U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

33–810 PDF 2007

PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO VOTE: ELECTION

DECEPTION AND IRREGULARITIES IN RECENT

FEDERAL ELECTIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 7, 2007

Serial No. 110–9

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

[Vacant] 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 7, 2007

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

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

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 1

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 2

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Barack Obama, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6

The Honorable Benjamin Cardin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9

The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California 

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

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

The Honorable Rahm Emanuel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 19

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28

The Honorable Brian Bilbray, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 29

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31

Mr. Ralph G. Neas, President and CEO, People for the American Way 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 39

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 41

Ms. Donna L. Brazile, Chair, Democratic National Committee’s Voting Rights 

Institute, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 44

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 47

Ms. Eve Sandberg, Associate Professor of Politics, Oberlin College 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 53

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 55

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE PRINTED HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 86

Prepared Statement of John Fund, Columnist, The Wall Street Journal ........... 96

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Ralph G. Neas, President and CEO, 

People for the American Way .............................................................................. 99

Page

IV

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Donna L. Brazile, Chair, Democratic National Committee’s Voting Rights Institute, Adjunct Professor, 

Georgetown University ........................................................................................ 102

Newspaper Articles, from The Washington Post and The Westside Gazette, 

submitted by Donna L. Brazile, Chair, Democratic National Committee’s 

Voting Rights Institute, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University ............... 104

Prepared Statement of Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau ....................................................................................................................... 115

Prepared Statement of Lillie Coney, Associate Director, Electronic Privacy 

Information Center (EPIC), Coordinator National Committee for Voting 

Integrity ................................................................................................................ 117

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED BUT NOT REPRINTED

Reports published by the People for the American Way, the NAACP and 

the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, submitted by Ralph 

G. Neas, President and CEO, People for the American Way, have been 

retained in the official Committee hearing record. These reports may also 

be found at http://media.pfaw.org/PDF/Reports/TheNewFaceOfJimCrow.pdf 

and http://media.pfaw.org/PDF/ElectionReform/BarriersToVoting.pdf. 

Submission entitled Report by the Center for Voting Rights & Protection,

submitted by Donna L. Brazile, Chair, Democratic National Committee’s 

Voting Rights Institute, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University, has 

been retained in the official Committee hearing record. This report may 

also be found at http://www.votelaw.com/blog/blogdocs/GOPlBallotl

SecuritylPrograms.pdf. 

(1)

PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO VOTE: ELECTION 

DECEPTION AND IRREGULARITIES IN RECENT FEDERAL ELECTIONS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:06 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John Conyers, 

Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Committee will come to order. 

Will everyone take their seats? The doors are closed but not 

locked. 

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no more important issue that 

comes before this Committee, this Congress or this Nation than 

protecting the right to vote. Our democracy is premised on the notion of one person, one vote. It is the keystone right of our Nation, 

and without it, all of the other rights and privileges of our people 

would quickly become meaningless. 

And that is why so many of us think that this is a very, very 

unusually important hearing for the Judiciary Committee, ‘‘Protecting the Right to Vote: Election Deception and Irregularities in 

Recent Federal Elections.’’

Protecting the precious right does not come easily or cheaply. In 

a very real sense, we fought a war of independence over our people’s right to vote, and the most basic reform that grew out of the 

Civil War was the 15th amendment’s protection of the right to vote. 

Even then, it was not until we passed the Voting Rights Act in 

1965 and those continuations, including the one last year, that we 

began to give true meaning to that right. 

There is a constant ebb and flow in our democracy over this 

right. We have endured a lot of political abuses in our history: 

Tammany Hall, Pendergast, the Daley Machines, et cetera. We survived the debacle of the Florida election in 2000. In each case, we, 

with the best of intentions, have enacted reforms. 

While the days of Bull Connor turning fire hoses on young voters 

may be over, those bent on voter suppression have only turned to 

more sophisticated devices. These modern-day tools include unfounded threats of arrest or loss of citizenship for failure to follow 

elaborate and fictitious procedural requirements, as well as deliberate disinformation with regard to correct polling locations, or 

even the actual date of election itself. 

2

Just ask the voters turned away from the polls in Florida in 2000 

because they were illegally purged from the voting rolls. Or the 

voters who waited in pouring rain for hours in inner city Columbus 

while their counterparts in the suburbs went speedily through the 

lines. Or the African-American voters targeted in nearby Prince 

George’s County, Maryland, with false and misleading flyers. 

While the notorious voter-suppression practices of the past have 

been outlawed, I believe it is time that we do the same with those 

notorious modern-day practices. In history, we responded to the 

challenges laid down by Susan Anthony, Martin Luther King, Jr., 

but today’s modern-day prophets, like Bobby Kennedy, Jr., and 

Reverend Jesse Jackson, have clearly and eloquently spoken to the 

problems we face today. 

If we are serious, and I believe this Committee is, about protecting this most fundamental of rights, we have our work cut our 

for us. And so I am proud to have joined with introducing the very 

important legislation that will be discussed today. 

While this may be one step in our efforts to reform the election 

process, we not pretend it to be a complete solution. We also need 

to reduce our reliance on unverifiable electronic voting machines, 

so that American citizens can have the confidence in the results of 

our elections that they ought to have. 

In each of the last three election cycles, electronic voting machines have literally cost tens of thousands of votes, with no means 

of accountability for this most cherished constitutional right. 

We also need to better ensure fair allocation of voting machines 

in polling places. There is not a reason in the world we cannot give 

our citizens the benefit of an election-day holiday. 

And we need a fairer, more voter-friendly system for provisional 

ballots so that innocent confusion on Election Day does not prevent 

eligible voters from casting a ballot and having it counted in each 

and every instance. We have seen disturbing instances of State and 

local officials using hyper technicalities to subvert the intent of the 

Help America Vote Act. 

If we allow the infrastructure of our democracy to decay, our citizens will lose faith in our elections—and, for me, too many already 

have—and the very legitimacy of our democratic institutions is at 

risk. 

Forty years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act—and I sat 

in this body and was present in this Committee when it was enacted—voters across the country continue to be the targets of deceptive practices and intimidation aimed at preventing them from 

voting. It is long past time for Federal legislation to help prevent 

this from occurring. 

And I am 5 seconds over my 5 minutes, for which I will allow 

Lamar Smith as much time as he may need over the 5 minutes. 

And I am happy to introduce now my Ranking Member on the 

House Judiciary Committee from Texas, with whom I have had a 

very effective and cordial relationship. 

Mr. Smith, you are recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, both for the time and for 

those cordial comments. 

Mr. Chairman, elections are run by human beings, and human 

beings have flaws. So it is no surprise and voting fraud and other 

3

irregularities occur in each election. And each political party, of 

course, has their favorite examples. But voting fraud is deplorable, 

and we must do all we can to prevent it. 

What I want to focus on today is something the vast majority of 

the American people have shown that they are very concerned 

about, and that is the problem of illegal immigrants voting and the 

need for photo ID requirements. 

A recent Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll mirrors every other 

poll on this subject: Over 81 percent of those surveyed supported 

a requirement to show a photo ID before voting. This includes twothirds majorities of African-Americans and Democrats and a majority of Hispanics. 

In the 1996 election, that one of our colleagues testifying here 

today, Representative Loretta Sanchez, a House Administrative 

Committee investigation found ‘‘evidence of 748 improper ballots, 

624 by immigrants who were not citizens when they registered to 

vote.’’ And I am sure Ms. Sanchez and all of us agree that, while 

we all want to earn as many votes as possible, we only want votes 

that are legally cast by American citizens. 

I am glad to see that the bills introduced by Representative 

Emanuel and Senator Obama to prevent voting fraud provide for 

stiff penalties, up to 5 years in jail, for illegal immigrants who vote 

illegally. 

Clearly, under the terms of H.R. 1281 and S. 453, a person who 

signed the voting registration form that states they are a citizen 

when they are not a citizen is a false statement. And when that 

person votes and negates the vote of legally voting citizens, then 

the illegal immigrant has denied the legal voters right to exercise 

their vote. 

Regarding the need for a photo ID requirement, one needs a 

photo ID to open a bank account or cash a check, drive a car or 

board a plane. Because a photo ID is so central to assimilation into 

American society, civil rights leader Andrew Young, the former 

U.N. ambassador and mayor of Atlanta, strongly supports a photo 

ID requirement. 

In Mexico, strict anti-fraud regulations and photo ID requirements in voting have actually increased voter turnout. That is because when people have greater confidence in the election process, 

there is greater voter participation. 

Unfortunately, State and local election administrators do not 

have a means of ensuring that only legal voters are voting. So what 

is the most practical solution? 

In 2005, a prominent group of bipartisan leaders and scholars, 

led by former President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State 

James Baker III, issued a very influential report. 

One of the chief recommendations of the bipartisan Carter-Baker 

Commission on Voting was as follows: ‘‘Instead of creating a new 

card, the commission recommends that States use real ID cards for 

voting purposes. The Real ID Act, signed into law in May 2005, requires States to verify each individual’s full legal name, date of 

birth, address, Social Security number and U.S. citizenship before 

the individual is issued a driver’s license or personal ID card. 

‘‘A real ID is a logical vehicle, because the National Voter Registration Act established a connection between obtaining a driver’s 

4

license and registering to vote. The real ID card adds two critical 

elements for voting: proof of citizenship and verification by using 

the full Social Security number. The ID Act does not require that 

the card indicate citizenship, but that would need to be done if the 

card is to be used for voting purposes.’’

That is the end of their statement. 

Mr. Chairman, requiring photo IDs is not costless, of course, but 

it is well worth it. As Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff recently stated, ‘‘It is a reasonable amount of money that people 

should pay to prevent people from getting on airplanes or getting 

in buildings and killing Americans. I think most people would say 

that $20 per person well spent.’’

And as the Carter-Baker report concluded, ‘‘Voters in nearly 100 

democracies use a photo identification card without fear of infringement of their rights.’’ If they can do it, so can we. 

Mr. Chairman, like you, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much, Mr. Smith. 

All other opening statements will be included in the record, without objection. 

Our second panel that will come after our first will consist of 

Ralph Neas of the People for the American Way; Donna Brazile, 

adjunct professor at Georgetown University; Wall Street Journal

Columnist John Fund; Ms. Eve Sandberg, associate professor of 

Politics of Oberlin College. 

Our first panel will consist of our distinguished junior Senator 

from Illinois, Barack Obama, who has worked in public service, 

started out as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, State 

senate leader. 

Our second is a former colleague, now Senator, Ben Cardin, a 

Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has been a national leader on health care, retirement, security and many other 

issues. We are delighted that our two Members from the other body 

can join us. 

Then we have Loretta Sanchez of California, known for her work 

on education, public safety and crime reduction, a very articulate 

spokeswoman for the Hispanic-American community and in the 

Congress as well. 

Then we have Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a former White House 

official, former Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign 

Committee and who currently serves as Chairman of the House 

Democratic Caucus. 

Next is our own colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Steve 

King, of Iowa. Thank you for joining us. 

And, finally, we have Brian Bilbray of California, whose Committee assignments include Oversight and the Government Reform 

Committee. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we welcome you all. 

And we would invite Senator Obama to begin our discussion. 

Welcome to the Judiciary Committee. 

5

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BARACK OBAMA,

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. OBAMA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, to Ranking 

Member Smith and all the Members of the Committee. Thank you 

for taking the time to study this issue, and thanks for giving me 

the opportunity to be here today. 

I was pleased to introduce the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act in the Senate, along with my colleague, 

Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Cardin, who is beside me today, 

and others, such as Senator Kennedy and Chairman of the Senate 

Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy. 

I am honored that my colleague here in the House include yourself, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Emanuel, Congressman Becerra, 

Honda and Ellison, as well as Sanchez, introducing the companion 

legislation last week. 

It is hard to imagine that we even need a bill like this. I think 

most Americans assume that voting is a sacred aspect of citizenship and people are going to meddle with it, that we are past that 

point. Unfortunately, there are people who will stop at nothing to 

try to defeat voters and keep them away from the polls. What is 

worse, these practices often exploit and target the most vulnerable 

populations: minorities, the disabled, seniors or the poor. 

We saw countless examples of this in the past election. Some of 

us remember the thousands of Latino voters in Orange County, 

California who received letters warning them in Spanish that, ‘‘If 

you are an immigrant, voting in a Federal election is a crime that 

can result in incarceration.’’ Or the voters in Maryland who received a ‘‘Democratic sample ballot,’’ featuring a Republican candidate for governor and a Republican candidate for U.S. Senator. 

Or the voters in Virginia who received calls from a so-called ‘‘Virginia Elections Commission’’ informing them falsely that they were 

ineligible to vote. Or the voters who were told that they couldn’t 

vote if they had family members who had been convicted of a 

crime. The list goes on. 

Of course, these so-called warnings have no basis in fact and are 

made with only one goal in mind: to keep Americans away from the 

polls. We see these problems year after year and election after election, and my hope is that this bill will finally stop these practices 

in time for the next election. 

The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act 

makes voter intimidation and deception punishable by law, and it 

contains strong penalties so that people who commit these crimes 

suffer more than just a slap on the wrist. 

The bill also seeks to address the real harm of these crimes, people who are prevented from voting by misinformation, by establishing a process for reaching out to those misinformed voters with 

accurate information so they can still cast their vote in time. 

There are some issues in this country that are inherently difficult and political. Making sure that every American who is eligible can cast a ballot should not be one of them. There is no place 

for politics in this debate, no room for those who feel that they can 

get a partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls. 

And I think that it is fairly noted that this is not something that 

restricts itself to one party or another. I think both parties at difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:04 Jun 15, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\030707\33810.000 HJUD1 PsN: 33810
6

ferent periods in our history have been guilty in different regions 

of preventing people from voting for a tactical advantage. We 

should be beyond that. 

As the New York Times stated in its January 31st editorial on 

this issue, ‘‘The bill is an important step toward making elections 

more honest and fair. There is no reason it should not be passed 

by Congress, unanimously.’’ I asked that this editorial be placed 

into the record. 

Mr. CONYERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. OBAMA. It is time to get this done in a bipartisan fashion, 

and I believe this bill can make it happen. 

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, the Ranking 

Member, the other Members of this Committee, as well as many 

of the co-sponsors of this bill in both the House and the Senate to 

pass this legislation so that we can present it to the president for 

his signature, and I thank you very much for your time and attention. 

I apologize, I will probably have to leave before all the other witnesses have completed their testimony. If there were specific questions for me, I would be happy to field them at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Obama follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARACK OBAMA,

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Chairman Conyers, distinguished members of the Committee, thank you so much 

for the opportunity to be here today and discuss with you legislation that will help 

restore integrity to our electoral system. 

I was pleased to introduce the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act in the Senate and I am honored that my colleagues in the House, including 

Chairman Conyers, Congressman Emanuel, Congressmen Becerra, Honda, and 

Ellison, introduced companion legislation last week. 

It’s hard to imagine that we even need a bill like this. But, unfortunately, there 

are people who will stop at nothing to try to deceive voters and keep them away 

from the polls. What’s worse, these practices often target and exploit vulnerable 

populations, such as minorities, the disabled, or the poor. 

We saw countless examples in this past election. Some of us remember the thousands of Latino voters in Orange County, California, who received letters warning 

them in Spanish that, ‘‘if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a 

crime that can result in incarceration.’’

Or the voters in Maryland who received a ‘‘democratic sample ballot’’ featuring 

a Republican candidate for Governor and a Republican candidate for U.S. Senator. 

Or the voters in Virginia who received calls from a so-called ‘‘Virginia Elections 

Commission’’ informing them—falsely—that they were ineligible to vote. 

Or the voters who were told that they couldn’t vote if they had family members 

who had been convicted of a crime. 

Of course, these so-called warnings have no basis in fact, and are made with only 

one goal in mind—to keep Americans away from the polls. We see these problems 

year after year and election and after election, and my hope is that this bill will 

finally stop these practices in time for the next election. 

The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act makes voter intimidation and deception punishable by law, and it contains strong penalties so that 

people who commit these crimes suffer more than just a slap on the wrist. The bill 

also seeks to address the real harm of these crimes—people who are prevented from 

voting by misinformation—by establishing a process for reaching out to these misinformed voters with accurate information so they can cast their votes in time. 

There are some issues in this country that are inherently difficult and political. 

Making sure that every American can cast a ballot shouldn’t be one of them. There 

is no place for politics in this debate—no room for those who feel that they can gain 

a partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls. 

As the New York Times stated in its January 31st editorial on this issue, ‘‘the 

bill . . . is an important step toward making elections more honest and fair. There 

7

is no reason it should not be passed by Congress unanimously.’’ I would ask that 

this editorial be made part of the record. 

It’s time to get this done in a bipartisan fashion, and I believe this bill can make 

it happen. I look forward to working with you, Chairman Conyers, and the other 

members of the Committee, as well as the many co-sponsors of this bill, to pass this 

legislation this Congress. 

ATTACHMENT

New York Times 

January 31, 2007

EDITORIAL 

Honesty in Elections 

On Election Day last fall in Maryland, fliers were handed out in black neighborhoods with the heading ‘‘Democratic Sample Ballot’’ and photos of black Democratic 

leaders—and boxes checked off beside the names of the Republican candidates for 

senator and governor. They were a blatant attempt to fool black voters into thinking 

the Republican candidates were endorsed by black Democrats. In Orange County, 

Calif., 14,000 Latino voters got letters in Spanish saying it was a crime for immigrants to vote in a federal election. It didn’t say that immigrants who are citizens 

have the right to vote. 

Dirty tricks like these turn up every election season, in large part because they 

are so rarely punished. But two Democratic senators, Barack Obama of Illinois and 

Charles Schumer of New York, are introducing a bill today that would make deceiving or intimidating voters a federal crime with substantial penalties. 

The bill aims at some of the most commonly used deceptive political tactics. It 

makes it a crime to knowingly tell voters the wrong day for an election. There have 

been numerous reports of organized efforts to use telephones, leaflets or posters to 

tell voters, especially in minority areas, not to vote on Election Day because voting 

has been postponed. 

The bill would also criminalize making false claims to voters about who has endorsed a candidate, or wrongly telling people—like immigrants who are registered 

voters in Orange County—that they cannot vote. 

Along with defining these crimes and providing penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment, the bill would require the Justice Department to counteract deceptive 

election information that has been put out, and to report to Congress after each 

election on what deceptive practices occurred and what the Justice Department did 

about them. 

The bill would also allow individuals to go to court to stop deceptive practices 

while they are happening. That is important, given how uninterested the current 

Justice Department has proved to be in cracking down on election-season dirty 

tricks. 

The bill is careful to avoid infringing on First Amendment rights, and that is the 

right course. But in steering clear of regulating speech, it is not clear how effective 

the measure would be in addressing one of the worst dirty tricks of last fall’s election: a particular kind of deceptive ‘‘robocall’’ that was used against Democratic Congressional candidates. These calls, paid for by the Republicans, sounded as if they 

had come from the Democrat; when a recipient hung up, the call was repeated over 

and over. The intent was clearly to annoy the recipients so they would not vote for 

the Democrat. 

While there are already laws that can be used against this sort of deceptive telephone harassment, a more specific bill aimed directly at these calls is needed. But 

the bill being introduced today is an important step toward making elections more 

honest and fair. There is no reason it should not be passed by Congress unanimously.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, Senator Obama, we thank you for your commitment and your support of the legislation. We are happy that 

you will be with us for as long as you can. 

I now recognize the junior Senator from Maryland, Ben Cardin. 

8

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN CARDIN,

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Smith 

and Members of the Committee, it is a real pleasure to testify before the Committee that I started my congressional service on. 

When I was first elected to the House of Representatives, I had 

the honor of serving on the Judiciary Committee, and now I have 

the honor of serving on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and 

I look forward to working with you. 

I would ask that my entire statement be made part of your 

record, and let me just try to summarize. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing on protecting the 

right to vote. 

Mr. Chairman, I couldn’t agree more with your opening statement. We have just celebrated the 42nd anniversary of the voting 

rights march in Selma, Alabama. John Lewis, of course, participated in that, our colleague here. It helped to pass the Voting 

Rights Act, 137 years since the ratification of the 15th amendment 

to the Constitution. 

We have overcome poll taxes, we have overcome literacy tests 

and violence, and yet intimidation against minority voters still continues in the United States, and we need to do more about it. 

I want to thank Senator Obama for taking the leadership in the 

United States Senate on the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007. I think it is an extremely important 

point of legislation to make it clear that we will not tolerate practices by campaigns to try to win an election by marginalizing minority voters. 

It happened in 2006 in my own State of Maryland. In that election, I had a hard fought primary election in which I was the 

Democratic nominee for the United States Senate. We then had an 

8-week period between the primary and the general. 

During the course of that campaign, I knew it would be very 

competitive, I knew it would be aggressive, but I must tell you, Mr. 

Chairman, I was shocked by what I saw come out the day before 

the election itself. And if I might, I would like to show you, and 

ask to be part of the record, the pamphlet that was handed out, 

widely spread, in minority communities in Maryland. 

The pamphlet starts off by saying, ‘‘Ehrlich-Steele Democrats Official Voter Guide.’’ It then has the photographs of three prominent 

African-Americans in the State of Maryland, one being Kweisi 

Mfume, who was my primary opponent on the Democratic side, our 

former colleague in the Congress, who endorsed my candidacy for 

the United States Senate after the primary. It has the photograph 

of Jack Johnson, who is the county exec of Prince George’s County, 

the largest county of African-American voters in the State of Maryland. Jack Johnson endorsed my candidacy for the United States 

Senate. 

The pamphlet then goes on to say, ‘‘These are our choices,’’ making it kind of clear that these three prominent African-Americans 

had endorsed the Ehrlich-Steele Democratic slate. The inside of the 

brochure says, ‘‘Democratic sample ballot,’’ giving the impression 

that this is the Democratic ballot. All of the candidates listed are 

9

Democrats, except for the governor of our State and the U.S. Senate, in which the Republican candidates are listed. 

The authority line on this literature is from the Republican candidate for governor and the Republican candidate for United States 

Senate. 

This literature was widely distributed. The U.S. Senate candidate and the gubernatorial candidate brought in from Pennsylvania from homeless shelters, by bus, large number of workers to 

work Election Day who had no idea what they were giving out. I 

had a chance to talk to some of them, and they were giving out this 

literature, some of them when they found out what it was about, 

wanted to get back home but had no way of getting back home. 

I mention all of this because this was a clear effort by the gubernatorial candidate and U.S. Senate candidate to try to confuse and 

marginalize minority voters, and it should not be allowed. 

The legislation introduced by Senator Obama, which I am proud 

to be a co-sponsor, would make this type of deceptive practice illegal. It is a narrowly defined bill. To make it clear, it is in compliance with the first amendment of the Constitution. It applies only 

to communications within 60 days of an election. It deals with the 

tightly defined false and deceptive information about the time, 

place, the voter qualification, party affiliation or endorsement. It is 

narrow, but it does deal with the most blatant forms of deceptive 

practices that are aimed at suppressing minority votes. That is its 

effort. 

Mr. Chairman, I knew the campaign for the United States Senate would be a rough campaign. I expected to see some things that 

go beyond the pale. That is all part of politics, and I accept that. 

But I think it is absolutely essential that we make it clear it is not 

acceptable to engage in a practice to marginalize minority voters. 

That should not be permitted in this country, and it is absolutely 

essential that the Congress go on record and make it clear that 

campaigns cannot participate in that type of conduct. 

And I urge you to consider this legislation. I think it is vitally 

important. 

I, again, thank Senator Obama for taking the leadership in the 

Senate. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the House Judiciary Committee on the critical subject of election 

deception and irregularities in recent federal elections. I am privileged to appear before you with such a distinguished panel of members of Congress, including Senator 

Obama, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, and Congressman Emmanuel. 

In the interest of full disclosure, let me begin by stating that I greatly enjoyed 

my previous service on this committee which began when I was first elected to the 

House and was appointed to serve on the Judiciary Committee in 1987 under Chairman Peter Rodino of New Jersey. After serving twenty years in the House of Representatives representing the Third Congressional District of Maryland, I was honored to be elected to the United States Senate in 2006. And I find myself privileged 

to serve again on the Judiciary Committee of the other body, and I look forward 

to working with this committee in my new capacity. 

Today I come before the committee to testify in part as a fact witness to discuss 

what happened during the 2006 U.S. Senate election in Maryland. 

After a lengthy campaign which began shortly after the retirement announcement 

of former U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes in the spring of 2005, I was nominated by 

10

the Democratic Party in September 2006 as our U.S. Senate candidate. Former Lt. 

Governor Michael Steele was the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate. Former Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley was the Democratic candidate for Governor challenging the Republican incumbent Robert Ehrlich. 

Former Congressman Kweisi Mfume, who is a friend with whom I represented 

Baltimore City in the U.S. House of Representatives, ran against me for the Democratic nomination and lost. He subsequently endorsed me as the U.S. Senate nominee for the general election, as did Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson. 

They both are prominent African-Americans leaders in Maryland and appeared at 

several campaign events on my behalf as I prepared to face off against Lt. Governor 

Steele in the November general election. 

