round. And, of 

course, I afford that to my colleague. 

Just one point, Mr. Nelson, just making the point of Mr. 

Ansolabehere here, Professor, you said there were 533,000, did you 

say? 

Mr. NELSON. Correct. 

Chairman SCHUMER. How many total people are there in South 

Dakota? 

Mr. NELSON. Adults, about 750. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Adults? 

Mr. NELSON. No, total population about 750. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. So how many adults are there, 18 

and over who are citizens? I will bet it is less than 533. 

Mr. NELSON. If I might address that because it was mentioned 

we have over a hundred percent registration. 

The percentage of registered voters on the active registration list 

is 87 percent. The way they come up with the over 100 percent 

number is by adding in the inactive registered voters, that inactive 

list. And I will tell you, when the National Voter Registration Act 

was passed in 1993, the restrictions that it places on voter lists 

maintenance, I said at that time, this is going to guarantee in excess of 100 percent registration, and that is where we are at—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. This illustrates the point I think that both 

Mr. Ansolabehere and Mr. Gans were making. 

Let me go back because my friend, Senator Bennett, talked about 

4 million, 5 million. All those numbers are consistent. They represent different categories. So would you just—both you and Professor Persily, Mr. Ansolabehere, just go over what each of those 

numbers represents. They are not inconsistent numbers; they are 

not just bandied about numbers. They are serious numbers based 

on a study, obviously, on statistical methods. But they are not inconsistent given those statistical methods. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. The 4 to 5 million number is based on the 

number of people in the survey, projected out based on the number 

of citizens voting age population who said that they tried to vote 

but failed, for whatever reason. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And they were registered. 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. And they were registered. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. And give a couple of examples of 

those. Just give a couple of examples of those. 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Actually, I cannot say anything that is a 

specific example from the survey because it violates confidentiality—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, you do not have to give the name; 

somebody who showed up, waited on line for two hours, and went 

home because it was pouring rain, right? Would that be—— 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Yes. There are people who went home because the lines were too long. There were people on that list who 

said they were sick or disabled, they had transportation problems, 

they were out of town and so forth. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. The 4 to 5 million is the percentage—sorry. 

The 2 to 3 million of those people, that 4 to 5 million, said that 
32 

they could not vote because of lack of registration, because they 

had requested an absentee ballot but did not receive one, or because they were asked for voter identification and they did not 

have it. That is the two to three. 

Then there is an additional set of people who did not try to vote 

but said, when they were asked why you did not vote, that they 

encountered a registration—they were not—they had a problem 

with their registration, they had a problem getting an absentee ballot and so forth. And that looks like it is in the range of 2 to 4 million, so that comes—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. Let’s just clarify that. We could always say, well, they should have registered. That is probably what 

Mr. Nelson would say, right? 

Mr. NELSON. Correct. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Let me give you the other side. I mean, this 

was sort of interesting to me, and make what you can of it. 

This was back in 1973 and Herman Badillo was running for 

mayor of New York City. He was the first Hispanic mayor running. 

And I was a political junkie. I was not an elected official then, but 

I was at the polling places. And there were large numbers of Hispanic people who came to the polling place and said, I want to vote 

for Herman Badillo. 

They were citizens. They had not registered because a month before I guess they had not focused on the election or whatever, but 

they truly wanted to register then. Now, we can get into a sort of 

moral argument; well, they should have and it is their fault, or 

they should be able to, it is the system’s fault. But they would fit 

into that category of people who wanted to vote but were not registered. 

Is that fair to say, Mr. Ansolabehere? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Yes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. I did not even know, by the way, in 

some of these precincts, that there were any Hispanic people living 

there. It was so amazing. It was sort of like a magnet. It showed 

me the power of elections and—it was very interesting. 

Yes, Mr. Persily? 

Mr. PERSILY. Sort of one point on that, which is in the 2004 election, we had about 1.9 million provisional ballots that were cast. 

About half were cast on what are called Section 203 covered jurisdictions. These are areas with high language minority populations 

under the Voting Rights Act. 

But what is happening in the registration system is that it is 

falling disproportionately on certain communities who, for example, 

when they get to the polling place are confronted either with a registration problem or with someone who does not understand their 

name or it does not match up because it is in a different language. 

And then they end up casting provisional ballots, which is one of 

the reasons why looking at provisional ballots gives us a glimpse 

of the problem. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. I interrupted. Go ahead. Did you finish all the numbers that you have thrown out? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. No. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Keep going. 

Mr. PERSILY. I am fine. 
33 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. But you had additional numbers that 

do not contradict—nothing in your study and Mr. Ansolabehere’s 

study contradict one another, do they, Mr. Persily? 

Mr. PERSILY. As in most things in life, I take my numbers from 

Harvard, so I will defer to Stephen Ansolabehere on this. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay, right. 

Now, I just wanted to ask you, because my friend, Senator Bennett, talked about the statistics, the source of your data is the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, right? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. That is correct. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And is that generally regarded by the academics on both sides as a reliable, reputable source of data? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Yes, in fact BYU is one of the major participants in this study. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Oh, now you are talking, Mr. Ansolabehere. 

Senator BENNETT. I went to the University of Utah. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PERSILY. Can I say one other thing on this? 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes. 

Mr. PERSILY. We will get more data in a month, and I suspect 

the Census data will confirm this, and also that the Election Day 

Survey from the Election Assistance Commission will also give us 

some confirmation of those numbers, so we do not need simply to 

rely on those. 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. And there was a separate study that the 

Pew Foundation sponsored. 

Chairman SCHUMER. So we do not have a dispute, even among 

those on either side of the aisle here, so to speak—Mr. Gans, as 

one of the witnesses, you do not dispute those statistics at all. 

Mr. GANS. No. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And do you, Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. I do not have enough insight into the methodology. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. But Mr. Gans, just for the record, is 

a witness chosen by Senator Bennett. 

Mr. GANS. Yes, but not because I am a Republican. 

Chairman SCHUMER. No, I know. But you know I understand 

that completely. I met you—you do not remember, but I met you 

in the Eugene McCarthy campaign in 1968, when I was a freshman. 

Mr. GANS. You exhibited great wisdom. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes. Well, no. In retrospect, I did not. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. But in any case, I wanted to ask you, Professor Ansolabehere, on page 17 of your written testimony, you indicate that 3.8 percent of all respondents showed up to the polls 

and found they had problems with voter registration. In other 

words, they showed up, they wanted to vote, and had problems. 

If those numbers remain consistent nationally, how many voters 

would that be? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. I would have to—it is like teaching—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay, you can provide that—— 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. 3.8—if you just take 3.8 of the number 

of—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. People who showed up. 
34 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. —people who showed up, the 133 million. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes. So it would be 3.8 of 133 million—— 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Right. 

Chairman SCHUMER. —which is 1, 3 times—a little less than 4, 

about 5 million. 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. Four or 5 percent—5 million. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right, okay. 

Another question. Are you measuring the substance and extent 

of voter registration problems for the 44 million eligible voters who 

were not registered in 2008? How do we begin to determine who 

these people are and why they are not registered to vote? 

Mr. ANSOLABEHERE. We are going to look closely at the CPS 

Study because they do have a pretty extensive battery of questions 

having to do with the reasons for non-registration. From past studies that they conducted in 2000 and 2004, those data look like they 

are quite similar to the extent to which people are not registering 

because they are not interested. That is the major source of the 

problem. But, you know, about 20 percent are not registering because of these other issues, such as registration dates and mobility. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. 

Professor Gans, you had mentioned before that the U.S. ranks 

139 out of 172 countries in voter participation. I think that is 

counterintuitive to most of us here in this country. 

Can you elaborate a little on that? What is the country above us, 

what is the country below us, why are we so low? Is it, Third World 

countries are better than us; those who have democracies? 

Mr. GANS. Several Third World countries are better than us. 

Back in 1976, we did a survey of nonvoters. Peter Hart did the survey and his line was that we have a higher percentage only than 

Botswana. And then Botswana had an election, which had a higher 

turnout than we did. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Why do you think that is? 

Mr. GANS. Well, it is a lot of reasons. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Is it just the registration? 

Mr. GANS. Oh, no, not at all. But it is true that we are—as far 

as advanced democracies are concerned, one of the very few that 

put the burden on the citizen to qualify him or herself via registration and requalify when they move. Most of the other countries— 

the government does in one way or another—create the list of eligible voters. 

Chairman SCHUMER. What is your view? Does the system we saw 

in Iraq, where people put their finger—they put some kind of indelible ink on their finger. Does that work better or worse than our 

system? 

Mr. GANS. Iraq comes closer to my biometric than our system. 

But do I want to emulate Iraq? I do not think so. 

Chairman SCHUMER. But seriously—— 

Mr. GANS. We have lots of different problems. I mean, part of the 

reason our voting is lower than most other democracies is we do 

not have a parliamentary democracy and, therefore, we, a) do not 

have a very class oriented society as other democracies do; we do 

not have class oriented parties; we have a complex system of government; we have a multiplicity of officers that we elect, all of 
35 

which makes people’s vote feel less instrumental than voting for 

one person who represents your point of view. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Let me ask you this question. 

Mr. GANS. Yes, sir? 

Chairman SCHUMER. Let’s just assume for the moment we could 

develop a system where people would not have to register, could 

show up that day and yet it would have no fraud, just hypothetically. 

Mr. GANS. Okay. That is what I am proposing. 

Chairman SCHUMER. You are trying—I know. 

Do you think turnout would go up a great deal? 

Mr. GANS. I think turnout would go up. I mean, in our recent 

history, you can look less at registration and more at motivation 

as to the reasons why we have higher or lower turnout. What this 

would do, would enhance the possibility and high turnout—in high 

motivation election; that we would have substantially more people 

than we already have, and it may or may not make much difference in low motivation elections. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. 

What do you say, Ms. Clarke and Mr. Goldman, on that? 

Ms. CLARKE. One thing I would note is that there are some 

things that are compulsory in our society. Jury service, for example, no choice, you have to do it. So this idea about mandatory voting, I kind of like the notion of really encouraging as many citizens 

as possible to participate. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Support a fine? 

Ms. CLARKE. I am sorry? 

Chairman SCHUMER. Would you support a fine like in the Australian system? 

Ms. CLARKE. Sure, particularly if it were accompanied by low 

prosecution. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. CLARKE. But I think we want to figure out how we can tear 

down barriers. 

I am concerned—and I just want to note this concern for the 

record about proposals, about national ID requirements, which I 

think only erect additional barriers, unnecessary barriers, that 

would lock out even greater numbers of people from the process. 

A final point I want to underscore is that we really should focus 

on the design of voter registration forms, which varies tremendously across the board. I have a copy here of Louisiana’s voter registration form, probably designed with a 6-point font. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Hold it up. Hold it up. 

Ms. CLARKE. You need a magnifying glass to get through it. And 

it is terribly unfortunate that it requires voters to list information 

over and over and over again. And election officials can reject the 

forms if somebody fails to check the box that they are a citizen, 

but, nevertheless, signs the affirmation at the bottom, under penalty of perjury, where they swear that they are citizens. We have 

really got to streamline these forms and make it easier for all who 

want to participate to register. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Do you want to say something, Mr. Goldman, in reference to Mr. Gans, the comment I asked Mr. Gans? 
36 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that we already saw that this would increase turnout if we had a better registration system. I mean, we were just talking about 3.8 percent of 

voters who tried to go to the polls and tried to vote but were not 

able to because of registration. Those voters are not included in tallies, whether they are exact or inexact tallies of how many voters 

did show up. And I think 3.8 percentage points in an American 

election is actually an enormous amount. 

Australia actually has an automatic and permanent voter registration system, so they do not have the same problems that we 

do. While we can quibble about whether or not it is a 19th century 

system or not, the provisional balloting system and the problems 

with absentee balloting are largely a symptom of a problem with 

the registration system. We would not have—for instance, in California, in Los Angeles County, 85 percent of provisional ballots that 

do not count are not counted because of the registration system, 

which is an enormous amount of ballots, since each one of those 

takes time and money to be able to distribute them and count 

them. And they delay certification and things like that. 

So we are talking about the correlative costs on the rest of the 

election system and making election officials doing basically three 

or four times the work that they would otherwise have to, spending 

half of their registration budget. That adds up to millions and millions of dollars because of a system which was conceived in the 

19th century has not been much updated other than a couple of 

band-aids that have basically just really illustrated how bad the 

system is to begin with. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Bennett will get the last round of 

questions. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much. This has been a very 

interesting morning. I appreciate it. I think kind of a potpourri of 

reactions here. 

You get all of your data from Harvard? 

Mr. GANS. No, I do not. 

Senator BENNETT. No. Mr. Persily. 

Mr. PERSILY. The Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. 

Senator BENNETT. Oh, okay. 

Mr. PERSILY. I mean, without belaboring the point, it is a coalition of 30 universities. Steve is instrumental in running it. Stanford’s Doug Rivers, is instrumental in running it. So I might have 

been a little loose there, but it is a broad-based coalition. 

Senator BENNETT. We are all being a little bit flip here in one 

way or another. 

There is a book that I remember. I should have brought it here 

because I should quote it exactly. But it comes out of my memory 

bank as we are having this conversation, entitled, The Vanishing 

Voter, and it was written from Harvard. And the two primary reasons, according to the book, why voter participation has been going 

down in the United States were, number one, the declining power 

of political parties. Political parties exist, whether they are the 

Whigs or whoever, to get people to the polls. And the declining 

power of political parties is one of the reasons why, according to 

this book, voters are vanishing. The second was the attitude of the 

media, that the media is constantly denigrating politics and politi-
37 

cians to the point that people feel, why have anything to do with 

it. 

I remember another piece, random out of my database, of a 

woman who was asked how do you vote, and she said, I never vote; 

it only encourages them. And that, again, is manifestation of the 

attitude that the media has for politics. And if you listen to the late 

night shows, you find that there is constant, constant, dripping of 

acid on all politicians. We are all stupid; we are all corrupt. And 

we are all objects of constant downgrading attacks until, of course, 

we have left office. And then we might, in some ways, be brought 

up at these late night shows as an example of how the present politicians are all stupid and corrupt because this one who has passed 

from the scene is not. This has nothing to do with registration. So 

let’s not view this whole thing in a silo that says that registration 

is the sole cause of our various problems. 

I thank you for the information about your methodology. It gives 

me a greater sense of security in depending on your numbers than 

I had when I came in to this. But I would just say to the press that 

is around here, if you are going to say the registration problem has 

kept people from the polls, we go to the 2 to 3 million number that 

comes out of your study instead of the 9 million number that we 

heard later. And I welcome the idea that there are further studies 

that are going on and we will get more statistical information 

about this. 

I appreciate the work you have all done. The only one last comment I would leave—— 

Mr. Nelson, you have a registration system in South Dakota. 

Mr. NELSON. Correct. 

Senator BENNETT. North Dakota does not. 

Mr. NELSON. Correct. 

Senator BENNETT. You have a higher turnout in South Dakota 

than they have in North Dakota. 

Mr. NELSON. Correct. 

Senator BENNETT. I do not know what that proves, but it is an 

interesting thing to lay down—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. It is warmer. 

Senator BENNETT. I have never been to either one, so I will leave 

you to say that. 

But the registration system has not produced in your state a 

lower vote turnout or a non-registration system in as close a control as we can find in a neighboring state. So, again, I say that to 

underscore my point that decisions not to vote or voter participation at low levels is not entirely a factor of the registration challenge that we face. 

Having said that, I think the panel has demonstrated that we 

have work to do here, and I appreciate the view of the academics 

who have studied it carefully. I appreciate the view of the man who 

is on the firing line who has to deal with it, and I hope we pay attention to all of this. 

Mr. Gans, I am very interested in your solution. I will not publicly endorse it at this point, but I will say I am very interested 

in it. 

Mr. GANS. Thank you. 
38 

Chairman SCHUMER. I want to thank both Senator Bennett and 

our panel. I think it was really a great start for this committee for 

the year. So I want to thank all of you for coming. We have a number of statements for the hearing record. Without objection, I request that a series of statements, which I will submit to the record, 

be added in. 

The record will remain open for five business days for additional 

statements from members and the public. And if the witnesses 

have no objection, I would also request the record remain open for 

five days for additional questions that we on the panel might submit to you, and you can answer in writing, if that is okay. Good. 

All right. Since there is no further business before the Committee, we are adjourned, subject to the call of the chair. 

[The information for the record follows:] 

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(39) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 

HEARING ON PROBLEMS FOR MILITARY AND 

OVERSEAS VOTERS: WHY MANY SOLDIERS 

AND THEIR FAMILIES CAN’T VOTE 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2009 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Nelson, Chambliss and Roberts. 

Staff present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Jason Abel, Chief 

Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Adam Ambrogi, 

Counsel; Brenna Allen, Professional Staff; Lynden Armstrong, 

Chief Clerk; Justin Perkins, Staff Assistant; Mary Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Michael Merrell, Republican Counsel; and Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional 

Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. The hearing will come to order and good 

morning to everyone and thank all the witnesses for coming and 

I want to thank my colleagues for being here. 

Saxby Chambliss, has played an active role and I know is very 

interested in this issue, and I want to say we hope to get something done in a bipartisan way on this issue because this is truly 

a bipartisan problem. 

And my good friend Ben Nelson, who wears really two hats. I am 

proud he is a member of our Committee, but he is also Chairman 

of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel and Readiness 

and I know he cares a lot about this issue and he is a great legislator and gets a lot done so thanks for coming, Ben. 

We will have opening statements from my colleagues after I finish. 

Every couple of years, especially on those years ending in even 

numbers, right before election time there is a large push to improve the process of military voting. However, as soon as the election is over, too often we forget to continue to push for improve voting rights for military voters. 

Let me say something clearly so everyone can hear it. Not this 

year. We have convened this hearing to uncover some of the major 

problems facing military and overseas voters and we hope to do 

whatever is necessary to clear it up so it does not happen in our 

next federal election in 2010. 

Registration deadlines, notary requirements, lack of communication, mail delays, poor address information and state laws that put 

in place untenable mailing dates are all severe problems. We need 

to actively evaluate these problems so we can work in a bipartisan 

way to find solutions to the problems. 
344 

Today we will hear about that several studies that show how severe the problem is. It is more severe I think than most people realize. One of those is a new study we commissioned from the Congressional Research Service. 

While the 2008 Election Assistance Commission post-election report will be released a few months from now, we wanted to see 

right now an initial snapshot of how voting went in the states with 

the largest number of military voters during the 2008 election. 

We asked the Congressional Research Service to contact some of 

the largest military voting states and get initial data on the number of overseas ballots requested and the number of overseas ballots that were never eventually counted. We were able to get preliminary data in advance of the complete survey to be released 

later this year. 

Here is what the data showed. It showed that up to 27 percent 

of the ballots requested by military and overseas voters were not 

counted and that is an astounding number that it should say to all 

of us, we can do a lot better. 

Those are just the voters who actually were able to get their requests for ballots answered. There are probably many more who 

did not. 

Studies from previous elections show that the military and overseas voters have one of the lowest level of recorded votes of all 

groups because it is so hard for them to vote. 

And as you can see from the chart behind me, 63 percent of local 

election officials reported receiving completed ballots after the 

deadline had passed so they do not count. 

The problem is compounded when 39 percent of military and 

overseas voters receive their ballots too late to return them in time. 

They request them in a timely way, but by the time they get the 

ballot, they cannot send it. The deadline has passed for last day of 

absentee voting or whatever. 

This number from this past election is up 14 percent from 2006 

so the problem is not getting better. It is getting worse. 

It is unacceptable that in the age of global communications many 

active military, their families and thousands of other Americans 

living, working and volunteering in foreign countries cannot cast 

ballots at home while they are serving overseas. 

Imagine the frustration the soldier feels when he or she is stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan and when their ballot finally arrives, 

it is too late. Here they are risking their lives for us. They take 

that extra step to vote. They are not at home. They obviously have 

many other things on their minds. They request a ballot in a timely way and it gets there too late to vote. Imagine how that feels. 

They can fight and put their life on the line for their country, but 

they cannot choose their next commander-in-chief. 

To put a human face on these numbers, I want to share a letter 

describing some true stories to the Overseas Vote Foundation during the 2008 election. 