Imagine my surprise then to discover on Election Day that the Republican campaigns for Governor and Senator in Maryland had distributed this literature. I 

would ask unanimous consent to have a copy of this literature inserted in the hearing record today. 

Let me take a minute to walk through it, since it is one of the tactics that would 

be prohibited under the pending legislation before this committee. 

The title of the piece is ‘‘Ehrlich-Steele Democrats’’ and ‘‘Official Voter Guide.’’ 

The cover page prominently displays three African-American politicians: former 

Prince George’s County Executive Wayne Curry, former Congressman Mfume, and 

current Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson. Under their names is the 

statement ‘‘These are OUR choices,’’ implying that all 3 gentlemen had endorsed 

Mr. Ehrlich for governor and Mr. Steele for senator. That is false. Mr. Mfume and 

Mr. Johnson endorsed my candidacy over Mr. Steele for the Senate. The flyer concludes with a citation to the general election, on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, and 

legal authority lines (required under Maryland election law) noting that the literature was ‘‘paid and authorized’’ by both the Ehrlich and Steele campaigns. 

On the inside a large sample ballot is printed with the title ‘‘Democratic Sample 

Ballot,’’ with the correct date and times for the elections. The entire sample ballot 

endorses Democratic candidates for local, county, state, and federal offices, with two 

exceptions: the ‘‘Democratic Sample Ballot’’ endorses the re-election of the Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich, and the election of Republican U.S. Senate candidate 

Michael Steele. 

Mr. Chairman, this type of deceptive literature is despicable and outrageous. It 

is clearly designed to mislead African-American voters, who have a legal right to 

vote and pick the candidate of their choice. I was also upset to learn, according to 

articles in the Washington Post and Baltimore Sun, that the Ehrlich and Steele 

campaigns had bused in homeless African-Americans individuals from Philadelphia 

to hand out this deceptive literature on Election Day. These individuals from Philadelphia were given $100 and two meals, but many told the newspapers that they 

were not aware they were working for the Republican Party on that day. Finally, 

the Washington Post reported that a Maryland Republican election worker guide for 

poll workers stated that their ‘‘most important duty as a poll worker is to challenge 

people’’ trying to vote. This election guide was rightfully denounced by civil rights 

groups as a voter suppression and intimidation effort. 

After having served in elective office in Annapolis for 20 years and in Washington 

for 20 years, I understand that campaigns are a rough and tumble business. I expect that candidates will question and criticize my record and judgment, and voters 

ultimately have a right to choose their candidate. 

What goes beyond the pale, Mr. Chairman, is when a campaign uses deceptive 

tactics to deliberately marginalize minority voters. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, the tactics 

we saw in Maryland are not new, and in previous years deceptive practices in Baltimore City, the State of Maryland, and throughout the United States involved handing out false and deceptive literature in African-American neighborhoods. In previous elections we have seen deceptive literature distributed which gave the wrong 

date for the election, the wrong times when polling places were open, and even suggested that people could be arrested if they had unpaid parking tickets or taxes and 

tried to vote. My colleagues on the panel, I am sure, will discuss other such tactics 

designed to suppress minority turnout. 

I reject that this is the way we do business in 2006 in Maryland and in the 

United States of America. To me this is clearly an organized pattern and practice 

of attempting to confuse minority voters and to suppress minority turnout. 

It has been 137 years since Congress and the states ratified the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1870, which states that ‘‘the right of citizens of the 

United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by 

any State on account of race [or] color?’’ The Amendment also gave Congress power 

to enforce the article by ‘‘appropriate legislation.’’ African-Americans suffered 

through nearly another 100 years of discrimination at the hands of Jim Crow laws 

11

and regulations, designed to make it difficult if not impossible for African-American 

to register to vote due to literacy tests, poll taxes, and outright harassment and violence. It took Congress and the states nearly another century until we adopted the 

Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in 1964, which prohibited poll taxes 

or any tax on the right to vote. In 1965 Congress finally enacted the Voting Rights 

Act, which once and for all was supposed to prohibit discrimination against voters 

on the basis of race or color. The Act also provides that no person, ‘‘whether acting 

under color of law or otherwise,’’ shall:

‘‘intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any 

other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such person to vote 

or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not 

vote for, any candidate for [any federal office].’’ [42 U.S.C. 1971 (b), emphasis 

supplied].

Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to once again take action to stop the latest 

reprehensible tactics that are being used against African-American voters to interfere with (a) their right to vote or (b) their right to vote for the candidate of their 

choice, as protected in the Voting Rights Act. These tactics undermine and corrode 

our very democracy and threaten the very integrity of our electoral process. 

After being sworn in to the Senate in January, I was pleased to join with Senator 

Obama and Senator Schumer to introduce S. 453, the Deceptive Practices and Voter 

Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007. In sum the legislation provides that, within 60 

days before a federal election, it shall be illegal to distribute false and deceptive information about an election regarding the time, place or manner of an election. The 

legislation also bans false and deceptive information about voter’s qualifications or 

restrictions on voter eligibility, as well as false and deceptive information about political party affiliations or explicit endorsements of candidates. 

This legislation is narrowly tailored to apply to only a small category of communications that occur during the last 60 days before an election. Under our legislation 

the categories of the false and deceptive information cited above are only illegal if 

they are intentionally communicated by a person who: (1) knows such information 

to be false and (2) has the intent to prevent another person from exercising the 

right to vote in an election. This legislation properly respects the First Amendment’s 

guarantee of freedom of speech while recognizing the power of Congress to prohibit 

racially discriminatory tactics to be used in elections under the Fifteenth Amendment, Voting Rights Act, and the general power of Congress under Article I, Section 

4 of the Constitution to regulate the ‘‘times, places, and manner’’ of federal elections. 

This legislation creates tough new criminal and civil penalties for those who create and distribute this type of false and deceptive literature. The bill authorizes a 

process to distribute accurate information to voters who have been exposed to false 

and deceptive communications. The bill requires the Attorney General to submit to 

Congress a report compiling and detailing any allegations of false and deceptive 

election communications, and authorizes the Attorney General to create a Voting Integrity Task Force to carry out this law. The Senate bill would also create a right 

of private right of action against the continued distribution of false and deceptive 

campaign literature and communications, in which a party could seek a temporary 

injunction, restraining order, or permanent injunction against materials. 

In the House I understand that similar legislation, H.R. 1281, has been filed by 

Congressman Emanuel with Chairman Conyers, and I applaud your efforts. 

Let me conclude by thanking the many civil rights groups who helped us with 

voter protection efforts on Election Day and who have helped us in supporting this 

legislation, including the NAACP, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and People for 

the American Way. 

This past weekend was the 42 year anniversary of the voting rights march onto 

Edmund Pettus Bridge outside Selma, Alabama. Our own House colleague, Congressman John Lewis from Georgia, was savagely beaten and tear-gassed by police 

for peacefully marching and protesting on what we now call ‘‘Bloody Sunday.’’ He 

and so many others, including the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., ultimately led 

a peaceful march to Montgomery help their fellow citizens register to vote. Media 

coverage of the mistreatment of our own American citizens garnered worldwide attention, and led to the quick introduction by President Johnson in Congress of the 

proposed Voting Rights Act. Congress passed this historic act and President Johnson signed it into law less than five months after its introduction. 

Today we have the obligation and duty to fulfill the promises made by Congress 

and the states nearly 140 years after the end of the Civil War, and over 40 years 

after the enactment of the Voting Rights Act. I urge you to pass this legislation that 

would stop the use of false and deceptive practices designed to disenfranchise and 

12

suppress minority voter turnout. Let us make it crystal clear that it is illegal to use 

these types of campaign tactics to deliberately try to suppress and intimidate minority voters from casting their hard-won and precious right to vote in an election. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to your questions.

13

ATTACHMENT


Cardin1.eps
14


Cardin2.eps
15

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Before you leave, Senator Obama, there is a question from our 

distinguished friend from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, and we have 

agreed with Mr. Smith that his side will have 15 minutes to question this distinguished panel, and we will have 15 minutes, but we 

will allow him to get his question in before you leave. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for 

taking this out of order. 

And, Senator, I thank you also for staying after your testimony. 

Mr. OBAMA. No, not a problem. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. You stated in your testimony, which I welcome, 

that you introduced your legislation to help restore integrity to our 

electoral system. You said, I think, in your opening remarks that 

there are some things that are political; making sure that every 

American who is eligible to cast a ballot should not be one of them. 

Mr. OBAMA. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We are going to hear later from witnesses who 

talk about the importance of not allowing illegal aliens and noncitizens to vote in Federal elections So would you agree that that 

would be an important priority for your legislation? 

Mr. OBAMA. I think that as a general—look, one of the principles 

of any voting system is that people who are eligible to vote get to 

vote. If you are not eligible, by definition, you don’t get to vote. If 

my 8-year-old daughter shows up at the polls, I hope somebody 

says, ‘‘Young lady, you are going to have to wait for 10 years before 

you can cast your ballot.’’

So I have no quarrel with efforts to make sure that voter fraud 

does not take place. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Excellent. 

Mr. OBAMA. Just to finish, the only thing I do want to point out, 

because I know you will be debating the issue of photo ID and 

whether that becomes incorporated in this bill or amended to this 

bill, my concern, having looked at the literature in terms of how 

that works, is that it may end up disadvantaging certain groups 

that are less likely, as a routine matter, to obtain a photo ID. 

And although minority groups may be somewhat in that category, I should just point out that seniors are one of the groups 

that are most likely to be in that category. 

And I know that in Georgia where a photo ID requirement was 

instituted, there was some concern that, for example, there was no 

access to an office to get the official photo ID in Atlanta, and so 

people had to drive from Atlanta. I don’t remember which one it 

was, but the point was that there were long travel times and great 

difficulty in order of obtaining it. 

So, in theory, I think we are all in agreement that we want to 

establish eligibility. We want to make sure that it is not set up in 

such a way where it is exclusionary or creates extra difficulties for 

some populations and not others. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Actually, I wanted to ask you about your legislation——

Mr. OBAMA. Sure. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [continuing]. With regard to photo IDs. Certainly, I hope we do move in the direction of doing that, but I also 

hope that as we do it we make it very easy and affordable for peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:04 Jun 15, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\030707\33810.000 HJUD1 PsN: 33810
16

ple of lower economic means or have less access to places to get the 

photo ID. 

But let me ask you, your legislation appears to help with the 

problem that I mentioned, because, specifically, it prohibits a person from communicating false election-related information, including information regarding a voter’s registration status or eligibility 

when that person knows the information to be false and has the 

intent to prevent another person from exercising the right to vote 

in an election described in the subparagraph. 

Mr. OBAMA. That is correct. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So is my reading correct that your bill would 

impose the penalties of up to 5 years in prison on illegal aliens and 

non-citizens filling out voter registration cards when those cards 

state that the applicant is a United States citizen? 

Mr. OBAMA. Not likely, I don’t think so. That I think would be 

a stretch. The interpretation here would be if there was—if I called 

your house and said, ‘‘You know what, the election has been moved 

to Wednesday instead of Tuesday,’’ or send a mailer indicating that 

your polling place had been moved when it had not bee, those are 

the practices that we are directed towards. 

We are not intending in this legislation, and it is not drafted in 

that way, to set up a situation where we are creating a felony for 

somebody thinks they may be eligible to vote, an individual, and 

turns out that maybe they weren’t eligible. Because those circumstances could happen in all sorts of conditions. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you. I would just think that the intent to vote would be sufficient to show that a non-citizen at least 

has knowledge that his vote would cancel out a legitimate U.S. citizen’s vote, thus preventing another person from exercising their 

right to vote in an election, which your bill——

Mr. OBAMA. Well, I don’t think it would prevent anybody under 

the scenario that you spoke about, but I appreciate that question 

so that we can make doubly sure that we are clear in this legislation that that is not the intent. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I would hope it would be, but I thank the 

gentleman, and I thank the Chairman for yielding the time. 

Mr. OBAMA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize Loretta Sanchez, famous sister of Linda Sa ́nchez. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member and the rest of the Committee Members. It is indeed an honor 

to be before you today to discuss a little bit about elections here, 

although I know you all are experts in that. 

Before I begin, and before Mr. Smith leaves the room, I would 

like to make a correction to one of his remarks in his opening statement. He said that in my election, in 1996, the Congress or a paper 

out of the Congress had determined that there might be 748 improper ballots cast in my election. I would just like to note that 

that was the majority’s report without any access to the files or information, whatsoever, by any Democrat or any of the Democratic 

17

staff on that Committee and that task force, which means that unless you are willing to show it to me today, I am not willing to believe you. 

Anyway, getting back to what happened just this past election, 

in this past election, there was a letter that was sent in our election. I didn’t even know it really had reference to my election until 

my opponent fessed up that it came out of his campaign headquarters. 

And the reason I would not have known is that the letterhead 

of this letter that came out stated that it was from the California 

Coalition for Immigration Reform, or people who are pretty much 

anti-immigrant and very, very straightforward about it, very vocal 

about it, and if you know anything about Orange County, you will 

also note that aside from these types of anti-immigrant groups, we 

also were the creators of the Minutemen and other types of groups. 

So imagine this letter was sent to 14,000 registered voters, many 

who had been registered sometimes for over 20 years, all of whom 

had indicated on their affidavit of registration that they were born 

in a Latin American country, Central American country or Mexico—only Hispanics. 

Now, these people had been naturalized, some for many years. So 

imagine when you receive a letter from one of these anti-immigrant 

groups and it goes on to say several things: ‘‘Be advised that if your 

residence in the United States is illegal or if you are an immigrant,’’ which all of these people, by definition, because this is what 

they looked on to get this list, were, ‘‘voting in a Federal election 

is a crime that can result in incarceration and possible deportation 

for voting.’’

So it was, in fact, a voter suppression, a voting suppression letter. 

What is very troubling is the next line: ‘‘In the same way, be advised that the U.S. government is installing a new computerized 

system to verify names of all the newly registered voters who participate in the elections in October and November.’’ Just this election, mind you. ‘‘And organizations against immigration will be 

able to request your information from this new computerized system.’’ So intimidation was there, that if you showed up to vote, 

your name would be available to people like the Minutemen. 

This letter, by the way, was sent in Spanish. It was actually sent 

to only voters in the districts where I represent. When we first 

started seeing it walk into our offices, we didn’t know it was about 

our election. It could have been about a city election, and we would 

have never known it was about our election except that our opponent, again, did a press conference to say it had come out of his 

office. 

I have seen many things in Orange County. We have had people, 

the Republican Party, hire and dress people like INS agents at 

Latino precincts and turn away people from voting. That was in 

1988. But I would have thought that after 10 years of representing 

Orange County that these types of intimidation and suppression 

would have gone away, and, unfortunately, they haven’t. 

And I would just like to say that I believe that H.R. 1281 will 

strengthen the prohibition and punishment of deceptive practices 

that aim to keep voters away from polls on Election Day. 

18

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanchez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CHAIRMAN CONYERS, RANKING MEMBER SMITH AND DISTINGUISHED 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS. 

It is with great pleasure that I appear before you today to discuss voter intimidation and modern day violations of the Voting Rights Act. 

Finding a solution to this problem is very close to my heart. 

When most people think of Voting Rights Act violations they think of the 1960s 

when African Americans were prevented from voting because of the color of their 

skin. Many don’t realize that voter suppression still occurs today. 

And the targets remain the same. This last election, minority and immigrant communities were targets of deception, misinformation and voter intimidation designed 

to abridge their right to vote. 

Constituents in my district, the 47th Congressional District of California, were 

similarly affected this last November. 

Concerns were expressed to my office in Garden Grove, California, when residents 

received a written letter, in Spanish, from the ‘‘California Coalition for Immigration 

Reform’’ informing voters that immigrants voting in a federal election were committing a crime ‘‘that could result in incarceration and possible deportation . . .’’. 

Its also went on to advise voters that ‘‘the U.S. government is installing a new 

computerized system to verify names of all the newly registered voters who participate in the elections in October and November. Organizations against immigration 

will be able to request information from this new computerized system.’’

This letter was sent to about 14,000 registered Hispanic voters. Let me repeat 

that . . . REGISTERED LEGAL VOTERS. 

These are people who are immigrants and have naturalized in this country; many 

have been citizens for over 20 years. 

The letter quickly ignited fear in the Hispanic community. 

Families were afraid that their personal information would be shared with antiimmigration groups if they voted. They were afraid of retaliation for casting their 

vote. 

In response, I joined civil rights and Latino organizations in calling for an immediate investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigations for potential Voting 

Rights Act violations by the organizations and individuals associated with the distribution of the letter. 

The State of California, at the initiative of Attorney General Bill Lockyear, and 

under the direction of Secretary of State, Mr. Bruce McPherson, issued a letter on 

October 24, 2006 to the 14,000 registered voters who received the voter intimidation 

letter, informing them of their voting rights and that the letter was false and misleading. 

Unfortunately this is not the only attempt to suppress minority voting in Orange 

County. In 1994, poll guards were hired by candidates and stationed at voting precincts, with high Latino concentrations, to intimidate voters, harassing them for 

identification and the like. 

During my first campaign in 1996, my opponent ran explicitly anti-Latino rhetoric 

in automatic ‘‘robo-calls’’, and used other tactics to harass Latino voters in Central 

Orange County. 

Today you’ll hear similar testimony of other instances where there was voter intimidation and deception. 

This problem is not going away, and the government needs to do something about 

it. 

I am pleased that the State of California has taken steps, for instance, to enact 

stricter penalties for Voting Rights Act violations. 

Now the U.S. federal government must take the lead in protecting the rights of 

voters and putting an end to deceptive practices. 

Revisiting and reforming the voting rights laws will send a clear message to potential violators that deceptive practices are unacceptable and will be prosecuted to 

the full extend of the law. 

I am pleased to see that the Senate has introduced the Deceptive Practices and 

Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, (S.453) and now the House is following suit. I 

am a proud original cosponsor of the bill that was introduced by Representative 

Rahm Emanuel and the distinguished Chairman of this Committee. 

H.R. 1281 will strengthen the prohibition and punishment of deceptive practices 

that aim to keep voters away from the polls on Election Day. 

19

Centrally, the Emanuel/Conyers bill would increase both monetary and criminal 

penalties and would direct the Attorney General to take swift action against complaints and disseminate corrective election information after an incident occurs. 

It would also require the Attorney General, after each federal election, to report 

to Congress on the allegations of deceptive practices and actions taken to correct 

them. 

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which will go a long way in preventing future acts of voter intimidation. 

We must do EVERYTHING to protect the cornerstone of our democracy; the right 

of our citizens to vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Just in time, Ms. Sanchez, and I thank you very 

much. 

I am very pleased now to welcome Mr. Rahm Emanuel, whose 

work in helping get out the vote and encourage the vote is wellknown across the country. Welcome to the Committee. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RAHM EMANUEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A number of my colleagues have spoken to the legislation. You obviously did it in your 

introduction. I also want to thank Mr. Smith. I want to thank you 

for having this hearing, Congressman Smith and Chairman Conyers. 

I would make two or three quick points and then leave time for 

my colleagues and enough time for them as well. 

One is, although in your introduction you spoke eloquently about 

the Voting Rights Act from 1965 and having just returned from the 

trip that John Lewis put together for everybody down in Selma and 

bringing my 10-year-old for his birthday gift to have that trip with 

John Lewis, at that point—and this may be the abbreviated history 

I received, having read it, although hearing it from Congressman 

Lewis, our colleague—at that point, the State was involved in intimidation. 

What we are talking about here, although we did exactly the 

right thing as a country by passing the Voting Rights Act, here it 

is where parties and the campaigns have taken on the role of intimidation. That baton has passed down to State parties and candidates. The State has backed away from that role because of the 

Voting Rights Act, but the role of intimidation continues and others 

have adopted it. 

Second, in every process, and we have been through the campaigns, et cetera, there is a recourse if a TV ad falsely accuses an 

opponent—I have exercised it, Senator Schumer exercised it, Congressman Reynolds exercised it, Senator Dole has exercised it—

through the parties to appeal to the TV stations to take that ad 

down. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but there is a recourse. 

If in fact, and there is a great, if I can, recommend, if not, I will 

also then submit into the record, a Sunday front-page story in the 

Boston Globe that looked back on all the ads that were pulled 

down, and if I could, I would like to submit that into the record. 

Mr. CONYERS. We will include it in the record. 

Mr. EMANUEL. There is no recourse for a false pamphlet, for a 

false phone call. There is no recourse. 

20

This raises the penalty for knowingly deceiving a person who 

wants to vote when they say there is a changed location for your 

voting booth, that you can’t vote unless you do X, Y and Z. This 

raises the penalty and has a place of recourse so there is a consequence in the same way that during a campaign if somebody 

runs a false ad, a party, on behalf of a candidate, can have a recourse to that TV station, have the TV station waive that. 

This attempts to make people before they do something, whether 

it is a 3 o’clock in the morning phone call, whether it is literature 

that Ben, our colleague now in the Senate, showed that it had out 

there, or all the other literature that has been passed out in mainly 

minority communities but not limited to that, telling people that 

their voting place has been changed or the requirements of what 

they need informationally to vote has been altered, this raises the 

stakes to doing that and will hopefully have the consequence of actually making folks’ campaigns or parties pull back. 

Now, we are all taking the action here that is within our purview, which is to deal with making sure that intimidation does not 

stop people from exercising their rights, that is to vote. 

There are two other pieces to this. One of them is leaders and 

elected officials that inspire people to come out and vote and our 

citizens who take their responsibility and their right seriously and 

do it. We are only dealing with one of the three today, an important piece of it, but the other two play a very significant role in 

increasing the turnout and participation in a democratic process. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding this, and 

I want to apologize because I have to go to another hearing to ask 

a question on the AMT tax, which I know holds fair to all our colleagues. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Emanuel follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAHM EMANUEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee 

today on election deception and voting irregularities. I am honored to have worked 

with your office, Senator Obama, and several other members of this committee on 

drafting Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Act of 2007, and I hope that we 

can move forward quickly on this legislation to protect the right to vote. 

Honestly, I would prefer if we did not have to have this hearing today. Unfortunately, though, the last election and others before it have seen repeated instances 

of campaigning tactics that go beyond political competitiveness. 

We have seen repeated phone calls at three in the morning with blatant misinformation on a candidate’s background; we have seen flyers posted in minority communities lying about the date of the election; we have seen letters sent to legal immigrants threatening them with arrest for trying to vote because they were born 

outside of this country. We have seen far too many examples of these abuses, and 

it is time to put an end to these deceptive practices. 

I served as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the last election cycle. My job was to elect Democratic candidates to Congress, 

and I had a firsthand look at the day-to-day of many campaigns. In my role, I saw 

the specifics of misleading robo-calls, malicious flyers, and misinformation campaigns designed to keep certain groups of voters away from the polls on Election 

Day. That is why I am committed to making sure that future campaigns are not 

decided by false information and intimidation that keep Americans from voting 

when and how they want. 

I look forward to passage and implementation of the Deceptive Practices and Voter 

Intimidation Act to prevent repeat occurrences of some of the tactics that hinder 

voter turnout. I want to thank Chairman Conyers, Congressman Holt, Congressman 

21

Becerra, Congressman Honda, and Congressman Ellison for serving as lead co-sponsors of this important legislation. I would also like to thank Mr. Nadler, Mr. Scott, 

Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Waters, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. 

Davis of this committee for signing on as original co-sponsors of the bill. 

I am proud to have introduced the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Act

last week, and again, I want to thank you, Chairman Conyers, for inviting me to 

participate in this forum and for leading the charge on addressing this problem. I 

look forward to continuing to work with you, Senator Obama, and the rest of this 

panel as we seek to ensure that each American is able to vote free from intimidation 

and misinformation.

22

ATTACHMENT


Globe-1.eps
23


Globe-2.eps
24


Globe-3.eps
25


Globe-4.eps
26

Mr. CONYERS. Thanks so much, Congressman Emanuel. We appreciate your presence and your support of the legislation. 

I am now happy to recognize an outstanding Member of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. King has worked with us in a bipartisan 

fashion across the years, and I would like now to acknowledge him. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am privileged to be recognized by you and also Ranking Member Smith to testify before this 

Committee, as opposed to being seated upon it. 

And I am going to take this to a little bit different tact here in 

this discussion that we have had and focus on some facts that currently you have numbers between 8 million and 14 million illegal 

aliens in the United States who are of voting age. That is a level 

of exposure. There are approximately 23 million legal non-citizens 

that still live in the United States in addition to that 8 million to 

14 million illegals who are of voting age. 

But beyond requiring applicants to sign a pledge on a voter registration form affirming that they are U.S. citizens, there are no restraints to prevent the Nation’s illegal aliens and lawfully present 

non-citizens from casting ballots in our local, State and Federal 

elections. 

There are a number of tactics that are being employed by illegal 

aliens and non-citizens to fraudulently vote in Federal elections. 

One is to obtain a State driver’s license. A lot of States purposely 

or inadvertently allow illegal aliens to receive a driver’s license, but 

under the motor voter law, the National Voter Registration Act of 

1993, information provided by the applicant for a driver’s license 

may also be used for voter registration unless—and this is an important point—unless the applicant specifically indicates that he or 

she did not want to be registered to vote. 