One military voter wrote, ‘‘I submitted two registration forms via 

standard mail in January 2008 to Texas and received no confirmation that my registration was received or processed. I did not receive ballots for the primaries or the general election.’’ 
345 

Another soldier, this one from Alaska, said, ‘‘I hate that because 

of my military service overseas, I was precluded from voting.’’ 

Let me just repeat that because they just hits you at home. 

‘‘I hate,’’ and this is a soldier serving us, ‘‘I hate that because of 

my military service overseas, I was precluded from voting.’’ 

The letters continues. 

‘‘Of all people, deployed service members should have a guaranteed ability to vote in the presidential election. The state simply 

made it impossible for me to vote.’’ 

One final voter was able to get a ballot but was unsure whether 

it was ever counted. 

‘‘I called my hometown voting office to get assistance,’’ he wrote. 

‘‘Every time I called they told me something different. I ended up 

doing three different things just to get my ballot and then I sent 

it in a week before the deadline. I am hoping that my vote was 

counted.’’ 

In each of these stories, you can hear the effort these service men 

and women made to vote, calling several times, submitting their 

ballots early, but to no avail. This is unacceptable and something 

we should not let continue. 

So we are here today to learn more about the source of these 

problems. The report of CRS clearly indicates the problem exists 

and is growing. The hearing is devoted not to outlining the CRS 

report but to figuring out what we do about it. 

First, we are going to hear from the Acting Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness. I understand that the Federal Voting Assistance Program is undergoing a period of transition 

and that it is currently operating under an acting director. Senator 

Ben Nelson and I just have sent a letter to Acting Under Secretary 

McGinn, one of our witnesses today, urging that a new director be 

put in place as soon as possible so we can get this moving. 

We sent the letter to make it sure for the record that we believe 

that an effective Federal Voting Assistance Program is something 

very important to members of Congress and we want to work closely with the new director to ensure he or she receives the report 

from our respective committees. 

Second, the leadership at the Department of Defense needs to 

use every available resource to increase the number of military voters who register, vote, and have that vote counted. This needs to 

be accomplished through a true assessment of the problems and an 

innovative approach to structuring voting assistance, improving 

technology, and informing Congress and the states what laws need 

to be reformed to make it easier for these soldiers and their families to vote. 

There are a number of ways that the military can work to improve voting rights for members of the armed forces. 

Recently, we requested that President Obama work with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide voter registration support 

to the veterans they serve. But currently, the only federal offices 

that are required by statute to provide an opportunity to register 

and vote are the Armed Services Recruitment Centers. I am interested in finding out more about how that program works and 

whether it has been successful. 
346 

I must mention one more of our witnesses as I wind down our 

closing remarks. I would like to thank Lieutenant Colonel Joseph 

DeCaro from Florida, who is taking a very—there he is. He is not 

in uniform. I was looking for the uniform first. But he is doing this 

as a volunteer even though he is on active duty and he is talking 

a very short leave from his duties with the Air Force and is willing 

to speak about the difficulties he has faced as a member of the Air 

Force stationed overseas and trying to vote. 

And I think I speak on behalf of all of us when I say, Lieutenant 

Colonel, we appreciate your service and we hope you know that you 

are performing an important service today by telling your story 

here. 

A final personal note. While we hear from members of the armed 

forces who have encountered difficulties trying to vote, I do not find 

that you have to look far to find these problems. 

An intern in my Buffalo, New York office, Lisa Wickman, is a 

veteran. She was on active duty in the Navy from 2001 to 2006. 

She was stationed in Guam and was on shore duty during the 2004 

election. Her problem was that she wanted to vote but did not 

know she had to vote absentee. 

Despite weekly updates on a series of other important matters, 

her officers never gave her or her fellow sailors important information about how to vote. 

Now, that should not happen, certainly not in the United States 

where elections are a bedrock of our political system and we correctly have great praise and admiration for members of the armed 

services. 

So I look forward to hearing from all of you today. 

We will now call on Senator Chambliss. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHAMBLISS 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

I appreciate you calling this hearing today on an issue that is of 

critical importance to America, not just to our men and women, but 

those folks that protect us every day need to have their rights protected. By your calling this hearing today, we are taking an important step in that direction. 

Obviously I am substituting for Senator Bennett, who is was 

managing an issue on the floor, and I would initially asked for 

unanimous consent that Senator Bennett’s statement be inserted in 

the record. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bennett follows:] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I was also privileged to serve as Chairman 

of the Personnel Subcommittee on Armed Services with my dear 

friend, Senator Ben Nelson, a couple of Congresses ago and still 

serve as a member of that Personnel Subcommittee and we have 

talked about this in Armed Services and we look forward to working with this committee in a bipartisan way, as you say, to address 

this issue. 

The challenge of assisting our military servicemen and women’s 

participation in the electoral process is not new. Since our Nation’s 

founding, we have called upon the men and women of the military 
347 

time and again to defend the rights and freedoms we Americans 

hold sacred. 

Our soldiers are asked to leave family and home, travel to foreign and hostile lands, endure hardships of every kind, and place 

their lives in peril for their country. So, Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that we in Congress do all that we can to ensure that these 

brave men and women are able fully to participate in the cause 

that they devote their lives to protecting. 

Beginning with the Soldier Voting Act of 1942, Congress has 

sought legislative remedies to guarantee the voting rights for members of the armed services. The current law, the Uniformed and 

Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act or UOCAVA, was approved 

by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 

1986. 

UOCAVA sought to alleviate the difficulty of navigating the voting process for uniformed personnel and overseas citizens by standardizing the forms required of military voters to register to vote 

and request absentee ballots. 

Additional provisions ensured that the states would accept these 

standardized forms, the Postal Service would carry them expeditiously and free of charge, and that a presidential designee, the 

SECDEF, would be responsible for administering the program. 

Subsequent amendments included in the Help America Vote Act 

and various defense authorization acts have attempted to remedy 

some of the original Act’s shortcomings. 

This hearing provides us with a fresh opportunity to examine 

how we are doing in accomplishing our goal to protect the voting 

rights of our servicemen and women. Unfortunately it seems that 

our soldiers are not participating at anywhere near the levels that 

we would like and this is unacceptable. 

As you have shown there, Mr. Chairman, a 2006 survey, conducted by the Defense Manpower Data Center, found that only 22 

percent of the estimated UOCAVA population participated in the 

2006 election. Commentators have proposed any number of explanations for this shocking statistic. Some point to the continuing use 

of traditional postal services or ‘‘snail mail’’ to deliver voting materials to and from the field. Others call attention to the apparent 

ineffective assistance of the DOD’s Federal Voting Assistance Program, which the Department’s own Inspector General found to 

reach only 40 to 50 percent of military voters. 

Again, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and hope 

that they can shed some light on why this may be the case. 

Among the witnesses are those who are, or have been, military 

voters themselves and we thank you for your service to our country. 

Additionally, we have election officials who serve a vital and 

often thankless job in ensuring that our elections run smoothly and 

securely. Nowhere is their job more challenging, or important, than 

in working with our men and women of the armed forces. 

Finally, we have a representative of the Department of Defense. 

Our servicemen and women rely on the Department’s Federal Voting Assistance Program to help them exercise their right to vote. 

I hope that we will hear an honest assessment of the program’s 
348 

execution of this very important responsibility and the results they 

have achieved. 

Before closing, let me add a few comments based on my own recent experience in my election last fall. Georgia has a huge military 

presence. We have 13 military installations and I believe my State 

did a good a good job of reaching military and absentee voters in 

the general election in November. Georgia, as well as most other 

states, have an excellent procedure in place for general elections 

and, while I have some ideas about how these can be improved, I 

think in large part it worked very well. 

Unfortunately, that was not the case in the run-off election in 

December. Lots of factors combined to make the run-off election especially difficult for military and absentee voters based on the delayed, official announcement that there would be a run-off, followed 

by a short time line to send and receive absentee ballots. I think 

this highlighted some of the weaknesses in the system, not necessarily in Georgia but across the country, and I believe that we 

can use that example to make improvements and find ways to ensure that our military and overseas voters are never 

disenfranchised. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding this very important 

hearing and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Chambliss, and now 

Senator Nelson who chairs a similar committee on armed services. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR NELSON 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. Obviously it is one of the most important topics that we 

can deal with because of the importance of our military men and 

women being able to vote and making certain that every vote 

counts. I look forward to seeing the testimony. 

Unfortunately I am not going to be able to stay for the entire 

hearing. But one disenfranchised service member is one too many 

but, when two out of three ballots are not counted for whatever 

reason, we have got a serious problem on our hands. 

I know that a lot of the data on overseas voting needs to be improved and made more complete and consistent from county to 

county and state to state so we can know more about what is truly 

happening because of the inadequate information and data that we 

currently get. 

But I hope that we will find a way to increase coordination between the state, the Federal Government, the military, and the 

overseas voters. If we can improve the relationship and we find the 

way in which to expedite the process but make certain that it is 

complete and is sufficient, then we will be doing the kind of job we 

need to do. 

So I appreciate your interest in this and thank you for holding 

this hearing. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

We look forward to working with your subcommittee as well on 

this important issue. 

Now, I am going to introduce Gail McGinn. We have a vote at 

10:30, but I think we will be able to get through not only her testi-
349 

mony but questions before the vote because I know you have another appointment. 

Ms. McGinn is the current Acting Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness. Her department oversees the Federal 

Voting Assistance Program office. Ms. McGinn, previously served 

as Under Secretary for Plans and other positions at the Department of Defense. 

Ms. McGinn, your entire statement will be read into the record 

and you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GAIL MCGINN, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. MCGINN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify about the challenges 

our uniformed service and overseas voters experience in exercising 

their constitutional right to vote and the initiatives we have and 

continue to undertake to eliminate or litigate these challenges. 

Our goals are the same. I think the department shares the committee’s concerns that the absentee voting process is sometimes 

daunting and discouraging to these voters. 

I would note, Mr. Chairman, that I am a military spouse and my 

husband retired from the Army. I did serve some time overseas 

with him and I got to experience overseas absentee voting, although I hasten to add, we were at headquarters, so I am sure it 

was much easier for us than for the rest of our constituency. 

But the Department is dedicated to making the absentee voting 

process easier and more straightforward for these citizens. Time, 

distance and mobility are the barriers that make the absentee voting process difficult for our uniformed service members, their voting age family members and our citizens who live outside the 

United States, barriers that are not faced by citizens who vote at 

the polls. 

First, there is time. There are certain actions, voter registration, 

absentee ballot request and the return of the citizen’s marked ballot that must be accomplished by specific dates in order for the citizen’s ballot to be counted. The amount of time a citizen has to complete the process is driven by the schedule established by each 

state and is subject to transit time in the postal system which may 

be extended when the individual is in a remote location. 

Second is distance. Our military and overseas voters frequently 

find themselves at great distances from their voting residences. 

Many citizens are in areas where mail service is limited, intermittent or non-existent. 

Peace Corp workers, submariners, forward deployed service 

members and others in remote areas may face periods of no mail 

service during the ballot mail period. 

Third is mobility. Our military and overseas voters are a dynamic group. Where they are located today may not be where they 

will be located for the next election. As we are a Nation at war, 

our military members face a high operating tempo which includes 

undergoing individual and collective training, participating in exer-
350 

cises and deployments. Overseas citizens also frequently move as 

job opportunities take them around the globe. 

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 

UOCAVA, safeguards the right to vote in federal office elections for 

absent uniformed service members and their families regardless of 

location, and U.S. citizens who are overseas. In the administration 

of the law, the director of Federal Voting Assistance Program 

works cooperatively with state and local election officials to carry 

out the provisions of UOCAVA to eliminate the barriers faced by 

UOCAVA citizens. 

The challenges of serving these citizens emanates from several 

principle causes characterized, as I had mentioned, by time, distance, and mobility and are exacerbated by the fact that, for many, 

mail remains the primary method for UOCAVA citizens to vote. 

Our federal system under which 55 states and territories independently administer their election procedures means that registration, ballot distribution, and voted ballot return regulations 

and deadlines are determined by a large number of independent jurisdictions, each of which have unique requirements that must be 

met in order to register, request a ballot, and ultimately have the 

voted ballot count. 

The Department employs three critical strategies. First, we have 

forged and maintained valuable partnerships with all who can assist in the absentee voting process including State and local election officials who carry out the elections, the United States Postal 

Service, the Military Postal Service Agency, the Department of 

State, the Department of Justice, other federal agencies, and overseas citizens organizations and advocacy groups. 

Second, we continue to provide and encourage use of electronic 

transmission options for registering to vote, requesting a ballot and 

returning a ballot. 

Third, we work with states to promote the passage of legislation 

that can positively effect the ability of our UOCAVA citizens to successfully participate in the democratic process. 

For many years the Voting Assistance Program has proposed legislative initiates to state officials that would facilitate voting for 

our citizens. There have been many successes with some states enacting some or all of our recommended legislative initiatives. 

Our legislative initiates for states and territories to improve ballot transit time are, first, provide at least 45 days between ballot 

mailing date and the date that ballots are due, give state chief election officials the authority to alter elections procedures in emergency situations, provide a state write-in absentee ballot to be sent 

out 90 to 180 days before all elections and expand the use of electronic transmission alternatives for voting material. 

Currently 27 states, three territories and the District of Columbia provide at least 45 days between the ballot mailing date and 

the date ballots are due. 

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia give chief election 

officials the authority to alter election procedures in emergency situations. 

Twenty-seven states allow election officials to provide the state 

write-in a absentee ballot, and 47 states, three territories and the 

District of Columbia provide for the electronic transmission of vot-
351 

ing materials for at least one part of the UOCAVA absentee voting 

process. 

For the 2010 elections FVAP is pursuing the next generation of 

electronic tools to assist UOCAVA voters. These coordinated efforts 

have provided effective support for thousands of citizens; and while 

the mail does work for a large number of UOCAVA voters, we believe leveraging technology could be beneficial in removing some of 

the challenges voters experience. 

Because each voter has a unique set of circumstances, the Department wants to provide as many alternative methods as possible for registering, requesting a ballot, and returning the ballot. 

Clearly, the three areas for emphasis that you have identified in 

the letter that you sent to me, improved relationships and election 

officials, improved use of technology, and improved data on military 

voting are important ones that need to be continuously worked and 

we look forward to working with the committee on those issues. 

I would like to thank you for your continued support of our service members, their families and our overseas citizens and all this 

committee has done to make it easier for them to vote. 

I am happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinn follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. 

I am going to try to be brief so we can get questions in. You will 

hear a little buzz when the vote starts which gives us about 15 

minutes before we have to go vote. 

Okay. You mentioned the letter Senator Nelson and I sent you 

expressing the hope that the new Federal Voting Assistance Program Director who your office is currently finalizing would be able 

to provide effective leadership in improving access. We want to 

work with this individual. 

And I know you cannot speak for the Secretary, but I want to 

know whether DOD is going to provide the support and authority 

to allow the new director to make the necessary changes. 

Ms. MCGINN. I believe that DOD will provide what support and 

authority that director needs. I think this is a very very important 

topic for us in the Department. 

By our record of investment in this in terms of military manpower for voting assistance officers, the emphasis from the top both 

from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Defense and the military departments, we are trying to do everything 

we can to make sure that our voters are not disenfranchised. 

Chairman SCHUMER. One issue we need to be aware of is that 

the first federal primaries in 2010 are about a year from now. So 

we do not have that much time. 

Second, I would like to talk to you about the voting at recruitment centers which I mentioned in my opening statement. As you 

know, one of the elements of the National Voter Registration Act 

is that armed services recruitment offices be a voter registration 

agency. It means that each potential recruit should be offered a 

voter registration form and help in filling out the form. 

Could you give us an update as to how the program is faring and 

do you know how many potential recruits were registered to vote 

last year because of the program? If you do not know that number, 
352 

if you could find out that and submit it writing that would be 

great. 

Ms. MCGINN. Mr. Chairman, in order to give you a full response, 

I need to submit it in writing. I am aware that our recruiting offices are doing the registration that they are supposed to be doing, 

but I do not have the full details of what you are asking. 

Chairman SCHUMER. We need numbers to judge what kind of 

success we are having. 

Ms. MCGINN. Absolutely. 

Chairman SCHUMER. The Inspector General reports. Two weeks 

ago, the Inspector General’s Office released the 2008 evaluation of 

the Voting Assistance Program and I understand that with the 

2008 study, the Inspector General stated, quote, ‘‘We are not making any recommendations in this report for improvement.’’ 

Now, I have read a number of Inspector General reports. It is 

sort of a rare day when they do not make any suggestions. The 

question is: does that strike you as odd? I saw by your face you sort 

of answered it. 

Ms. MCGINN. It is true they usually make recommendations and 

I have not spoken with him personally so I do not know what that 

is a reflection of. I think what they were doing was looking at the 

field to see the degree to which they were implementing the instructions and directives that we have out there. Obviously there 

are improvements to be made in many areas. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes. The 2004 report concluded the Voting 

Assistance Program was not effective and that because, quote, and 

this is the 2004 report, ‘‘Voting assistance will always be a secondary duty. Senior leadership can expect significant improvement 

only if a radically different approach is applied.’’ 

Has there been such a radically different approach, since that report which was four years ago, applied? 

Ms. MCGINN. I think since 2004, Mr. Chairman, of course, I have 

not been in this position since then. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. 

Ms. MCGINN. But I have observed my colleagues and my leadership at work. At least in the last four years, the command emphasis on this even to the extent of our previous Deputy Secretary, 

whenever he want to an installation, would ask to see the voting 

assistance officer, the number of training workshops that we have 

done, the web outreach, the publicity outreach. 

I would say in the last four years it has been quite substantial 

and that could be the difference. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. Well, let us hope. It does not sound 

radical to me, but maybe the Inspector General was exaggerating 

or using too strong language, but that is something again we will 

want to look at. 

Let us see. There was a recommendation, an effort that through 

the Federal Assistance Voting Program to notify election officials 

when members of the military have officially moved. That was the 

EAC survey, based on the EAC survey in 2006. 

Do you know what the status of that recommendation is? 

Ms. MCGINN. No, I am afraid I do not. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Could you get that to us in writing? 

Ms. MCGINN. Yes. 
353 

Chairman SCHUMER. And do you believe that kind of communication would encourage the improved delivery of military ballots? 

Ms. MCGINN. I believe for local election officials to know where 

the military member is very important. I have, in preparing for 

this hearing, read some studies that said a percentage of ballots 

were returned because the address of the person was not known. 

And I noted in my opening remarks that is one of our problems is 

the mobility of our population. Whether that transmission of information would be the appropriate way to do it or not, I do not know. 

I will have to get back to you on that. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And this is your own personal assessment 

and this will be my last question because my time is running out. 

If we had one change to make this better, what would it be? 

Ms. MCGINN. I would say it would be to encourage states to have 

more uniformity in their procedures so that there is not such a difficult explanation for each voter as to the processes they need to 

follow. 

Can I have two? 

Chairman SCHUMER. You can have three. 

Ms. MCGINN. Okay. Good. 

I also think that if we can improve technology which also goes 

to states accepting the use of technology so that we can start to do 

this in a 21st-century way, that that would be very helpful as well. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Any third one? Those are the two most important. 

Ms. MCGINN. I have a third one. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I knew you would come up with it. 

Ms. MCGINN. The third one would be that all of us agree on a 

data collection. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes. 

Ms. MCGINN. So that we really have statistics about what is happening out there because right now they come from many different 

sources. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Good point. 

Ms. MCGINN. In our 2008 report we are going to ask our Defense 

Manpower Data Center to provide the data through a survey of our 

service. Of course they are a world class operation. 

Chairman SCHUMER. You bet. 

Ms. MCGINN. So I think hopefully we can coalesce around those 

numbers and then help us go forward. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. 

Senator Chambliss. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McGinn, thank you very much for your work in this area. 

I have got some questions that I wanted to address to you to let 

you discuss generally the Help American Vote Act’s requirements 

in connection with the UOCAVA as well as the Federal Voting Assistance Program. I think what I am going to do is submit that for 

the record because I would like for you to go into some detail particularly with reference to ways that you think that legislatively we 

can improve it, do you have the resources for what you need, and 

that sort of thing. 