That is an encouragement for a non-citizen, whether they are 

legal or illegal, to register to vote, and they may not understand 

the language; they may just simply be complying with the bureaucracy, register to vote and find themselves in violation of Federal 

law, but it is hard to find anybody that will check. There are large 

numbers of non-citizens and illegal aliens that are on those kinds 

of lists. 

But to preserve the integrity of the election process, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a bill that Mr. Smith was well-involved in. It 

made it a Federal crime for non-citizens to vote in a Federal election and also for non-citizens who knowingly voted illegally to be 

deported. Non-citizens who fraudulently claim to be U.S. citizens 

could also be in violation of the act. So that tightened some things 

up in 1996, but despite the penalties that are there, there are frequent substantiated reports of illegal aliens and non-citizens taking 

part in elections. 

One of the reports is a well-known one that we discussed earlier 

here that Ms. Sanchez responded to with regard to Mr. Smith’s 

numbers, and I will say that my research comes up with the same 

numbers, 984 vote difference, and the investigation revealed that 

there may be as many as—I will say found evidence that there 

27

were 748 improper ballots—624 by individuals who were non-citizens. But the ruling was even though 83 percent of the improper 

ballots were by non-citizens, there wasn’t enough to change the results of the election and the House Oversight Committee found 

that it would not affect the results of the election, so there was no 

recommended change. 

I think that was good action by this Congress to recognize the 

flaw in the system but didn’t seek to get a political gain by adjusting to that flaw. So I will say that the Oversight Committee had 

congressional findings there of the highest integrity, as did Mr. 

Smith of Texas. 

And there are also issues within the State of Utah where they 

found 58,000 illegal aliens had fraudulently obtained driver’s licenses. Of those, at least 383 were registered to vote, presumably 

by motor voter. I narrowed some of that down, took a sample of 135 

of these individuals and discovered that five were naturalized citizens, 20 were ‘‘deportable’’ by their measure, one is a permanent 

legal resident and 109 had no record and were assumed to be in 

the United States illegally. But at least 14 had voted in a recent 

election, and we know that people move, so that makes it an even 

more significant number. 

North Carolina ICE agents identified at least four similar cases 

there, and so there is a very simple solution to this and that is to 

provide a photo ID. We have talked about the Real ID Act that addresses this, Mr. Chairman and Committee, and the Real ID Act 

does a number of things that are really effective. It requires a 

photo ID and it requires a Social Security number to be attached 

to that, and then we can attach the condition of citizenship to Real 

ID as well. Those three things there would do more to prevent 

fraudulent voting than anything else that I can think of. 

But as I look across the spectrum of these issues, and I will tell 

you that I sat in the chair for 37 days in the 2000 election tracing 

the Internet and my Dish TV and my telephones and I found out 

a lot about election fraud in this country, much of which I have not 

addressed in my testimony today. But I believe we need to adopt 

a Real ID Act for voter registration. We need to also have an integrated voter registration list that eliminates the duplicates, the deceased and where the applies to the felons. 

And I would point out that there are certain States that prohibit 

the electoral workers from challenging a prospective voter, even 

when they know that prospective voter is not the person that they 

represent themselves to be. 

So, for example, if I were an electoral board worker in a State 

like New Mexico, for example, and my name being Steve King and 

I have gone in there to work and decided that when my shift is 

over then I will vote, if someone comes in and presents themselves 

as Steve King, I have to let them vote even though I am the individual that is registered on that voter registration list. There are 

those kinds of prohibitions that are in place that are designed to 

keep from intimidating voters that disenfranchise real citizens that 

really have the right to vote. 

And I would conclude with that. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the 2 seconds of my 

time. 

28

[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA, AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Thank you Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and members of the Judiciary Committee for inviting me to testify today. I appreciate this opportunity to address the Committee about the need to protect the integrity of our democratic process, by guarding against illegal aliens and noncitizens taking part in only the American citizen’s right to vote. 

Currently, there are approximately 14 million illegal aliens in the United States 

who are of voting age. There are approximately 23 million legal noncitizens currently residing in the U.S. Beyond requiring applicants to sign a pledge on voterregistration forms affirming that they are U.S. citizens, there are no restraints to 

prevent the nation’s illegal aliens and legally present noncitizens from casting ballots in local, state and federal elections. Our voting system is subject to fraud by 

noncitizens. Illegal voting by legally residing non-citizens may be more prevalent 

than voting by illegal aliens. There are no existing structures in place to prevent 

illegal aliens from voting or to know if noncitizens are illegally voting in federal 

elections. 

Numerous tactics are being employed by illegal aliens and noncitizens to fraudulently vote in federal elections. The first approach begins by obtaining a state drivers’ license. States vary greatly in their laws governing the issuance of those licenses. A few states require and verify documentation that an applicant is either 

a U.S. citizen or a legal resident. However, other states purposely or inadvertently 

allow aliens to receive a drivers’ license. Seven states allow registrants to use an 

individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) instead of a Social Security number. The problem with an ITIN, stems from the fact it is available to noncitizens 

for purposes of tax withholding. On the opposite side of the spectrum, eleven states 

are lax and negligently permit illegal aliens to obtain drivers’ licenses, by refusing 

to verify the authenticity of the Social Security Number. 

Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, information provided by the 

applicant for a driver’s license may also be used for voter registration unless the 

applicant specifically indicates that he did not want to be registered to vote. With 

many states making driver’s licenses available to legal noncitizens and illegal 

aliens, it is probable voter rolls contain large numbers of non-citizens and illegal 

aliens. 

Another tactic employed by illegal aliens and noncitizens to obtain voting rights 

involves absentee voting. Absentee voting has become increasingly common, and 

there are no safeguards in place to ensure the actual voter is voting or for elections 

officials to challenge the voter in person as a possible illegal voter. In effect, there 

are no safeguards in place to ensure the person requesting the absentee ballot is 

actually the person voting. Elections official’s hands are tied to protect the integrity 

of the voting ballot. 

To preserve the integrity of the election process, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996. Under the Act, it became a federal crime for non-citizens to vote in any federal election. Ineligible noncitizens who knowingly voted illegally could also be deported. Furthermore, a noncitizen who fraudulently claimed to be a U.S. citizen would also violate this Act. Despite these penalties, there have been frequent substantiated reports of illegal aliens 

and non-citizens taking part in elections. 

One of these reports is well-known to another witness before the committee today, 

because it involved Loretta Sanchez’s California race in 1996. This is probably the 

best example of documented illegal voting to date. Loretta Sanchez defeated Republican incumbent Robert Dornan by 984 votes. Dornan called for an investigation of 

alleged illegal voting by noncitizens. The House Oversight Committee found that 

while there was insufficient evidence to void Ms. Sanchez’s victory, the Committee 

found evidence of 748 improper ballots, 624 by individuals who were not citizens 

when they registered to vote. (‘‘Dornan’s Election Challenge Dismissed,’’ Los Angeles 

Times, February 13, 1998). This is a striking number because it illustrates in that 

election, 83% of all the fraudulent votes cast were by noncitizens. 

In the 2000 Presidential election, noncitizens may have directly influenced the 

outcome of this race in eleven different states. Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, 

Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, all 

had small enough winning vote margins that illegal voting could have shifted the 

balance to Vice President Gore. With only a three vote margin in the Electoral College, if enough noncitizens had voted to reverse the outcome in any one of those 

eleven states, it would have changed the entire election. 

29

In preparation for the 2004 elections, Iowa and South Dakota issued directives to 

voter registration officials that voters should be added to the voter rolls even if their 

application did not affirmatively designate they were United States citizens. These 

directives were in blatant violation of the National Voter Registration Act, which 

requires every potential voter to designate citizenship on the voter registration application. 

In Utah, it was discovered that more than 58,000 illegal aliens had fraudulently 

obtained drivers’ licenses. A legislative audit bureau determined that possibly 383 

illegal aliens were registered to vote. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

conducted a sample consisting of 135 of these individuals and discovered that five 

were naturalized citizens, twenty were ‘‘deportable’’, one was a permanent legal resident, and 109 had no record and were assumed to be in the United States illegally. 

More alarmingly, it was revealed that at least fourteen had voted in a recent Utah 

election. 

In North Carolina, ICE agents inspecting voter registration records last November 

revealed at least four cases of noncitizens illegally registered to vote. Three of the 

people were arrested, and officials are looking for the fourth. Tom O’Connell, resident agent in charge of the ICE agency’s Cary office, said that ‘‘It’s a very personal 

charge to us, it goes to the integrity of the entire democratic system when we have 

. . . aliens registering to vote.’’ (‘‘Voter rolls risky for aliens,’’ The News & Observer,

December 7, 2006.) 

There is a very simple solution to the problem of illegal aliens and non-citizens 

voting in our elections. A bipartisan commission headed by former President Jimmy 

Carter and ex-Secretary of State James Baker announced after their study into Federal Election Reform, that Americans should be required to have photo identification 

to vote. 

‘‘Instead of creating a new card, the Commission recommends that states use 

‘REAL ID’ cards for voting purposes. The REAL ID Act, signed into law in May 

2005, requires states to verify each individual’s full legal name, date of birth, address, Social Security number, and U.S. citizenship before the individual is issued 

a driver’s license or personal ID card. The REAL ID is a logical vehicle because the 

National Voter Registration Act established a connection between obtaining a driver’s license and registering to vote. The REAL ID cards adds two critical elements 

for voting—proof of citizenship and verification by using the full Social Security 

number. The REAL ID Act does not require that the card indicates citizenship, but 

that would need to be done if the card is to be used for voting purposes. In addition, 

state bureaus of motor vehicles should automatically send the information to the 

state’s bureau of elections.’’ ‘‘Building Confidence in U.S. Elections: Report of the 

Commission on Federal Election Reform,’’ The Carter-Baker Report (Sept. 2005). 

Allegations that implementing REAL ID will suppress voting participation are unfounded. Every illegal vote by a non-citizen ultimately voids the vote of a U.S. citizen and it is as injurious as not allowing the citizen to vote in the first place. 

While advocates for illegal aliens and noncitizens claim such individuals would 

not take the risk of registering to vote for fear of being discovered, the evidence I 

have just presented before you suggests otherwise. It is foolishness to believe fraud 

is absent when efforts are not being made to ensure the integrity of our electoral 

process. Remember, it only takes one vote to change an election. 

Thank you and I would be happy to take questions from the Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Steve King. I am glad you are on this 

Committee, because we want to inquire into some of the other research and materials you have accumulated. 

We welcome Brian Bilbray, California. Welcome to the Judiciary 

Committee. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BRIAN BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the privilege to speak here today. I also appreciated the ability to serve as 

a county supervisor for the 3 million people of San Diego County 

where I supervised a very large registration vote system in that 

county. 

30

And I have to tell you, the 10 years that I served there it became 

obvious to me that though in the past we have been very, very 

strong about guaranteeing the ability on the franchising of individuals to be able to vote, we have never really looked at the other 

way that people are disenfranchised. 

Now, I remind you that the procedure of voting is not an end into 

itself; it is a sacred right not only to vote but to have your vote 

count. And the challenge of the past was making sure the franchise 

was not violated by denying people the ability to participate in the 

voting process. 

But we have done almost nothing, Mr. Chairman, almost nothing 

to make sure that the franchise is not being canceled out by allowing those who are not qualified to vote to cancel out the qualified 

voters. And I think every American citizen has the right, not only 

to vote, but to have their vote count and not to have their vote canceled out by a disqualified voter. May not seem like it is a big deal 

but when you have 37-plus-million people that could be out there 

and could be canceling out votes, I think it is time we check on 

that. 

And I will just tell you, as somebody running the registration 

system, I could ask you for documentation about your residency 

and check about where you live, but I wasn’t allowed to ask you 

about your citizenship. I had to go on the honor system that just 

if you say it, and I would ask you to ask the Ways and Means Committee, do they think that the tax system in this country could 

function on the honor system where every taxpayer just signed off 

and nobody ever audited, nobody ever checked? We not only do not 

have the check, but you specifically have State laws that restrict 

the ability to do that kind of checking. 

I think that the fact is, is that when we get into motor voter, we 

have got to recognize that these two challenges to the people’s franchise is there, and we need to address the other side. 

And, Mr. Chairman, as somebody who represented a Committee 

with a large percentage of foreign nationals and naturalized citizens, the burden of being disenfranchised by illegal votes is not 

equally distributed across this country. We all know it is the working class American citizens that have the greatest propensity for 

having their vote not count because this Congress and the Federal 

Government hasn’t done its part to protect their franchise. The 

wealthy neighborhoods tend not to have that threat. So I just think 

that we need to be upfront about this. 

I think that the Carter commission addressed it appropriately, 

and over the years I have wondered when we are finally going to 

get to the issue, that we should make every vote count if it is legal, 

and that means a lot. And this is not just illegal immigrants, this 

is all immigrants. And my mother is very proud that she got her 

citizenship and was franchised. She is also very much upset that 

she was actually fined in Australia because she didn’t vote her first 

election because she was too young to register but actually turned 

21 before the vote. We don’t want to create those kind of catch-22s, 

and we have addressed those in the past. 

I just ask you that if you truly believe in the right of franchising, 

you truly believe, not only in the right for people to vote, but for 

31

their vote to count, we have to address the issue of the identification of the person when they show up to the polls. 

And the real problem is the voter registration system, and I will 

give you just some of the problem. You have paid registrars going 

out there, people that are being paid by groups and agencies to collect votes. They will tell people almost anything to be able to get 

them to register. Once these individuals register, many of the foreign nationals who are not proficient in English, when they get the 

papers from the County of San Diego or from the State, they assume they are legal. And so this is an issue of protecting the innocent from taking a deadly mistake. Because many times, the illegal 

votes are manipulated and are pushed by people who have something to gain when it is not the immigrant who is perpetuating the 

fraud intentionally. 

So I just ask you, in conclusion, to respect the fact that every 

voter should count and no voter should have his vote canceled out. 

And so enfranchisement, I think, is the challenge before us, Mr. 

Chairman. Are we willing to protect the vote after it is cast as 

much as we have been willing in the past to make sure the vote 

gets cast? 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilbray follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRIAN P. BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished colleagues of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak before you today on the importance of 

addressing voting fraud and irregularities. As Chairman of the Immigration Reform 

Caucus, I am extremely concerned about illegal immigrants violating our nation’s 

election laws by registering and voting in local, state and federal elections. I feel 

that the American people have been disenfranchised by ballots illegally and fraudulently cast in our increasingly close elections. 

Nothing is more important than ensuring the integrity of our election process. Because of this very issue, I am able to sit before you today and represent the people 

of the 50th District of California. It was during my campaign that the issue of illegal participation in our election process came to light. For a short moment in time, 

one person’s words were heard throughout the entire nation. As reported in the Wall 

Street Journal on June 5, 2006, ‘‘Ms. Busby addressed a group of supporters and 

in response to a question in Spanish about how someone who was an illegal alien 

could help, she answered: ‘‘You don’t need papers for voting,’’ she said. ‘‘You don’t 

need to be a registered voter to help.’’

The freedom to vote is one of the most fundamental and sacred rights Americans 

can exercise. With more than 20 million foreign-born residents in the United States 

who are not U.S. citizens, including an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, the 

potential for non-citizen voting is a growing concern, especially when you consider 

the relaxed registration requirements and a lax screening process at the time of voting. I feel there is a very real possibility that non-citizens have affected the outcomes of elections in the past and will in the future. 

Voting by illegal immigrants is one of the toughest issues to study due to the fact 

there is no centralized or accessible list of illegal immigrants that can be compared 

to voter registration lists or lists of persons who actually cast ballots. The most basic 

requirement for registering to vote is United States citizenship. 

Citizenship is clearly defined in both federal and state law. The 14th Amendment 

to the United States Constitution states, ‘‘All persons born or naturalized in the 

United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United 

States and of the state wherein they reside.’’ A person is not a citizen simply because he or she resides in California or is married to a U.S. citizen. While federal 

law requires the voter to check a box on the registration form to indicate that he 

or she is a U.S. citizen, Elections Code § 2111 says that an individual who signs an 

affidavit of registration under penalty of perjury is assumed, in the absence of contrary information, to be a citizen. Elections Code § 2112 additionally states that an 

affidavit of registration is proof of citizenship for voting purposes only; it cannot be 

32

used to prove citizenship for any other purpose. In the state of California, those registering to vote must simply check a box affirming they are a U.S. citizen. 

Congress enacted the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, making it a federal crime for non-citizens to vote in any federal election 

unless authorized by state law. All ineligible non-citizens who knowingly vote in violation of the law may be deported. While illegal voting can make the alien ineligible 

for U.S. citizenship (violation of criminal law), this disqualification has been often 

waived. 

In 1993, President Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). 

Usually called the ‘‘motor voter’’ bill, it requires all states to streamline their voter 

registration laws to make it easier for citizens to sign up. Specifically, it requires 

states to give voters the option to register to vote simultaneously with an application for a driver’s license, by mail, or in person, and at social service and other agencies. The Act made it harder to verify the identity of voters seeking to register. It 

also considerably complicated the states’ task of keeping the registration rolls clean. 

In September 2005, the Congressional Research Service reported that more than 

25 states failed to require any proof of legal presence in the United States in order 

to apply for and obtain a driver’s license. And, as a consequence of the Motor Voter 

law, every single person who applies for a driver’s license is asked if they want to 

register to vote. Voter rolls in the United States, particularly in states that allow 

illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, are inflated by non-citizens who are 

registered to vote. Despite the clear mandate of the Motor Voter law that any potential voter must affirm citizenship on the voter registration application, some states 

issued orders to voter registration officials that voters should be added to the roles 

even if their application did not affirmatively indicate they are United States citizens. 

Requiring a person to identify themselves with photo identification before casting 

a ballot enjoys broad public support. The American Center for Voting Rights-Legislative Fund’s polling in Pennsylvania and Missouri found that more than 80 percent 

of the population favors photo ID requirement in order to vote. Other state specific 

polls in Wisconsin and Washington have found similar levels of public support for 

voter identification requirements. Nationally, a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll conducted by in April 2006 found that more than eighty percent of U.S. citizens support 

the requirement that a person show a photo ID before they are allowed to cast a 

ballot. Currently, twenty-four states require every voter to provide identification before casting a ballot and seven states currently require photo identification in order 

to vote. 

Many people tend to think that the photo ID requirement would suppress voting 

but there has never been evidence to support that assertion. Much to the contrary, 

evidence shows that anti-voter fraud provisions increase voter turnout. When people 

have greater confidence in the election process, there is greater voting participation. 

There are more than 100 democracies which require a photo identification card 

without fear of infringement on individual citizen’s rights, including countries such 

as Mexico, India and Pakistan. In fact, our neighbor to the south, Mexico, issues 

a voter ID which includes multiple security features, including a hologram, special 

fluorescent ink, a bar code, and special codes in a magnetic strip. 

Not only must we worry about illegal immigrants voting illegally in our elections, 

we must worry that they are using the voter registration card to seek employment. 

There is reason to believe that some illegal immigrants applying for driver’s licenses 

deliberately, rather than accidentally, seek voter registration. This is due to the fact 

that the employer sanctions law adopted in the 1986 amnesty to deter employment 

of illegal aliens allows a voter registration card to be used as one of the documents 

that establishes the employee’s identity. That document, plus a Social Security card, 

is all that is necessary to establish work eligibility. Thus, the fact that some noncitizens register to vote is not necessarily a harmless misunderstanding of the rules, 

as immigrants’ rights groups contend. 

In 2005, a prominent group of bipartisan leaders and scholars, led by former 

President Carter and Secretary of State James Baker, III, focused on our nations 

voting laws and procedures. The Carter-Baker Commission on Voting recommended:

Instead of creating a new card, the Commission recommends that states use 

‘‘REAL ID’’ cards for voting purposes. The REAL ID Act, signed into law in May 

2005, requires states to verify each individual’s full legal name, date of birth, 

address, Social Security number, and U.S. citizenship before the individual is 

issued a driver’s license or personal ID card. The REAL ID is a logical vehicle 

because the National Voter Registration Act established a connection between 

obtaining a driver’s license and registering to vote. The REAL ID card adds two 

critical elements for voting—proof of citizenship and verification by using the 

33

full Social Security number. The REAL ID Act does not require that the card 

indicates citizenship, but that would need to be done if the card is to be used 

for voting purposes.

As the Carter-Baker Report elaborated: ‘‘to make sure that a person arriving at 

a polling site is the same one who is named on the list, we propose a uniform system of voter identification based on the ‘‘REAL ID card’’ or an equivalent for people 

without a driver’s license . . . There is likely to be less discrimination against minorities if there is a single, uniform ID, than if poll workers can apply multiple 

standards.’’ The Carter-Baker Report also stated that ‘‘The right to vote is a vital 

component of U.S. citizenship, and all states should use their best efforts to obtain 

proof of citizenship before registering voters.’’ I could not agree more! The Bush Administration announced the program will cost $23.1 billion over 10 

years, require motorists born after 1935 to present birth certificates or passports, 

and add $28 to the cost of issuing each license. As Homeland Security Secretary 

Chertoff stated, ‘‘Is it a reasonable amount of money that people should pay to prevent people from getting on airplanes or getting in buildings and killing Americans? 

I think most people would say . . . that’s $20 well spent.’’ While people will have 

to incur an additional cost, it seems absolutely reasonable when putting it in the 

context of safety and securing our democracy by eliminating voting fraud. 

The Administration also announced it would delay implementation of the REAL 

ID provisions that federalize driver’s license standards to allow states more time to 

comply fully. The deadline will be extended from May 2008 until December 2009, 

and up to 20 percent of state homeland security grants can be used to implement 

the program. I am extremely disappointed by the Administration’s stance on this 

issue and will seek to insure REAL ID makes its May 2008 deadline. It is far too 

important for the safety of our society to delay. 

If the United States wants to prevent fraudulent voting, procedures must be 

adopted to verify the eligibility of individuals when they register, and then to verify 

the identity of voters when they vote. There must also be a heightened dedication 

to prosecute those who fraudulently register and vote. If there is no real penalty 

for illegal voting, it is unreasonable to expect that an ‘honor system’ to keep ineligible persons from voting will be effective. It is worth noting, that with the passage 

of Proposition 200, Arizona was the first state to implement such measures. Approximately 32 other states are considering similar legislation. 

Unfortunately, special interest groups are pursuing litigation to undermine the 

ability of election officials to assure that only U.S. citizens are included on voter 

rolls. Clearly, there has been a much greater movement to lawsuits to settle election 

administration issues since the 2000 Presidential election. Fundamentally, voters 

should believe at the end of the day that they decided the election, not a handful 

of lawyers and judges. 

I applaud the House Judiciary Committee for focusing on this very important 

issue. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Bilbray, we are grateful that you came here 

today. 

By previous agreement, I have 15 minutes to divide on my side 

and so does Mr. Smith. 

If I could just recognize Mr. Nadler, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Cohen to 

present—let’s try this—present their questions to whom they want 

to direct them, and then we will ask the appropriate witnesses to 

respond. 

Starting with Jerry Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, I 

thank you for holding this hearing on this extremely important legislation. 

My first question is of our colleague, Representative King. Reading your testimony, you say Utah has discovered that more than 

58,000 illegal aliens have fraudulently obtained driver’s licenses. A 

legislative audit bureau determined that of these 58,000, possibly 

383 illegal aliens were registered to vote. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted a sample consisting of 135, or roughly 40 percent, of these individuals and discovered that five were naturalized citizens, 20 were deportable, one 

34

was a permanent legal resident and 109 had no record and were 

assumed to be in the United States illegally. And it was revealed 

that at least 14 had voted in the recent Utah election. 

So out of 58,000 people, maybe 14 possibly illegal people had 

voted. Do you think that is a significant problem, 14 in the State 

of Utah? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. I would say that I did actually 

give that some reference in my verbal testimony as well and that 

you really start with that number of 383 illegal aliens. 

Mr. NADLER. That would be 58,000 is where you start. 

Mr. KING. Correct, but the registered to vote illegal aliens would 

be 383. So I would say the more——

Mr. NADLER. Possibly illegal. 

Mr. KING. And 14 out of that I think is significant, given the 

small populations of some of these elections that take place and 

that the State of Florida was down to about 537 votes that made 

the difference in the leader of the free world. 

Mr. NADLER. Fourteen in the State of Utah. 

Well, I am glad you referenced the State of Florida. The State 

of Florida had 537 votes in that election or at least it was before 

the recount was stopped by the Supreme Court. 

Mr. KING. I think it was after every recount. 

Mr. NADLER. Before the recount was stopped by the Supreme 

Court; it was never finished. Some newspaper finished it and they 

came up with different results depending on the newspaper. 

However, it seems to be universally acknowledged that thousands and thousands of alleged felons were purged from the rolls—

thousands. In fact, I think it was several tens of thousands were 

purged from the rolls by the secretary of state’s office, with a 20 

percent error rate. 

Twenty percent of 10,000 is 2,000. So that means that several 

thousand legal voters were refused the right to vote by the secretary of state’s office because of a—the felon provision. How do 

you react to that? 

Mr. KING. I have heard some of those numbers. I have not seen 

the kind of data that gives me confidence that that is an accurate 

conclusion that one can draw. I have seen the data that says even 

so far as the Miami Herald on the recount of the election came up 

with the same number, the election report, so I can speak to that. 