But let me drill down a little bit on the Federal Voting Assistance Program and the voting assistance officers. The 2005 DOD IG 
354 

report found that only 40 to 50 percent of military families received 

voting information either from the Voting Assistance Program and 

voting assistance officers. 

What accounts for this poor performance? What do you think we 

can do to improve it? And as part of that, would you talk a little 

bit about how VAOs are selected, are they volunteers, and do we 

have a way of grading them. You talked a little bit in your statement about your personal experience. Was that a mandatory requirement that you train folks the way that you did that? 

Ms. MCGINN. The voting assistance officers, the way we want to 

get information to people, my experience in all my years working 

for the Department of Defense is that it is very difficult to get information to people even if they are situated in a headquarters element. 

So I think what the Federal Voting Assistance Program has tried 

to do is use all available mechanisms to do that with the establishment of a website, with the provision of monthly updates and all 

relevant information to the Federal Voting Assistance Officers, to 

posters and publications for federal voting and access to your federal voting assistance officer, through all the training. I think we 

have got 193 training workshops leading up to this last election, 

and through working with overseas foundations and groups to get 

the word out to American citizens. 

So I think they have tried very hard in order to reach out to everyone and make sure that they have the information that they require. But again, you have got populations that are dispersed. You 

have got populations that may not have access to information 

sources for a while. 

So that number is high. It would not surprise me that there are 

some who do not get the information they need. That number, 40 

percent is an unacceptable number and I do believe that in the last 

few years the Department has really taken an aggressive stance at 

getting the word out to people. 

The voting assistance officers, I do not know exactly the process 

by which they are chosen. I would assume that they are with the 

requirement to have, one, that you choose a young officer who is 

competent and has interest in this area for getting the job done for 

the unit or the installation or the organization where they are assigned. 

We provide training. We provide workshops. We provide regular 

information, newsletters, voting assistance guides, as I said, 

website operations. So it appears to me to be a robust effort to get 

the word out and to use the voting assistance officers for that. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. One of our witnesses on the next panel suggests having DOD provide registration materials at locations where 

service members receive other support services like pay offices, ID 

offices, check-in at bases, and whatnot. 

Has the Federal Voting Assistance Program considered that and 

what sort of implementation measures are you taking if that is the 

case? 

Ms. MCGINN. I honestly, sir, do not know if that has been considered by our Federal Voting Assistance Office. It is something that 

we can look at certainly. 
355 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, it seems like that might be, again, one 

of those education measures that we can take advantage of because 

everybody that comes to a new base goes through that support 

service office. 

Ms. MCGINN. Yes, they do. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, thank you for your good work and we 

look forward to continuing to work with you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

Ms. MCGINN. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. 

Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Obviously, technology is going to be extremely important in resolving, taking away the challenges that exist because of time differences and the length of time for the ballots to be transported 

back and forth. Preserving anonymity is going to be a major focus 

of that I am sure. But it probably does not solve mobility, of identifying where people are. 

So I am hopeful that in light of the experience that has been 

gained in the last three elections that perhaps there are some updates or revisions to DOD policy and procedures as set forth in the 

DOD Directive Number 1000.04, dated April 14, 2004, that might 

help us facilitate getting more success in voting by men and women 

in the military. 

Could you comment on that? 

Ms. MCGINN. Well, we are constantly trying to upgrade our own 

ability to do electronic work in order to facilitate the process. We 

have the ability right now for citizens to get a copy of the postcard 

application electronically, to fill out the postcard application electronically, to get a copy of the absentee voter ballot electronically, 

the federal absentee voter ballot electronically. So we are trying to 

continue to improve that. 

I think that one of the lessons we have learned in going into elections is that, as we start to improve technology and put technology 

solutions out there, we need to start sooner than we started in the 

past. I think that is one of the challenges that we will have, to continually upgrade those solutions and to make sure that they are in 

a timely way so that the states know that they are there and know 

the capability that they bring. 

Senator NELSON. Is there a difference in how you might deal 

with local elections that do not involve a federal election or every 

two or four years when you have a federal election, is that handled 

differently? 

Ms. MCGINN. It is handled the same. I believe the difference is 

local elections uniformed members and their families vote in and 

so we push the same kind of information out to them. But I have 

noticed in, as I said, watching this program unfold for the last four 

years, that every two years there is this concerted effort. And of 

course, with the national election for the President, it is a little 

more heated, if you will, but there is still a level of effort that is 

very significant for elections every two years. 

Senator NELSON. Of course you have the off-year elections in 

some states that do it in the odd years, not necessarily in the even 
356 

years. I know it is a monumental, Herculean task to try to achieve 

it all. 

But I would hope that the use of technology both at the election 

commissioner’s office as well as within DOD would help facilitate 

it because obviously those statistics would demonstrate that timing 

is a factor getting materials to the voter and materials from the 

voter back to the point of the election. 

Have you thought about any kind of federal requirement that 

might make counting ballots that come from overseas, extend the 

time frame for counting those ballots in local elections or state elections or federal elections? 

Ms. MCGINN. I think that is what we are trying to accomplish 

with the legislative issues that we have laid before the state as 

state issues. One is to extend 45 days for the receipt of the ballot 

and also to allow variations from procedures in special cases. 

So I think we are trying to work with the states to do that. I do 

not know if that can be done nationally. 

Senator NELSON. It probably could for a federal election. But I 

am not suggesting that we necessarily want to start dictating from 

Washington back to the states. But what kind of response are you 

getting from the states in connection with your suggestions? 

Ms. MCGINN. We have gotten responses from them. I detail it in 

my statement. I guess what I would note from my reading is that 

we have had a lot of success in the acceptance of fax technology, 

that a lot of states are accepting faxes along the various ways, 

steps in the process, the voting and registering to vote. And we are 

starting to see some success in the electronic area too but not as 

much and robust as in the fax. So maybe that portends of the future that that will start to improve as we go forward. 

Senator NELSON. Now, would the fax be for registration as opposed to a ballot? 

Ms. MCGINN. For registration, for receipt of the ballot, even some 

states will even accept it for the ballot. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you again, Ms. McGinn, for your excellent testimony. 

Now, we have the second panel, but the vote has been called so 

I think it would be wise to take a brief recess now. We will go vote 

and come back and hear from the second panel. 

Is that okay with everyone? Do you have any more questions, 

Saxby? Okay. 

The committee will stand in brief recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. Thank you, everybody, for your indulgence. The hearing will resume. 

First, I would ask unanimous consent that a statement from Senator Feinstein, our former chair, previous chair, who has done a 

great job, be added to the record and without objection it will be. 

[The prepared of Senator Feinstein follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. And second, Senator Roberts had asked to 

make a brief statement. He has had a busy morning with Finance 

Committee and other things, and so before our panel begins, I am 

going to call on Senator Roberts. 
357 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take your advice to heart. The chairman indicated that I could make this short 

statement prior to the panel testifying and I apologize to the panel 

but only if I would shave. I plead extenuating circumstances, Mr. 

Chairman. 

I had knee surgery and I was laid up for about three weeks and 

the only thing I did really was to watch Law and Order reruns. 

There are some things that you have to do but other things you do 

not, and one is shaving. Since coming back, I have heard a lot of 

commentary especially from folks like yourself and so I just decided 

to be stubborn, but I will shave because of your taking my request 

and so we will just make that promise to you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Just to interrupt. There is a constituency of 

one when it comes to beards as I have learned, and that is Frankie, 

your wife. 

Senator ROBERTS. She says it is not that bad. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. You are way ahead of where I was 

when I grew a beard. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. You have to look at what she is used to in 

that context. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I knew that was coming. Anyway, I am now 

the fourth stand in for Sean Connery. The fourth stand in is the 

body that they roll over. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Having played basketball with you, I know 

you have a Connery-like figure. 

Senator ROBERTS. That is because of all those blind-side moves 

that you used to complain about. 

Chairman SCHUMER. That is right. 

Senator ROBERTS. Alright. At any rate, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and thanks to the panel and we will 

be reading that very carefully. As a Marine, I take this issue personally and it helps that we have 37,000 military men and women 

stationed in Kansas. So this is an issue that is of real concern to 

me. 

I find it very disappointing that with all the incredible technology we have today, Mr. Chairman, that we ask for the military 

to vote the same way we have since World War II, and I do not 

think that is right. They can check their e-mail, video conference 

with their families, even upload the YouTube clips while deployed. 

But despite all of these advances, we simply ask them to rely on 

a disparate system of state rules and requirements and the mail 

system to track them down if they want to have a say in our elections. 

I think our service men and women certainly deserve more. In 

fact I do not think anybody in the room would ever disagree with 

the idea that the men and women defending our freedom deserve 

the right to have their votes counted. So let us give the tools to 

vote once they have performed their civic duty. Let us make sure 

their votes are counted. 

I have signed a lot of letters on this topic and I have sponsored 

and co-sponsored a lot of legislation. There was one by John 
358 

Cornyn that passed the Senate by unanimous consent, but it was 

somehow dropped over in the other body, in the House. 

And the media has certainly exposed some of the problems involved and we thank them for that. So I hope we can get back. I 

think everybody has talked about the bipartisan effort that we 

need here and I certainly support that. Maybe we can take the 

Cornyn bill or Cornyn II if improved, and it is time we worked in 

that kind of a fashion to make sure the votes of our service men 

and women are counted. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman for allowing me to make this 

statement. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you for coming in and participating. 

I now would like to introduce our five witnesses and ask them 

then to make their statements. And we are honored to have everyone of you here. 

First, Patricia Hollarn recently retired after 20 years as supervisor at elections at Okaloosa County, Florida. She is a board member of the Overseas Vote Foundation. I have to say she is regarded 

as one of the experts nationally in this area. 

We thank you for coming and she has some New York roots as 

well, which I am proud to acknowledge. 

Mr. Donald Palmer is Director of the Division of Elections at the 

Florida Department of State. He worked earlier as an attorney for 

the voting section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department 

of Justice and as a legislative assistant in the House of Representatives. 

To whom was that? 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Feeney. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Very nice. 

And as a Navy intelligence officer. From 1998 to 2005 he served 

in the Navy’s Judge Advocate General Corp. 

Lieutenant Colonel Joseph DeCaro, who both Senator Chambliss 

and I have mentioned, is on active duty in the United States Air 

Force. He lives in Florida. His remarks today are his own and do 

not reflect the views of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, 

or the current Administration. 

Lieutenant Colonel Decaro joined the Air Force in 1986, served 

at Hunter Army Air Field in Georgia, Prince Sultan Air Base in 

Saudi Arabia, and the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. 

We thank you for your service, Colonel. 

And Mr. Eric Eversole worked as a litigation attorney in the voting section of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice from 2005 through 2007, then served as an advisor to the 2008 

McCain-Palin campaign. 

Mr. Eversole was an officer in the Navy’s Judge Advocate General Corp in 1999 to 2001. 

And last, but not least, Mr. Robert Carey is a consultant to business and government whose experiences trying to vote while in the 

armed forces led him to join the National Defense Committee to 

help other soldiers exercise their voting rights. He has been called 

back to active duty three times since 2000. He has been awarded 

a number of military honors. Thank you for your service. 
359 

We will begin with Ms. Hollarn. We will ask each witness to take 

no more than five minutes and submit without objection their entire statements into the record. 

Ms. Hollarn. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA HOLLARN, RETIRED ELECTIONS 

DIRECTOR, OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA 

Ms. HOLLARN. Thank you. This is the first time in my memory 

that anyone has maintained interest and purpose beyond election 

day in improving opportunities for military voters anywhere and 

other American citizens overseas to register and vote. 

So I am grateful to you, Senator Schumer, the Rules Committee 

members and staff for allowing me to participate in this much 

needed effort for legislative action. 

I not only have been working with UOCAVA voters and the problems they confront for 20 years as the Supervisor of Elections in 

Okaloosa County, Florida, which has an extraordinarily large military constituency, but I was also an overseas military spouse who 

had these very same difficulties in the ’60s and ’70s during my husband’s Air Force career. 

The problems actually began with voter registration particularly 

when a person is not actually registered prior to leaving his or her 

legal voting residence. It is accepted that each state is entitled by 

the Constitution to have its own election laws and requirements, 

but it should also be accepted that the federal Uniformed And 

Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, or UOCAVA, must be applied in every state to persons who fall under UOCAVA. 

Unfortunately most of these affected persons are not at all familiar with the entitlements of UOCAVA to take advantage of them 

in a timely manner in accordance with the law and even more unfortunately many election officials are not sufficiently familiar both 

with UOCAVA and its correct implementation. 

This leads to confusion about legal voting residency for military 

personnel stationed within the United States and even worst for 

those already overseas. 

The law absolutely provides several options in these cases but 

often neither the voter nor the election official is well enough 

versed to resolve the situation as the law permits. And this in turn 

either delays or denies a prospective voter his ballot. 

Once registered, the UOCAVA voter’s only responsibility is to 

provide his or her correct mailing address or other contact information to the election official. That voter is absent from his voting jurisdiction and must be kept informed by the election official; but in 

the case of the highly mobile military member, that is still a problem just as much for the voter as for the election official. 

Returned undeliverable mail not only can deprive the voter from 

receiving a ballot but jeopardizes active voter status for the future 

as well and that starts the cycle of re-registration problems all over 

again. 

Obviously the issue of receiving and casting a ballot with the 

issuance of it being counted is the ultimate problem. I believe it is 

fair to say that almost all election officials want this process to be 

successful as much as the voter does and yet issues that are beyond their control often prevent that from happening. 
360 

First, I would talk about elections schedules in some jurisdictions 

or states that do not allow enough time after the ballot, candidates 

and issues are certified and the printing of ballots can begin. Work 

to prepare the lists of eligible voters can be done ahead of this period, but updating is continual and maintaining accuracy add complexity. If there is not a minimum of 45 days that is the deadline 

for mailing UOCAVA ballots, the chances lessen every day for solving any delivery problems. 

The law provides at least by FVAP request for the 45-day deadline for overseas voters’ ballots only. However, with more and more 

TDY and deployment, temporary duty, TDY is temporary duty, and 

deployment overseas assignments given at the last minute to military members many whose records show that they are located in 

the United States are actually overseas temporarily during election 

time. 

Either they run out of time to request a ballot, to notify the election’s office where to send the ballot or there is great difficulty in 

receiving ballots by mail or even fax in remote or combat locations 

taking too much time to have the ballot received, cast and counted. 

Some states have laws that require specific forms and procedures 

for requesting absentee ballots that are clearly cumbersome and 

create time and frustration problems for UOCAVA voters. 

HAVA eased some of the problem by making the request for ballots through two general elections, but the unintended consequence 

of that was to result in an excessive number of ballots that were 

return as undeliverable. Those jurisdictions which added additional 

procedures to verify addresses no later than 90 days before an election improved ballot delivery considerably but the practice was not 

wide spread enough to reduce the failures. 

Many voters now eligible under UOCAVA are the Reserve and 

National Guard members who are serving much longer on active 

duty than their former two-week active duty service in the past in 

jurisdictions with few or no standard military installations and few 

military or expatriate citizens on the voter rolls. 

Election officials who have had no real experience with implementing UOCAVA rights do not realize how they must now do so. 

Combined with the lack of information about registration and 

voting provided to these activated personnel, the amount of voting 

problems among this group in all likelihood exceeded regular active 

duty members. 

All UOCAVA voters are subject to the problems traced to mailing 

ballots. While the U.S. Postal Service created a separate department, new and worthy procedures, and good outreach to election officials to help expedite ballots in 2008, their efforts ended at the 

three ports, Miami, New York and San Francisco where the military postal system took over. 

It would not be totally fair to criticize the military postal system 

which must operate with insufficient resources under very difficult 

circumstances in many instances but delays in it are inherent to 

the timely delivery problem. 

It is sufficient to say that mailing ballots as well as other election related pieces is still the biggest problem for receiving, casting 

and counting the ballots. 
361 

I can speak at much greater length about problems and even 

more so about solutions and look forward to such an opportunity. 

I would like to, in the question and answer period, respond to some 

of the questions that were asked to the Defense Department and 

as well as to mention the electronic solutions that I think are possible. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hollarn follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Ms. Hollarn, for excellent testimony and excellent service. 

Mr. Palmer. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD PALMER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF 

ELECTIONS, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. 

Thank you for this invitation to discuss with you the challenges of 

military and overseas voters during the voting process and the 

great strides that Florida has made to increase the access to that 

voting franchise. 

Florida makes every effort to meet the needs of our diverse population of 11.2 million registered voters and we are keenly aware of 

the particular needs of the military and overseas voter and overcoming the logistical challenges that they face in fully participating 

in our electoral system. As election administrators our job is to utilize the tools that you provide us with legislation to maximize participation. 

With the leadership of state and local election officials in Florida 

using alternative means of transmission of ballot materials and the 

wisdom of the Florida legislature to repeal the second primary, 

Florida has become one of the national leaders of facilitating military and overseas voting participation. 

In this testimony I hope to provide some reasons for that increase of access to the voting franchise. 

First, the State of Florida requires the mailing of ballots to overseas voters 45 days prior to a general election. In Florida we have 

removed the second primary, and jurisdictions are able to provide 

45 days for the transmission of ballots and to accept ballots up to 

the 10 days after the election as long the ballot is signed and dated 

by election day. 

In this era of ‘‘snail mail,’’ despite the improved efficiency of the 

Postal Express Service, allowing for 45 days for transmission is 

prudent and the additional window of time after the election in 

which to accept ballots provides a safety valve to receive any ballots that were delayed in the mail. 

To allow a sailor on the ship or a soldier in the field the extra 

time to receive and return the ballot on time is absolutely necessary when relying solely on the mail service. 

Second, State and local election officials in Florida have taken 

extra steps such as seeking updated addresses from FVAP and 

fully utilizing e-mail, fax, and the internet where appropriate, in 

the transmission of ballot materials to and from overseas voters. 

In late September 2008, Secretary of State, Kurt Browning, traveled to the Middle East with other Secretaries of State to see firsthand how soldiers in the battle field receive and cast their absentee 

ballots. This was the first time the DOD has invited Secretaries of 
362 

State to travel to the areas of operation in Iraq, Afghanistan and 

Kuwait to personally observe the absentee balloting process. 

This trip provided Secretary Browning an opportunity to ask the 

men and women in the field directly what they really need to successfully vote when faced with the challenges of the mail system 

and other events swirling around them in the battle zone. 

He heard that they would like to use their computers and electronic mail to return voted ballots. While many states including 

Florida allow the use of a fax to return voted ballots, he heard that 

many of these service members simply no longer have fax technology readily available to them. Instead, most, if not all, have access to a computer, a scanner, e-mail and to the internet. When 

possible, they often use electronic mail as a primary method of 

communication with their local election official and expressed a 

similar desire to use an e-mail to vote because of its simplicity. 

We also heard from service members that they are often anxious 

and frustrated with the rapidly approaching election day because 

they are often left in the dark as to the status of their ballot. They 

are concerned whether or not the ballot will get to them and, if 

they did, whether the ballot will make it back in time. 

At present there is no systematic way of finding out the status 

of their request or when the ballot had been sent or whether the 

ballot has a realistic chance of being received back in time. 

Because many soldiers and sailors are relying on their e-mail 

and the internet to communicate with the outside world and to our 

election officials, they believe it would be helpful to receive regular 

updates on when their ballot request had been received, when the 

ballot had been set and when local election officials received their 

voted ballot. 

Third, Florida has maintained a spirit of ingenuity and transparency to use the latest technology and encryption measures 

available to reach our remote voters. Florida is open and flexible 

to incorporate the newest technology in our voting systems by testing, certifying and employing the latest voting systems for its use 

by its citizens. 

In this past cycle the Florida division of elections was able to 

successfully review and certify the project application offered by 

the Okaloosa distance balloting pilot primarily because of the foresight of legislators in giving local election officials the ability to utilize the secure use of the Internet for voting purposes. 

I am very proud of the pioneering spirit of our bureau in its first 

of a kind review of the source code and security plan submitted by 

Okaloosa County and its vendor, Scytl. 

Fourth, Florida recognizes the huge role that the Voting Assistance Officers and the role they play for the men and women in uniform to register and vote. States also have an unique opportunity 

to work with their National Guard units. 

The Florida National Guard developed a small but effective program to include voting information with their deployment briefing 

and to send updates on voting information to deployed unit e-mail 

addresses. Prior to deployment, the National Guard provided units 

the necessary voting information unique to Florida while stressing 

the importance of maintaining e-mail or phone communication with 
363 

their local election officials ensuring accurate address information 

and confirming ballot delivery. 

The simple goal was to make each airmen, sailor and guardsmen 

election ready before they deployed and left U.S. soil, not after. 

This type of program could be easily implemented for deploying 

National Guard units across the country. 

Fifth, Florida has developed a very close relationship with the 

United States Postal Service. In the run up to the 2008 election, 

Florida election officials met repeatedly with U.S. Postal Service 

representatives at the State and local level. 

Together we explored different ways to use technology and properly prepare ballot envelopes to further streamline the postal mailing of the ballots. Together the Postal Service provided counties individual opportunities to design the ballot, to reduce error or confusion in the delivery and return process and use technology such as 

intelligent code to track absentee ballots while in the continental 

United States. 

As a former military citizen stationed overseas and deployed on 

a ship where mail was delivered by the occasional COD leading on 

deck, I can assure you that these men and women want to participate and vote despite the swirl of daily activity around them. I remember being deployed on a carrier in the Mediterranean during 

the 1992 presidential election wondering if my ballot would ever 

make it to me and back in time. 

Often the men and women serving overseas are frustrated and 

concerned that their vote will not be returned in time to be counted. However they are committed to the mission and they will not 

complain. Therefore it is our responsibility to review the facts presented on overseas military participation and point to potential deficiencies and use the tools necessary to facilitate that vote. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palmer follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you Mr. Palmer. 

Lt. Colonel DeCaro. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL JOSEPH DECARO, 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

Lt. Colonel DECARO. Chairman Schumer, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak here 

today. 

My name is Joseph DeCaro. I am a Lieutenant Colonel on active 

duty in the United States Air Force. I was born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, and entered military service in July of 1986 when I 

started basic training at the United States Air Force Academy. 

I am testifying in my personal capacity and my views do not represent those of the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the current Administration. 

Even before I was old enough to vote, I believed that it is important for every American to be aware of who their elected officials 

are, for the electorate to stay informed on local, state and national 

issues, and to know the positions of their elected officials on these 

issues. I have always done this myself and I have done my best to 

cast my ballots during primary and general elections. However as 
364 

a member of the armed forces, I have not always been home on or 

shortly before election day. 

During the 2000 general election, I was on a temporary duty assignment to Hunter Army Air Field in Georgia. This was a forecast 

temporary duty and I requested an absentee ballot and that was 

how I voted that year. 

On election night while conducting post-mission paperwork, 

members of my unit and I sat on the old B–47 alert ramp at the 

air field and listened to election results via FM radio. Most of us 

had cast our votes via absentee ballot; and as the process of determining the election dragged on and concerns over military absentee 

ballots were raised, we became concerned our votes might not be 

counted. 

While I do believe our votes did count, it was frustrating to think 

that consideration and/or attempts were made to disenfranchise 

military members whose efforts protect and ensure that that very 

thing does not happen to other United States citizens. 

From August to December of 2002, I was deployed to Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, as a task force liaison officer to the 

United States Central Command Combined Air Operations Center. 

This was a well established location and actually had an additional 

duty Voting Assistance Officer. It was through the Voting Assistance Officer that I received and cast an absentee ballot for the general election that year. 

In December of 2003, I was deployed to Al Udeid Air Base in 

Qatar as the United States Central Command Joint Search and 

Rescue Director. This was a one-year deployment and I knew I 

would not be home to cast my ballot in person. 

During my R & R leave during the spring of 2004, I went to the 

branch office of the county Supervisor of Elections and requested 

an absentee ballot. 

During the months of August and September, in September the 

tempo of operations was very busy and I had to take a trip forward 

to Djibouti in the horn of Africa and a trip forward to Baghdad, 

Iraq. Both trips were several days in length and upon return from 

each, I expected my absentee ballot to have arrived, but that was 

not the case. 

It was not uncommon for mail one way to or from home to take 

three weeks to arrive; and as the end of September approached, I 

was getting concerned that I might not have enough time to for my 

ballot to make it in before election day. Fortunately the telephone 

and internet connectivity at my deployed location was excellent. 

In the beginning of October, I contacted the office of the Supervisor of Elections via the link on their website and requested the 

status of my absentee ballot. The office e-mailed back that my ballot had been mailed out and that I should have received it a month 

earlier. At that point I called my home base phone operator via the 

defense switching network and had them forward me to the branch 

office of the country Supervisor of Elections. I explained who I was 

and gave a synopsis of the e-mail traffic. The office was extremely 

helpful but even in this era of modern communication my only avenue for voting was via hard copy absentee ballot that would go 

through the military and United States postal systems. With that 

as the constraint, the office immediately mailed out another ballot 
365 

via priority mail and e-mailed electronic copies for me to review 

and shorten the turnaround time once the ballot arrived. 

The Supervisor of Elections, Ms. Hollarn at the time, also personally e-mailed me about what was happening. Luckily the absentee 

ballot arrived about a week after the phone call and I sent it back 

the same duty day. Ms. Hollarn e-mailed me a week later to let me 

know that my ballot arrived. That was approximately two weeks 

before election day. 

I am grateful for all the help the office of the Supervisor of Elections provided and for efforts and personal interest of Ms. Hollarn. 

Following this deployment, I was fortunate enough to have continuous and reliable communication and that was key in being able 

to vote that year, but this was most certainly an added stressor to 

the environment in which I was working. 

Every moment I spent researching and coordinating with stateside resources to be able to cast my ballot was against any personal 

time off. The mission is and always must be the main focus. 

Being deployed to support and conduct combat operations is difficult as it is. I still had a family back home to worry back; and 

in addition to the normal trials and tribulations that are associated 

with military life, my wife and daughter were dealing with the 

aftermath of Hurricane Ivan during this period, a storm which 

caused damage to our home that I still had to repair when I returned from this deployment. 

I cannot comment on the Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine who 

at a forward operating base without dedicated phone lines, no web 

connectivity and gets mail once a week. I think every American 

should do what they can to cast their ballot and make their voice 

heard. 

As with many other citizens, I will continue to do this, but there 

should be a better way in which to cast their ballot while deployed. 

This concludes my prepared remarks and I am happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Lt. Colonel DeCaro follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you and thanks to Ms. Hollarn for 

helping you. 

Mr. Eversole. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC EVERSOLE, ATTORNEY 

Mr. EVERSOLE. Thank you, Chairman Schumer, Senator 

Chambliss. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. 

We ask our military members and their families to make great 

sacrifices on a daily basis. We send them around the world to defend America’s interests, our freedom and our liberty. We send 

them to places like Iraq so that the Iraqis may enjoy the same 

rights that we enjoy, like the right to vote. 

But when it comes to their rights, when it comes to the military 

members’ right to vote, we seem to forget their sacrifices and we 

deny them the very voting rights that we ask them to defend. The 

2008 election is a case in point. 

In Florida, for example 26 percent of 340,000 military members 

were able to request an absentee ballot. That is 26 percent of 

340,000. That means that 74 percent never requested an absentee 

ballot and did not even get in the ballpark. That is 240,000 service 
366 

members that never got a chance to receive an absentee ballot and 

most likely did not get a chance to participate in the election. 

Figures in other states are very similar both at the rejection rate 

and the participation rate. And these figures are truly, truly a national embarrassment. The world’s greatest democracy and we cannot ensure that our military members have an opportunity to vote 

in our federal elections. It is a national or a federal issue. 

Sure, states could do a better job with the administration of the 

elections. All states should be required to mail out absentee ballots 

at least 45 before the election. I made that recommendation in my 

written testimony. I stand by it here today. But the real failure 

here, the area where we can make the most significant improvements, are all controlled by the federal government. The Department of Defense controls access to military installations and access 

to its service members. The Department of Defense knows where 

these service members are located. They know where these families 

are. 

It is the Federal Voting Assistance Program’s responsibility to 

provide these service members with voting assistance. In the same 

way it is the Department of Defense or the Military Postal Service 

Agency that is responsible for delivering these absentee ballots. 

They have the ability to expedite both the delivery there and the 

return back. And it is the Department of Justice that enforces our 

Nation’s voting laws. 

In all three areas the federal government has failed. This has to 

be the starting point of any legislative solution. 

First and foremost, the Federal Voting Assistance Program has 

to change its method for providing voting assistance. The current 

system which relies upon a voting assistance officer as a collateral 

duty does not work. The Inspector General reached that conclusion 

in 2004. He showed in 2006 that the number of service members 

that received information was still about 40 percent, less for family 

members, but little has changed. 

If you want to increase military voter participation, FVAP has to 

provide voting assistance, as the Inspector General said, on a timely and consistent basis. They need the information when they move 

or deploy to a new installation or new post. Service members already have an obligation, as Senator Chambliss pointed out, to 

visit their pay and personnel office when they report to a new installation. They get a variety of federal forms when they are there. 

They most likely get a servicemen’s group like insurance form to 

fill out. They may have to fill out a new W–2. They have to update 

their family’s information. 

They already fill out a variety of forms. One more form is not 

going to materially increase their burden, but it will ensure that 

that service member, when he is moved, will get a chance to update 

their registration in a timely and consistent manner. It is a small 

legislative change but a significant step forward. 

Second, states have to mail absentee ballots at least 45 days before the election. I think every expert that has looked at the issue 

has agreed that 30 or 35 days is not sufficient. Again that is an 

area where the Uniformed and Citizens Absentee Voting Act will 

be modified with a fairly simple amendment, but it would make a 
367 

significant difference in the approximate 20 states that do not provide 45 days. 

And third, Senator Cornyn and Senator Wyden reintroduced the 

Military Voter Protection Act yesterday as a bipartisan bill. I believe that this bill is a very important component to any legislative 

solution and has a very simple mandate. It tells the Federal Voting 

Assistance Program and the Military Postal Service Agency that if 

a service member gets that ballot in the mail at a collection point 

four days before the election, that ballot will make it home. It is 

a guarantee of sorts. You can track it. You can rest assured that 

it is going to get home and I think that is a very important guarantee for many of the reasons that the lieutenant colonel was 

pointing out, and I think it should be implemented in a very timely 

manner so it can be implemented by 2010. 

With that said, thanks again for the opportunity to testify and 

look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eversole follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Eversole. 

Mr. Carey. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT CAREY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEE 

Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, Senator Chambliss, thank you for inviting National Defense Committee to speak here today. 

The National Defense Committee is a grassroots military service 

organization focusing on individual rights of service members and 

strengthening the civil military relationship. 

Since 2003 the committee has made military absentee voting a 

flagship issue and, for the 2008 election, started the military ballot 

protection program to provide election day protection of military 

ballots threatened with unjustifiable challenge or rejection. 

I also have the honor of serving as a board member on the Overseas Vote Foundation. 

Additionally the National Defense Committee is a founding member of the Alliance On Overseas Voting Rights, an umbrella organization of more than 25 military veterans and overseas citizen or 

voting reform advocacy organizations committed to substantial voting reform in military and overseas voting processes. Many of their 

representatives are here today and I believe they join me in applauding the committee for holding this hearing. 

I personally became involved in the National Defense Committee 

in 2006 after my mobilization to the U.S. Navy Reserves just prior 

to the 2004 general election. Being mobilized two weeks prior to 

the election, I was unable to apply for an absentee ballot at my 

new delivery address and it was only by my taking leave at my mobilization preparation site, flying back at my own expense to New 

York City and voting in person, was I able to guarantee my right 

to vote. 

My circumstances are by no means unique. Analysis of the 2006 

election shows a significant systematic inability of military personnel to successfully cast their absentee ballots. 

For example, while more than 85 percent of all absentee ballots 

were cast by the general voting population in 2006, only 26 percent 

of the absentee ballots requested by military personnel were suc-
368 

cessfully cast that year. That translates into 484,000 military voters who requested absentee ballots but did not successfully cast 

them. 

Let me restate that. Military voters representing more than a 

third of the military asked for a ballot in 2006 and did not successfully cast them. 

A close analysis of that data is clear and unequivocal as to the 

most significant cause for this voting failure. States send out their 

ballots too late for military voters and postal mail delivery is not 

and cannot ever be quick enough to deliver and return those ballots 

in time to meet the absentee ballot return deadlines. 

The predominant absentee balloting system used for decades in 

this country, sending ballots 30 to 45 days prior to an election by 

postal mail, was designed for sending ballots across town to local 

voters not across continents and oceans to far flung, deployed military personnel. 

Even after seven years operating in Afghanistan and five years 

operating in Iraq, the Military Postal System Agency tells military 

voters that their ballots needed to be back in the mail from these 

two countries at least 28 days prior to the 2008 election date, implying a 56-day turnaround for military mail. 

For other overseas military voters, the Military Postal System 

Agency recommended no less than 21 days to return to the states, 

implying a 42-day turnaround. 

In January of this year the PEW Center on the States released 

a ground breaking study entitled ‘‘no time to vote’’ which found 

postal mail delivery delays and tight ballot return deadlines to be 

the key elements in whether or not overseas military votes could 

successfully complete the absentee balloting process. 

In all, PEW found 23 states do not provide enough time for overseas military voters to successfully cast a private ballot. 

For example, because no stage in the New York military voting 

process can be conducted by electronic means, New York’s overseas 

military voters require 82 days to navigate the absentee process, 

but they are only given 69 days to do so. For Utah, 88 days are 

required, but only 70 days are provided. 

Because of this, PEW concludes if voters from these ‘‘no time to 

vote’’ jurisdictions actually succeeded in voting, they managed to do 

despite their state’s policies and practices, not because of them. 

Now, the Overseas Vote Foundation 2008 survey also found that 

52 percent of those surveyed either received their ballot too late to 

return them on time or never received them at all. 

The National Defense Committee applauds the committee for 

holding this hearing. We note, however, that this is the sixth congressional hearing in which National Defense Committee members 

have either testified or submitted statements on military voting 

since 2004 and we know of at least three others in that same period. At each hearing witnesses like us tells senators and representatives the same thing I have today. 

And it is scary that these comments closely mirrored those of 

President Truman in a letter he wrote in 1952 to the House of Representatives on exactly that these same problems, late ballot delivery, slow mail delivery. 
369 

Frankly, little has been done to address these issues despite the 

consistent, repeated, and passionate description of the problem. We 

implore you to go beyond the problem exploration stage and pass 

federal legislation this year to overcome these tight ballot deadlines 

and slow mail delivery. 

We do applaud you holding this hearing today. It is important 

that we hold this especially in an odd number year, but we really 

need to start addressing this issue at the federal and state level in 

order to be able to make these changes permanent. 

Thank you. I stand by for your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carey follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. I want to thank all five witnesses for excellent testimony. 

My first question is to the whole panel, particularly Ms. Hollarn 

and then Mr. Carey both of whom explicitly pointed out, you all did 

really, the problem, much of the problem does reside with the 

states, the differing systems each one has, the fact that they are 

not too quick to get out the ballots, et cetera. 

And of course, our power over the states on local electoral matters is rather limited. 

If you could make two or three suggestions as to how we importune the states to do a better job here, what would they be? 

I am first going to ask Ms. Hollarn, then Mr. Carey and then the 

other witnesses. 

Ms. HOLLARN. I think that if you are looking at the actual casting of a ballot, the absentee ballot process, there are some states 

that still have cumbersome means where someone has to go 

through forms in the mail to request the ballot. If some just sends 

an e-mail or telephones or even sends something written, then they 

are sent the form to make the request, but that kind of excess 

paper and time wasting has a great deal to do with it. Without 

mentioning names, I know of three states that have procedures like 

that. 

So where we have the federal postcard application and that in 

itself needs serious revision because nobody reads the four point 

typed instruction to start with and it is also not written in a voter 

friendly manner. There is no explanation for some of the questions 

or anything like that. though. that I think are sufficient. 

So the paperwork can be reduced where I think there can be a 

uniform procedure for ballots being requested which eliminates 

some of it, but UOCAVA already addresses that to a degree. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes, with some success but not great success. 

Ms. HOLLARN. I think a lot of it has to do with the enforcement. 

There are issues with the National Voter Registration Act that 

have to do with taking people off the rolls that are what I consider 

a total violation of NVRA and I have been exposed to them recently. So there is not very much follow-up by enforcement procedures and there is not consistent follow-up. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Ms. Hollarn, if a state has just an inherently cumbersome process form, new form, et cetera, is there any 

way we can force them to change that process at least for federal 

elections or at least for military voters or overseas voters or both? 
370 

Ms. HOLLARN. I think there can be some specific action taken in 

the revision of UOCAVA that would implement that. For instance, 

the federal post card application essentially is good. At least having 

it electronically available, that is one thing; and they have simplified some of the form and the instruction in that process. 

The fact of the matter is this opens up a black hole of problems 

with voting assistance officers and the things that perhaps the bureaucracy thinks are being done that are not being done; and so I 

think the simplification of requesting a ballot—you know, one of 

the things that is very poorly understood, very little understood is 

the ballot. 

There seems to be often too often acceptance of the fact of ‘‘give 

me a ballot.’’ Well, there are ballot styles that are dependent on the 

jurisdictions in which you are eligible to vote so we end up with 

a huge complexity of what ballot to offer the person, and the federal write-in ballot goes a long way to solving that problem and 

then there are states that have write-in ballots as well. Florida 

does, has a state write-in ballot. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Do you think if we forced the states to 

change the way they set up absentee ballot procedures for federal 

elections, they would then match it for their local elections? 

Ms. HOLLARN. That has been the way, it starts out that way. I 

have to say, Florida is exceptional not just because I live there but 

it is because of the cooperative effort we have had in working, local 

election officials working with the state as well to not only pass 

conforming legislation but to reach out even beyond that and provide for even more than the federal legislation. 

Perhaps we are not talking about enforcement where you are 

going to put your hands around the states’ throats. Education is 

the key and this is where the Federal Voting Assistance Program— 

I think it starts with some specific measures in revising UOCAVA 

but then it goes to the education process with both the Federal Voting Assistance Program and the states. 

One of the reason though I continue to work past this so-called 

retirement that I entered is the education of election officials across 

the country in understanding the federal law and implementing it, 

and that is where I think the problem basically lies which is preferable to actual enforcement. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Carey. The same question. 

Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, actually I would say that Congress’s 

constitutional authority to impose upon the states is pretty much 

unlimited. The Constitution gives the states the first right to determine the method of election but allows Congress to impose that. 

UOCAVA itself is a limited imposition by the Federal Government 

on the states of procedures for military and overseas voting. 

Chairman SCHUMER. So you think we could pass a law on, let us 

say, how to treat military voters say, require separately, or overseas voters, I guess we do it for everybody, separate from other absentee ballot procedures. 

Mr. CAREY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And would that apply to local elections and 

to state elections? 

Mr. CAREY. It would not be able to be federally mandated to 

apply at this stage. You could, but at this stage it does not. 
371 

Chairman SCHUMER. We could not do that and so the question 

is: Do we create more confusion by having two separate procedures? 

Mr. CAREY. I think the state and local elections will always follow on the same dates as the federal election so anything you do 

on the federal elections will necessarily capture the state and local 

election. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Do most of you agree with that, Mr. Palmer, DeCaro, Eversole, that if we did it, first, should we do it, and 

if we did it, would the states follow with their local? I mean, it is 

a big question. I would like to do it. You know me. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I think that my impression with 

other state election officials is that they feel that these voters are 

their voters and they want to provide their ballot to their voters. 

I think that there needs to be some leadership at FVAP and the 

Congress to develop a system of that ballot style, to provide that 

ballot to the men and women overseas and that is increased technology, it has increased resources, and it is leadership at the Federal Voting Assistance Program. 

It will need more resources to make it happen, but I can tell you 

that the ground swells of support among state election officials is 

that they want these voters. They feel that they are their voters. 

They will take care of them. We have to provide, I guess on a federal level and when I say we, the federal level needs to provide the 

resources and the ability for that to happen and I think only technology will do it because we have been dealing with ‘‘snail mail’’ 

for the last 60 years. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Anything to add either of the other two 

panelists? 