But I will say this: that I think that Democrats believe that Republicans are guilty of election fraud, I believe Republicans think 

Democrats are guilty of election fraud. I think some exists on both 

sides. To what magnitude, I don’t know, but I believe we all should 

endeavor to make it as absolutely clean as we possibly could and 

put those checks and balances in place. 

I don’t think that a 20 percent error rate in a voter registration 

list that is going to purge felons is an acceptable result at all. And 

if that holds up, then I would be a critic of that kind of behavior 

just as well. 

But I want to have the highest level of integrity, because, first 

of all, I would say I would rather lose the presidency or the majority than lose the integrity of our electoral process. If we lose our 

confidence in it—and it comes down to confidence beyond the actual numbers in what is real—if we lose our confidence, we lose our 

35

constitutional republic, and I think that is the precious commodity 

here we are all trying to preserve. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well-said. 

Mr. Nadler, thanks for just a moment. Let me yield to Mr. 

Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I know you 

need to try to get as many Members in here as possible. 

Representative Sanchez, I want to ask you about the bill that 

has been introduced by Senator Obama and Representative Emanuel. You were not an original co-sponsor but you are—I mean, you 

are not an original sponsor but you are a co-sponsor, so if you are 

not able to answer, I would understand. 

But I would like to ask you about a provision, and I will read 

it to you. This is on page two of the bill, paragraph 618, deceptive 

practices in Federal elections. It reads as follows: ‘‘Whoever within 

60 days before a Federal election knowingly communicates false 

election-related information about that election with intent to prevent another person from exercising their right to vote in that election or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.’’

We heard a while ago that Senator Obama said that the intent 

was not to necessarily penalize illegal immigrants. I just wanted to 

ask you if you would object if we did penalize illegal immigrants 

for voting illegally? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Well, again, I believe I would agree with Mr. 

Obama in the sense that I agree with his intent. I will tell you 

something, we already penalize people who are here without the 

right documents who vote in elections. It is called deportation. 

Mr. SMITH. I have limited time. I understand but the operative 

phrase here is anybody communicates false election-related information. If someone registers to vote and professes to be a citizen 

who is not a citizen and therefore not eligible to vote, clearly, that 

is a false statement that I think that would apply. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Again, Mr. Smith, I think they run the risk. People who are not citizens run the risk of probably the greatest penalty and that is the penalty of deportation from this Nation for voting without—I think it is not a jail sentence, it is not anything else. 

It is deportation from our Nation. That is what they are subject to. 

Mr. SMITH. Non-citizens should not be voting, right? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Absolutely, non-citizens should not be voting. 

Mr. SMITH. And you feel that they should be penalized if they do 

vote? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I believe they are penalized when they do vote. We 

tend to deport them. That is what happens to them. I sit on the 

Homeland Security Committee. I see the deportation. That is what 

happens. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. And do you think they should be penalized 

under this bill? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. They are not penalized under this bill because it 

already exists, that if you are not a citizen and you vote——

Mr. SMITH. Just because it already exists doesn’t mean they can’t 

be penalized under this bill. I think that they are, and I think a 

court would find that they are. We can discuss that more later on. 

36

Again, this next question may be a little too technical but this 

says 60 days before an election. Why wouldn’t this bill apply 61 

days before an election or 62 days before an election if someone 

makes a false statement, for example. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. You would have to ask Mr. Obama that question——

Mr. SMITH. I will do that. 

Ms. SANCHEZ [continuing]. As to why he chose 60 days. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes? No, I am recognizing—your name is on the 

list, but it is further down. 

Mr. Ellison, briefly. 

Mr. ELLISON. My question is directed to our colleague, Representative King. 

I am aware that the State of Indiana, in defending a photo ID 

lawsuit in court, found that it could not cite one single case or instance of voter impersonation, fraud. The State of Missouri had 

similar results. They couldn’t find any cases of the kind of fraud 

that you are quite concerned about. And I know in my own State 

of Minnesota there has been much made about immigrants voting 

or non-citizens voting, but, still, nobody ever has any real cases to 

produce. 

Can you tell me, since 1996, exactly how many convictions have 

taken place under the law for non-citizens voting as compared to 

how many actual votes were cast in Federal elections since that 

time? 

Mr. KING. I am sorry, Mr. Ellison, with that buzzer ringing, 

could you pick up where that buzzer cut in, please? 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. I am curious to know, since the 1996 law was 

passed that made it a felony for non-citizens to vote, how many 

convictions, how many Federal convictions have taken place? And 

could you also——

Mr. KING. I wouldn’t have the answer to that question unless it 

happens to be in my hand in which case we are looking at, for 

2002, we have persons charged, 95; convictions, 55; dismissals by 

the government, eight; and acquittals, five. 

Mr. ELLISON. So 55 in that 1 year, sir? 

Mr. KING. Fifty-five in the year 2002. 

Mr. ELLISON. Any other data for any other year? 

Mr. KING. That is the only data I have in my hand right now, 

thanks to somebody’s staff. 

Mr. ELLISON. How many votes were cast in 2002? 

Mr. KING. I don’t know the answer to that question. 

Mr. ELLISON. Would you agree with me that probably far less 

than one-hundredth of 1 percent is represented by that 55 number? 

Mr. KING. Would you agree that a single fraudulent vote would 

be a violation of our integrity? 

Mr. ELLISON. I am just going to ask you to see if you could answer my question. What percentage of the total vote would that 55 

represent? 

Mr. KING. I wouldn’t presume to answer that question, and I 

would state that I don’t believe it is relative to the subject before 

this Committee, but thank you for your inquiry. 

37

Mr. ELLISON. Well, but let me ask you this: How many people do 

you think have been excluded from their right to vote by voter suppression, which is actually the subject of this bill? 

Mr. KING. I didn’t testify as to that, but I would believe that 

there have been—it would be my judgment, and we all—none of us 

know facts here in this, because there are many things that happen 

in the election process that are not reported, that are not prosecuted. There are a lot of things that are just given a pass. 

So I don’t think we can give it an analytical, numerical analysis 

and take it down to the percentages, although I generally do look 

at things from that perspective. 

I would say that, on the one hand, those people who have voted 

illegally and been prosecuted as part of it, all of those who have 

voted illegally have canceled out someone else’s legal vote. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, I am asking, sir, what about the people who 

have had their vote suppressed, such as in Florida, Ohio, well-documented voter suppression. As a matter of fact, I believe Senator 

Obama cited cases throughout the country about legal citizens who 

do have the right to vote who are deceived and have their vote 

taken away. 

But how many would you guess that represents? 

Mr. KING. I saw numbers by the thousands alleged in Florida. I 

saw reports that there were police roadblocks that were set up that 

intimidated. I looked into that further and they were irrelevant 

roadblocks that were significantly away from the election polls. 

So as I look deeper into that, I would have to see other data to 

convince me that there was a strategy out there that was trying 

to suppress, but I don’t know how some people are maybe more 

easily intimidated than I might be. So I would like to see some 

more empirical data on that. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Ellison, I am sorry, we are running against 

the clock here, and we only have a few minutes left for the panel. 

So, excuse me, we will have to submit the questions that Mr. 

Ellison had, and I will recognize Mr. Smith now. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would like to encourage Members on this side to be brief. 

We are trying to conclude this panel before the votes, and in that 

spirit, I will yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. King, I agree with you: Members of both parties are guilty 

of irregularity, first of all. 

Let me ask you this: What role does your State elections administrator have in addressing efforts to mislead and/or intimidate voters, and what has been done about it, if you know? 

Mr. KING. I can, Mr. Coble, speak to the fact that in the 2004 

election, even though there were people that showed up at the 

wrong precinct, he issued a recommendation or issued—actually, 

our current governor was the governor who was the secretary of 

state, Chet Culver, and he issued an order that the county auditors 

and the election poll workers could accept ballots from people who 

were not registered at that precinct, even though they showed up 

at the wrong place to vote, which really scrambled the process. And 

38

even though Iowa is the first in the Nation to caucus, we were the 

last in the Nation to certify the vote because of that confusion. 

Mr. COBLE. And if Ms. Sanchez or Mr. Bilbray know about your 

respective administrator, do you know? 

Mr. BILBRAY. In the State of California, you are not allowed to 

ask citizenship status or place of birth. You are allowed to ask residency questions. 

The biggest problem we have, congressman, we are trying to figure out those who are illegally—by definition, if they are on document, there are no documents, so we have no list to check. Where 

you can have a list to check legal resident aliens and you can go 

down that list, but you don’t have the list of the others. 

So the open opportunity, when we talk about being able to prosecute those who are illegal, to try to get to the data to get them 

is impossible unless you can somehow have it proactive, and that 

is where you get into this problem here. Only if they are legal resident aliens can you find a list to sort of say, ‘‘Wait a minute, you 

haven’t naturalized.’’

Mr. COBLE. Well, let me hear from Ms. Sanchez, if she knows. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Coble, in our State of California, when you fill 

out the affidavit, and it is an affidavit you fill out, you are asked 

if you are a citizen. If you check the box that you are a citizen, then 

you continue to fill out the form. If you check the box that you are 

not a citizen, it says plainly there, ‘‘Please don’t register to vote. 

You are not allowed to vote.’’

So it also says on there with respect to penalties should you fill 

out the affidavit incorrectly or falsify it. 

It also, by the way, does ask for country where you were born—

USA or Mexico or Italy or whatever country—in reference to, I 

think, a misstatement that Mr. Bilbray made. 

Mr. COBLE. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Cohen will close out our 

questions. We only have minutes before the vote. And then we will 

take a short recess and promptly reconvene with the second panel. 

All other questions to any of the witnesses will be submitted in 

writing. 

Mr. Delahunt? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I see Mr. King is getting prepared to respond to 

my question. 

I hate to disappoint you, Steve, but I am going to just simply 

point out, in response to a question by the Ranking Member, that 

the gentlelady from California is absolutely correct. There does 

exist in the Federal statutes a penalty for unlawful voters and I 

would refer my colleagues to the U.S. code at section 1227(A)(6), 

and a capital letter A, and let me read it into the record so there 

is no doubt as to the accuracy of a statement by Congresswoman 

Sa ́nchez. 

‘‘Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State or 

local constitutional provision, statute ordinance or regulation is deportable.’’ So there is a sanction on the books today, and there 

should not be any doubt about that. 

With that, I yield to the gentleman from——

Mr. CONYERS. Tennessee. 

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. Tennessee, Mr. Cohen. 

39

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My question really would go to Senator Cardin, and in the interest of time and in honor of Bud Collyer and ‘‘Beat the Clock,’’ I will 

pass. 

Mr. SMITH. The Chairman was yielding to me and I was going 

to yield to Representative Forbes if he has a question, and if not, 

we will go vote. 

Mr. FORBES. I will yield any time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Let’s have a brief recess. 

We thank the panel. 

All questions should be submitted that have not been sufficiently 

asked by our Committee. 

And we stand in recess until immediately after the votes on the 

floor. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CONYERS. The Committee will come to order. 

We continue our panel, the second one for the afternoon, protecting the right to vote. And we are honored to have Donna 

Brazile, Eve Sandberg, Ralph Neas and John Fund. 

I would like to begin with the president and CEO of the People 

For the American Way. If you would get our second panel under 

way. 

And I take notice that his mother is in the audience today monitoring his conduct and presentation. [Laughter.] 

TESTIMONY OF RALPH G. NEAS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY 

Mr. NEAS. Actually, Mr. Chairman, after all the times I have had 

an opportunity to appear before you and Chairman Smith and 

former Chairman Sensenbrenner, I know from past experience the 

best thing I could do is to protect myself by bringing my mother 

with me. So she is here. [Laughter.] 

May stop all questions from everybody. 

Mr. Chairman, Representative Smith and distinguished Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Ralph 

Neas, president of People For, and I want to commend you, Mr. 

Chairman, for holding this hearing and for focusing attention on 

the most important domestic issue facing the Nation. 

I make this statement because I believe the right to vote is the 

bedrock of our democracy. And by the way, I just saw Chairman 

Watt come in here, and I haven’t seen Mr. Sensenbrenner, but the 

work of you all on the Voting Rights Act extension last year was 

absolutely spectacular and just want to thank you all. 

Indeed, everything in our democracy ultimately depends on the 

integrity of our election system. With more than 1 million members 

and supporters, People For the American Way and our sister foundation are committed to ensuring that the right to vote is guaranteed to all eligible voters and that this right is secure. 

Allow me to say a word about our comprehensive election reform 

and protection efforts. People For has established a democracy 

campaign which comprises all of our voting rights efforts, both on 

the State and local level, through voter registration, legislative 

grassroots litigation and GOTV efforts. This campaign also incorporates our leadership efforts in the Election Protection Coalition, 

40

our nonpartisan voter protection effort that our partner organization, our foundation, co-founded with our allies in response to the 

debacle of the 2000 presidential election. 

Mr. Chairman, the need to enact election reform is urgent. In 

2008, this Nation will choose a new president, and once again voters will determine control of both chambers of Congress. All Americans deserve open, fair elections in which their votes will be cast 

and counted as they intended. 

In order to give election officials time to implement election reform, Congress must pass the needed legislation in a matter of 

months and provide adequate funding to put those reforms in 

place. 

In the aftermath of the 2000 elections, Caltech and MIT issued 

a joint study estimating that some 4 million Americans were 

disenfranchised in 2000. Citizens were denied the right to cast 

their vote or to have their vote counted by a range of problems, including faulty equipment, poorly designed ballots and untrained 

poll workers, as well as voter intimidation and suppression efforts 

and other illegal action. 

These problems have persisted through the past several elections 

as evidenced in the report that you, Mr. Chairman, prepared regarding the 2004 presidential election in Ohio. 

As we know, the complexity and sophistication of voter intimidation and suppression tactics have grown with each election, while 

problems with faulty voting technology have also proliferated. 

In light of these problems, Mr. Chairman, I salute you for taking 

the leadership with Congressman Rahm Emanuel in the introduction of the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention 

Act of 2007, along with Representatives Becerra, Honda, Ellison 

and Holt. People For is firmly committed to helping you pass this 

bill in the House and help Senator Barack Obama’s bill in the Senate. 

I would like to discuss for a minute or two some of the problems 

that People For Foundation addressed during our election protection campaign in the 2006 elections and demonstrate how your legislation will help us remove such barriers to the ballot box in protecting the voting rights of every citizen. 

While current Federal law provides criminal penalties for some 

voter suppression and intimidation practices, the newest wave of 

these reprehensible tactics may not be covered, including 

disinformation campaigns and harassing robo calls. We have previously heard about the letters in Orange County and the robo calls 

and flyers in Maryland and Virginia, so let me mention a few others. 

Through our program, People For responded to additional complaints around the country, including in Pima County, Arizona, 

where we received several reports that a group of people claiming 

to be with the United States Constitution Enforcement appeared at 

various voting locations under the pretext of preventing illegal immigrants from voting fraudulently. In reality, these actions were 

intended to intimidate Latino voters. 

In Dona Ana County, New Mexico, a voter received several campaign phone calls telling them to vote at a polling place that did 

not exist. Further, in several Virginia counties, Democratic voters 

41

received phone calls from purported election officials advising that 

they should not vote on Election Day and they would be prosecuted 

if they showed up at the polls. Unfortunately, these are typical 

complaints among the thousands that the Election Protection Coalition has received over the past three Federal elections. 

We are extremely appreciative of the Chairman’s efforts to put 

an end to such widespread abuse, yet at the same time we must 

diligently protect voter rights once they get to the voter booth. If 

voters do not have confidence in the electoral process, how can we 

encourage voters to show up at the polls. 

Lack of voter confidence in the voting process has effectively become another suppression tactic, leading people to stay away from 

the polls because they do not believe their votes will count. Perhaps 

last year’s most egregious example of voter problems at the polls 

was the travesty that took place in Florida’s 13th Congressional 

District. In the November election, voters in Sarasota County used 

paperless, unauditable electronic voting machines in the race to 

succeed Congresswoman Katherine Harris. The county’s voting machines failed to register a vote for approximately 18,000 voters. 

Mr. Chairman, I have got only about a minute to go. Would that 

be okay, about a minute, Mr. Chairman? I can finish in a minute. 

Mr. CONYERS. I haven’t ever granted anyone a minute overtime. 

Mr. NEAS. Even with my mother here? [Laughter.] 

Mr. CONYERS. All right, 30 seconds. [Laughter.] 

Mr. NEAS. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to 

testify and for your steadfast commitment to addressing the compelling issue of election reform. While I feel that the momentum for 

comprehensive election reform is growing, I fear that State election 

officials may not have the time and money to successfully implement these new laws. 

As you know, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., often used 

the phrase, ‘‘the urgency of now.’’ That phrase is so relevant, and 

we feel the urgency of now with regard to election reform. The 

clock is ticking. We must not let time run out. 

We are firmly committed to working with Members of Congress 

and our coalition allies to ensure that electoral reform becomes law 

in time to protect the integrity and fairness of the 2008 elections. 

Nothing less than the heart and soul of democracy is at stake. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neas follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RALPH G. NEAS

Chairman Conyers, Representative Smith and distinguished members, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Ralph G. Neas, and I am President 

of People For the American Way and People For the American Way Foundation. I 

want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and for focusing attention on critically important issues facing the nation. 

The right to vote is the bedrock of our democracy. People For the American Way 

and our sister Foundation are committed to ensuring that this right is guaranteed 

to all eligible voters and is secure. People For the American Way is a national, nonprofit social justice organization with more than one million members and supporters, and more than two a quarter century of commitment to nonpartisan civic 

participation efforts. Since our founding by Norman Lear, Barbara Jordan, and 

other civic, religious, business and civil rights leaders, People For the American 

Way and its Foundation have urged Americans to engage in civic participation, and 

we have sought to empower those who have been traditionally underrepresented at 

the polls, including young voters and people of color. 

42

Allow me to say a word about our comprehensive election reform and protection 

efforts. PFAW has established the Democracy Campaign, which comprises all of our 

voting rights efforts both on the state and national level, through voter registration, 

legislative, grassroots, litigation and GOTV efforts. This campaign also incorporates 

our leadership efforts in the Election Protection Coalition, a non-partisan voter protection effort that our partner organization, People For the American Way Foundation, co-founded with its allies in response to the debacle of the 2000 Presidential 

Election. Our efforts encompass advocacy on both state and federal legislation, the 

protection of voting rights through the judicial system, and year-around work with 

election officials to protect the rights of voters before, on and after Election Day. 

Mr. Chairman, the need to enact election reform is urgent. In 2008, this nation 

will choose a new president, and once again voters will determine control of both 

chambers of Congress. Turnout is expected to be strong, and the stakes could not 

be higher. All Americans deserve open, fair elections in which their votes will be 

cast and counted as they intended. 

Time is short. In order to give election officials time to implement election reform, 

Congress must pass the needed legislation in a matter of months—and provide adequate funding to put those reforms in place. Political realities would make it all but 

impossible to pass reform legislation in a presidential election year, and such reform 

would come too late for timely implementation. 

The need is clear. Evidence of persistent problems in our election systems is abundant. 

In the aftermath of the election fiasco in Florida in 2000, Caltech and MIT issued 

a joint study estimating that some four million Americans were disenfranchised. 

Citizens were denied the right to cast a vote—or to have their vote counted—by a 

range of problems, including faulty equipment, poorly designed ballots, and untrained poll workers, as well as voter intimidation and suppression efforts and other 

illegal action. 

These problems have persisted through the past several elections, as evidenced in 

the report that you, Chairman Conyers, prepared regarding the 2004 presidential 

election in Ohio. 

The vast majority of problems during the past six years resulted from faulty election administration. Voter participation, normally lower in midterm elections than 

in presidential years, was spurred in 2006 by close races that revolved around 

issues such as the war in Iraq; the exposure of unethical behavior in Congress, and 

the declining national economy. The unexpectedly strong turnout in some states exposed the lack of preparation by many election officials. The massive voting problems that resulted included failed absentee ballot distribution, failed processing of 

voter registration applications resulting in inadequate voter registration lists, improper interpretation of registration requirements, a lack of adequate resources and 

trained staff at polling places, and more. 

The complexity and sophistication of voter intimidation and suppression tactics 

has grown, and problems with faulty voting technology have proliferated. Make no 

mistake. The threats to democracy are just as real today as they were half a century 

ago. The bad old days of poll taxes and literacy tests are behind us, but new forms 

of intimidation and suppression have taken their place. With the enactment and recent reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and with subsequent legal decisions that have clarified and strengthened a citizen’s constitutional right to be free 

from intimidation and unnecessary barriers at the voting booth, it’s hard to believe 

we are here today discussing coordinated suppression campaigns. But there you 

have it. 

Mr. Chairman, I salute you and Representative Emanuel in the introduction of 

the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007, along with 

Representatives Xavier Becerra, Mike Honda, Keith Ellison and Rush Holt. PFAW 

is firmly committed to helping you pass this bill in the House, along with and Senator Barack Obama’s bill in the Senate. I’d like to discuss some of the problems that 

PFAWF addressed during our Election Protection campaign in the 2006 elections, 

and demonstrate how your legislation will help us remove such barriers to the ballot 

box and protect the voting rights of every citizen. 

While current federal law provides criminal penalties for some voter suppression 

and intimidation practices, the newest wave of such tactics may not be covered. Federal law may not currently criminalize all the deceptive practices we saw in the 

2006 elections, including disinformation campaigns and harassing robocalls. Such 

practices try to deceive voters into changing their votes, or voting on the wrong day, 

or by sending them to the wrong polling place. Some schemes attempt to convince 

citizens that voting will be difficult or even dangerous, or simply annoy them so 

much that they stay home from the polls in disgust at the whole process. 

43

The 2006 elections provided prime examples of these new forms of suppression 

techniques, and dirty tricks were as pervasive and brazen as ever. In Orange County, California, a Congressional candidate sent out letters in Spanish to approximately 14,000 Hispanic registered voters, warning it was a crime for immigrants to 

vote in federal elections, and threatening voters that their citizenship status would 

be checked against a federal database. Of course, immigrants who are naturalized 

citizens have as much right to vote as any other citizen, and no such database is 

used in elections. The letters were outright lies. 

In Maryland, fliers were handed out in Prince Georges County and predominantly 

African American neighborhoods with the heading ‘‘Democratic Sample Ballot.’’ The 

fliers used unauthorized photos of Democrat Kweise Mfume, along with the names 

of the Republican candidates for Senator and Governor, falsely implying an endorsement. 

In Virginia, voters received recorded ‘‘robocalls,’’ sometimes late at night, which 

falsely stated that the recipient of the call was registered in another state and 

would face criminal charges if he came to the polls. 

People For the American Way responded to additional complaints around the 

country through our Election Protection coalition. In Pima County, Arizona, we received several reports that a group of people,claiming to be with the ‘‘United States 

Constitution Enforcement (USCE), ‘‘appeared at various polling locations under the 

pretext of preventing illegal immigrants from voting fraudulently. In reality, these 

actions were intended to intimidate Latino voters. 

In Dona Ana County, New Mexico a voter received several campaign phone calls 

telling her to vote at a polling place that didn’t exist. Further, in Accomack and 

Northampton Counties in Virginia, Democratic voters received phone calls from purported election officials advising that they shouldn’t need to vote on Election Day 

and that they’d be prosecuted if they showed up at the polls. Unfortunately, these 

are typical complaints that PFAWF and the Election Protection Coalition have received for the past three federal elections. 

We are extremely appreciative of the Chairman’s efforts to put an end to such 

widespread abuse. At the same time, we must be diligent about protecting voters’ 

rights once they get to the voting booth. If voters don’t have the confidence in the 

electoral process, how can we encourage voters to show up at the polls? Lack of 

voter confidence in the voting process has effectively become another suppression 

tactic, leading people to stay away from the polls because they don’t believe their 

votes will count. 

People For the American Way Foundation’s Election Protection work exposed 

many problems related to voter registration, provisional ballots and faulty voting 

technology. Inadequate statewide voter registration databases and the implementation of burdensome third-party registration requirements led to countless voters 

being challenged and forced to vote on provisional ballots—or at times, being denied 

the right to vote to outright. Overly restrictive voter identification and registration 

laws implemented in states across the country are obstructing Americans’ ability to 

register and to vote. Under the guise of limiting fraud—of which there is little evidence—state legislatures have passed new laws saddling voter registration organizations with regulations that are frivolous, onerous, or both. 

Voters are continually denied the right to vote, even by provisional ballot, by inadequately trained poll workers. Election Protection volunteers were usually able to 

remedy these situations, but it is a continuing problem that must be addressed. 

The use of non-secure and unauditable voting technology is also particularly troubling. As a result of the 2006 HAVA deadlines, the widespread replacement of older 

voter technology meant more voters and poll workers throughout the nation used 

new voting systems in 2006 than in any previous election. With so many counties 

using new voting systems for the first time, the number of voting machine problems 

increased dramatically over 2004. In fact, complaints about voting machines outnumbered all other complaints reported to Election Protection, and voters in more 

than 35 states reported various problems related to voting machines. 