Mr. EVERSOLE. I do. I do have some concerns about the Federal 

Government coming in and overriding all the states laws with respect to verifying their voters and assuring that the state procedures for determining residency and those types of things are actually enforced. 

From my perspective, the area where the Federal Government 

can come in and make a big difference is mandating 45 days. 

UOCAVA currently is unclear with that regard. Mandating 45 days 

obviously is a mandate to the states, but it has caused some problems in litigation. It caused some problems in New York recently, 

in New York 20th. It caused some problems in Virginia. So that 

mandate would be helpful. 

Where I start to have some concerns is where you go in and override the state procedures for ensuring that the balloting, the state 

law is followed. And as far as I can tell, at least on the states I 

have checked, the rejection rate for military votes that are returned 

is really no different than the rejection rate for absentee ballots in 

the same state. 

For example, in Florida the military rejection rate for returned 

ballots was one percent, for military. It was one percent for regular 

absentee ballots. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Do you have anything to add, Colonel? You 

do not have to, only if you want. 

Lt. Colonel DECARO. Yes, sir. The only thing I would comment 

on is the standardization for the military members. We are not 
372 

from the same state. Even the same unit deploys with various 

states; and if you have numerous procedures to follow, you cannot 

possibly expect an additional duty voting assistance officer to be 

anything but a conduit for information. And if he cannot speak, he 

cannot speak. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Now, let us go to the federal level where we 

have much more of sort of a complete say. All of you have touched 

on various problems that are at the federal level that we can do 

a lot more about. So I am going to ask each of you this question. 

This will be my last because my time has gone over and I want to 

give Saxby time. 

If we could do one thing at the federal level, forgetting the states 

right now, but just one thing at the federal level, FVAP, what 

would you have us do to make it easier for our soldiers overseas 

to vote? 

We will start with Mr. Carey and work our way that way. 

Mr. CAREY. Only one. Mandate the ballots be sent out least 60 

days before they are due. 

Mr. EVERSOLE. My one recommendation would be to implement 

what FVAP has refused to which is radical change in the registration and the absentee ballot request process. I think certain offices 

at DOD have to be designated voter registration agencies under 

section 7 in NVRA. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. 

Colonel DeCaro. 

Lt. Colonel DECARO. Sir, I would recommend that there is a way 

to leverage existing technology we have, i.e., the common access 

card that all military members have to use just to log in to an unclassified network, if it is possible to use something like that because we all have it regardless of location. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Good idea. 

Mr. Palmer. 

Mr. PALMER. Sort of related to that, I think there should be dedicated HAVA monies to sort of put pilot projects on the horizon to 

give states the ability to do this. There are demands and pressures 

on the HAVA dollars, local and state. And so if there is dedicated 

moneys for overseas and military participation, states will experiment. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And Ms. Hollarn. 

Ms. HOLLARN. They have said it. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I know. But the good news is, none of the 

four are contradictory. 

Ms. HOLLARN. Right. And I would say, all of the above. 

My concern is something that I am not sure how it is solved, but 

it does have to be solved on the federal level, and that is the fact 

that there is a disconnect between the Federal Voting Assistance 

Program or even the intent of Congress and what happens in the 

field, and that is caused a great deal by the Hatch Act. 

In other words, we have the misunderstanding of the difference 

between campaigns and running for office and election administration. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And voting. 

Ms. HOLLARN. Yes. The voting is the connection between the two, 

but what you have is the fact that the VAOs are often very very 
373 

restricted by commanders and the fact is that commanders are very 

unwilling to allow certain things be done because of the nature of 

the Hatch Act. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. 

Ms. HOLLARN. Which is very very much— 

Chairman SCHUMER. That is an education issue as much as anything else. 

Ms. HOLLARN. Yes, it is. So that is the only think I could add. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Good answers. Thank you. 

I thank the witnesses and now I am going to call on Senator 

Chambliss. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. There seems to be 

general agreement that the 30 days that DOJ has mandated for 

sending out of ballots too short. Frankly, I like your idea, Mr. 

Carey, of 60 days but I see a practical problem. 

Florida has, as I recall, a September primary. New York has a 

September primary. What do we do with respect to states like that 

that have those late primaries and I may be wrong, but I was 

thinking Florida had a September primary. 

Ms. HOLLARN. Well, ours was recently changed to ten weeks before the general election which right now is occurring the week before Labor Day. So basically we have only had that once and it was 

the last week in August, but the ten weeks would come out to be 

before Labor Day. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Still pretty—— 

Ms. HOLLARN. Actually the process, the only thing that holds up 

any ballots in Florida now with more than enough time is litigation 

by candidates that have some issue with the certification of the ballot. 

As a matter of fact, in the last general election year, I got my 

ballots out probably like in 51, 52 days before the election and 

there were members of Congress that questioned whether I telling 

the truth or not, but yes, it was so. 

I think the Florida election schedule, especially since we have 

eliminated the second primary, does allow sufficient time, and it is 

when litigation holds up the certification of a ballot that has 

caused any problem. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Carey, you were going to say something 

there? 

Mr. CAREY. New York is a leader among states in allowing an 

extended period of time after the election for the ballot to be returned, up to 14 days. So the 60 days can be met if you allow the 

ballots to be returned after the election, but it is that 60-day turnaround that is critical. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Was Florida’s change because of there not 

being enough time there? Do you all have any independent knowledge of that? 

Ms. HOLLARN. The Florida Supervisors of Elections have lobbied 

for years to eliminate the second primary and it was basically a 

surprise gift that happened in 2002 that we had a temporary suspension of it, but then we had a final elimination of it and we have 

been under a consent order in Florida since 1982 since there was 

litigation back then about the three elections in nine weeks that 

made every ballot for every election be impossible to reach them so 
374 

the consent order included that we had to count absentee ballots 

for ten days, from overseas for ten days after the election as long 

as they were dated or postmarked by election day. 

And the reason that it was finally dropped was to make the election schedule more preferable in hopes that we could get Justice to 

eliminate the consent decree. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Palmer, you mentioned that your Secretary of State heard from a lot of soldiers during his visit abroad 

that they wanted to return voted ballots by electronic mail. Now, 

in Georgia we have a photo ID requirement. I think in Florida you 

all had just implemented that or you are in the process of doing 

so. 

How do you see this playing in from a practical stand point with 

relevance to security of that vote? 

Mr. PALMER. Well, for absentee ballots obviously the individual 

goes through a verification process, but on all absentee ballots basically they will be comparing the signature to the signature on file 

at the local office. So there would not be a photo ID at the polls. 

So that is how that situation is remedied. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. What about the actual verification requirement? Is there anything other than matching the signature from 

the electronic vote? 

Ms. HOLLARN. Perhaps because I had the firsthand experience at 

it, Florida also has a law that was in place for commerce about accepting digital signatures. There is a difference between digitized 

and digital. And in the pilot project that we did, that is exactly 

what we used and they were all verified registered voters in order 

to obtain the ballot to start with. 

And so in the absentee process, the only thing that is required 

is the signatures so those are all matched. But in the pilot project 

that we did, there was real time verification of the voter by entering certain information of the voter because in the kiosk environment, the voter registration is real time. Verification is real time 

so electronically I might say in a very broad sense, all things are 

possible in verifying a voter when you are looking at the kiosk situation, not from a personal computer, but from the kiosk situation. 

And although I have restrained myself for years from using the 

analogy to ATMs, I think visually that is the one way. Because now 

that we have done the kiosk process, there is a way to harden the 

voting process into something that would be similar to an ATM. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. What was your kiosk experience from the 

standpoint of taking some of those abroad and letting soldiers vote 

that way? 

Ms. HOLLARN. Well, we had 100 percent enthusiasm and support 

from all of the voters and dismay from those who could not participate, but of course it was limited to our county because no one else 

wanted to participate. But the fact is what we did was, first of all, 

a pilot project so it required human observation because everything 

had to be documented and there had to be evidence of how this 

took place. 

So it was, I think, and you have to understand that the process 

that we used is in operation in other parts of the world as well 

with the particular kind of system that we used and so it was 100 
375 

percent successful both from the electronic standpoint and from the 

voter standpoint. 

And we visualized, those of us who are still involved in it, with 

taking this to another level with multiple states participating and 

in a combat zone, but of course this is the point where I have to 

say that I do not want federal funds and now the only way to do 

it is with federal funds, but it is for the federally covered voters 

of UOCAVA that we are talking about. 

So there are all kinds of possibilities and you have heard the 

word ‘‘electronic’’ mentioned over and over again and I realize there 

are two sides to that story but my side listens to the other side and 

now we would like others to listen to our side. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Lieutenant Colonel DeCaro, you are to be 

commended for being as vigilant as you were in making sure that 

your vote counted. How many E2s or E3s are going to follow the 

same procedure that you did and be as diligent as you were to get 

their vote counted in any election? 

Lt. Colonel DECARO. Sir, I cannot give you an empirical number, 

but I would hazard to guess very few. A very few would probably 

have the opportunity or just the wherewithal to say, I need to research this. I tie back to a voting assistance officer that is only as 

effective as he is to get the message out. You go to large organizations with a high operations tempo and that is just not going to 

happen. I will tell you right now, it will not be a focus. 

As I said in my testimony, the mission is going to be the focus. 

It may be the smattering of an e-mail that goes out or a face-toface conversation, but when you are in Iraq or Afghanistan or some 

other deployed location, it will not be visible. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. We have got an electronic voting method in 

Georgia that can be used. Frankly, I do not know how successful 

it was because we have not gotten the numbers from this year. 

But if that were available, do you think that there is the motivation on the part of the leadership in the military to try to make 

sure that the folks that are serving under them do cast their ballot 

or is it going to have to be an individual motivation factor that gets 

them to vote? 

Lt. Colonel DECARO. Well, sir, it is going to be both. A commander cannot order an individual to go and cast the ballot, but 

he can definitely make that time available. Guys have opportunity 

to go to the chow hall. They have the opportunity to go to the exchange when they are down range. If these kiosks are brought to 

those common access locations, there is no reason at all members, 

as long as you are not at a forward base without that capability, 

would have an inability to cast the ballot. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. I may have one 

more. 

Mr. CAREY. Senator, you did have a question about the E1 and 

E3 and we have some data on that as well. We can forward it on 

to your office, but the fact of the matter is that the E1s through 

E3s have a substantially higher rate of disenfranchisement than 

the rest of the military and a substantially higher rate of inability 

to get the ballots than the rest of the military. 
376 

Chairman SCHUMER. We will ask you to submit that in writing 

just whatever information you have and we will add it to the 

record. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I did have one more, Mr. Carey. I am not 

picking on New York, but you used them as an example of being 

forward thinking with regard to that time framing, but apparently 

they do not have, New York does not have any electronic means for 

voting. 

Has there been any effort by the legislature there to deal with 

this or is it too hot to discuss in the New York legislature? 

Mr. CAREY. I am not sure about any initiatives at the state level. 

Maybe some of the other panelists has some information about the 

state legislative initiatives. I do know that in New York has had 

a number of broader issues regarding some of the implementation 

of Help America Vote Act and they have some policy differences 

with the Federal Government on that. 

But you are right. They do not allow any part of the process, absentee ballot application, registration, absentee ballot receipt or 

transmittal to be done by any electronic means, fax or e-mail. And 

so the result is that it takes a really long time to navigate the New 

York overseas absentee voting process, upwards of 89 days when 

only about 70 are provided. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I will speak to the Senator from New York 

about that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CAREY. At this stage that is a state-level issue. It could be 

overcome by federal action, but at this point, it is a state-level 

issue. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, it has been fascinating and 

I would say that it has been encouraging, but I think it has been 

a little discouraging in some respects, but I will have to say that 

I want to commend all of you all for really keeping this issue moving and for you folks at the local level, Ms. Hollarn, Mr. Palmer, 

thank you for your endurance and your perseverance in trying to 

make sure that the folks that are your constituents are having the 

opportunity to vote, military or otherwise, but we have got some 

real issue, Mr. Chairman, to deal with, but this has been an excellent hearing. 

Thank you for holding this hearing and thank you all for testifying. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, first, let me thank you, Senator 

Chambliss, for your interest in this issue which did not begin at 

this hearing for sure. 

I want to thank each of the witnesses. Very good testimony. I 

agree, New York, we were the last to comply with HAVA. We still 

have even in terms of voting we have those old voting machines. 

They have run out of parts. They cannot get the parts for them. 

And they have to cannibalize existing machines to do the parts. It 

is not a record that any New Yorker can be proud of in terms of 

how the State has been lagging behind not just in overseas voting 

and military voting but in the whole process. 

Having said that, I think the testimony has been excellent. There 

are a number of areas where legislation could improve the process 

for the voters as well as the stakeholders and I pledge myself to 
377 

work with the minority, try to come up with a bipartisan bill. This 

is one that there should not be any divisions in terms of ideology 

or anything else and I think we can get this done in a bipartisan 

manner this year and we are going to be working with you, Saxby, 

with Ben Nelson and with Bob Bennett, our ranking member, to 

try and come up with something. 

So I want to thank our witnesses for testifying. It was great testimony as Saxby said and thank all of you for your service in one 

way or another and many of you for you or your spouse’s military 

service as well. 

The committee has received a number of statements for the hearing record. Without objection, I ask that these statements be submitted for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The record will be open for five business 

days for additional statements for members and the public. And if 

the witnesses have no objection, I will also have the record remain 

open for five days for additional questions for other members of the 

panel who may want to submit them to you if that is okay with 

all of you. 

Since there is no further business, the committee is adjourned in 

the hopes that both we can get something done and thanks for the 

witnesses today. 

[Whereupon, at 12.17 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(379) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 
480 
481 
482 
483 
484 
485 
486 
487 
488 
489 
490 
491 
492 
493 
494 
495 
496 
497 
498 
499 
500 
501 
502 
503 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 
516 
517 
518 
519 
520 
521 
522 
523 
524 
525 
526 
527 
528 
529 
530 
531 
532 
533 
534 
535 
536 
537 
538 
539 
540 
541 
542 
543 
544 
545 
546 
547 
548 
549 
550 
551 
552 
553 
554 
555 
556 
557 
558 
559 
560 
561 
562 
563 
564 
565 
566 
567 
568 
569 
570 
571 
572 
573 
574 
575 
576 
577 
578 
579 
580 
581 
582 
583 
584 
585 
586 
587 
588 
589 
590 
591 
592 
593 
594 
595 
596 
597 
598 
599 
600 
601 
602 
603 
604 
605 
606 
607 
608 

RESPONSES FROM PATRICIA HOLLARN, FORMER SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN CHARLES E. 

SCHUMER FOR THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

HEARING RECORD ON MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTING MAY 13, 2009 

1. DOD Voting Program 

Based on your experience with the Federal Voting Assistance Program 

(FVAP), please critique the program with regard to limitations of authority 

for FVAP, problems with implementation, and use of technology. 

In working with the DOD’s Federal Voting Assistance Program for over 20 years, 

I believe FVAP has not particularly suffered from limitations of authority, I believe 

they have not used their full authority as Congress intended. They consult with 

DOD officials and brief high commanding officers on projects to begin with but 

never fully follow up if they were not receiving the response that would produce the 

results that Congress wanted. 

If there were problems with implementation, it was because there was a lack of 

aggressive attention to keep DOD and military officials aware of the importance 

year-in, year-out for continual registration and voting processes and opportunities. 

While there are complex registration and voting laws state by state, evidence already exists that there are simpler, clearer and more effective ways to implement 

these processes as UOCAVA and HAVA require and Congress intended. 

After VOI and SERVE did not produce any long-lasting results in improving voting opportunities for far-flung military and overseas citizens, FVAP has not made 

any progress even with existing technology. Still trying to ‘‘push’’ use of FAX would 

be a good example. Despite allegations of no sufficient security by naysayers, technology does exist that would better serve UOCAVA voters world-wide. However, 

FVAP has in the recent past relied more on technology vendors than election officials to make this happen. 

The Department of Defense has a program that uses service members as 

volunteer voting assistance officers on bases abroad. 

Do you believe that the voting assistance officers have the training necessary to 

provide enough information to voters? 

No, I do not. However, that is mainly because the lower rank personnel who are 

assigned to be VAO’s are often not given the time or resources (again, understandable with the military mission’s priority) to do the job properly. This occurs because 

the higher ranks of command personnel do not receive sufficient information and 

emphasis on the program’s importance. 

Are there other obstacles that these individuals encounter in carrying 

out their assignment to assist members of the military to register to vote 

and vote? 

Another obstacle is the lack of clear understanding on the difference between election administration (voter registration, issuing and processing absentee ballots etc) 

and political campaigning and its accompanying influence. Even more obstructive 

is the near-paranoia about the Hatch Act, which restricts political activity, especially influence, of military personnel. While nonpartisan voter registration and requesting ballots results in the partisan activity of making political choices in an 

election, there should be encouragement not restriction on the procedures that lead 

to successful voting. Commanders need to know these differences and ensure the 

VAO’s know and carry out their duties as such. Frankly, I have not seen or heard 

of factual influence or coercion by VAO’s in my experience. 

Some States report having to reject military absentee ballots because 

they aren’t signed by a notary public. 

Do you know why some States would require an absentee ballot to be notarized? 

Is this a practical and effective requirement? 

Requiring that military absentee ballots be notarized, whether by a public notary 

or a commissioned officer, is an archaic practice that has outlived its time, and it’s 

unfortunate that this requirement has not already been eliminated in the few states 

where it remains. It is not only very difficult but also extremely expensive to find 

and have a notary validate the ballot in many countries (and even in some areas 

of the US), it is also paternalistic to have an officer validate an enlisted person’s 

signature. Both have equal status to sign an oath and have it accepted as voters. 

I believe a federal law eliminating the need for a notary or other officials’ signature 

on a ballot should be considered. 

Do you know if the volunteer voting assistance officers are provided with 

an opportunity to become a notary public? 

Even if they were provided with the opportunity to become a notary public while 

in the US, state laws have made it more complicated in recent years and the temporary status of a VAO, in both position and location, make this an unacceptable 
609 

solution. For overseas citizens and military in remote locations even more, this 

would be virtually impossible. 

2. Processing returned ballots 

Aside from ballots that arrive too late, some jurisdictions reject military 

ballots on other legal grounds. 

As a former local elections official, please explain the reasons for an absentee ballot being rejected other than arriving late. 

Late arrival is still the #1 reason, but the next most common reason is lack of 

a signature. Federal law requires a specific oath requiring the signature, so heartbreaking as it may be, an unsigned ballot must be rejected. In Florida, there basically are no other significant reasons as the signature and arrival deadline are the 

hallmarks of our ‘‘no fault’’ absentee voting. A lesser number of ballots are rejected 

when the signature doesn’t match, in which case the voter is always notified of that 

reason to (a) obtain a newer signature, and (b) to verify with the voter that another 

person did not sign. There are other reasons in other states that increase the odds 

of rejection, such as how the ballot was delivered (US mail only in Alabama), missing the deadline to request a ballot, and others. I believe that federal law could also 

better serve UOCAVA voters by mandating ‘‘no fault’’ absentee ballots by requiring 

the signature match to validate and arrival by deadline. 

Florida allows otherwise eligible overseas ballots to be counted up until the 10th 

day after a general election (also a presidential primary) because of a 1982 DOJ consent order. Even though our election schedule has changed to allow as much as 50– 

60 days for mailing ballots, state law will allow this delayed acceptance to stay in 

law regardless of the consent order. If ballots are still to be solely dependent on the 

USPS and military postal system, I believe this would be a reasonable requirement 

in federal law. 

In the initial snapshot of numbers released at the hearing, almost 25,000 

ballots were either returned as undeliverable or were rejected for some 

other reason. 

Discounting State-specific laws or requirements, what is the minimum information required from overseas voters to ensure that their ballot can be verified and 

counted? 

1. Person must be registered to vote in the jurisdiction 

2. Valid signature under the federal oath 

3. Arrival in the election office by the deadline 

3. Problems with the mail system 

Many military and overseas voters complain that their local elections office does not notify them about whether their ballots were received and/ 

or counted. 

What are the obstacles and difficulties for local election offices to provide 

this information to these voters? 

NVRA requires all registration applications to have an acknowledgment by the 

election official, but neither NVRA nor any other federal law requires acknowledgement that a ballot has been received and/or counted. That has become a ‘‘nice to 

do’’ practice in a number of jurisdictions who have the resources and ability to do 

so. Recognizing that, regardless of the size of a jurisdiction, absentee ballot processing (includes processing of requests, preparing for the first mass mailing and 

then daily issuance of ballots by mail as well as walk-in absentee and early voting, 

receiving and validating absentees, recording and securing, preparing for tabulation 

and more) comes in the most labor intensive and overtime-dependent part of the 

conduct of an election, this would be another layer of financial and labor need in 

any office. BUT, it can be done, especially if it can be done by email. However, not 

all requestors have email or provide it even if they do, so there would still be a need 

for a manual process by mail. It could also be done online, but once again, not all 

election offices have this ability nor can afford it. 

Is there a mechanism by which a member of the military can check to 

ensure that the ballot was received and counted? 

Right now, in Florida, the state voter registration database contains the absentee 

record of every voter, when the ballot was issued and when it was received, so a 

postcard or letter could be added to the system to produce the ballot receipt to be 

sent to the voter. As the tabulation system is a stand-alone separate system, counting the ballots is an anonymous process. The only way to do that is to have the unopened rejected ballots and advise those voters whose ballots were rejected. Voters 

would assume, as in ‘‘no news is good news,’’ that if they didn’t get a reject notice, 

their ballot definitely was counted. Considering Okaloosa County is a medium-size 

county, we had 36,000 ballots, of which approximately 250 ballots at most were re-
610 

jected. As this is a manual process, it makes more sense to just advise the rejects, 

not the counted. You could automate the process of advising those persons whose 

ballots were never returned, to find out if the voter ever mailed it and it was lost, 

but there would be no point of sending a notice to a bad address for those ballots 

Returned Undeliverable because the voter hasn’t advised us of his new address. 

This entire process would be further complicated by people who change their address since sending their ballot back and forgetting to advise us (most common practice) because the NVRA rule then requires the address verification and final confirmation process to begin. This would have to be a carefully crafted law to avoid 

the ‘‘law of unintended consequences.’’ Best thing is to have a place on the web site 

for a voter to inquire, or just send a short email. 
611 

CHARRTS NO.: SRA-01-005 

HEARING DATE: MAY 13, 2009 

COMMITTEE: SRA 

MEMBER: SENATOR SCHUMER

WITNESS: MRS. MCGINN

QUESTION: #5 

ARMED SERVICES RECRUITMENT OFFICES

Question: On the issue of voter registration at armed forces recruitment centers, 

please provide an update on the current status of the program and the number of 

potential recruits who registered to vote at the centers last year. In addition, please 

provide any materials and information that explain in detail the training military 

recruitment offices receive to implement the applicable National Voter Registration 

Act (NVRA) requirements. 

Answer: DoD Directive 1344.13, requires each Service to implement voter registration assistance at each recruiting office. Recruiting personnel are required to 

ask each eligible citizen who enters a recruiting office if he or she wants to register 

to vote, and provide the individual with the Election Assistance Commission’s ‘‘National Voter Registration Form’’ and assistance in completing the form, if desired. 

Each of the Services has implemented the NVRA requirements through their own 

regulation. 

The Services report that instruction on the requirements to support the NVRA are 

contained in the indoctrination provided to Service members newly assigned to a recruiting program and to recruiters prior to assignment to a specific recruiting office. 

The Services Inspectors General report that the Services are in compliance with 

DoD Directive 1344.13. Data reported by the Services indicates that during 2008 

and the first quarter of 2009 recruiting offices assisted 174,776 persons. Voter registration assistance was given to 87,923 persons, of these, 10,979 requested and 

were provided voter registration forms. Persons not assisted for voter registration 

were not of voting age, were not citizens, or were already registered to vote. These 

numbers are consistent with historical reports since the enactment of the NVRA. 

Recruits receive voter registration and absentee ballot request assistance upon reporting for recruit training, when reporting for assignment to units, and from their 

Unit Voting Assistance Officers while assigned to units. There is special emphasis 

on voter registration and absentee ballot requests in election years. 
612 

CHARRTS NO.: SRA-01-006 

HEARING DATE: MAY 13, 2009 

COMMITTEE: SRA 

MEMBER: SENATOR SCHUMER

WITNESS: MRS. MCGINN

QUESTION: #6 

MOBILITY OF MILITARY MEMBERS

Question: A recommendation of a survey conducted by the Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) in 2006 was that the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) 

should notify election officials when members of the military have officially moved. 

During the hearing, you said that you would provide an update on the status of that 

recommendation. Please provide the current status of the recommendation, including whether it has been considered by the FVAP and it would be implemented and 

operate at the State and local levels of government. Has the FVAP reviewed or considered any other procedures to ensure that the voter registration information is updated for the use of election officials? Please indicate the current method(s) that the 

FVAP employs to communicate with State and/or local election officials to assist 

UOCAVA voters. 

Answer: When Local Election Officials (LEO) determine an address on file for a 

Service member is no longer current, they may request FVAP to check the DoD Employee Interactive Data System (DEIDS) database. If successful, FVAP provides the 

latest address available to the LEO. However, address information regarding some 

military members is not releasable outside DoD due to operational considerations, 

DoD policy, or Federal law. When a military member has separated from the military FVAP will provide information that the voter is not in the database. 

In certain circumstances, FVAP has worked with the military services to reach 

voters directly to contact their local election officials to update their mailing address. 

FVAP is investigating the possibility of obtaining email addresses (which are not 

contained in DEIDS) for Service members from other sources available within DoD. 

Where possible, the Department proposes to send an email to that Service member 

directing him or her to contact the LEO directly. 

Similar procedures are not available for overseas civilian citizens or military dependents. 
613 

QUESTIONS FOR MAY 13TH RULES COMMITTEE WITNESSES—SENATOR BEN NELSON

PANEL 2: LOCAL OFFICIALS/MILITARY VOTER/ADVOCATES

RESPONSES FROM PATRICIA HOLLARN, FORMER SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS IN

FLORIDA

1. Two important—and disturbing—statistics cited when discussing overseas voting are the number of ballots returned to local election offices as 

undeliverable and the number of voted ballots that are not counted because they are not returned in time. So that we might compare apples-toapples between domestic non-military votes and military and overseas voters, can any of you provide comparable statistics on undeliverable and late 

absentee ballots for non-UOCAVA voters? 

Mr. Palmer at the Florida Department of State may have access to more specific 

data on undeliverable and late ballots for domestic non-military and overseas military and civilians, as I do not have it in the broader state or national areas, but 

I don’t believe it is actually collected that way. However from experience, I can cite 

in general terms the experience in a medium-size county such as Okaloosa County, 

Florida. 

When the section of HAVA requiring a UOCAVA voter’s absentee request to be 

valid for two general elections was first implemented (for the 2004 elections), we 

sent absentee ballots for the September Primary to all the UOCAVA voters who had 

requested ballots for the 2002 elections. Out of about 9000 ballots, over 5200 were 

RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE, bad addresses. The situation improved for the 

general election, as it usually does, but it took the next two years, until the 2006 

elections that the situation improved. We were able to provide as much information 

about this as possible, as widely as possible. Eventually we got the number lowered 

to the hundreds, but with military voters that is about average for undeliverable 

mail. The voter’s only responsibility is to advise the elections office of his/her current address, but we realize that is not in the forefront of most people’s minds. The 

issue is worsened by last-minute or unexpected deployments or other TDY’s, and it 

is often too late for mail when they remember. This is where secure electronic voting 

is truly needed. 

NOTE: Data collection on UOCAVA voters is extremely difficult because it is not 

always possible to determine who are military voters. There is no provision for title 

or rank on a voter registration form, and if a person in residing off base, one cannot 

know if he/she is military or civilian. Florida now has a question on the state registration form about that status, but it really doesn’t appear anywhere else that I 

have seen. You can’t even really make that determination from the Federal Post 

Card Application (FPCA) either. Until that question is mandated to appear on all 

registration forms, we’ll never really know until there is some other contact that reveals it. It then follows that we never really know when they separate or retire from 

the military either, without other personal contact. 

As for late ballots, the largest number definitely comes from UOCAVA voters. 

2. Ms. Hollarn and Mr. Palmer—what would you recommend to other 

states as ‘‘best practices’’ for interaction with FVAP and Voting Assistance 

Officers? 

I believe that FVAP has to interact to a much greater degree with election officials, who in turn have to take a more proactive stance in understanding and implementing UOCAVA and Title VII of HAVA to better serve these voters. Not everyone 

is close enough to a military installation to have interaction with VAO’s but in my 

responses to Senator Schumer’s questions I discussed how FVAP can help improve 

the VAO’s service to the military voters. 
614 

* Responses from Don Palmer, Florida Department of State 

QUESTIONS FOR MAY 13TH RULES COMMITTEE WITNESSES—SENATOR BEN NELSON

PANEL 2: LOCAL OFFICIALS/MILITARY VOTER/ADVOCATES *

1. Two important—and disturbing—statistics cited when discussing overseas voting are the number of ballots returned to local election offices as 

undeliverable and the number of voted ballots that are not counted because they are not returned in time. So that we might compare apples-toapples between domestic non-military votes and military and overseas voters, can any of you provide comparable statistics on undeliverable and late 

absentee ballots for non-UOCAVA voters? 

While precise statistics on domestic non-military undeliverable and late absentee 

ballots were not recorded in this election cycle, the Division of Elections looked at 

the non-UOCAVA undeliverable and late absentee ballots reasons for rejections 

from the EAC Survey spreadsheet. The counties provided a list of the reasons why 

the ballots were considered ‘‘rejected’’ and not counted. 

Below are the reasons the ballots were rejected. 

• Signature variation 

• No voter certificate envelope 

• Ballot returned via fax 

• Signed spouse’s certificate/unable to pair couples 

• Ineligible 

• Mechanical signature 

• Wrong ballot returned 

• Not a U.S. Citizen 

• Mailed copies of ballots 

• Improperly signed by Guardian 

• Signed by Power of Attorney 

• ID requirement unmet 

• Ballot card differs 

• Non-county voter, request not on file 

• Third party signature 

• Signed wrong envelope 

• Signed sample ballot 

• Moved registration to another county 

• Voter moved away and was deleted 

• Voter moved after ballot was mailed 

• Address discrepancy 

• Voter moved out of state 

• Blank certificate 

• Returned two absentee ballots 

• Undeliverable 

• Absentee ballot envelope opened/taped 

In looking at returned military and non-military absentee ballots, if you remove 

the ballots returned late or past the deadline from the analysis, there is no significant difference in the rejection rate between the two categories of ballots. Overall, 

the ballots that are rejected for state law reasons are relatively small. Thus, as long 

as the ballot is returned in time, the ballot has a very high likelihood of being 

counted. 

The undeliverable ballot issue is a major problem that I have witnessed in Florida 

and many other states and localities. 

The real issue deals with: (1) making sure that service member provides most current and up-to-date address, which has not always been done on a consistent basis 

in the past; thus, we have a lot of ballots that get sent to stale addresses; and (2) 

making sure that military voters have ballots delivered to them in a timely and consistent manner—Military postal service has not proved to be reliable in the past. 

2. Ms. Hollarn and Mr. Palmer—what would you recommend to other 

states as ‘‘best practices’’ for interaction with FVAP and Voting Assistance 

Officers? 

I would recommend the following best practices: 

1. State officials should request that counties directly send all ‘‘undeliverable’’ ballots or mailings to overseas voters with appropriate identifying information to FVAP for search of updated addresses. 
615 

2. Local Election Officials should contact installation or major command 

Voting Assistance Officers (VAO’s) to place state registration information in 

on-base publications and website. 

3. State or Local Election Officials should offer to provide voting information and registration briefings to Voting Assistance Officers at installations 

that regularly deploy units overseas. Local Election Officials should either 

volunteer to provide a briefing as part of the overall deployment orientation 

or provide briefing materials to the local VAO or Judge Advocate General 

to brief service members. 

4. State and Local Election Officials should provide email addresses of Florida election officials to Installation or Command VAO’s as often the FVAP 

publication does not appear to provide email contact information. 

5. State and Local Election Officials should encourage FVAP to visit state 

installations and highlight the upcoming election cycle. Such a visit raises 

the awareness of Base personnel due to increased media coverage visibility 

to the Base Commander resulting in the voting information being more 

fully disseminated. 
616 

CHARRTS NO.: SRA-01-001 

HEARING DATE: MAY 13, 2009 

COMMITTEE: SRA 

MEMBER: SENATOR NELSON

WITNESS: MRS. MCGINN

QUESTION: #1 

Question: In your testimony, you summarize the absentee voting for UOCAVA 

citizens as a three-step process. a. Which of these three steps is the most problematic for voters? b. What are the major barriers to successful completion of each step? 

c. What are the most promising technologies for addressing problems in each stage 

of the voting process? 

a. Which of these three steps is the most problematic for voters? 

Answer: All aspects of the process—registration/ballot request, receiving the ballot, and returning the ballot—present different challenges. A problem with one step 

can adversely affect subsequent steps. Each is time sensitive with procedures and 

deadlines that vary between states. We urge states to mail the ballot at least 45 

days before the ballot receipt deadline to provide sufficient time for the ballot to arrive and allow the voter to mark and return the ballot before the state imposed 

deadline. The timely completion of each step in the process determines whether the 

voter will be registered in time, receive the blank ballot, and be able to return the 

ballot in time for it to be counted. 

b. What are the major barriers to successful completion of each step? 

Answer: Time, distance, and mobility are the greatest barriers to the successful 

completion of each step of the absentee voting process. Traditional mail service remains the primary method of ballot request and transmission. 

The time mail service takes and the distance voting material must travel can adversely affect the ability of the voter to successfully vote absentee. Each step can 

be hampered by availability of local mail service, additional state requirements such 

as requiring the ballot to be notarized, and remoteness of the voter. The Department 

has worked closely with the United States Postal Service to provide expedited transmission of APO/FPO balloting materials for the last three general elections. The initiatives undertaken include a tracking mechanism and the use of express mail at 

no charge for military members. The Department of State also provides free use of 

the diplomatic pouch service as well as notices to Americans abroad of other available ballot returning alternatives. 

Registration and ballot request success can be inhibited by the mobility of a voter. 

Upon relocation, DoD provides military voters with forms and instruction to register 

or provide their new mailing address to their local election official. Similar efforts 

are used to reach out to other UOCAVA citizens. 

Ballot mailings from the states can be delayed because of late primaries, late candidate filing deadlines, unexpected lawsuits or acts of nature. DoD works with the 

Department of Justice to ensure a reasonable amount of time is allowed by imposing 

specific remedies for particular elections, and long term remedies to avoid repeated 

problems. By law, each state may establish its own deadline, but a minimum transmission period of 30 days has been established as a precedent in federal court cases 

brought by the Justice Department. 

Many states allow for some part of the absentee voting process to take place via 

fax or email, which reduces the amount of time needed and gives UOCAVA voters 

alternatives to regular mail to meet their situational requirements. 

c. What are the most promising technologies for addressing problems in 

each stage of the voting process? 

Answer: DoD continues to support expanding the use of electronic transmission 

to reduce the time needed to successfully complete the process. While there are risks 

associated with using electronic means to vote absentee there is a willingness on 

behalf of voters to accept those risks to ensure their right to vote. Increasingly, voters have access to electronic communication media—even most forward-deployed 

Service members have access to email and the internet. This makes the use of technology one solution to the delays Service members and other UOCAVA voters experience with voting by mail. DoD plans to continue providing improved electronic 

tools to the states and UOCAVA citizens including the capability for automated completion of the Federal Post Card Application, request a ballot and receive a ballot 

electronically and automated completion of the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot. 
617 

Significant security concerns surround the use of electronic means to return of voted 

ballots which must be addressed as fully automated processes are explored. 
618 

CHARRTS NO.: SRA-01-002 

HEARING DATE: MAY 13, 2009 

COMMITTEE: SRA 

MEMBER: SENATOR NELSON

WITNESS: MRS. MCGINN

QUESTION: #2 

Question: In your testimony you note the lack of a centralized system that accurately tracks voter participation. What recommendations would you make for improving the data we have available on the successes and failures of military and 

overseas voting? 

Answer: To gauge participation in the voting process, the Department conducts 

a detailed survey after each Presidential election. For the 2008 election, the Department, in cooperation with the Defense Manpower Data Center, conducted a statistically-sound, random sample survey of UOCAVA citizens to analyze voter participation among uniformed services and overseas U.S. citizens, as well as the effectiveness of state-federal cooperation. The Department is analyzing the results of the 

survey and will provide a written report of those results to the President and Congress by December 2009. We also plan to brief the appropriate oversight committees 

as soon as the results have been tabulated and analyzed. 

Other organizations and agencies collect data regarding the voting experiences of 

UOCAVA citizens. We plan to discuss with those agencies and organizations the 

data collection processes and methodologies used to determine if they meet the 

standards accepted by the research community to produce statistically valid results. 
619 

CHARRTS NO.: SRA-01-003 

HEARING DATE: MAY 13, 2009 

COMMITTEE: SRA 

MEMBER: SENATOR NELSON

WITNESS: MRS. MCGINN

QUESTION: #3 

Question: Please elaborate on your efforts to promote legislative initiatives at the 

state level to facilitate absentee voting for UOCAVA voters. What specific procedures do you use, and how do you monitor and seek to influence state legislative 

activity? 

Answer: The Department contacts every state in advance of each legislative session to recommend adoption of specific legislative initiatives to improve the absentee 

voting process used by UOCAVA citizens. Our top priorities are for states to provide 

at least 45 days ballot transit time, and allow electronic transmission of balloting 

materials by fax, email, or both. We work directly with states to find solutions to 

problems faced by UOCAVA voters and track the progress of legislative advancements, providing letters of support and testimony when requested. We are also 

working with the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to 

develop uniform voting legislation for UOCAVA voters that the states and territories 

may adopt. 

The Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) office partners with a team from 

the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and 

Family Policy to engage state legislators on legislation to benefit Service members 

and their families. 

In September 2008, the Secretary of Defense hosted a bipartisan group of five 

State Chief Election Officials visiting Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and Germany to observe the challenges Service members face when voting absentee. They were encouraged to take lessons learned to their states to advocate for legislation that removes 

barriers to voting for this population. As a result, the officials made several recommendations—among them that email be allowed for the transmission of balloting 

materials both to and from state election offices. 

Whenever possible, the Department sends representatives to speak at state and 

national election official conferences to raise awareness of the problems faced by 

UOCAVA voters, acknowledge progress made, and recommend action be taken on 

suggested legislative initiatives. 

Additionally, the Department monitors the mailing of absentee ballots from local 

elections officials to voters. When these ballots are not mailed in a timely manner, 

DoD works with Department of Justice toward court-ordered, permanent legislative 

remedies. 
620 

CHARRTS NO.: SRA-01-004 

HEARING DATE: MAY 13, 2009 

COMMITTEE: SRA 

MEMBER: SENATOR NELSON

WITNESS: MRS. MCGINN

QUESTION: #4 

Question In light of experience gained in the last three elections, what if any updates or revisions to DoD policy and procedures (as set forth in DoD Directive Number 1000.04 dated April 14, 2004) would be useful to facilitate successful voting by 

military personnel? To encourage and develop the use of technology in the voting 

process? 

Answer DoD Directive 1000.04 is being revised and will be reissued as DoD Instruction 1000.04. The change of status from Directive to Instruction will expedite 

promulgating procedural changes to the Services. Among the changes incorporated 

into the revised Instruction are: 

• Providing flexibility to unit commanders to permit the assignment of a motivated, volunteer as Voting Assistance Officer (VAO) although the volunteer has 

not yet attained the grade recommended. 

• Providing flexibility to unit commanders regarding the ratio of VAOs assigned 

within a unit to the number of permanently assigned personnel. 

• Recommending, for continuity purposes, that Installation VAOs be civilian employees and, whenever possible, all assigned VAOs be in place from October the 

year prior to the general election through March of the year following the general election. 

• Authorizing delivery of the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) to Service 

members and their families by verifiable electronic means. 
621 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION NOMINATION HEARING FOR JOHN J. SULLIVAN 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Bennett, and Chambliss. 