Perhaps the most egregious example was the fiasco that took place in Sarasota 

County, Florida. In the November election, Sarasota County used paperless, 

unauditable electronic voting machines in the race to succeed Katherine Harris in 

Florida’s 13th Congressional district. The county’s voting machines failed to register 

a vote for approximately 18,000 voters in that race—more than one out of every 

seven voters who attempted to vote on the machines. Even though almost 15 percent of the voters in Sarasota County saw their votes disappear in this election, the 

state certified the winner by a margin of only 369 votes—less than 0.2 percent of 

the total vote. 

These 18,000 Sarasota County citizens whose votes are missing put a human face 

on the substantial flaws that remain in our election system, and should encourage 

44

Members on both sides of the aisle to pass legislation with adequate funding in time 

for the upcoming 2008 Presidential Election. PFAW strongly believes that it is paramount for Congress move to pass legislation that will require the use of secure systems that provide verifiable, auditable, and accessible voting. The status quo is not 

acceptable. 

In addition to the legislation already introduced by the chairman, PFAW has supported other election reform legislation in the past, and we look forward to pending 

re-introductions of these important bills. 

PFAW supported the Chairman’s Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2005, which takes a comprehensive approach to addressing election reform problems, and we will continue to support the Chair should he move 

forward with similar legislation in this Congress. 

PFAW also looks forward to supporting an updated version of Congresswoman 

Stephanie Tubbs Jones’s election reform bill, the Count Every Vote Act of 2005 

(CEVA), which takes a similar comprehensive approach. While these comprehensive 

bills address a range of necessary voting reforms, PFAW is equally supportive of 

more focused proposals such as Congressman Rush Holt’s bill, the Voter Confidence 

and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007, H.R. 811. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and for your steadfast commitment to addressing the urgent issue of election reform. I feel that with 

the support of congressional leaders such as yourself, the necessary momentum is 

growing to put reforms in place in time for the 2008 elections. 

As you know, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. often used the phrase, ‘‘The 

urgency of now.’’ At People For the American Way, we feel the urgency of now with 

regard to election reform. The clock is ticking, and we promise we will do all we 

can to advance the cause of timely election reform. We are firmly committed to 

working with Members of Congress and its coalition allies to ensuring that electoral 

reform is a priority. 

Thank you.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. 

Donna Brazile is well-known for her career on Capitol Hill. She 

worked for the Congress, she has worked in the civil rights movement. She is now teaching at a college and is writing extensively. 

And we welcome her for her comments on a subject to which she 

has been committed across the years. 

TESTIMONY OF DONNA L. BRAZILE, CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S VOTING RIGHTS INSTITUTE, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Ms. BRAZILE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this 

Committee. It is a great honor to be here and to be on this side 

of the table and not having to prepare all of the materials that I 

know that goes into the work of the staff. 

I am here on behalf of the Democratic National Committee’s Voting Rights Institute, which was founded in 2001 following the chaotic election in Florida to help every American participate in the 

political process. 

Like Ralph Neas, I want to thank this Committee for guiding 

and helping to steer through the Congress the Fannie Lou Hamer, 

Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Reauthorization and 

Amendments Act of 2006. Forty-two years after the heroic marchers tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge only to be met with 

ugly violence, we continue to celebrate their courage and honor 

what they marched for. 

That says a lot about our country that we own up to our struggles, that we acknowledge we haven’t always done what we should, 

and that we commit ourselves to press ahead and to move forward 

to remove any new impediment of vestiges of a previous era that 

45

prevented eligible citizens from participating in the electoral process. 

Mr. Chairman, after the 2000 election, we committed ourselves 

at the Democratic National Committee to eliminate any problems 

we saw at the ballot box and to recruit lawyers and volunteers to 

assist us in educating Americans of their right to vote. 

In the process, during the last political cycle, we heard from 

30,000 Americans who needed our assistance and guidance in locating their polling places, understanding their right to vote by absentee ballot, early voting or provisional ballots. Many voters also 

called to express their concerns about voting with new technology, 

identification requirements and knowing whether or not their votes 

would be counted. 

The history of racial discrimination at the ballot box is long and 

it is appalling. Our electoral system is rife with problems, problems 

that can be solved and eliminated with proper training of election 

administrators, proper funding to educate eligible citizens on their 

right to vote and the elimination of barriers that continue to impede citizens’ involvement in the electoral arena. 

I fully support H.R. 1281 and its companion bill in the Senate, 

because I believe this legislation, if enacted and implemented properly, will eliminate both partisan tactics that the press turn out, 

as well as some of the structural barriers that eliminate people 

from the voter rolls right before the election. 

We learned in our own experience in Ohio, following the 2004 

presidential election where we conducted a very comprehensive 

study, that 23 percent of all citizens in that State (44 percent of 

African-American voters in Ohio) waited more than 20 minutes to 

vote; 3 percent had to leave the polling place because of long lines; 

2 percent had to go to more than one polling site before finding the 

correct location; 6 percent of all voters (16 percent of African-Americans) reported experiencing some sort of intimidation at the polls; 

and 2 percent of all voters (4 percent of African-Americans) had 

trouble getting their absentee ballot or their registration status 

challenged at the polls. 

Even with the Help America Vote Act, which was supposed to 

fully eliminate some of our problems, we saw problems across the 

board in the last electoral cycle. Congressman Cardin, Senator 

Obama and many others pointed out some of these problems, but 

let me just also highlight others. 

Registered voters in Virginia, Mr. Scott’s home State, received 

automated phone calls falsely claiming that voters in that State 

were removed from voter registration rolls and should not show up. 

Citizens were warned that if they showed at the polls, they would 

be arrested. 

In Arizona, Latino voters were confronted by intimidating gunmen who provided false information about the qualifications for 

voting in an effort to prevent eligible citizens from participating. 

And in 2006, we also had voters in Ohio and in Pennsylvania 

who received flyers telling them to vote on Wednesday, the day 

after election. Milwaukee voters received flyers from a fictitious 

Milwaukee Black Voter League warning them if they ever voted before that year, if they hadn’t paid their child support or if anyone 

46

in their family had ever been convicted of anything, they should 

not show up at the polls. 

Students at Prairie View College in Texas were threatened with 

a $10,000 fine or 10 years in prison if they registered to vote at 

school, despite having the same rights as any other Prairie View 

resident to participate. Students at colleges and universities across 

the country complained that they had difficulty in casting their ballots on campus and getting their absentee ballots on time. 

These deceptive tactics are not new. They have become part of 

the political landscape and it is time that we outlaw them. Under 

the guise of protecting against voter fraud, we now are prepared 

to wage an even greater fraud by deliberately blocking eligible citizens from voting. 

The aggressive proponents of so-called ballot security programs 

have played a significant role in voter suppression, sending officiallooking personnel, some of whom are off duty police officers, to polling places using misinformation and fear campaigns to challenge 

and intimidate minority voters. 

These intimidating and disenfranchising tactics have been employed by a wide range of political operatives, many of whom are 

prominent in their own political parties, and they, of course, have 

gotten away with it. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to submit for the record my testimony 

along with some of the reports on some of the ballot security programs and measures that have been instituted across the country 

and would hope that this Committee look into these problems so 

that we can eliminate them from further use in future elections. 

Mr. CONYERS. Without objection, we will accept those into the 

record. 

[Note: A report entitled Report by the Center for Voting Rights & 

Protection, submitted by Ms. Brazile, is not reprinted here but a 

copy has been retained in the official Committee hearing record. 

This report may also be found at http://www.votelaw.com/blog/

blogdocs/GOPlBallotlSecuritylPrograms.pdf.] 

Ms. BRAZILE. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have my mother with me—

she is here with me in spirit—but I just want to say in closing, we 

have to find ways to clean up our electoral system. We don’t have 

national elections; we have 51 elections managed and operated by 

13,000 municipalities, countless local government authorities and 

volunteers. So our system is rife with problems, rife with misinformation that is often given out. 

As you well know, Mr. Chairman, there are 21 so-called swing 

States with margin of victories that are so narrow that these sort 

of tactics can change the entire outcome of an election. 

So the continuing problems faced by the voters at the polls demand action, they demand results, and I believe H.R. 1281 will address some of these practices and finally help us clean up our electoral cycle so that we can have in this Nation the gold standard 

of elections that most other nations look to us to provide. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions and 

your comments later. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brazile follows:]

47

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONNA L. BRAZILE

Mr. Chairman, members of this Committee, my name is Donna Brazile and I am 

the Chair of the Democratic National Committee’s Voting Rights Institute (VRI) and 

a member of the its Rules and Bylaws Committee. I’m honored to be here on behalf 

of Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). 

Many thanks for giving me this opportunity to present my testimony to this Committee and thank you for your leadership in the 109th Congress in guiding the reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 

While the right to vote is our most precious right and the cornerstone of our democracy, our government policies often fail to encourage voting, and by failing to 

adopt the principle that voter participation is encouraged and facilitated, the election process has been left open to discrimination, intimidation of those who are new 

to the process, fraud and abuse. 

Soon after the tragic death of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I was inspired 

to service by committing myself to helping others register and vote. Although I was 

only nine years old at the time, I became excited about the opportunity to help register people in my neighborhood to vote by simply telling them they now had ‘‘new 

rights on the books’’ that would allow Black people to vote. Day after day, I would 

ride my bicycle all around Kenner, Louisiana—a suburb of New Orleans to inform 

people of their moral obligation to vote. I told them that while many of us were too 

young to march for voting rights, we needed them to register and vote in order to 

help improve conditions in our neighborhood. 

You see, one of the local leaders running for City Council had promised to build 

a playground in our area and that news gave me hope—hope that one day we could 

play basketball inside because it rained just about every day. 

Today, after seven presidential, over fifty congressional and numerous state and 

local campaigns later, I am still out here urging people to register to vote, to get 

involved and to use their new political power to improve conditions in their communities. But, I must tell you, I am worried. I am troubled by what I have seen with 

my own eyes and what I have witnessed repeatedly in several major national elections—the deliberate attempt to disenfranchise and discourage people from exercising their right to participate in the political process. 

The rise in voter harassment and voter intimidation is a direct result of some political operatives—often with the blessing of their political leaders trying to gain an 

electoral advantage at the ballot box. In fact, they call it ballot security—a practice 

that according to a report written by Rice University’s Professor Chandler Davidson 

and others on behalf of the Center for Voting Rights and Protection—has its origins 

in the old ‘‘Jim Crow systems.’’

This practice of discouraging people from voting, from schemes that misinform or 

challenge the electoral status of eligible citizens to participate should be outlawed 

in this nation. 

There is no place in our democracy for election practices that target citizens based 

on the color of their skin or their partisan affiliation. It’s wrong and it should be 

outlawed. 

There is no place in our democracy for last minute attempts to purge eligible citizens just because they may vote for your opponent. It’s wrong and it should be outlawed. 

There is no place for off duty, uniformed policemen setting up road blocks near 

polling sites that could impede the ability of eligible, registered citizens to cast their 

ballots. It’s wrong and it should be outlawed. 

There is no place in our democracy for political operatives posing as reporters 

with cameras outside of polling places in order to intimidate voters prior to entering 

their precincts. It’s wrong and it should be outlawed. 

There’s no place in our democracy for demanding multiple forms of id when the 

law only requires one—or none. It’s wrong and it should be outlawed. 

There is no place in our democracy for political parties to fund third party groups 

who spend their resources by putting out misinformation on precinct locations—or 

for sending out threatening information concerning back rent payment, child support or even telling voters that Election Day has been moved to the following Tuesday. It’s wrong and should be outlawed. 

Throughout my career spanning many political campaigns and numerous elections 

at all levels, I have advocated the need for meaningful and effective election reform, 

specifically, the essential need to restore citizens’ confidence in the electoral process 

and the integrity of our voting systems through the adoption of enforceable regulations that will not only reduce fraud, but will also protect the right of all Americans 

to vote free of harassment and intimidation and to ensure that all votes cast are 

properly counted. 

48

In signing the original Voting Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson remarked 

that ‘‘voting is the lifeblood of our democracy.’’ The core of our democracy is premised upon our duty to do everything in our power to make voting secure, open, 

transparent and easier for citizens to participate. No one should have to pay a fee 

or incur hardship in order to exercise the right to vote. 

The Democratic National Committee’s Voting Rights Institute (VRI) was created 

in the aftermath of the chaotic 2000 Presidential election to educate citizens on 

their right to vote and to help restore voters’ confidence in our electoral system. As 

Democrats, we believe that every eligible voter should be encouraged to participate 

in the political process and that their right to vote should be protected. We condemn 

every act of voter intimidation and voter harassment. 

This past weekend, we were reminded of the continued struggle to fulfill the 

promise of our democracy, when civil rights, community and nationally recognized 

political leaders gathered in Selma, Alabama to commemorate the 42nd anniversary 

of Bloody Sunday, a day when hundreds of protesters fighting for civil rights started 

to march from Selma to Montgomery, but only got as far as the Edmund Pettus 

Bridge when they were met with the unprovoked brutal force of state and local law 

enforcement. This march and two others that followed shortly after led to the passage of the single most important piece of civil rights legislation, the Voting Rights 

Act of 1965. 

In the 42 years since the passage of this historic legislation, this country has seen 

much progress in the expression of our democracy. It is estimated that in the first 

decade alone, following the Voting Rights Act, more than 20 million new voters were 

added to the rolls. The number of minority elected officials at the state and federal 

level has increased significantly. Prior to the passage of the voting rights act, there 

were only 3 African American members of Congress; today there are 43. In the reauthorization and extensions, the Voting Rights Act was strengthened and expanded 

to provide language assistance to certain communities. This in turn has helped voters to participate in a meaningful way in our democracy. 

When President Bush signed the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott 

King Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, surrounded by 

a bi-partisan group of lawmakers who worked collegially, he pledged that his administration would ‘‘vigorously enforce the provisions of this law, and . . . will defend 

it in court.’’ We intend to hold not only this President and Congress but also future 

Presidents accountable to ensure that our basic rights are protected and enforced. 

Despite considerable efforts and progress in recent decades, it is undeniable that 

storm clouds of voter intimidation still loom today. This is evidenced by the deliberate strategic efforts to suppress and harass eligible citizens from voting, especially 

youth and people of color. 

In the weeks leading up to the 2004 presidential election, the VRI heard numerous reports from citizens claiming that they no longer were on the voter rolls and 

had to cast provisional ballots or their voting precinct had changed and they were 

worried that they could not get to the right polling station. Upon hearing some of 

these reports, I traveled to numerous states including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Florida and Ohio to learn firsthand what was happening and to ensure our 

voter education and protection program was providing some assistance to those who 

worried that their eligibility would be questioned or challenged. Still we heard problems and decided to figure out exactly what happened. 

We conducted a comprehensive investigative study to determine the nature and 

prevalence of the widely reported problems surrounding the 2004 Presidential Election in the state of Ohio. Very simply, we wanted to know: what was going on and 

what did voters experience when they went to cast their ballots? While Ohio may 

have experienced the most extreme and widespread problems, it can be viewed as 

a microcosm for what happened in numerous states. The types of problems reported 

in Ohio were reported in other states across the country. Mr. Chairman, I have attached a copy of this study for your review. 

In surveys conducted for the DNC study, over half of all African American voters 

in Ohio in 2004 reported that they encountered some obstacles to voting at the polls. 

Statewide, African American voters reported waiting an average of 52 minutes to 

cast a ballot. White voters waited an average of just 18 minutes. African Americans 

were 20% more likely than white voters to be required to vote by provisional ballot, 

accounting for 35% of all provisional ballots in the state. Three-quarters of provisional ballots were counted overall in the state, but officials counted only two-thirds 

of the provisional ballots cast in Cuyahoga County [the city of Cleveland), a county 

with one of the highest concentrations of African Americans in the state. 

Identification requirements were illegally administered and the effects varied significantly by race. Only voters who registered by mail and voters who did not provide identification on the registration form were legally required to produce ID, 

49

which accounts for less than 7% of the 2004 Ohio electorate. Fully 61% of male African American voters were asked for ID, and overall, African American voters were 

47% more likely to be required to show identification than white voters. These racial 

differences hold even when controlling for residential mobility. 

African Americans were four times more likely than white voters to have their 

registration status changed at the polls, arriving to find that their names had either 

been purged or never added. African Americans were three times more likely to experience voter intimidation than white voters, including misinformation campaigns 

that threatened arrest and up to 10 years in jail if a person who had ever been arrested, had a family member arrested, or had an unpaid parking ticket tried to vote. 

No one should wait for an hour to vote, or be illegally asked to produce ID, or 

have to cast a provisional ballot without cause. But those precincts where voters 

have been forced to wait in line for hours in order to vote have historically been 

located in neighborhoods occupied by large numbers of poor people, people of color 

and young people. While many decisions, ranging from where to place polling sites, 

training election day workers and accessibility to public transportation, are left to 

local and state officials, it’s imperative that we find ways to outlaw all forms of discrimination in the process of making these important decisions. 

In 2000, we heard of, and in some cases witnessed, various illegal schemes that 

prevented tens of thousands from voting and discouraged many more with attempts 

to disenfranchise citizens from voting. 

Prior to Election Day, the former Secretary of State of Florida authorized the 

purging of citizens—primarily African-American and Latino voters. Up to 30 percent 

of those purged were located in predominantly Democratic and minority voter precincts. My sister who resided in Seminole county (Orlando, Florida) called me early 

on Election Day and asked, ‘‘How many forms of I.D. do I need to vote?’’ My simple 

answer was to tell her only one. Unfortunately on that day, Demetria had to 

produce not one, nor two, but three forms of ID in order to vote. 

In spite of the heightened attention that voter disenfranchisement has received 

since the 2004 election, we continue to see disturbing illegal voter suppression campaigns. The reality is that voter ID laws that go beyond the requirements of HAVA 

disenfranchise many lawfully registered voters. And, they do so in a discriminatory 

fashion, disproportionately undermining the voting rights of seniors, low-income citizens, minorities, young people and people who live in urban and rural areas. Voting 

laws are unevenly and often improperly enforced by election officials. 

According to the Cuyahoga Election Review Panel Interim Report issued on June 

14, 2006, there was a disparity in Ohio between those who were asked for identification: 35 percent of Clevelanders said they were asked for ID as opposed to 16 percent of suburban residents, and 31 percent of African American voters were required 

to present ID in contrast to 18 percent of white voters. These findings mirror those 

of the DNC’s report on the 2004 election in Ohio. The Cuyahoga report can be found 

at http://www.cuyahogavoting.org/CERP—Final—Report—20060720.pdf. 

In October of 2006, the campaign of a Republican candidate for the 47th Congressional District of California sent thousands of intimidating letters written in Spanish to voters with Hispanic surnames. These letters advised that immigrants could 

not vote and could be deported for doing so. The letters deliberately concealed the 

fact that immigrants who become naturalized citizens can vote just like any other 

citizen. 

In Maryland, just days before the 2006 general election, copies of the Election Day 

manual for the Maryland Republican Party were obtained; in that manual, Republican Party workers were given false information about voters’ rights, were told systematically to challenge voters and were advised to threaten election judges with 

jail time. On Election Day in Maryland, flyers were distributed in Prince George’s 

County, by the Ehrlich/Steele Republican campaign, falsely stating that African 

American elected officials had endorsed the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate 

and for Governor and misleading voters about the party affiliation of those candidates. 

Registered voters in Virginia and Colorado received automated phone calls falsely 

claiming they were removed from the voter registration rolls. Citizens were then 

warned that if they showed up at the polls they would be arrested. In Arizona, 

Latino voters were confronted by intimidating gunmen who provided false information about the qualifications for voting in an effort to prevent eligible voters from 

participating. 

These tactics are not new. 

In 2004 voters from Ohio to Pennsylvania received fliers telling them to vote on 

Wednesday, the day after the election. Milwaukee voters received a flier from the 

fictitious ‘‘Milwaukee Black Voters League’’ warning them that if they had ever 

voted before that year, if they didn’t pay their child support or if ‘‘anyone in your 

50

family has ever been convicted of anything’’ and the voter cast a ballot that voter 

will lose his/her children and go to jail for 10 years. Students at Prairie View A&M 

University were threatened with a $10,000 fine or 10 years in prison if they registered to vote at school, despite having the same rights as any other Prairie View 

resident to participate. Students at colleges and Universities across the country 

were forced to navigate an already difficult election administration system in the 

face of similar deliberate deception. 

For years, voters in Baltimore and my home state Louisiana have been subject 

to similar deceit and misinformation. As I mentioned before, nearly all of these tactics are focused on traditionally disenfranchised voters. The very Americans the Voting Rights Act is committed to protecting are being removed from the system 

through cynicism, deceit and misinformation. 

The continuing problems faced by voters at the polls demand additional election 

reform measures, including steps aimed at addressing the kind of deceptive practices, specifically intended to intimidate voters that we witnessed in the 2006 elections. HR 1281, the proposed Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention 

Act of 2007, would represent a great step forward in outlawing theses kinds of abhorrent practices while protecting and respecting the rights of free political discourse protected by the First Amendment. We commend you, Mr. Chairman, and 

the co-sponsors of this important legislation for confronting head on the type of intimidating tactics we witnessed last fall and for carefully crafting these measures 

to put an end to them. 

We cannot allow another election cycle to go by where we witness deliberate efforts to subvert the will of voters to vote for their candidate of choice. 

This necessary legislation will not only provide the tools to go after those who 

want to manipulate election results but will provide the necessary framework to 

provide voters with the correct information from a trusted source. 

The United States has never committed itself to policies of full voter participation. 

The failure of that commitment has made it easier for discriminatory practices that 

selectively disenfranchise certain citizens, in order to give a greater voice to remaining citizens. Until participation by all eligible voters is our goal, we will leave ourselves open to manipulation, election scandal and suppression of selected groups because we are not judging those policies against a principle that favors participation. 

The United States of America must lead by example. While the US encourages 

other nations to adopt broad democratic principles and reform, we need to make a 

basic policy decision that it is in the best interest of our democratic form of government to encourage all eligible citizens to register and vote. We know that election 

laws, particularly in some states, emphasize voting prevention, rather than encouraging the participation of all citizens who have that right. That is one reason why 

voter participation in the United States is lower than that in many other leading 

democracies. By contrast, election participation in six states that provide same-day 

voter registration—Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Wyoming—have reported higher levels of participation with little or no reported election 

fraud. 

The failure to commit to full participation continues to allow states and localities 

to abrogate the constitutional guarantees of democracy and selectively decide who 

has an easier and who has a harder time voting. 

Aggressive proponents of ‘‘ballot security’’ programs have played a significant role 

in voter suppression, sending ‘‘official looking’’ personnel (some of whom are off-duty 

police officers) to polling places, using misinformation and fear campaigns to challenge and intimidate minority voters. These intimidating and disfranchising tactics 

have been employed by a wide range of Republicans, many of whom are prominent 

professionals and high official standing within the Republican Party. Legislation requiring voter ID only assists these reprehensible tactics. 

Proposed and existing voter ID laws make voting more difficult for no compelling 

reason. The fact is that all voters, in all states, have to show identification in order 

to register to vote. Under the federal Help America Vote Act (‘‘HAVA’’), all states 

require first time voters who do not present ID when they register to vote to show 

it when they come to the polls to vote. Thus, it is given that voters who register 

by mail and those who are registered in door-to-door voter drives must show ID 

when they arrive at the polls to vote. The reality is that voter ID laws that go beyond the requirements of HAVA disenfranchise many lawfully registered voters. 

And, they do so in a discriminatory fashion, disproportionately undermining the voting rights of seniors, low-income citizens, minorities, young people and people who 

live in urban and rural areas. Voting laws are unevenly and often improperly enforced by election officials. 

51

CLOSING RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE NEED FOR ELECTION REFORM

Let me conclude with some of the recommendations recently adopted at the winter 

meeting of the DNC to ensure a fair, transparent and error free election. We support legislation and regulation that mandates transparent election administration 

and that would require voter registration lists mandated under the Help America 

Vote Act be carefully monitored to ensure they include all voters who are duly registered and that the strongest possible protections are implemented which prevent 

voters from unlawful purges; 

We also support legislation and regulations that entitle any voters who cast provisional ballots in the 2008 federal elections to have these ballots counted in an equitable and inclusive manner, with a presumption in favor of validity and a clear 

mandate that provisional ballots shall be counted in the most generous possible 

manner. We believe that adequate funds should be made available under HAVA for 

states to effectively and equally administer the 2008 general election. Steps toward 

this goal would include the equitable distribution of voting equipment and supplies 

to all polling places and brief and equivalent wait times for all voters regardless of 

where they live, their race or socioeconomic status. 

The DNC also believes that ballots timely cast by eligible U.S. voters living overseas should be counted. Further, we call on Congress to allow college students greater access to the polls and ensure that the polls are accessible to all eligible voters, 

regardless of physical or language limitation. 

Lastly, we would like to encourage Secretaries of State and other election officials 

not to engage in partisan conduct during federal elections. We urge the House to 

adopt legislation to end voter intimidation and to prevent the harassment of eligible 

citizens from participating in the political process. 

Mr. Chairman, there are several bills pending in the House of Representatives 

and the U.S. Senate, including HR 1281, which, if adopted, will make great headway in achieving these goals. Let me say specifically that as a District resident, I 

fully support Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton’s bill, H.R. 328, which will 

provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional District for 

purposes of representation in the House of Representatives. The call for voting 

rights to the hundreds of thousand of tax paying American citizens is long overdue. 