Staff present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Jason Abel, Chief 

Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Adam Ambrogi, 

Counsel; Carole Blessington, Assistant to the Staff Director; 

Brenna Allen, Professional Staff; Lynden Armstrong, Chief Clerk; 

Matthew McGowan, Professional Staff; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; and Michael Merrell, 

Republican Counsel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. The hearing will come to order. I want to 

thank Senator Bennett for being here and apologize for showing up 

late. 

I would like to thank my friend, in addition to apologizing to him 

for being late, I want to thank him for his extraordinary efforts in 

being available this afternoon. Our schedules are busy. He has to 

leave at three, so we will try to make this a very quick hearing, 

which is in your interest, Mr. Sullivan, I think, and hopefully we 

will be completed quickly. 

We are here to have a confirmation hearing for John J. Sullivan 

as a member of the Federal Election Commission. Welcome. It is 

nice to see you, and I know your family is in attendance and I 

would like to welcome them, if you can just say hello. Wave your 

hands. Maybe you can introduce them when you speak, Mr. Sullivan. It is always nice to see the families. 

On May 4, 2009, Mr. Sullivan was nominated by President 

Obama to serve on the FEC for a single term expiring April 30, 

2013. If confirmed, Mr. Sullivan would replace Commissioner Ellen 

Weintraub. 

The Rules Committee oversees issues related to our democratic 

process, such as Federal elections and campaign finance. So far 

this Congress, our hearings have focused on election-related issues, 

such as our outdated voter registration system and the problems 

faced by overseas voters. Today, we are going to shift gears and 

focus on the FEC, an agency this committee had oversight over 

since its creation in 1975. Holding FEC confirmation hearings is 

one of our most important tasks and I look forward to hearing from 

our most recent nominee on how he will support the mission of the 

FEC and what he sees as his greatest assets and challenges in this 

role. 
622 

I am going to ask that my entire statement be read into the 

record so that Senator Bennett can get to the meeting he has to 

go to. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Schumer included in the 

record:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. I welcome Mr. Sullivan and call on Senator 

Bennett for his statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sullivan and I have visited. I find him eminently well qualified for this position. The old line in business, is once you have 

made the sale, get out of the room, so I shall not go any farther 

with this or delay this any further. 

Welcome, Mr. Sullivan, and congratulations on your nomination. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Chambliss, would you like to make 

any statement? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHAMBLISS 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I want to echo what Senator Bennett just 

said. I was to meet with Mr. Sullivan a couple of weeks ago and 

it didn’t work out and I had to call him up and apologize for canceling the meeting, but I wanted to come look him in the face today 

to tell him we intend to support his nomination, and thanks for 

holding the hearing on him, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. 

I want to ask the nominee to stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to provide is the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I do. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Please be seated. 

You may make your opening statement, and if you would like, introduce your family. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. SULLIVAN, NOMINEE TO BE 

COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member 

Bennett, and distinguished members of the Senate Committee on 

Rules and Administration. I am honored to come before you this 

afternoon as President Obama’s nominee to the Federal Election 

Commission. 

Before I talk about the FEC, let me tell you a little bit about myself. I am the oldest of four children of John and Estelle Sullivan. 

My parents were born, grew up, and started a family in the tenements of East Harlem in New York City. My father left school at 

the age of 17 to serve his country in World War II, and when he 

returned from the Navy, he got a job as an elevator operator and 

then as a bank guard at the Morgan Guarantee Trust Company, 

where he spent the rest of his working life. 

My mother, after graduating from high school, joined her older 

sister working at a factory in Manhattan. When the factory closed, 

she worked at a variety of jobs, including as a toll taker at the 

Verrazano Narrows Bridge and as a medical transporter at a local 

hospital. 
623 

With my parents’ hard work as an example, I worked my way 

through Catholic high school and then through college. I am fortunate to have been the first member of my family to have had the 

opportunity to attend college. I earned my degree at the University 

of Massachusetts in Boston, graduating Summa Cum Laude, while 

working as a school bus driver in the Boston Public Schools. I then 

earned my law degree at the Northeast University School of Law 

in Boston. 

There is a commitment to hard work and public service that runs 

deep in my family. My wife, who is here today, Sandra Levik, is 

a public defender in the District of Columbia. My son, who is also 

with me, works as a staff investigator at the Public Defender’s Office in New Orleans. My daughter Sarah, who is here, is a college 

student. My other family members, some of who are also present 

here today, my sisters, including my sister Diane, her daughter, 

and my wife’s sister, are nurses working in hospitals throughout 

New York and on a Navajo Reservation in Arizona. My brother 

Charlie, who is here today, is a retired New York City Police Officer. And my sister Diane’s son is currently a New York City Firefighter. 

I am presently an Associate General Counsel at SEIU, where I 

am responsible for advising the union’s political programs and its 

election reform and election protection efforts. I have spent most of 

my professional life working as an election lawyer. I have served 

as an advocate, fighting to protect the rights of my fellow Americans to register to vote and to freely cast their ballots in elections 

throughout this country, making sure that their votes are fairly 

and accurately counted. 

I have also acted as a neutral official and observer in numerous 

elections both here and abroad. For example, I was part of an 

international team of observers who monitored the presidential and 

parliamentary elections in Ukraine in what is now known as the 

Orange Revolution. I currently serve as Vice President of the bipartisan Montgomery County, Maryland, Board of Elections, which is 

responsible for ensuring fair elections for over half-a-million registered voters. 

The casting of ballots on election day is only the last step in the 

process in which a free people elect their leaders. The public campaigns by candidates, citizens, independent groups, and parties in 

the weeks and months before election day is one of the great features of our democracy. It is during this time that candidates and 

citizens speak out on the important issues of the day and thereby 

participate in setting the goals and selecting the leaders of our 

country. 

Just as the process of voting must be conducted in a fair, open, 

and impartial way to ensure the legitimacy of the system, so, too, 

must the period of campaigning be governed by a set of rules clearly articulated and fairly enforced. It is this latter task, regulation 

of the raising and spending of money in Federal election campaigns, that falls on the FEC. 

As an election lawyer, I work to encourage Americans to participate in the election process. I know only too well the corrosive effect that cynicism can have on the willingness of citizens to take 

the time out of a day already crowded with the obligations of work 
624 

and family to participate in election campaigns and to vote. Nothing can feed that cynicism more than the idea that the system is 

corrupt, that money counts more than votes, and that the voices of 

ordinary Americans are being ignored by candidates and elected officials in the debate over important issues. 

It is the elimination of corruption, and arguably as important, 

the elimination of the appearance of corruption which serves as the 

foundation of our campaign finance laws. In this way, the FEC has 

an important responsibility of combating that cynicism by fairly enforcing these laws. 

By statute, the FEC acts only upon the affirmative vote of four 

of its six members, no more than three of whom can be from any 

one political party. This six-member structure gives the agency a 

great advantage. All of its decisions must be the product of a bipartisan consensus and none can fairly be viewed as the work of one 

political party taking advantage over another. 

Throughout its history, the Commission has been able to work 

through differences to resolve the bulk of the enforcement cases 

and difficult legal issues involving the proper application of the 

campaign finance laws. The goal of our campaign finance laws is 

the elimination of corruption and of the appearance of corruption 

in our political process in order to ensure free and fair elections. 

These are my values and I am confident that they are shared by 

the members of the FEC. 

There may be disagreements among the Commissioners on how 

best to apply the law. However, as in the past, there remains 

ample room for the ordinary course of enforcement and for the resolution of difficult issues by the Commission. I would hope that the 

FEC’s Commissioners would build and maintain an effective dialogue and improve their capacity to work out differences constructively. And in all matters that come before the FEC, Commissioners must strive to be clear in their reasoning, impartial in their 

decisions, and transparent in the process of enforcing the law. 

Should I be confirmed, it would be my great honor to serve on 

the Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you today and I would now be happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan included in the record] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan. 

First, I am glad to see—and would note that this is not a commentary on you, but I am glad to see that most of your family had 

the good sense to remain in New York—— 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. —and serve our city and our State. I also 

understand your comments and the three-to-three deadlocks are an 

issue that we will look at, but I agree with you, having a bipartisan 

vote on anything is important. 

Anyway, let me ask you a few questions and then I will turn it 

over to my colleagues. 

First, I want to spend time talking about your career and how 

you believe that you have been equipped to serve on the SEC. Tell 

me what experience you think has helped you the most as you prepare to take on this challenge. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Senator Schumer, I think the best experiences 

that I have had as an election lawyer is working with voters and 
625 

members of our union, engaging them in political campaigns and 

getting them involved in the process. I think having an open process in which people feel free to participate and in which people feel 

that their voices are being heard in the process has been one of the 

most rewarding experiences that I have had. It is this value of both 

openness of the process and the willingness and desire of people to 

participate in the election of their leaders which I find the most important experience I have had and the value that I hold. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Very good. Over the last four cycles, you 

have been involved in election protection programs, ensuring a 

smooth election day. Can you tell us a little about this experience 

and how it might affect you as Commissioner on the FEC? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. First and foremost, I think it has left me with a 

tremendous respect for the role of elections in our democratic process. Elections and the campaigns that lead up to them are the 

mechanism by which not only do we choose our leaders, but we set 

our agenda. 

The work I have done to ensure that each eligible voter has the 

right to participate, to cast a ballot, to ensure that those ballots are 

fairly and accurately counted, has been a large part of my work 

over the last two cycles. I have worked as a poll watcher in polling 

places. I have been nominated by the Governor of Maryland to 

serve as a county election official. I have served on a transition 

committee established by the Governor seeking input on appropriate reforms for the election process in our State of Maryland, 

and I have worked with advocacy groups around the country on 

common goals of making sure that the voter registration process is 

an effective and meaningful process and not a trap or a barrier 

that would keep eligible voters away from the polls or deny them 

the opportunity to vote. And then make sure that the election process itself is open, transparent, and free for those to participate. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. My time has expired. I have a 

second round, but I want to turn to Ranking Member Bennett because I know that he has to get going before that. 

I just want to thank our other Commissioners for coming, Commissioners McGahn, Bauerly, Hunter, Petersen, and Walther. 

Thank you for all being here. Commissioner Weintraub is out of 

the country or I know she would have been here, as well. 

Ranking Member Bennett? 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sullivan, there has been a good deal of newspaper comment 

both about you and your union, and I am going to give you the opportunity to use this platform to address some of that comment. 

First, there were a couple of articles in Roll Call last year about 

SEIU and the amount of money raised and spent. If I can quote 

one of them, it says, ‘‘SEIU plans to spend a significant chunk of 

its nearly $100 million political budget to help Harry Reid get a filibuster-proof Senate.’’ The second article says, ‘‘SEIU has vowed to 

spend about $75 million to influence Congressional races and has 

opened the spigot with a $600,000 TV ad buy targeting John 

Sununu and a $500,000 ad buy going after Senator Gordon Smith.’’ 

Congratulations. You succeeded in both of those. 
626 

Now, $100 million, is that number about right? And can you tell 

us how the union spent that money in a way that was consistent 

with the current law? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. You are right, Senator. SEIU is very active politically. Its members are very active politically. The overwhelming 

majority of that money comes from the voluntary contributions of 

SEIU members, working people who make—— 

Senator BENNETT. Excuse me. By voluntary contributions, you 

mean something over and above dues? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. Yes. People who agree to contribute a 

portion of their pay every week to fund that political program, and 

that money is used for political purposes. It is fully reported. It is 

fully disclosed on FEC reports that are filed. 

In addition, the union engages in public education campaigns on 

issues of importance, for instance, health care. Very much of that 

budget has gone to advocating and educating the public on the 

issue of health care. These expenses are incurred in election years 

and non-election years and—— 

Senator BENNETT. Let me interrupt you now. Is there a difference between soft money and hard money here? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. In terms of the issue advocacy, that is what 

would be characterized as soft money for the most part—— 

Senator BENNETT. And some of the soft money comes out of the 

dues? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. Yes. The source of soft money is dues. The 

source of hard money is the voluntary check-off contributions that 

members make from their paycheck. 

Senator BENNETT. Okay. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. With regard—sorry. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you. I would like to get that clarification out for people who are suggesting that what you did may have 

been somewhat subversive and improper. I may not like it as a Republican, but that is the way the laws are structured now and you 

acted entirely in accordance with the law. I am assuming that was 

your responsibility, to make sure that you acted in accordance with 

the law? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is one of my responsibilities, both to educate 

and train staff people and officers about what kinds of funds can 

be used for what kinds of activities, what kinds of reports or disclosures have to be filed, and to make sure that that actually takes 

place, is part of my responsibility. 

Senator BENNETT. If we didn’t have the current laws, would the 

money be donated to political parties rather than used in that fashion? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, the union does contribute a lot to political 

parties, but it sees the value of having an independent political 

voice on issues of concern that may transcend particular candidates 

or even particular parties. We are often critical of Democrats as 

well as Republicans on specific issues, and our members expect 

that the union will have that independent political voice to argue 

for issues in their interest. 

Senator BENNETT. I see. The only reason I raise that last question, there is a Harvard study that says one of the reasons voter 

turnout has gone down is because of the dwindling influence of po-
627 

litical parties. I think our present campaign laws are to the disadvantage of political parties. I am not criticizing you in any way 

for what you are doing, but I would like to see more of the money 

channeled through the parties rather than in the other fashion. 

Now, I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to those 

who have criticized you in print or letter directly. Gerald Hebert, 

Executive Director of the Campaign Legal Center, a group that favors regulation of political speech, has said that your nomination 

is a cause for concern and he writes, ‘‘The gusto with which Mr. 

Sullivan has bashed important elements of McCain-Feingold and 

repeatedly taken radical deregulatory positions does not inspire 

confidence that he will have different views if confirmed to the 

Commission.’’ Do you consider yourself radical? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, I don’t, sir. 

Senator BENNETT. Do you wish to respond generally? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. 

Most of that criticism focused on comments that I participated in 

that were filed with the FEC in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Wisconsin Right to Life. The issue before the Court was 

the application of the FEC’s electioneering communications rules to 

a particular communication. 

I think any fair observer reading Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion 

in that case would recognize it was written in very broad terms, 

using very broad language. And when the FEC was confronted with 

having to write new rules to conform with that decision, it was confronted with two options. One was, should we simply do it narrowly 

to find an exception to the funding prohibition for electioneering 

communications, or should we essentially redefine electioneering 

communications and exempt all of these electioneering communications that fall outside of the scope that we can regulate from reporting and disclosure requirements? 

The unions filed comments with the FEC, which I joined, arguing 

for the second alternative. In that capacity, I was acting in the best 

interest of my client and in my client’s historic concern that electioneering communications had the potential for interfering with 

its legitimate grassroots lobbying activities. 

My personal views, with respect to the issue of whether or not 

it is appropriate to have reporting and disclosure of who pays for 

these ads is that I believe that is appropriate. I believe that there 

is no constitutional prohibition against it, and that is how the FEC 

ultimately ruled in that case. They said, well, the unions can fund 

these kinds of ads, along with corporations, for that matter, but 

they are still required to file a report with us and tell us how it 

was paid for. And I recognize that is what the FEC did. 

As a legal matter, I believe that was an appropriate response to 

the Supreme Court’s decision, and if confirmed by the Senate, I will 

enforce that rule as articulated by the FEC. However, I have to 

give the additional disclaimer that it is that precise issue which is 

currently pending before the Supreme Court in the Citizens United 

case. 

Now, after the union’s position was rejected by the FEC, we 

didn’t seek to challenge it. The union did not challenge that. In 

fact, the union did not join the parties in the Citizens United case 

to try to challenge that, as well. SEIU, my client, determined, fine, 
628 

this is the FEC’s interpretation, we can live with that. We will file 

our reports. We will put our disclaimers on the ads. And that is the 

current state of the law, and if confirmed, that is the law I will enforce. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, thank you, and I had a few other 

questions, but I will submit them in writing, if you don’t mind. 

And now our hearing is adjourned. I thank the witness for being 

here. 

[Whereupon, at 3:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(629) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
630 
631 
632 
633 
634 
635 
636 
637 

EXECUTIVE SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009 AND THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2009 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:04 p.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer and Bennett. 

Staff present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Jason Abel, Chief 

Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Adam Ambrogi, 

Counsel; Brenna Allen, Professional Staff; Lynden Armstrong, 

Chief Clerk; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Paul 

Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Michael Merrell, Republican 

Counsel; and Abbie Platt, Republican Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. The committee is called to order for an executive business meeting. We are meeting this afternoon to consider the nomination of John J. Sullivan to be a member of the 

Federal Election Commission. 

The Committee on Rules’ rules and procedures specify that seven 

members need to be present to discuss the nominations and ten 

members present to vote. 

Since a quorum is not present to discuss or vote on the nomination, the committee is recessed and will convene following the next 

vote on the Senate floor, which now is expected to be tomorrow 

morning. Members will be notified of the exact time and place of 

the meeting. 

So again, I want to thank you, Mr. Sullivan, your whole family, 

and everyone else for attending. 

The committee is recessed subject to the call of the Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the committee recessed, subject to the 

call of the Chair.] 

THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2009 

[The committee proceeded in Executive Session at 2:50 p.m., 

Thursday, June 11, 2009, in Room S–216, The Capitol, Hon. 

Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the committee, presiding.] 

Present: Senators Schumer, Dodd, Nelson, Murray, Pryor, 

Udall, Warner, Bennett, Cochran, and Chambliss. 

Staff present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Jason Abel, Chief 

Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Adam Ambrogi, 

Counsel; Brenna Allen, Professional Staff; Lynden Armstrong, 

Chief Clerk; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Paul 

Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Michael Merrell, Republican 

Counsel; and Abbie Platt, Republican Professional Staff. 

Chairman SCHUMER. The hearing will come to order. We are 

meeting this afternoon to consider executive business, the nomination of John J. Sullivan to be a Federal Election Commissioner. We 

held a confirmation hearing yesterday afternoon. 
638 

Also, pursuant to our rules, all votes are by voice unless a member requests a roll call vote. A quorum is now present. I will entertain a motion for a voice vote that the nomination be reported with 

a recommendation the nomination be confirmed. 

Senator BENNETT. So moved. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Second. 

Chairman SCHUMER. A motion has been made and seconded the 

nomination be reported with a recommendation the nominee be 

confirmed. All in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Opposed, nay. 

[No response.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. 

And we have a proxy from Senator Feinstein, yes, and Senator 

Inouye, yes. Thank you. 

Thank you, everybody. Have a nice weekend. The meeting is now 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:51 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
639 

S.1415, the ‘‘Military and Overseas Voter 

Empowerment Act’’ 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2009 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Nelson, Pryor, Udall, Bennett, Cochran, 

Chambliss, and Roberts. 

Staff present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Jason Abel, Chief 

Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Adam Ambrogi, 

Counsel; Carole Blessington, Assistant to the Staff Director; Sonia 

Gill, Counsel; Lauryn Bruck, Professional Staff; Lynden Armstrong, 

Chief Clerk; Justin Perkins, Staff Assistant; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Michael Merrell, 

Republican Counsel; Abbie Platt, Republican Professional Staff; 

and Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. The hearing will come to order. As you 

know we need seven to actually vote on amendments. We have six; 

we have at least two more members on their way so we will begin 

the opening statements. Hopefully they will be here, and we will 

do that. Maybe we can get the 10 to vote. If not, we will do it off 

of the floor. 

First I want to thank all of my colleagues for coming. Particularly my friend, our Ranking Member Bob Bennett, and he has 

really worked hard. He had some problems with the bill and our 

staffs worked together and we have worked it all out. And I want 

to thank him for his dedication to helping men and women who 

serve overseas in our Armed Forces exercise their franchise. 

The two real guiding forces behind this are here today. Saxby 

Chambliss, an original co-sponsor of this bill, member of the Armed 

Services Committee who has shared our commitment to ensuring 

that Americans serve overseas can participate fully in the electoral 

process and he worked hard with everybody and I thank Saxby and 

his staff. 

And the other person who was really instrumental in this is Ben 

Nelson, who is Chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Personnel and Readiness. He has helped craft this legislation into 

shape. And he and Saxby should we pass it out of this committee, 

we might be able to add it to the DoD Authorization Bill given 

their leadership on that committee. 

I also want to thank John Cornyn. He is not on this committee 

but he has been a strong and committed advocate for military voters. He has previously introduced legislation to help military voters 

and we appreciate his interest in the bill we are considering today. 
640 

On May 13 of this year the Rules Committee held a hearing on 

the obstacles faced by military and overseas voters. We released a 

survey commissioned from the Congressional Research Service, 

which had very troubling news and that was that one in four ballots requested by troops deployed overseas went uncounted in the 

2008 election. 

Studies from previous elections show that military and overseas 

voters have one of the lowest levels of turnout of all groups. But 

not because they do not want to vote. Our soldiers want to vote. 

But it is because it is hard for them to vote. It is hard for them 

to register. Only 65 percent of U.S. military personnel are registered compared to up to 84 percent of the population as a whole. 

And then the voting process is rather cumbersome, because you 

need an absentee ballot which is cumbersome in itself and you 

need two mail systems to get them there; military mail and then 

U.S. Postal Service. And so, that is why the numbers are so much 

lower—not for lack of desire. 

We have found that potential military and overseas voters often 

do not know where to register, or the ways they can request an absentee ballot. The states mail out the paper ballots without enough 

time for them to be received and returned by mail. Sometimes the 

ballot gets there after the election is over and certainly after the 

expiration date of when you can send in the absentee ballot. 

And then far too many returned ballots are thrown out for technicalities that are not election related; being on the wrong paper, 

not being notarized. Now how does somebody in Fallujah go find 

a notary for his or her absentee ballot? So it is unacceptable and 

we are trying to change that. 

In an age of instantaneous global communications there is no 

reason not to use the technology to help members of the military, 

their families, and other Americans living, working and volunteering in foreign countries from exercising their right to vote. And 

that is what we would say here. 

What we are marrying is the desire to vote with new technology. 

That is all. We are not changing any of the rules, we are just making it quicker and easier. If you have e-mail and if you have fax 

machines, why not use them? 

If the Department of Defense can get tanks, high tech equipment, and food to the front lines of combat we can figure out a way 

to deliver an election ballot as well. And we believe that this cannot wait. Senators Chambliss and Nelson and I have introduced 

this legislation to overturn the barriers military and oversea voters 

encounter as they fight for our freedom and serve our nation away 

from home. We have received input from a number of groups and 

senators and worked to incorporate their comments and concerns, 

so I think this is a strong bipartisan bill. 

And I hope it will pass out of this committee without opposition. 

So S.1415 will amend the 1986 Uniformed and Overseas Citizen 

Absentee voting Act and bring it into the 21st Century. Will use 

the internet and other methods to speed up the process for voters 

outside the U.S., make sure their votes count. It is an urgent priority and I hope we can move it quickly. And with that let me turn 

it over to our Ranking Member Bennett. 
641 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman not only 

for your opening remarks, but for the way in which you and your 

staff have approached this. 

As is the case with every piece of legislation there is always some 

tension among people who focus on the details and to perhaps oversimplify, but I think to put it in context we have has a little tension between what I would call the activist community that want 

to make sure that everybody gets to vote and then the election administrator community, the people who actually do the work who 

say, ‘‘Well, that is a good idea but it will not work for these following reasons’’. 

And I want to thank you for the way in which you and Senator 

Cornyn have worked together, as he has put forward his efforts. I 

worked with your staff and with Senator Chambliss and we put together an amendment the summary of which I would like to submit 

for the record. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection. 

[The information of Senator Bennett follows:] 

Senator BENNETT. And it goes through all of the details, in every 

case it is an attempt to reconcile the tension that I described. 

We want to get all of the folks in the military to vote, but at the 

same time we do not want to put undue burdens on the people who 

actually run the machinery. And it is my understanding that we 

have pretty well resolved all of the issues and all of the tensions 

and I want to thank you for offering the amendment that will take 

care of Senator Cornyn’s concerns and for your willingness to accept the amendment I will offer that will take care of the other concerns that were worked out with Senator Chambliss and I believe 

with those two amendments it can indeed come out of the committee with unanimous support and I will be happy to serve as a 

co-sponsor when it goes the floor under those conditions. 

So without going into any more details about the items in my 

amendment, I simply repeat my gratitude to you and your staff 

and the others who have worked so hard on it and congratulate you 

and Senator Nelson and Senator Chambliss for your leadership in 

calling this to our attention and moving this forward. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bennett follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you Senator Bennett. Senator Nelson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR NELSON 

Senator NELSON. Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is truly, as the 

Ranking Member has indicated and you have as well, that is has 

been a pleasure to work as collaboratively as we have on this legislation. It is consistent with how Senator Chambliss and I have 

worked on personnel issues under the Armed Services Committee 

to try to help our men and women in uniform and their families. 

But in this particular case, assuring the right to vote is followed 

by the capability of achieving that right. 

It is hard to register, hard to vote, hard to count votes. All the 

difficulties are clear and navigating through these difficult areas is 

not always that easy, but what this process has proven is that 
642 

when we work together we can get things done and we can overcome those obstacles. 

So for the men and women in uniform we are all please that 

their right to vote will be further honored by this legislation and 

I am very anxious to see it come to the floor. Very anxious to see 

it get the kind of commitment and support that I know it will get. 

And thank you for your particular leadership Mr. Chairman and 

so graciously sharing the gratitude and the accolades, because I 

know where a lot of the work was done that was with your staff 

and our staffs. So thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, thank you Senator Nelson and without you and Senator Chambliss this would not have happened. So 

thank you. 

Senator Cochran, do you want to make a statement? 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement, and I 

would ask unanimous consent that it be made a part of the record. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cochran follows:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Pryor, do you wish to say anything, 

opening? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. I don’t, but I do want to thank all of the people 

who have worked so hard on this. I’d like to be added as a co-sponsor if I am not already. But—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. You are already. 

Senator PRYOR. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman I have got to leave 

in about 10 minutes to hear a Commerce—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. We are going to move quickly to do 

the amendments. Just let me call on Senator Chambliss, Senator 

Udall for brief statements and I think we can get this done before 

10 o’clock. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHAMBLISS 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you Mr. Chairman and let me just 

echo the sentiments that you have stated, and Senator Bennett and 

Senator Nelson have stated with reference to the work on this. I 

mean, this is the way this body is supposed to work in my mind. 

We have an issue we needed a solution to and we found a common 

solution through conversation, negotiation, and being common 

sense senators and trying to make sure the men and women that 

are out there giving us the right to vote in free and open elections 

also have the right to vote and I just can-not say enough about the 

cooperative attitude of the Chairman and the Ranking Member. 

As we have been through this, I understand now why Senator 

Schumer gets so many things done because when he and I would 

talk about an issue he would come up to me three times during the 

day to make sure that I had done what I was supposed to do. And 

I am very appreciative of that. 

Chairman SCHUMER. There’s a word for it in New York. We call 

it ‘‘nudge.’’ 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Senator Nelson has been my good friend 

since I came to this body and I was Chairman of the Personnel 

Committee. I worked very closely with him. Now that he is Chair-
643 

man, we continue to work very closely together and your commitment to this has just been unbelievable and I appreciate it as always. 

Senator Cornyn who is not a member has had a bill on this issue 

for a couple of years and Senator Cornyn has just been a great colleague to work with on this. Again, we all had a common goal. I 

want to also just put in a good word for my Secretary of State 

Karen Handel who we stayed in touch with on this issue because 

we are putting some things in here that I frankly thought some of 

the states might not like. 

We have a large military presence in Georgia, as do a number 

of you in your states, and Karen has been very supportive of what 

we are doing and as a result I think we are going to get some widespread national support on this from outside groups. We already 

have, but it is going to continue to grow. So Mr. Chairman, thank 

you. I look forward to bringing these amendments up, getting it 

concluded, and bringing it to the floor. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you Senator Chambliss. Senator 

Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR UDALL 

Senator UDALL. Thank you Senator Schumer and I really appreciate all of the work of all the senators on this bill. I cannot think 

of anything more important than having the military have the 

right to vote when they are serving overseas and I would like to 

be added as a co-sponsor. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay, thank you. Let us move to the 

amendments. As was mentioned, Senator Cornyn has been a champion on this issue and has some amendments that we have all 

worked out. Senator Chambliss, Senator Nelson, Senator Bennett 

and I have all agreed to his suggestions and I am going to offer 

these amendments for consideration. 

They are Schumer Amendments 1 through 3, but they are Senator Cornyn’s amendments and as I said he has been a leader on 

the issue. 

Amendment 1 expands on the procedures that DoD should use 

in consultation with the U.S. Postal Service to ensure ballots get 

delivered through expedited mail. Amendment 2 expands voter registration services on DoD installation and enhances the VAO Program and FVAP Office. Amendment 3 is simply a terminology 

change. 

All of these amendments I think have both Senator Bennett and 

my support so do I have a motion that these three amendments 

suggested by Senator Cornyn in which I now offer be adopted? 

Senator UDALL. So moved 

Chairman SCHUMER. Is there a second? 

Senator PRYOR. Second 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. Those in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Opposed, nay. 

[No response.] 
644 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it and the amendments are 

adopted. Now we have some amendments that Senator Bennett 

will offer as well. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. This is the last bunch of amendments and 

then we will wait for final passage to get 10 off the floor. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is 

a summary of revisions. I have it here, a summary of the revisions 

made by the Bennett Amendment. There are 10 particular items 

here. Given the amount of time, well I can get through these 10 

in a hurry. 

Clarification regarding the delegation of state responsibility is 

number one. Number two, amendment to remove specific technologies from the bill. Number three, an amendment to clarify that 

the states are not required to place contact information directly on 

the ballots. That’s a privacy issue. 

Number four, an amendment to clarify that the states are not 

limited to only one point of contact. Number five, an amendment 

to improve privacy protections and number six amendment to add 

security protections. Number seven, an amendment to improve the 

requirement for time to vote. Number eight, amendment to the 

waiver provision with respect to the ballot transmission deadline. 

Number nine, amendment to repeal the UOCAVA Requirement 

that a single ballot application be valid for subsequent elections. 

And number ten, and amendment to clarify the HAVA requirement 

that payments remain available. 

Now all have been cleared by the various senators and I offer the 

amendment in the hope that it can be adopted. 

Chairman SCHUMER. All right. Is there a second? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Second 

Chairman SCHUMER. All in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Opposed, nay. 

[No response.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it and the amendments are 

adopted and I would ask unanimous consent that Senator Bennett 

be added as a co-sponsor as well. 

I think that is it. I do not think we are close to 10. Senator Pryor 

has a previous commitment, we all do. Sorry. Since a quorum is not 

present we cannot vote on final passage. In order to have a motion 

to vote when we reconvene, is there a motion to report the bill as 

amended? 

Senator BENNETT. So moved 

Chairman SCHUMER. Is there a second? 

Senator NELSON. Second 

Chairman SCHUMER. Great. Okay, since we do not have 10 we 

will convene off of the floor and the committee is in recess subject 

to call of the Chair. Thank you all for coming. And more importantly, for everyone’s good work on this amendment. 

[Recess.] 

Senators Present: Schumer, Inouye, Feinstein, Durbin, Nelson, 

Murray, Udall, Warner, Bennett, Hutchison, Chambliss, and Alexander. 
645 

Chairman SCHUMER. The Committee will come to order. There is 

a pending motion to report S. 1415 as amended. Unless there is a 

request for a recorded vote, the vote will be by voice. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 

that I be added as a co-sponsor. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection. Does everyone present 

here want to be a co-sponsor? 

[Chorus of ‘‘yes’’] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Ok, without objection, you all are added. 

Now, on to the motion. Those in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Those opposed, say nay. 

[No response.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it, and S. 1415 as amended 

is ordered reported. 

To conclude, I’d like to first thank my friend, Ranking Member 

Bennett, for his leadership and steadfast support of our military. 

I would also like to thank Senators Saxby Chambliss and Ben 

Nelson, who were original co-sponsors with me of this bipartisan 

bill. Their continued dedication to finding a solution to the problems facing our military and overseas voters is invaluable and appreciated. 

I’d like to thank the Senators who are here for this meeting for 

their participation and attendance, which made this mark up possible. 

Finally, I want to acknowledge some of those who have already 

sent letters of support for S. 1415, including Operation Bravo 

Foundation, the Overseas Vote Foundation, Federation of Women’s 

Clubs Overseas, and Eric Eversole, a witness at an earlier Rules 

Committee hearing who served as an attorney in the voting section 

of the Justice Department. I also want to thank the Pew Center on 

the States for their research in the ‘‘No Time to Vote Study,’’ and 

their support on this issue. 

I appreciate all of your efforts to take action on this urgent 

issue—we will keep working together until we get this done. 

We’ll keep the record open for five days if any member has a 

statement for the record. 

The Committee is adjourned subject to the call of the Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(647) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
648 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT BENNETT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this meeting and for your work on this important issue. You are to be commended for making this a priority. Our military 

personnel make tremendous sacrifices for their country. As they defend our rights, 

we need to make sure they are able to exercise theirs. This bill will help them exercise their right to vote. 

I want to also thank our committee colleagues Senator Saxby Chambliss and Senator Ben Nelson who joined you as original cosponsors of this legislation. They care 

deeply about our service members and they have worked hard on their behalf—on 

this bill and many others. 

I also have to thank another senator who is not a member of this committee but 

has nonetheless been a tremendous leader on this issue—Senator John Cornyn. Senator Cornyn has been out front on this issue for a long time and I know he is 

pleased to see this committee acting on it. I understand you will be offering some 

amendments Mr. Chairman that contain language proposed by Senator Cornyn and 

I thank you for doing so. 

This bill will implement many of the recommendations we heard at our hearing 

on this subject in May. Testimony at that hearing revealed that many service members are unable to exercise their right to vote because of ballot delivery problems. 

Ballots are frequently mailed out too late for them to be received, voted and returned in time to be counted. This bill will rectify that problem by requiring that 

ballots be mailed out with sufficient time to be received and returned. 

Another common problem is some jurisdiction’s failure to utilize electronic transmission methods that could cut down on delivery times. This legislation will require 

utilization of electronic transmission methods and thereby make it easier for military and overseas personnel to obtain, and vote, their ballots in time. 

Other provisions to require use of expedited mail services and expand use of the 

Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot should also help this population cast their votes. 

I do appreciate the goals of this legislation and I will be offering an amendment 

that I believe will help meet those goals. We have been getting some feedback from 

election administrators since the bill was introduced last week and some important 

points have been raised about its provisions. I very much appreciate your willingness, Mr. Chairman to work with us to address these concerns and I want to thank 

Senator Chambliss as well. Our staffs have worked well together to make what I 

believe to be some necessary improvements to the bill and I thank the Chairman 

and Senator Chambliss for agreeing to accept them. 

I have a complete outline of the changes that I will submit for the record but I 

wanted to address just a few of them in detail. 

The amendment I will offer clarifies that the obligations we impose on states may 

be delegated to local jurisdictions. We recognize that election administration functions are carried out on the local level and we do not intend to transfer those responsibilities to the State in this legislation. 

The amendment also changes the ballot delivery requirement from 55 to 45 days. 

45 days was the consensus recommendation of the witnesses who appeared at our 

hearing and many states would be unable to comply with the 55 day requirement. 

More states will be able to comply with the 45 day requirement and more military 

and overseas voters will be able to obtain their ballots in time with this requirement 

in place. 

The privacy language in the bill raised concerns because some voting related information is, by necessity, a matter of public record—the voter’s name, for example, 

and whether or not they have voted. These disclosures are important transparency 

measures and we do not wish to change them in this bill. The amendment requires 

privacy protections ‘‘to the extent practicable’’ so that voter’s personal information 

does not get exposed unnecessarily, while recognizing that some information can 

and must be disclosed. 

Similarly, language is added to ensure that security protections are also put in 

place to protect ballot integrity, to the extent practicable. 

Finally the amendment eliminates a requirement in the existing law that requires 

election officials to send ballots to military and overseas voters for 2 subsequent 

elections after they receive an application. This population moves very frequently, 

so this requirement obligates election officials to send ballots to addresses where the 

applicant no longer lives. This provides no benefit to the voter but does impose unnecessary costs on the jurisdiction. Elimination of this provision will conserve resources, reduce the opportunities for fraud and lower the rate of unreturned ballots. 

Again I very much appreciate your willingness to accept these changes Mr. Chairman. I think they improve the bill greatly and with these changes I will be pleased 

to support it. 
649 

SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO S. 1415 MADE BY THE BENNETT AMENDMENT

1. Clarification regarding delegation of state responsibilities. 

a. This is a new section that responds to concerns raised by election officials that 

states would be required to assume election administration responsibilities that they 

have delegated to the local level. 

2. Amendments to remove specific technologies from the bill. S. 1415, Section 3. 

a. S. 1415 includes references to specific technologies and that states will be required to use in the transmission of registration and balloting materials to 

UOCAVA voters. (Fax machines for example). The amended language will require 

the use of mail or electronic means of transmission without mandating technologies 

that may become obsolete. 

3. Amendment to clarify that states are not required to place contact information 

directly on their ballots. S. 1415, Section 3. 

a. The bill requires states to dedicate an electronic means of communication for use 

with UOCAVA voters. It also requires that the email, phone number, fax, website, 

etc . . . be printed on materials sent to the voters with registration and balloting materials. There is a concern that this requirement would obligate the states to print 

the contact information directly on the ballot. The amendment clarifies that the information is to be printed on materials accompanying the ballot and not the ballot 

itself. 

4. Amendment to clarify that states are not limited to only one point of contact 

for UOCAVA voters. S. 1415, Section 3. 

a. Election officials are concerned that the original language would overwhelm state 

election offices and add an unnecessary and time-consuming step in the UOCAVA 

voting process. The amendment clarifies that states may refer UOCAVA voters to 

the appropriate jurisdiction within the state for assistance. 

5. Amendment to improve privacy protections. S. 1415, Sections 3 and 4. 

a. The bill’s privacy provisions in Sections 3 and 4 are a point of concern because 

states cannot quantify the obligation it would place on them. To alleviate this concern, the amendment modifies the privacy requirement by inserting the phrase ‘‘To 

the extent practicable.’’ 

6. Amendment to add security protections. S. 1415, Sections 3 and 4. 

a. The expanded use of electronic transmission for delivering registration and balloting materials necessarily raises security concerns. The amendment includes a 

provision that requires states to ensure that procedures established pursuant to the 

bill protect the security and integrity of the registration and balloting processes to 

the extent practicable. 

7. Amendment to improve requirement for ‘‘time to vote.’’ S. 1415, Section 5. 

a. S. 1415 would require states to provide 55 days for the transmission of ballots 

to and from UOCAVA voters. This is a major point of concern for states and local 

election officials. The amendment follows the consensus recommendation made at 

the Rules Committee hearing that the period of time for sending and receiving ballots be 45 days. 

8. Amendment to the waiver provision of ballot transmission deadline. S. 1415, 

Section 5. 

a. While the Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing the requirements of 

UOCAVA, S. 1415 gives them no role in waiving what will be UOCAVA’s new mandates. This amendment requires the Presidential designee to consult with the Attorney General prior to approving or denying a requested waiver. 

9. Amendment to repeal UOCAVA requirement that a single ballot application be 

valid for subsequent elections. 

a. The Help America Vote Act amended UOCAVA to require election officials to 

treat an absentee ballot request from a UOCAVA voter to be a valid request for the 

following two general elections. This requires states to send absentee ballots to 

UOCAVA voters for three general elections based on a single request. Because the 

military population is extremely mobile, few of these voters remain at the same address for this length of time. Election officials are put in the difficult position of having to mail live ballots to addresses they know to be inaccurate. These ballots greatly increase the administrative burden on election officials and heighten the potential 

for fraud. The amendment would strike this requirement from the underlying law. 

10. Amendment to clarify that HAVA requirement payments remain available. 

S.1415, Section 12. 

a. State election officials are concerned that this section of the bill would bar them 

from receiving any future HAVA requirement payments unless they updated their 

state plans to incorporate the requirements of this legislation. The amendment clarifies that only money authorized and appropriated pursuant to this bill will be con-
650 

tingent upon states amending their state plans. Existing HAVA requirement funds 

will not. 
651 
652 
653 
654 
655 
656 
657 
658 
659 
660 
661 
662 

Æ