I would hope this Congress, along with the President, will work towards its enactment and to fully embrace the goal of giving all Americans a voice and a vote in 

the governing of our nation. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe we can make our democracy work for all its citizens. In 

my lifetime, I have seen barriers fall. I witnessed a non-violent revolution to allow 

all Americans at seat at the political table. In closing, please allow me to pay homage to those who dared to live the dream, who longed for freedom and the right to 

vote. When those brave Americans gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge some 42 

years ago today, all they wanted was freedom. They wanted a seat at the table and 

they wanted to register and participate in the electoral life of our democracy. 

Along the way, they were beaten and jailed. But they never faltered in their journey. They continued to fight for justice and the right to vote. Later that summer, 

they began a massive voter registration effort in places where people didn’t even 

know they could, in theory, vote. 

We have come along way since then. One of those who journeyed across that 

bridge now sits in the House of Representatives. I am here because they marched. 

Because they knew the day would come for all of us to have a seat at the table. 

Mr. Chairman, please act to remove the remaining impediments to the dream of 

true equality for all. Remove the last vestiges of Jim Crow and allow every eligible 

citizen the right to vote, to sit at the table and help guide and lead this nation. 

African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans, women, gays 

and lesbians, people with disabilities and people of all backgrounds sit in jobs, live 

in homes, and hold positions that would have been unthinkable four decades ago. 

To honor their legacy and the sacrifice of so many others, to live up to the expectation of the generations of Americans who constantly pushed us to realize America’s full promise as a democracy, we must take up this fight to eliminate all barriers to electoral participation. 

All Americans—no matter their party—must join us in repairing the machine of 

our democracy, and the heart of our nation. 

Thank you for allowing me to participate and share my observations. 

LIST OF SOURCES REFERENCED AND ARTICLES IN THE MEDIA:

• A Report to the Center for Voting Rights & Protection, September 2004 by Chandler Davidson, Tanya Dunlap, Gale Kenny, and Benjamin Wise ‘‘Republican Ballot Security Programs: Vote Protection or Minority Vote Suppression’’;

52

• Associated Press, ‘‘Democrats blast GOP lawmaker’s ‘suppress the Detroit vote’ remark,’’ Detroit Free Press, 21 July 2004);

• Democratic National Committee, June 2005 ‘‘Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio’’ http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/democracy—at—ri.php;

• Demos 2003, ‘‘Securing the Vote, An Analysis of Election Fraud http://

www.demos.org/pubs/EDRl-lSecuringlthelVote.pdf’’;

• Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Report by The National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, February 2006 ‘‘Highlights of Hearings of the 

National Commission on the Voting Rights Act 2005’’ http://

www.votingrightsact.org/report/finalreport.pdf;

• People for the American Way Foundation, August 2006, ‘‘The New Face of Jim 

Crow: Voter Suppression in America’’. Crowhttp://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/

default.aspx?oid=20203#;

• Race and Ethnic Ancestry Law Digest 2 (Spring 1996), Rachel E. Berry, ‘‘Democratic National Committee v. Edward J. Rollins: ‘‘Politics as usual or Unusual Politics?’’ pp 42–46;

• The Cuyahoga Election Review Panel Interim Report issued June 14, 2006 http:/

/www.cuyahogavoting.org/CERPlFinallReportl20060720.pdf.

ATTACHMENT

CONTROVERSY GREETS EARLY VOTING

By Judy Normand/OF THE COMMERCIAL STAFF 

Tuesday, October 20, 2002 12:00 AM CDT

Early voters were met Monday at the Jefferson County Courthouse by poll watchers from the Republican Party of Arkansas who demanded identification and challenged voter ballots. 

The Democrats’ ‘‘Team Arkansas’’ had barely concluded its early vote rally across 

the street from the Courthouse when the trouble began. 

Under the watchers’ eyes, both voters and county officials received what they 

called unexpected—and unnecessary—scrutiny of the election process. 

Trey Ashcraft, chairman of the Jefferson County Election Commission, said it was 

obvious the Republicans’ actions were targeting African-Americans. 

In a press release, Michael Cook, executive director for the Democratic Party of 

Arkansas, criticized Sen. Tim Hutchinson and the Republican Party for intimidating 

and harassing African-American voters in Jefferson County and for giving the poll 

watchers notarized credentials he said were apparently forged. 

‘‘Their papers did not seem to be in order,’’ Ashcraft said. 

‘‘Tim Hutchinson and the Republican Party have claimed that they want to reach 

out to African-American voters, but when election time comes they have nothing to 

offer but intimidation and harassment,’’ Cook said. ‘‘We ask Tim Hutchinson and 

his party to stop disenfranchising African-American voters and obstructing the 

democratic process.’’

During Monday’s voting, poll watchers were seen asking voters to either produce 

identification or risk having their ballots challenged. 

‘‘A voter does not have to show an ID as long as it’s noted on the ballot,’’ Secretary 

of State Sharon Priest said. ‘‘They (poll watchers) can challenge a ballot, but they 

cannot ask for an ID or even talk to the voters.’’

Several voters received pointed requests from poll watcher Allison Johnson to 

produce identification, and refused—a right, Priest said, that is protected by law. 

Voter Bonita McCray also refused the ID request, saying ‘‘When she insisted, I 

put my ID back in my purse. They had no right to do this.’’

Officials in the clerk’s office said several would-be voters became so frustrated and 

offended by the process that they left without casting a vote. Deputy Clerk Charlotte Munson reported a poll watcher had actually walked behind her counter to 

photograph voter information on her computer screen. 

The watcher, she said, also asked for identification from, and then photographed, 

a first-time voter who was visibly shaken by the action. 

‘‘This woman (a poll watcher) was looking over my shoulder, and this is my business, not hers,’’ the agitated voter said later. 

53

Poll watcher Chris Carnahan admitted a colleague had been using photography 

to document aspects of the voting process, but said he did advise the person to put 

away the camera. 

‘‘We’re here to ensure a clean and fair election,’’ he said. 

Johnson also accused a deputy clerk of not requesting IDs from prospective voters 

and said workers had no challenge ballots prepared. 

‘‘They refused to accept challenge ballots,’’ Johnson said. 

Ashcraft said this was not true. He was unable to say exactly how many ballots 

were challenged, but said there had been ‘‘several.’’

Ashcraft said he was disappointed in the Republican ‘‘Gestapo’’ tactics. 

‘‘They’re trying to intimidate and prevent voters from participating in the Democratic process,’’ Ashcraft said. ‘‘The registered voters feel insecure and the photos 

are inexcusable. They (Republicans) know they can’t win, so they’re trying to steal 

this election. This is politics at its worst. They’re breaking the law and it’s disgusting.’’

At least twice, Ashcraft summoned a deputy from the Jefferson County Sheriff’s 

Office to escort ‘‘watcher’’ Diane Jones out of the clerk’s office for what he said was 

definite interference with the voting process. 

Cook said the tactics used by the Republican workers clearly crossed the line from 

poll watcher to voter obstruction. 

Marty Ryall, director of the Republican Party of Arkansas, said in a telephone 

interview that different groups of poll watchers will continue to be sent to the Jefferson County Courthouse each voting day until Nov. 5. Ashcraft countered with a 

promise to produce ‘‘watchers’’ of his own—of the Democratic persuasion.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much, Donna Brazile. We are grateful for your being with us. 

And we now turn to Eve Sandberg, associate professor of politics 

at Oberlin College, a member of the council in her city, and who 

has carefully observed the election processes in Ohio in 2004 and 

2006 as well. 

We welcome you. And your statement will be incorporated in its 

entirety in the record. And we are glad that you are here as well. 

TESTIMONY OF EVE SANDBERG, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF 

POLITICS, OBERLIN COLLEGE 

Ms. SANDBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. My 

name is Eve Sandberg, and I live in Oberlin, Ohio. I teach in the 

Politics Department at Oberlin College. I am also an elected official 

serving as an at-large city council in the city of Oberlin. 

Like many Ohioans, I was vitally involved in the election processes in 2004 and 2006. Thank you for the opportunity to offer my 

perspective and relate what I heard and saw happening in Ohio 

during the last few elections. 

I want to note that my comments today will demonstrate my 

view that the Republican Party leadership of Ohio involved themselves in practices that undermined a fair and democratic electoral 

process. However, when these activities were revealed, often we 

found that many Ohioans who were supporters of the Republican 

Party cooperated with Democrats to rectify what they recognized to 

be dishonorable electoral practices. 

My remarks today should not be construed as an attack on Republicans but rather on those Ohio Republicans who played leadership in their party’s recent election and on those Republicans who 

continue to deny the irregularities and undermining practices that 

marked Ohio’s recent elections. 

Regarding the registration process in Ohio in 2004 and again in 

2006, prior to the election, the Ohio secretary of state’s office, held 

by the Republican leadership, sent out mixed messages about votVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:04 Jun 15, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\030707\33810.000 HJUD1 PsN: 33810
54

ing rights. The secretary of state office, for example, let it be 

known that election officials would vigorously challenge out-ofState students who chose to vote in Ohio by requiring a photo identification card with a current voting address on that card. In 2004, 

such a requirement was not legal in Ohio. 

Students were not the only voters adversely affected during the 

registration process again, in 2006, by the changes of the requirements for voting. Poor people, the elderly who lacked or had given 

up their driver’s licenses, faced disenfranchisement as well from a 

requirement that they had to produce a photo ID in order to vote. 

Few voters have photo identifications other than driver’s licenses. 

Suppression of the vote became a campaign tactic that was debated in Ohio, as the Republican leadership in Ohio made the registration process a circus that prevented Americans who are entitled to vote from exercising their franchise. 

The voting processes in Ohio were undermined by manipulating 

the placement of voting machines and by unlawful challenges of a 

citizen’s right to vote. Despite data on the number of registered 

voters, heavily Democratic Party areas, particularly precincts with 

large numbers of African-American voters or student voters, were 

provided with so few voting machines that Ohioans in these precincts had to wait hours in line to vote; in Oberlin, up to 5 hours. 

Yet we heard not one report that any precinct in which voters who 

voted largely for Republicans received too few voting machines or 

suffered hours of voting in line. 

However, we also heard the Republican leadership celebrating 

the enormous Republican turnout. That is just too curious. 

In 2006, my current colleague on the Oberlin City Council, David 

Ashenhurst became a poll worker. He reports that the rules on provisional ballots that were used during the training of poll workers 

did not match the manual that the poll workers were given. Further, on the day of the 2006 election, a different set of rules was 

distributed at polling stations. The obvious observation here is that 

if there is confusion among poll workers, how is a voter supposed 

to satisfy the rules? 

In 2006, many absentee ballots were printed 2 weeks late and 

thus delivered late. Individuals had difficulty completing the ballots and returning them on time. At some polling places in 2006, 

again where residents mainly voted Democratic, in Cuyahoga 

County, the machine cards were inoperable when inserted into voting machines on the day of the election. It took hours to correct the 

situation and therefore the voting polls opened late. For many voters who had made arrangements to vote prior to going to work, it 

was not possible to do so. 

If there was any silver lining to the distressing reports of irregular or unlawful practices, it can seen in those voters who were 

able to devote 4 or more hours to waiting in line, who cherish democracy enough to demand the right to vote, regardless of how inconvenienced they were. 

Despite the cynicism and distrust created by the actions of our 

highest Ohio elected officials, the determination, patience and goodwill of the American citizenry in coping with adversity is admirable. Now, I hope the United States Congress, after hearing our 

testimony today, will restore our faith in our political leadership 

55

and work to restore free and fair election practices in Ohio and 

elsewhere throughout our country. 

I thank you for the honor of including my testimony today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sandberg follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EVE SANDBERG

INTRODUCTION

Good Afternoon. My name is Eve Sandberg and I live in Oberlin Ohio. I teach 

in the Politics Department at Oberlin College and I also am an elected official serving as an At-Large City Councilor in the City of Oberlin. Like many Ohioans, I was 

vitally involved with the election processes in 2000, 2004, and 2006. Thank you for 

the opportunity to offer my perspective and relate what I heard and saw happening 

in Ohio during the last few elections. It appears to me, and to thousands like me, 

that the election process in Ohio was undermined in so many points along the voting process that any fair-minded observer must conclude that the leadership of the 

party in power, the Ohio Republican Party leadership, used its public offices to influence the outcomes of the elections in Ohio through irregular and unlawful practices. 

Before I begin my testimony today I would like to contextualize my remarks with 

a few preliminary comments. The electoral contests in Ohio over the last six years 

have been bitterly partisan. I believe, however, that ensuring fair and free elections 

is a bipartisan responsibility and that addressing the reprehensible flaws in our 

electoral practices is a task that must be undertaken by the political leaders of all 

our political parties. 

I want to note that my comments today will demonstrate my view that the Republican Party leadership of Ohio involved themselves in practices that undermined a 

fair and democratic electoral process. However, when these activities were revealed, 

often we found that many Ohioans who were supporters of the Republican Party cooperated with Democrats to try to rectify what they recognized to be dishonorable 

electoral practices. My remarks today should not be construed as an attack on Republicans, but rather on those Ohio Republicans who played leadership roles in 

their party’s recent elections and on those Republicans who continue to deny the 

irregularities and undermining practices that marked Ohio’s recent elections. 

I also would like to note that, while living in Ohio, I am a strong Democratic partisan. Yet, when I first began to vote, I remember casting some of my first votes 

for Republican Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey and also for Gubernatorial Republican candidate, Richard Cahill, also of New Jersey. Additionally, my mother volunteered in the campaign for, and stuffed envelopes for Mr. Cahill. I come from a 

family that was comprised of classic swing voters. My brother, Mark, is a thoughtful 

voter who votes for the best possible candidate. My father voted for Senator John 

F. Kennedy in 1960, but he later voted for Presidential candidate, Richard Nixon. 

My father was an immigrant to this country and my mother grew up in an immigrant family. My family has always viewed democracy and democratic practices 

with the utmost respect. 

I also want to note that as a Politics professor and as a political consultant, I 

sometimes find myself abroad explaining the virtues of multi-party politics and 

democratic institutions. For example, in 2001 and again in 2002, I had the privilege 

of traveling to the Muslim Kingdom of Morocco with a team led by Seattle political 

consultant Cathy Allen. In Morocco we met with the Executive Boards of Morocco’s 

political parties to discuss strategies of targeting and messaging as the Moroccan 

party leaders prepared to contest their first free and fair elections. Our team also 

trained about 120 Moroccan women who hoped to run for parliament because Morocco’s electoral laws for women had recently changed. It pains me greatly as an 

American when I encounter foreigners overseas who offer their comments on the reported electoral corruption in the United States. Such reports support cynical antiAmericanism around the world. Over the years, I have learned that one of the best 

means by which the United States can promote democracy abroad is to lead by example. Acknowledging the flaws in our election processes and fixing our electoral 

system is a job that is in the interests of all Americans, both Democrat and Republican. My remarks today should be taken by fair-minded Republicans as well as by 

Democrats to mean that we must put our electoral house in order at home if we 

wish to model democracy abroad. 

Now let me tell you a little bit about what I saw and heard in Ohio’s recent elections in 2004 and 2006. Sadly, I report that to someone like me in a small town 

in Ohio, it appears that every aspect of the election process was undermined by a 

56

Republican Secretary of State’s office and by many in his employ: the registration 

process, the actual voting process, and the checks and balance procedures that are 

supposed to occur with bi-partisan participation after any election. 

THE REGISTRATION PROCESS

Let me begin with the registration process. We all know that pollsters have 

learned that college students on certain campuses, African Americans, and women, 

tended to vote in greater numbers for Democrats than for Republicans. If elections 

were being closely contested, it makes sense that if Ohio’s Republican leadership 

could eliminate—or suppress—the vote of these target voting groups by just a percentage point or two, Republicans might be able to squeak out a victory that otherwise they could not earn in a legally and fairly contested race. 

We know that the courts had ruled that college students are legally permitted to 

vote in the states in which they reside while attending college. Obviously, the only 

rule is that students can only vote once. If they vote in the state in which they are 

students, they cannot vote absentee in their home states. However in Ohio in 2004 

and again in 2006, prior to the election, the Ohio Secretary of State’s office held by 

the Republican leadership sent out mixed messages when our students at Oberlin 

College inquired about their voting rights. The Secretary of State’s office let it be 

known that election officials would vigorously challenge out-of-state students who 

chose to vote in Ohio by requiring a photo identification card with a current voting 

address on that card. In 2004, such a requirement was not legal in Ohio. Yet due 

to the confusion surrounding that rule, many of our out-of-state students worried 

as to whether or not their votes would be counted in Ohio. Student college photo 

identifications lack home addresses because students move around from dorm to 

dorm or to off-campus housing. In 2004, there was so much confusion about this 

issue, despite the law clearly stating that students had the right to vote in communities where they lived and attended college, that Oberlin College President Nancy 

Dye created a task force to discuss how to inform students of their voting rights so 

they would not be disenfranchised. Eventually, Oberlin College distributed a written 

guide to Oberlin College students. However, some out-of-state students at Oberlin 

College and probably many at other colleges throughout Ohio chose not to register 

in Ohio because they feared their vote would not be counted. Others were so confused that they did not register in Ohio and then learned that the deadline at home 

had passed for absentee voting in their home states. In 2004, these students were 

disenfranchised by a Republican Secretary of State. 

It is not the responsibility of Presidents of Colleges and Universities to publish 

documents that clarify and defend the rights of their students to vote in a free nation. Ohio boasts over 130 colleges and universities. How many thousands of students were affected, one can only wonder. Additionally, it seems that the confusion 

did not just affect students but also affected poll workers who, as I will discuss 

shortly, tried to enforce rules that did not exist, thus preventing some students, African Americans and other citizens from voting when they were legally entitled to 

do so. 

In 2006, the Republican leadership managed to put a photo identification requirement on the books in the final campaign period, causing enormous confusion prior 

to the election. Members of the League of Women Voters had trouble finding the 

rules as they struggled to write and publish their voting guides. One of my student 

advisees, Colin Koffel, hoped to publish a guide to voting procedures for students 

in one of our campus newspapers. Despite calling the Secretary of State’s office at 

various times prior to the election, this student had difficulty getting the Secretary 

of State’s office to identify any rules until the very last days before the election. 

Students were not the only voters adversely affected during the registration process by changes in the requirements for voting. Poor people and the elderly, who 

lacked or had given up their driver’s licenses, faced disenfranchisement as well from 

a requirement that they had to produce a photo identification in order to vote. Few 

voters have photo identifications other than driver’s licenses. ‘‘Suppression of the 

vote’’ became a campaign tactic that was debated in Ohio as the Republican Leadership in Ohio made the registration process a circus that prevented Americans who 

are entitled to vote from exercising their franchise. 

THE VOTING PROCESS ITSELF

The voting processes in Ohio were undermined by manipulating the placement of 

voting machines and by unlawful challenges of a citizen’s right to vote. Despite data 

on the number of registered voters, heavily Democratic Party areas, particularly 

precincts with large numbers of African American or student voters, were provided 

with so few voting machines that Ohioans in these precincts had to wait four, five, 

57

six, seven or more hours in line to vote. Yet, we heard not one report that any precinct in which voters voted largely for Republicans received too few voting machines 

or suffered hours of waiting on line. However, we also heard the Republican leadership celebrating the enormous Republican turnout. Curious. 

The lines for voting in 2004 were so long that, as one of my students, Frances 

Zlotnick, reported to me, she witnessed women with young children who came up 

to the line, looked at its length and said, ‘‘I can’t believe this. I want to vote, but 

I can’t stand here for hours with these kids.’’ We all know that women in a largely 

Democratic community are likely to vote Democratic. Not providing sufficient voting 

machines appeared to be a deliberate tactic to disenfranchise Democratic voters, including women with children. 

Professor Sandra Zagarell of Oberlin College’s English Department was trained 

as a Kerry for President Democratic Party Challenger and assigned to one polling 

station in Oberlin for the entire voting day. She observed the voting process from 

6:30 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Professor Zagarell reported that her polling station had 

lines of over three hundred people and the wait at times lasted five hours. I have 

included with my written testimony Professor Zagarell’s letter to the Oberlin Review

the week of the 2004 Presidential election as Appendix A. 

Early in the morning on election day 2004, when Professor Zagarell realized that 

there were too few voting machines she attempted to call the Secretary of State’s 

office to request more machines. The line was busy or no one answered. Repeatedly, 

the line was busy or no one answered. Believing that I might have more information 

about what to do and how her polling station might secure more voting machines, 

Professor Zagarell phoned me. I was in a suburban (exurbia) voting location and I, 

too, had been trained as a Kerry Democratic Party Challenger. When she called she 

was distressed. Some voters were leaving the polls as they had to go to work or attend classes. Oberlin has a substantial retirement community and people who are 

in their seventies, eighties or nineties cannot simply stand for four to five hours so 

that they can vote. She realized that many of the elderly in our community could 

lose their right to vote. I replied that all I knew was to call the Secretary of State’s 

office, which, of course, was Republican controlled. I said I would try to call on my 

cell phone on her behalf and we would hope that one of us would get through. In 

the suburban polling place to which I was assigned, most of the time there were 

no lines and empty machines. Infrequently, in this suburban polling place, a voter 

had to wait for another voter or two in front of him or her. I placed a call to the 

Secretary of State’s office. It was busy. I turned to my Republican counterpart, a 

gentleman who was a Bush Republican Party Challenger. We had been speaking 

throughout the morning and realized there was no need to demonize one another; 

we both just wanted a fair election. When I told my counterpart the problem, he 

said to me, I’ll call the Secretary of State’s office. I skeptically replied, ‘‘I don’t think 

you’ll get through.’’ His reply was telling. ‘‘They gave us our own number,’’ he told 

me. He got through on the first try. I was stunned as I realized that the Republicans had a system to assist their party from the Secretary of State’s office. American citizens who were Democrats could not expect equal treatment under the law. 

Another colleague of mine from Oberlin College, Psychology Professor Karen Sutton, was a Kerry Democratic Party Challenger assigned to Maple Heights, Ohio in 

the 2004 election. Her polling place had a substantial African American voting population. The poll workers, however, were white. Although Ohio law prohibits campaign signs 100 feet outside of a voting place, signs are often posted just beyond 

that point. The poll workers at this church forbid any Democratic signs from being 

posted on church property but allowed Republicans to post their signs beyond the 

100 foot mark. Inside the church, these official poll workers were no less biased. 

There was no legal need for a photo identification until the 2006 election but as Professor Sutton learned in 2004, when she walked away from the voting check-in 

table, a poll worker would ask any African American potential voter for a photo 

identification. If Sutton was attending to one voter explaining that it was his or her 

right to vote without the requested photo identification and looked over and saw a 

new challenge occurring at the check-in table, when she rushed back to the table, 

the poll worker pretended he/she had not made such a request. The poll workers 

were trained by Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State. 

One incredibly troubling allegation was reported to me the day after the election. 

A male Oberlin College student came up to me and said that he was told I would 

know what to do with his information. He had been sent with a few other Oberlin 

College students to leaflet at Kent State University. The precinct to which he was 

assigned was using punch card ballots. A punch card has a multitude of holes in 

it and you place it into a voting booth underneath a ballot that has candidate names 

listed on the ballot. The voter uses a ballot punch to punch a hole next to the names 

of each candidate for whom he or she votes. The voter sees the ballot hole and genVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:04 Jun 15, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\030707\33810.000 HJUD1 PsN: 33810
58

erally does not pay attention to the punch card below the ballot on which the vote 

is being cast by making a hole on the punch card when the ballot punch goes 

through to the card below. Voters generally do not pay attention to their punch 

cards because the cards have no writing, only holes on them. After punching a ballot, the voter just places the card through the slot of a closed voting can or box. 

This young man reported that a number of Kent State students came up to him 

and claimed that their punch cards were pre-punched for President Bush. If they 

voted for John Kerry, they would have had two Presidential punches on their card 

and their ballot would be spoiled; none of their votes would count. If they voted for 

President Bush, they would just make the hole already punched for Bush on their 

punch card a bit larger. Their ballot would not be spoiled and all their votes would 

be counted. I asked the male student if he took down the names of any of the Kent 

State students with whom he had spoken. He said he had not. I told him I was not 

certain what he could do. He should call the Secretary of State’s office and he should 

call the Democratic Party. Stupidly, I did not take down his name. It never occurred 

to me that I might be sitting here today. 

Many other troubling occurrences were reported as well. David Ashenhurst, a volunteer on election day in 2004 and currently an elected member of Oberlin City 

Council, reported that poll workers enforced illegal rules concerning when a person 

could vote if the voter had moved since the last election. In fact, questions about 

whether, or if, people were allowed to vote, vote provisionally, or vote in another 

precinct were contested all day. There were countless reports that in voting places 

with large numbers of Democratic voters the voting officials misconstrued the rules 

for provisional voting. Yet, if the rules were not followed as legally stipulated, a citizen’s provisional vote was disqualified at the County Board of Elections or wherever 

else the provisional votes were tallied. Ms. Palli Holubar, another Oberlin volunteer 

on election day 2004, worked during the election and afterwards helping to trace 

whether or not an individual’s provisional vote was ultimately counted. Across the 

state of Ohio, it was clear that many provisional votes were not ultimately counted 

and it was difficult for individuals to determine if they had been given correct information or misinformation that then resulted in their vote being disqualified. Ms. 

Holubar, who became a bit of an expert on provisional voting, reported that the procedures used by the Secretary of State offered voters with provisional ballots no confidence in our electoral system. 

In 2006, David Ashenhurst (noted above) became a poll worker in an effort to be 

able to offer authoritative and correct information to voters. However, he reports 

that the rules on provisional ballots that were used during the training of poll workers did not match the manuals that poll workers were given. Furthermore, on the 

day of the 2006 election, a different set of rules was distributed at polling stations. 

The obvious observation here is that if there is confusion among the poll workers 

and the rules are changed in the final hours prior to voting, how is a voter supposed 

to satisfy the rules and act in a way that protects his or her right to vote. Should 

a citizen who recently changed an address go to his or her old precinct where that 

person is on record, or should that person go to the new precinct? How many days 

prior to an election can a voter have moved without having to re-register? Should 

a voter with such a question even attempt to vote? 

A great number of Ohio voters decided to vote absentee in 2006 in order to avoid 

lines and also in the hopes that absentee ballots would be less likely than provisional ballots to be disqualified. However in 2006, many absentee ballots were printed (about) two weeks late and thus delivered late. In Oberlin, for example, absentee 

ballots arrived while students and faculty were on their fall break with many away 

from campus. These individuals had difficulty completing the ballots and returning 

them in time so that their ballots could be counted in the election. 

In 2006, there were also concerns in Ohio that parts of the state voted electronically with no paper trail to record the voting. In other parts of the state citizens 

voted electronically and the voting machines kept paper records. Still other Ohioans 

voted on punch cards. Professor Candace Hoke, a Cleveland State Law Professor 

and Director of the Center for Election Integrity, is also a member of the Republican 

Party. Professor Hoke has devoted much time to investigating Ohio’s voting alternatives and also its professional staff of poll workers. In addition to worrying about 

voting machines without proper paper trails, Professor Hoke has worried about finding ways to get younger people to work as poll workers on election days. Professor 

Hoke’s concern is that many poll workers are older, often retired citizens, who may 

be uncomfortable with assisting voters on electronic machines or with learning how 

to handle machine cards and other electronic related procedures. The practice in 

Ohio of hiring unemployed workers without sufficient screening to staff some polling 

places is also a concern. Ohio Democrats are particularly concerned when we read 

in the newspapers that such individuals are being assigned largely to polling places 

59

where the residents vote in large numbers for Democrats. If mistakes are made, we 

know it is likely to be Democratic votes that are disqualified. 

At some polling places in 2006 (again it seemed to be polls where residents mainly 

voted Democratic, such as in Cuyahoga County), the machine’s cards were inoperable when inserted into the voting machines on the day of the election. It took hours 

to correct the situation and therefore the voting polls opened late. For many voters 

who had made arrangements to vote prior to going to work, it was not possible to 

do so. 

Just as negative advertising has made an unwelcome entry into American campaigns, so ‘‘suppression of the opposition’s vote’’ by the leadership of the Ohio Republican Party and perhaps even voter theft now has entered election practices. And 

in the follow-up to elections, recounts are supposed to be open and transparent, but 

in Ohio we learned that this was far from the case. 

THE CHECKS AND BALANCE PROCEDURES AFTER THE ELECTION

Following the 2004 election of Bush vs. Kerry, I was contacted by so many distraught citizens that I rented a community center room in the City of Oberlin and 

held a meeting. On short notice, about 85 people attended. That day we heard many 

accounts of irregularities. We created an informal electronic listserve to report ongoing information concerning election practices. We also swapped information about 

recount efforts. 

A posting by one of our listserve contributors forwarded an email from a Richard 

Hayes Phillips who reported that in ‘‘Warren County, the administrative building 

was locked down on election night, all in the name of homeland security.’’ No independent persons were allowed to observe the vote count. 

Several members of our group of 85 volunteered to be official representatives of 

the Democratic Party in the recount efforts to see that fair tallies of votes had been 

reported. They were not always successful in their efforts. An email message from 

Damen Mroczek reported that: ‘‘The meeting (scheduled for 9:00) didn’t get underway until 9:35, at which point the Board came out. . . . We were particularly upset 

that the ‘‘random’’ precinct selection had already been completed . . .’’

Which precincts are selected for quality control recounts can be critical for the 

outcome of a recount. Obstructing openness and transparency in how recount precincts are chosen jeopardizes the legitimacy of an electoral outcome. 

Others reported that the poll workers were not allowing those viewing the recounts to be close enough to actually see for themselves each vote and to make certain that each vote was being allocated to the correct party during the recount. If 

this is true, such recounts cannot provide the information that they are intended 

to provide. Certainly, such recounts cannot confirm an election outcome or support 

the legitimacy of our electoral process. 

CONCLUSION

For those of us who have lived through Ohio elections over the past six years, it 

is hard not to conclude that every step of the election process was undermined by 

a Republican Secretary of State’s office and by many in his employ: the registration 

process, the actual voting process, and the checks and balance procedures that are 

supposed to occur with bi-partisan participation after any election. 

As an American who travels abroad and is frequently called upon to testify to the 

benefits of multi-party politics, it pains me that the leadership of the Ohio Republican Party has systematically found ways to undermine fair and free elections in 

our state. I know that when average Ohio Republicans are witness to such activities, they do the right thing. But apparently, the Republican leadership has such 

a stake in governance, that it has not done the right thing in our recent elections. 

If there is any silver lining to the distressing reports of irregular and/or unlawful 

practices at every stage of the voting process, it can be seen in those voters who 

were able to devote four or more hours to waiting in line and who cherished democracy enough to demand their right to vote regardless of how inconvenienced they 

were. These citizens could not prevent the suppression of the vote or having the vote 

taken away from their fellow citizens. What they could and did do, however, was 

to patiently wait their turn, to move the elderly (those had not seen the enormous 

lines and driven away) up to the front of the line so the older voters could vote 

quickly and then sit down or go home. In Oberlin, school children showed up at the 

polls to walk up and down the lines giving away the Halloween candy that they had 

collected on October 31. Oberlin College students alerted local merchants concerning 

the lines and requested assistance. A number of local merchants provided food. 

Lorenzo’s Pizza sent over free donated pizza pies to help those on line to take the 

edge off their hunger. Our student dining coops donated food from their kitchens. 

60

People walked the long winding lines providing water bottles. Our former Congressman, now Senator Sherrod Brown, visited Oberlin and brought with him water bottles to distribute as well as encouragement and thanks. 

I am attaching to this testimony two letters to the editor written by Oberlin poll 

watcher Sandra Zagarell (whose letter I already noted above as Appendix A) and 

Oberlin Mayor Daniel Gardner (whose letter constitutes Appendix B) congratulating 

the citizenry on their dedication and public spirit. As Ms. Zagarell notes, Oberlin 

College students deserved high commendation. They came as individuals but became an improvised community to help one another through the long hours on line 

to vote. They allowed the elderly or ill to go to the front of the line. Mayor Gardner’s 

letter also praises Oberlin voters, concluding: ‘‘God, I love our town. You have restored my faith.’’

Despite the cynicism and distrust created by the actions of our highest Ohio election officials, the determination, patience, and good will of the American citizenry 

in coping with adversity is admirable. Now, I hope that the United States Congress, 

after hearing our testimony today, will restore our faith in our political leadership 

and work to restore free and fair election practices in Ohio and elsewhere throughout our country. 

I thank you for the honor of including my testimony today.

61


Sandberg.eps
62


Gardner.eps
63

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you so much, Professor Sandberg. 

Ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, witnesses, this hearing 

has been unusual, in my mind, because we have had literally no 

discussion of the responsibility of the Department of Justice’s Civil 

Rights Division, the voting section, which to me can play such a 

very huge role in this, Mr. Neas. 

And I want to put this on the record that I have had conversations with the Attorney General Gonzalez who has indicated a willingness to consider the issue raised by the House Committee on the 

Judiciary, and this is the one that I put forward first. 

It has been my impression, and I have raised this issue in my 

visits to the Department of Justice last year, that we have very little oversight and investigation of these complaints that are made. 

They almost go into a deep hole, never to be really dealt with. 

And that it is critical that we have two things coming out of our 

government and particularly DOJ and that is, one, that we affirmatively encourage everybody to vote and make it as simple as possible; two, that we effectively monitor complaints, violations and allegations that go to the heart of debilitating and crippling the voting process in this country. 

And I would like to have on the record your observations of what 

we should be doing and could be doing to stimulate the Department 

of Justice in that direction. 

And I will start with Ralph Neas. 

Mr. NEAS. Mr. Chairman, since my work with Senator Edward 

W. Brooke, a Republican from Massachusetts, and David Durenberger, a Republican from Minnesota, I have had much experience 

from the congressional side looking at what Justice has been doing 

and of course with my years with the Leadership Conference and 

Civil Rights Office, being now with People For the American Way. 

I must tell you, there have been some bad periods of time. I can 

think of the Brad Reynolds years at the Department of Justice 

under Ronald Reagan when a Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee would not promote him to associate counsel because 

the Department of Justice made every effort to undermine the enforcement of our civil rights laws. And I am afraid this Department 

of Justice over the last 6 years has compiled an astonishingly bad 

record in virtually every area of civil rights laws. 

But of all the areas that they should take most seriously it is the 

area of voting rights, and I would hope perhaps this legislation can 

serve as a catalyst for more effective work by the Department of 

Justice, because with respect to deceptive practices and intimidation of voters, it compels the Department of Justice to do something, to start investigating, to enjoin statements or practices that 

are intentionally and knowingly committed. It makes them an active participant. 

And I have talked before about election protection. We had 

35,000 American citizens volunteer to go into 3,500 precincts over 

the last couple of elections to make sure that we were monitoring 

what was happening in terms of voter intimidation and mistakes 

and lack of education. That should not be the responsibility of the 

non-profit community. 

The Department of Justice should be leading on this issue, and, 

unfortunately, in 2000, it was a whitewash with respect to Florida, 

64

with respect to much of what happened in 2004 in Ohio, what happened in Maryland and Virginia over the last year with the robo 

calls, the other kinds of deceptive practices. 

What did the Department of Justice say: ‘‘We are not going to investigate.’’ It pretty much is close to malfeasance, as far as I am 

concerned, in terms of what they should be responsible for, what 

they should be doing. And I hope the attorney general will work 

with you to enact this legislation. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, it may require a more specific hearing from 

the Committee on Judiciary on these unacted-upon allegations, separate and apart from this legislation, as important as it really is. 

Mr. NEAS. I would hope such hearings occur in the very near future. I am sure that both the Democrats and Republicans would 

like to get the Department of Justice up to address the civil rights 

issues and many others they have responsibility for, and, quite 

frankly, I do not think they have been enforcing the law in many 

areas but especially in the Civil Rights Division. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Ms. BRAZILE. Mr. Chairman, Ralph mentioned non-profit organizations and organizations such as his, but just imagine the amount 

of money it costs for both parties to have to deploy thousands of 

lawyers across the country to train poll watchers to put out correct 

information when if we had our government and our Justice Department committed to fully enforcing the law, we wouldn’t have 

to appropriate this type of money for political expenditures. 

So, it would help us also on the political side if the Justice Department got involved and intervened and ensured that there is no 

hanky panky at the ballot box. 

I mean, it has gotten outrageous. I have been involved in politics 

since I was 9. I know that is a little younger than most people, but 

in Louisiana, we got involved early. Right after the assassination 

of Martin Luther King, I felt compelled to go out there and go bicycle to bicycle urging people to vote. Why? Because we were promised a playground. 

Today, many young people don’t want to get involved and get out 

to register people, because the barriers have been set up. They 

have been told in some cases that if they submit a name and misspell it as incorrect, they could go to jail. So it is becoming harder 

and harder to get people involved and to get people excited about 

our electoral process where we have set up all of these impediments. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

I turn now to the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, 

Lamar Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to ask unanimous consent 

to put the testimony of Mr. Fund in the record, as well as three 

other reports. 

Mr. CONYERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Neas, out of the utmost respect for your mother who is sitting 10 feet from you, I am not going to ask all the difficult and 

pointed questions I had in mind. However, I would like to read into 

65

the record a description of what the Department of Justice has 

been doing in the area that is under discussion today. 

Mr. Chairman, in 2002, the Justice Department announced an 

initiative in which it required that all components of the department to place a high priority on the investigation and prosecution 

of election fraud. As of last year, 195 election fraud investigations 

were currently pending throughout the country. As of then, and 

since the start of the initiative, 119 people were charged with election fraud offenses and 86 individuals have been convicted. 

In Missouri, the Justice Department is conducting an investigation because the State’s voter rolls, in some cases, have 150 percent 

of the voting age population listed on the voting rolls. 

So the Department of Justice I am sure can do more but at least 

they are taking good initiatives to try to address the serious problem of voter fraud. 

Also, Mr. Neas, you mentioned the robo calls. There are probably 

enough misused robo calls on both sides of the political aisle to 

bear investigation. Now, I hear about those where Republicans are 

being targeted, no doubt you hear about those where the Democrats are being targeted. But, clearly, they are overdone and can 

be investigated at the appropriate time. 

Ms. Brazile, first of all, I want to compliment you. I have enjoyed 

reading your columns over the years, and I have always found 

them particularly insightful. There are a lot of people that charge 

good money for the good advice you give, but I do enjoy reading 

your perspective on politics. 

Let me ask a question and direct it toward you, Ms. Brazile, and 

this is based upon the Carter-Baker commission report I think that 

you are familiar with. Among their findings was that Florida has 

more than 140,000 voters who apparently are registered in four 

other States. 

That is an astronomical figure for duplicate registrations, in my 

judgment. By the way, that includes 64,000 who are registered not 

only in Florida but in New York City alone. More than 2,000 people 

voted in more than one State in the last election, clearly something 

that we should be concerned about. 

The Carter-Baker commission elaborated and said this is what 

their proposal was and this is what I want to ask you about. They 

said, ‘‘We propose a uniform system of voter identification based on 

the Real ID card or an equivalent for people without a driver’s license. There is likely to be less discrimination against minorities 

if there is a single uniform ID than if poll workers can apply multiple standards. 

Don’t you think that a uniform identification requirement would, 

in fact, reduce discrimination against minorities at the polls? 

Ms. BRAZILE. Thank you, sir, for your excellent question. 

First of all, let me just say that I support a requirement that 

forces States to have a uniform statewide voter registration list 

that can be verified and also, from time to time, cleaned at an appropriate moment, giving citizens the right to appeal if they have 

been selectively purged. So I support a uniform cleaning. 

Look, right now, I think political parties maintain a better voter 

registration list than State parties, so I support that. And we have 

duplicates all over the place, because many States, quite frankly, 

66

don’t have the resources required to clean up their electoral rolls 

after election. 

In terms of the restricted ID requirements, in my judgment, that 

is more likely to disenfranchise people of color, the elderly, individuals with disability, rural voters, young people, the homeless, lowincome people, frequent movers and persons in large households. I 

don’t support the Real ID requirement, because I do believe that 

there is a chance that it can discriminate. Twenty million Americans do not have any form of State-issued ID. Most, perhaps a 

large majority, do not have it because they lack the resources to 

be able to obtain a State-issued ID. 

I also found that the ID requirements that are sometimes called 

for in some of these States apply differently in different populations. My own sister who resides in Florida, I don’t know if she 

is in Mr. Feeney’s district, I think she has moved, but in Florida, 

in 2000, I will never forget the call. She called me and said, ‘‘How 

many forms of ID do I need to vote?’’ and I said, ‘‘One.’’ I mean, 

at the time, it was one. She had her driver’s license, she had her 

voter registration card, and she had to produce a utility bill. 

So I do not support these restricted ID requirements that often 

discriminate against people of color. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Brazile, let me interrupt you and squeeze in one 

more comment here. You, yourself, admitted, though, that we have 

problems with voter registration lists. Wouldn’t a uniform identification obviate the need to rely upon these very flawed voter registration lists? 

Ms. BRAZILE. Well, 42 percent of Americans who registered to 

vote in 2004 obtained their voter registration status at a government facility, so they had to show a form of ID in order to vote. 

So this is a duplicate requirement again. In certain States, some 

people say, ‘‘I need your library card,’’ some say, ‘‘I need your voter 

registration card.’’ And as long as we have 20 million Americans, 

many of them elderly, many of them poor, without any form of 

State-issued ID, I am opposed to these real ID cards. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Well, I am not going to convince you otherwise, 

but it seems to me that all the examples you just gave points exactly to the need for one uniform identification where you don’t 

have all these other types of identification. I think it would simplify the process, and, as individuals have testified, it would also 

reduce discrimination. I think that is just an honest difference of 

opinion. 

Ms. BRAZILE. If it is not another form of a poll tax, sir, if we can 

ensure that every American has access to that form of ID and it 

is not another barrier to participation, maybe we could find common ground. 

Mr. SMITH. Good. If we could get past the financial cost. 

Ms. BRAZILE. Open up your wallet, I might open up my heart. 

Mr. SMITH. I am going to take you up on that common ground 

comment. 

Ms. BRAZILE. All right, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Brazile. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Robert Scott, Virginia? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

67

And I thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. 

Let me just start with a quick question to Mr. Neas. This bill 

only prescribes communications that are false and designed with a 

specific intent to deny someone the right to vote. There is no constitutional right to defraud people. Do you see any free speech implications in this legislation? 

Mr. NEAS. Mr. Scott, when we first started working on the bill, 

this issue came up, of course, immediately, because we are not only 

a civil rights organization but also a civil liberties organization. 

But I think this bill has been carefully crafted. For me, there is no 

doubt that Congress has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of elections and the right to vote by ending these kinds of 

deceptive practices. 

I think very importantly, the standards that you chose, that 

Chairman Conyers and Senator Obama chose, that it has to be 

knowingly and intentionally deceiving the voters, creates a very 

high standard that has to be met. 

Mr. SCOTT. And not only false but with the intent to defraud 

someone out of their vote. 

Mr. NEAS. Exactly. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Brazile, there is an old saying about the cure being worse 

than the disease. We have heard of a handful of people who might 

be getting onto the rolls improperly. You kind of alluded to this in 

your previous testimony and answers. 

Comparing the handful that are getting on illegally, do we have 

any measure of how many people might not vote because their 

health department didn’t complete the paperwork in time for the 

election to give them a birth certificate or how many people might 

not vote because they couldn’t come up or didn’t want to come up 

with the $20 that it might cost to process all this stuff? 

Do we have any estimate of the number of people who may lose 

their right to vote if we initiate some of these Real ID requirements? 

Ms. BRAZILE. Well, you know, there is an old saying that you 

have a greater chance of being hit by lightning than finding large 

evidence of voter fraud. The truth of the matter is, is that we know 

from our study that 3 to 5 percent of Americans were impacted by 

some of these illegal schemes and tactics used to suppress turnout—fake monitors, assigning off-duty policemen at various polling 

sites, sending faulty voting machines into certain precincts. 

So while I don’t have the honest number in terms of the millions 

of Americans, but we do know that it impacts between 2 to 5 percent of Americans. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. But there is no question that the number of 

people who would not be able to vote who should be able to vote 

would certainly be more than the handful of people nationwide that 

illegally get onto the polls. So the cure, in fact, would be worse 

than the disease. 

Ms. BRAZILE. Absolutely, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, with this cure being worse than the disease, 

there are certain groups that would be disproportionately impacted. 

I think you gave a list of people. Is it clear that this would have 

a disproportionate impact on certain groups? Obviously, if people 

68

can’t vote because they can’t come up with $20, obviously that 

would have a disproportionate impact on low-income Americans. 

Could you read that list again of those who, if you enforce all this 

Real ID, which groups might be adversely affected? 

Ms. BRAZILE. In 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform recognized that between 6 and 10 percent of Americans do not have any form of State-issued photo ID driver’s license. 

And in the State of Georgia—I was listening to one of the earlier 

questions of Senator Obama—according to the Georgia chapter of 

AARP, 30 percent of Georgians over 75 do not have a driver’s license. So across the country more than 3 million Americans with 

disabilities do not have a driver’s license or State-issued photo ID. 

And, of course, for minorities and in poor communities and certain 

rural communities, the numbers are even higher. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, if you don’t have identification now, would the 

number of people who would not be able to complete the paperwork 

to identify themselves be greater or fewer than the people that 

might sneak on the rolls illegally? 

Ms. BRAZILE. There is no question, it would be greater, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. 

Steve Chabot, Cincinnati, Ohio? 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As the Chairman knows, I was tasked with the responsibility in 

the last Congress as the Chair of the Constitution Subcommittee 

to help to shepherd the Voting Rights Act through the last Congress, and we worked in a very bipartisan manner and got the job 

done. So I think my credibility relative to voting rights is wellknown, at least among the Members of this Committee. 

Some of the allegations relative to Ohio I have to admit, professor, we disagree, and I do thank you for your testimony; however, I believe there is no right more fundamental than the right 

to vote and that protecting the integrity of the electoral process to 

ensure fair and free elections is critical to our democratic system 

of government. 

Part of ensuring fair and just elections is conducting non-biased 

and independent oversight, but I think that some of the allegations 

that you made relative to Ohio I think are—you know, I think it 

is real questionable whether they are unbiased or independent or 

accurate. 

As the representative from the first district of Ohio, which is 

Cincinnati, I spent considerable time at diverse urban and suburban polling locations in both 2000 and 2004 and 2006, and I disagree with your assessment, that there was some type of Republican conspiracy going on. 

In fact, it appears that any electoral irregularities in Cuyahoga 

County, for example, which is the largest county in the State, were 

in fact caused by the incompetence of a Democrat. And I have with 

me a number of recent articles reporting the resignation of the executive director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, Michael Vu who, again, is a Democrat, because of a number of electoral irregularities. 

And all of these articles confirm that Mr. Vu was hired in 2003 

with the support of the Democratic Party to administer the elecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:04 Jun 15, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\030707\33810.000 HJUD1 PsN: 33810
69

toral process in Cuyahoga County. The articles go on to describe 

the electoral irregularities that occurred in that county under Mr. 

Vu’s watch, similar in what you have described in your testimony, 

such as long lines and complaints over provisional ballots, not only 

in 2004 but also in 2006. 

Professor Sandberg, putting partisan politics aside, can we agree 

that at least in Cuyahoga County that it was a Democrat appointed 

with the support of the Democratic Party who was largely responsible for any electoral problems that occurred in 2004 and 2006 

there? And if so, how can one say that every step in the election 

process was undermined by Republicans? And how is this type of 

biased reporting helpful in correcting the electoral problems that 

occurred in the past and ensure that they don’t happen in the future? 

And I also have to say that I heard reports, maybe you didn’t, 

but there were long lines in predominantly Republican areas as 

well. I heard about them over an over on Election Day that people 

were waiting in long lines there too. I can see by shaking your 

head you disagree, but if you could respond, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. SANDBERG. Thank you. Thank you for your question. 

There were some instances where, frankly, incompetence complicated what was going on. 

The reason that I am focusing on the Republican State leadership, part of what is in my written testimony and I wasn’t able to 

present in my oral testimony because we only have 5 minutes—and 

this is, to me, very telling: In Oberlin, we had 5-hour lines, 300 

people waiting, and I was in an exurbia community, as we now call 

them, we use to call them suburban, but exurban community, 

where there were many voting booths. 

I received a phone call from the poll watcher in Oberlin saying, 

‘‘Eve, is there anything you can do? What can I do? I can’t get 

through to the secretary of state’s office. I can’t get through.’’ I 

tried calling——

Mr. CHABOT. Wrap it up quickly because I have got only a 

minute left. 

Ms. SANDBERG. Okay. I tried to get through to the secretary of 

state. I turned to my Republican counterpart and said, ‘‘This isn’t 

fair.’’ He said, ‘‘Oh, they gave us a different number.’’ And he called 

and got through. 

Mr. CHABOT. I read that in your testimony. I saw that. I assume 

my colleagues did also. 

Ms. SANDBERG. Okay. So Republicans had systematically, the Republican leadership——

Mr. CHABOT. Let me just follow up. When you talk about systematically, in the election, the elected official you are talking about, 

Ken Blackwell, was running for governor. How did that race turn 

out that Republicans were orchestrating to steal the elections? Who 

won that election? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Wait. This testimony here was from 2004, and he 

was hoping——

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Well, I am talking about 2006 now. 

Ms. SANDBERG [continuing]. And he was hoping to be a leader of 

his party. 

70

Mr. CHABOT. I am beyond that. We are talking about 2004 and 

2006 in your testimony. 

Ms. SANDBERG. In 2006, in this last time, he won. 

Mr. CHABOT. Who won the governor’s race? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Mr. Strickland and——

Mr. CHABOT. And it was a pretty wide margin, right? 

Ms. SANDBERG. He did, right. 

Mr. CHABOT. He won 60-plus percent to 37 percent that 

Blackwell got. You had an incumbent Republican Senator who lost 

by more than 12 points to Sherrod Brown. You had four of the six 

statewide offices that Democrats won. Yet there is still this contention that there was a Republican attempt to steal the elections. To 

me, that is just beyond comprehension. 

Ms. SANDBERG. One of the reasons that that happened is I believe the second time that—the Democrats had a slew of lawyers 

all over the State looking for—because people like you, and I believe you, Mr. Chabot, that you are someone who really wants free 

and fair elections. But because we had shined a light on it and because the Democrats this time—the first time we were taken by 

surprise, and I say, ‘‘we,’’ because now I am a partisan Democrat 

in Ohio. Otherwise, you know from my testimony previously I was 

not in other States. We were taken by surprise. 

A slew of lawyers came in, we had a slew of people watching who 

were legally trained, who were experts and the polls—I mean, to 

have taken the election this time, the polls so demonstrated that 

there was a tide, a Democratic tide. It would have been incomprehensible. 

Mr. CHABOT. Well, I know my time is up, but let me just conclude by saying that I think this is one issue where it really should 

be bipartisan, that you ought to have Republicans and Democrats 

agreeing that everybody ought to have the opportunity to vote, 

every vote ought to count. 

We ought to make sure that people, our citizens, I know there 

is some disagreement on to what extent we go there, but it ought 

to be—this was a Democratic year, it was a great Democratic year. 

A lot of Republicans lost. Sometimes it goes one way or the other. 

But I really think in my heart of hearts in Ohio that elections 

aren’t stolen. I mean, there are incidences where there are abuses, 

but, in general, I think we need to do a better job. I think we ought 

to keep the politics out of it as much as possible. 

Thank you. 

Ms. SANDBERG. May I say one more thing? I am the one who actually researches and writes in international affairs, and if I can 

just say this. It has nothing to do with any of the bills that are 

present. But if we could—one of the things that happens when we 

go abroad and we are trying to promote democracy, the cynicism 

abroad about our democracy is painful to me, and I agree with you, 

we have to get our house in order. 

And perhaps we could take a page from some of those late industrializing countries that have taken the election process in States 

and taken it away from a secretary of state that belongs to one 

party or another and put it in a bipartisan, independent election 

council. Because when someone is trying to be a leader of their 

party in the future and they want to deliver an election and there 

71

is other circumstantial evidence, it is hard not to think that that 

is what they are doing. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Ms. SANDBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, witness and Mr. Chabot. 

We now turn to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Mel 

Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this important hearing. I apologize for being unable to be here for 

the first panel, but I wanted to certainly be here to hear these experts. 

Let me ask a question that probably has little to do with either 

the bill that we are considering or much else. 

There seems to be people dropping bills now who would like to 

do away with robo calls, and I noticed, Mr. Neas, you mentioned 

that in your testimony, not doing away with them completely but 

erroneous information robo calls. 

As a general proposition, do you think it would be constitutional 

to do away with all robo calls? 

Mr. NEAS. I don’t think it would be. Mr. Scott asked a somewhat 

similar question before, and before we were trying to strike that 

balance between the right to vote and other kinds of civil rights 

and civil liberties. And I think this bill has been carefully crafted 

to strike that balance. 

Mr. WATT. Yes. I am not suggesting that this bill goes near that 

issue. 

Mr. NEAS. Right. And the intent test about knowingly and intentionally deceiving the voters, I think, helps with the constitutional 

issue. 

Mr. WATT. Professor Sandberg closed her last statement here 

talking about a Federal commission of some kind that would oversee elections. One of the impediments to that notion seems to have 

been this whole notion of federalism. I am wondering whether anybody has done any expensive research on the interplay between article 1, section 2, and article 1, section 4, of the Constitution to try 

to more precisely define the outer limits of what we can do at the 

Federal level and what is protected at the State level. 

Are you aware, Mr. Neas or Ms. Brazile or Dr. Sandberg, of anybody who has really gone at that issue aggressively and tried to define what the outer limits of Federal authority is in setting the 

qualifications for elections? 

Mr. NEAS. Mr. Watt, I personally am not knowledgeable in this 

area. I am sure that my excellent legislative and legal counsels 

might have something to report back to you and that we could 

share with you. 

Mr. WATT. They are helping you back there behind you—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. NEAS. I am sure they are. 

Mr. WATT [continuing]. Wanting to get to the table to answer the 

question. 

Mr. NEAS. If there is anything out there, we would gladly share 

it with you and the other Members of the Committee. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. That would be great, because I often hear people raising that as an issue. It doesn’t seem to be that difficult 

72

reading the language of the two sections of article 1. I will just 

read them into the record, just quickly. 

Article 1, section 2, says, ‘‘The House of Representatives shall be 

composed of members chosen every second year by the people of 

the several states, and the electors,’’ I assume that is the voters, 

‘‘in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of 

the most numerous branch of the state legislature.’’

So I guess whatever qualifications that a State put on to be eligible to be a voter for the State legislature under that provision 

would be applicable to Federal elections. 

Section 4 says, ‘‘The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each 

State by the legislature thereof,’’ and that sounds like a way-out 

statement, but then it goes on to just whack the legs from under 

it by saying, ‘‘But the Congress may at any time, by law, make or 

alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.’’

So it seems to me, I have guess I have heard too much legal speculation, classroom academic speculation about this. The language 

seems pretty clear to me, but if you all have any additional research, I am sure these brilliant lawyers who are seated behind 

you will provide it to me. 

So I appreciate you being here and appreciate your testimony. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Watt. 

We now call on our distinguished Member—oh, Steve King is 

here, former witness on panel one is now back in his more normal 

role in panel two and is recognized. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sitting here next to you is 

not quite my normal role, but I appreciate that, and I appreciate 

this hearing here today and the tone and the tenor of this hearing 

and the serious nature of how we approach the election process in 

America. 

And I made some statements earlier about how important I believe the integrity of our system is. I sincerely and fervently believe 

that it goes beyond even the facts. Every vote should be legitimate, 

no one should be intimidated to keep them from voting. 

I don’t know how you actually get that written into law, but I 

want all our electoral process to be as absolutely clean as it can 

be with a max amount of integrity in the system. And if we can 

do that, I said earlier that I would be willing to sacrifice, in a level 

playing field, I would be willing to put a majority at risk, a presidency at risk because the people ought to make that decision, and 

then the political parties then can adjust their politics to go back 

and compete for their majority or their presidency. 

That is the way it is designed to be, and if we lose the integrity, 

it isn’t just if it doesn’t work right, but if the American people lose 

their faith in it, even if it works right, then we have lost our constitutional republic. So this is a very, very important hearing. 

I regret that I wasn’t able to listen to all the testimony of the 

second panel of witnesses, the nature of this Hill being what it is. 

And so I am going a little bit at maybe a haphazard fashion here, 

but I am very interested in Ms. Brazile’s approach to this, because 

73

you have a long and active and a fairly public involvement in these 

things. 

As I read through your testimony here, I see on page four, and 

I am going to tell you, I agree with this statement, ‘‘There is no 

place in our democracy for last minute attempts,’’ and I would add 

to that, any attempts, ‘‘to purge eligible citizens just because they 

may vote for your opponent.’’ Just exactly right, well-said, and I 

support that statement. 

I would ask, though, Ms. Brazile, and here is a philosophical 

question, in a way, is where I am getting to. I am going to just ask 

you, were you a supporter of the reauthorization of the Voting 

Rights Act we did last year? 

Ms. BRAZILE. Yes, sir. Not only was I a supporter, when the 

White House called to invite members of the community to come 

over to the White House, they called me to ensure that they had 

all of the great champions of civil rights. So, absolutely, sir. 

Mr. KING. Okay. And I didn’t want to make that presumption, 

but I did want to give you an opportunity to say so on the record. 

Ms. BRAZILE. Thank you. 

Mr. KING. And the motive behind that, and I believe, for the 

most part, is pure, but I call into question this statement right 

above that on the same page where it says, and it is a quote from 

your testimony, ‘‘There is no place in our democracy for election 

practices that target citizens based on the color of their skin or 

their partisan affiliation.’’

Ms. BRAZILE. That is correct. 

Mr. KING. And right on its face, I agree with that, but I would 

point out that in the Voting Rights Act, and as objected to substantially by Georgia, that there are practices in the redistricting process that certainly affect the integrity of an individual’s vote that 

are based upon race. 

And my question to you is then, there have been a couple circumstances, Justice O’Connor essentially suspended the 14th 

amendment for 25 years and the affirmative action cases until such 

time as we can put racism behind us. And this reauthorization for 

25 years sentences the people in the covered States and the districts within those States to the label of racism for 25 years. 

It occurs to me that a lot of the people that were labeled such 

in the original passage of the Voting Rights Act have passed into 

the next life and maybe their children are there voting or their 

children have moved out, and so it looks to me like racism is heredity like skin color by the analysis of this. 

Is there a time that you think we can get to this point where we 

can erase these divisions and then not have classifications and not 

be redistricting based upon race? 

Ms. BRAZILE. Well, sir, I hope in my lifetime we do arrive at that 

day, but, unfortunately, we are not there today. I know of too many 

instances, even in my own home State of Louisiana, where people 

are still selectively purged because of the color of their skin. 

I could tell you and attest, even if you go back and look in Florida in 2000 when there was a young man, well, Wallace McDonald, 

64, he was purged from the Florida voter rolls because of a conviction. Now, Mr. McDonald’s crime was not a felony for which Floridians forfeit their voting rights forever but merely a misdemeanor, 

74

which should not affect voting rights at all. Mr. McDonald had 

been convicted for falling asleep on a bench. One-third of eligible 

Black men have lost their voting rights. 

Mr. KING. Ms. Brazile, you know I am with you on that. I am 

with you on that. That is a deplorable thing to see happen. And 

there was earlier testimony that said that perhaps of the purging 

of the votes there were maybe 20 percent error rate, or at least the 

comment was made, I believe, by Mr. Nadler. 

Do we have any numbers that tell about how many felons are actually allowed to vote by mistake. If we are going to have errors 

on one side of the database, did we have them on the other side, 

that you are aware? 

Ms. BRAZILE. Very few, sir. I mean, the fact is less than 100 

cases. And I can submit all of this for the testimony. The Brennan 

Center for Justice has done an outstanding job of putting forward 

information on felony disenfranchisement in this country, and I 

think this is one of the most egregious errors that we have made. 

And I just recently saw the governor of Florida in the green room 

at CNN, and we have agreed to begin to work together on this 

issue so that we can get rid of the backlog in the State of Florida. 

Many citizens in that State are eligible to vote but because of the 

law that tells them that they have to go back and reapply and then 

they have to get a status report, so we need to find ways to ensure 

that every eligible citizen can vote. 

Mr. KING. Would it occur to you, as it has to me, that with the 

computer databases that we have, that we could actually have an 

interconnected computer database of all voter registration in America for Federal elections so that we could crunch that database and 

eliminate the duplicates, the deceased, the felons where it is appropriate, according to law, and also get that all cleaned up so that 

we don’t have mistakes for Federal elections? Would that be something that you could support? 

Ms. BRAZILE. I would, but Congress, first, must properly fund the 

Help America Vote Act so we can ensure we have the funds. As you 

well know, many States when they are looking for extra dollars, 

the one area that they are not trying to put those extra dollars is 

in election administration, and I would hope that you would fund 

it. 

Mr. KING. And we did that for the first time to reach into that, 

but I understand what you are saying. 

I have another concern and you brought up the 2000 election in 

Florida, and as I watched that, and I watched it closely, as many 

Americans did, probably more closely than most, though, and I see 

that there were issues with people had difficulty managing the ballot, understanding how to vote, how to get to their polling place. 

And the thing that seemed to be a common denominator that we 

all agreed on, whether we are Republicans, Independents, Democrats or the media, was that the people that intended to vote for 

Al Gore had more difficulty getting the ballot figured out than 

those that were intending to vote for George Bush. 

Could you speak to that as to why that would be the case? 

Ms. BRAZILE. Well, sir, we still have a problem of literacy in this 

country, we still have a problem where some Americans don’t have 

the transportation required to get to their ballot box. Look, in some 

75

communities in this country, especially in rural areas, the polling 

site is often five, ten miles away, and when Americans, as you well 

know, are stressed out, working two, three jobs, so we try in our 

political party to make it easier for people to vote. That is why we 

suggest and recommend early voting, what we call no excuse absentee voting. So we try to ensure that people can get to the ballot 

box. 

I think of those residents in Palm Beach County who voted mistakenly for Pat Buchanan, knowing that they wanted to vote for Al 

Gore. That was the butterfly ballot. So I think we need to eliminate 

some of these structural barriers, the ballot errors and other 

things, and make it easier for people to exercise their right to vote. 

I hope one day that we cannot just clean up our computer systems but we can allow for, and some of my friends will not like 

this, but I hope one day that we can allow for Internet voting. As 

you know, many of our military personnel overseas were allowed 

to either fax in their ballot or vote by Internet, and hopefully one 

day we can clean up the system and have a fail-proof system so 

that we can make voting easier for all eligible citizens. 

Mr. KING. I thank the gentlelady, and I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you for your questions, Mr. King. 

The gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Obviously, the set of hearings that we have already had in this 

Committee has set a new tone and a new day for justice in America, and I thank the Chairman. I don’t know if we would have had 

a hearing as quickly as this on the questions of issues of great concern that I believe need addressing. 

I would like to define this hearing for what I think it is, and I 

hope the witnesses will help me and correct me if I am wrong. I 

believe this is about voter suppression and voter intimidation. 

And as I have listened to the witnesses and also my colleagues 

who have asked questions, let the record be clear that none of us 

adhere to voter fraud. I think each of you at the table would speak 

vigorously against it, probably join in in helping to find any legal 

basis to overcome or eliminate voter fraud. 

I have seen fraudulent activities happen, whether it is stuffing 

the ballot, whether it is manipulating the count. That is fraudulent, and I don’t believe that we would counter to that. 

But let me go back to the 2000 election, and I have to talk very 

quickly, because I think intimidation is clear. 

And let me associate myself with Chairman Conyers, this is a 

great bill, and I am looking forward to possibly the germaneness 

of an amendment dealing with an election. I filed a holiday bill for 

Election Day. I file that bill frequently. It has a lot of entanglements to it, but I hope that we have finally give Americans a day 

to vote, particularly in Federal elections, and I join the Chairman 

in that. 

And I also want to mention, as I give examples of voter suppression, two distinct examples, Prairie View A&M and Florida A&M, 

Florida A&M in particular. 

And, Mr. Chairman, if you had Kareem Brown in this room, I 

don’t think we could contain still the kind of degree of upsetness, 

but I recall distinctly suppression of college voters. There was a 

76

specific desire to suppress that vote in Prairie View A&M, legitimately registered student voters who have been suppressed. And 

let me remind you that they were suppressed again in 2006 when 

we marched again. 

And so I hope, as we look at this bill, 1281, that is a very fine 

framework, that there will be some germaneness to provide some 

specific prohibitions against suppressing college vote. Now, that 

would include individuals of all colors and creeds who happen to 

have a jurisdictional right to claim a residency and vote in that 

area, and I am going to pose a question. 

The other one was the felon question in Florida—and I am going 

back again to 2000, maybe because the spirit is still in my heart—

of the thousands, as I understand it, a Texas company who had on 

the list felons who were not felons. 

And I would vote, Mr. Chairman, an amendment might be germane in terms of some sort of credentialing of so-called voter companies, whatever they may be, whether they be a felon list or a 

purged list. I want some kind of criteria for them to exist in this 

arena. 

Because it is not a business, Mr. Chairman, it is an infringement 

of a constitutional right. 

And let me finish this so I can pose a question. I, frankly, think 

the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment—somebody can rise up and 

challenge me—gave rights to White Americans as well and other 

Americans. Let me just say it gave rights to Americans. It had 

some specific historical criteria, but they gave rights. They gave a 

due process right to Americans, equality rights, a non-enslavement 

right, if you will, so that we cannot hold anyone as a slave here 

in this country and deprive them of their rights. 

Might I quickly ask each of the persons, as the light goes, to tell 

me whether suppression is the key element of what we are saying 

here, which wraps in deceptive practices, that we want what is provided, the constitutional right or the right to vote, and that is what 

we are trying to get at in this bill and that we can, in all manner, 

deal with fraud if it is documented. But it is the question of fraud. 

Why don’t I start with you, Mr. Neas, in terms of your work. 

Mr. NEAS. There is no question that there is extensive evidence 

from the last three elections of voter intimidation and deceptive 

practices. People For the American Way Foundation along with the 

NAACP and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights has put out 

three separate studies that go into hundreds of incidents in many 

parts of the country. 

Of course we are against fraud. I think the fraud issue is a red 

herring. There was just a report by Columbia University this week, 

‘‘Voter fraud of any type is extremely rare with only 24 people convicted nationwide between 2002 and 2005.’’ And I can cite you report after report, statistic after statistic. It is a red herring to give 

justification for some of these voter ID bills. 

Where some of these voter ID bills have occurred, like Indiana, 

Missouri and Arizona, in all three States, the governor, the secretary of state or the State has testified in court there is no voter 

fraud in these States. There is no documentation that would justify 

these kinds of voter ID bills. 

77

So we are totally in agreement, and anything that makes it easier to vote, that brings down the barriers that prohibit people from 

voting and making sure that votes are counted and counted accurately, we are behind. I think this bill will be a significant move 

in that direction. 

Mr. King, by the way, I do applaud you for your work on the voting machines thatou demonstrated in the last Congress, and I hope 

you will join Rush Holt and others, if you haven’t already. I take 

very seriously a number of things that you said about how you 

want to remedy that situation. 

I think you looked at the machines and the disenfranchisement 

by voting machines, not just the DREs but different kinds of voting 

machines, and the issue of voter intimidation and suppression, provisional ballots, the equitable distribution of resources, especially 

machines that we heard in the testimony regarding Ohio in 2004. 

And Mr. Chabot is not here to talk about Ken Blackwell, but what 

he did with the paperweight of the voter registrations and the 

purging and the challenges——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I was there. 

Mr. NEAS [continuing]. Was quite reprehensible. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I thank you. Mr. King has been bipartisan on many issues. 

Can I get the last two witnesses, please, to quickly—particularly 

this college suppression that I think you experienced, Ms. Brazile, 

directly in the State of Florida. 

Mr. NEAS. We were co-counsel on that issue, by the way, and I 

thank you for all the efforts. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Ms. BRAZILE. Madam Congresswoman, I mentioned in my testimony the students at Prairie View and also I know about the students at Florida A&M, and I know of many other cases where students had particular problems in getting their absentee ballots, 

even voting on campus, so even having the facilities available to 

them. 

At Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, the students there 

wanted to put in a polling site, and they went to the town council. 

New Hampshire is one of the States that has same-day registration. The students had problems actually getting the polling site 

closer to campus, because many of them did not have access to public transportation that would take them to the town hall place. 

So, I think we have to find ways to ensure that our young people 

have opportunities to cast their ballots, and when they request 

their absentee ballots, they get them in a timely fashion. Every semester, at Georgetown, after an election, I try to get a show of 

hands of how many students voted, and many of them raise their 

hands. To the two or three that fail to raise their hands, I say, 

‘‘What is the problem?’’ They say, ‘‘Didn’t get the ballot. We requested it in time but it didn’t come.’’

So this is a problem. We need to focus on students, the elderly, 

the poor, racial minorities, language minorities, people with disabilities. 

You know, as these elections become more and more polarized, 

the Nation is divided. We have 29 so-called safe States, 21 so-called 

battleground or swing States. If you look at these incidents of voter 

78

deception, voter intimidation, voter harassment, illegal voter 

purges, they are taking place in these so-called swing States where 

there has been a deliberate attempt to try to suppress the vote. 

Just recently, in Michigan, there was a State representative, I 

believe his name was Mr. Papageorge, who said that in order to 

win in Michigan, we have to suppress the votes in Detroit. Now, 

that is wrong. You should win outright, lose outright. I have won 

many elections, I have lost some, but I think for people to put illegal barriers in front of voters, that should be outlawed. 

One thing on these robo calls, once upon a time, I thought robo 

calls were the sexiest thing in politics, because you can get celebrities and others to tape a 15-second, 20-second message and then 

put it on right before the election, and people got really excited and 

say, I heard from Bill Clinton, I heard from Bill Cosby, whoever on 

the Republican side. 

Now, those calls are placed in the middle of the night, they don’t 

identify who the caller is, and it is a form of harassment. And 

many voters called us last year to DNC and said, ‘‘Stop the phone 

calls.’’ Well, we were not making phone calls at those hours. I am 

sure you heard in Missouri there were even live phone calls, push 

calls, as they are commonly referred to. 

So we need to clean up, and I have committed myself. I have 

talked to Ken Mehlman, the outgoing chairman of RNC, I have 

talked to Ed Gillespie, the former chairman. I have committed myself to working across the partisan lines, because I think we need 

to clean up our system. If we want to have the best democracy in 

the world, if we want to march for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan, it should begin here at home. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Did you want to comment quickly? 

I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. 

Ms. SANDBERG. I would comment quickly. And this is where I 

had a good-faith disagreement with the congressman from Cincinnati, from Ohio. 

And the reason that I said that it looked like it was an organized 

suppression, not just incompetencies, even there were instances of 

incompetence, was that in addition to the fact that there was a 

double track for poll workers to get to the secretary of state, we 

could not get correct identification from the secretary of state in 

the 2004 election to the point that the president of our college, 

Nancy Dye, had to create a task force to figure out how to record 

and inform students of their voting rights so they wouldn’t be 

disenfranchised. 

In 2006, when the League of Women Voters were trying to get 

the rules to publicize them, and one of my students, who was writing for one our local newspapers, called the secretary of state’s office regularly to try to get clarification. No one there could give him 

clarification, which means that if you are a student trying to vote 

and you are trying to find out how you can do that and under what 

conditions and if you are a student who moves from dorm to dorm 

and you don’t have an address on your photo identification card 

and that is what they said they were going to want, then in the 

end they didn’t, it means that you have missed the opportunity to 

register to vote because you don’t know the rules and you can’t 

even vote absentee if you happen to be from another State. 

79

So that is why I said there was something going on that seemed 

more than just mild incompetence, and it was in the secretary of 

state’s office. And that is my perception. I was invited here to talk 

about my perception from where I was and what I viewed, and that 

is what I saw. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what we 

are hearing is that voter fraud is something that we all will stand 

unified against but that the chief culprit of races of past and maybe 

in the future is suppression of voters of all kinds, elderly, as well 

as students, as well as others, and as well as legal immigrants who 

may be categorized as undocumented just by the nature of their 

name. And I hope that we can move forward on this legislation. 

I yield back to the gentleman. I thank him very much, and thank 

you. 

Mr. CONYERS. And thank you for the interesting questions. 

From Ohio, we have yet another Member of Congress, Mr. Jordan. Would you ring in with your perspective on this with our 

three witnesses? 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to pick up 

where Congressman Chabot was. 

Professor, in 2006, which party did better in Ohio? 

Ms. SANDBERG. In 2006, certainly the Democrats did better. 

Mr. JORDAN. Which party controlled the secretary of state’s office 

in 2006? 

Ms. SANDBERG. The secretary of state’s office was controlled by 

Republicans and——

Mr. JORDAN. Who controlled the secretary of state’s office in 

2004? 

Ms. SANDBERG. The Republican Party. 

Mr. JORDAN. Who controlled it in 2002? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Republican Party. 

Mr. JORDAN. Who controlled it in 2000? 

Ms. SANDBERG. I can’t remember that far back, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. The Republican Party. What was the name of Ohio 

secretary of state during those last four elections? 

Ms. SANDBERG. It was Ken Blackwell. 

Mr. JORDAN. And what office did he run for in 2006? 

Ms. SANDBERG. He ran for governor. 

Mr. JORDAN. And what was the result? 

Ms. SANDBERG. The result was that there were——

Mr. JORDAN. What was the result, who won? 

Ms. SANDBERG. The result was he lost, and I think that the context as to why is as important as the question——

Mr. JORDAN. Let me ask you this——

Ms. SANDBERG [continuing]. As the answer. 

Mr. JORDAN. But your point is, you come with this grand conspiracy that is going on in the State of Ohio that you have laid out. 

In fact, you said, over the 6-year timeframe it is hard not to conclude that every step of the election process was undermined by the 

Republican secretary of state’s office and the many in his employ. 

So you have got this grand conspiracy. How in the heck—I mean, 

the secretary of state for 8 years now running for governor, still 

controlling the secretary of state’s office, if there is some grand conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:04 Jun 15, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\030707\33810.000 HJUD1 PsN: 33810
80

spiracy, helicopterscircling the State house, how in the heck could 

he lose that bad in 2006? 

Ms. SANDBERG. No helicopters circling the State house, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Let me point to one thing in your testimony. 

Ms. SANDBERG. Okay. I would love to answer. 

Mr. JORDAN. Then I will let you respond. 

Ms. SANDBERG. All right. 

Mr. JORDAN. You say this: ‘‘A young man’’—this is in your testimony, page five—‘‘A young man reported that a number of Kent 

State students came to him and claimed that their punch cards’’—

this is in the 2004 election——

Ms. SANDBERG. Right. 

Mr. JORDAN [continuing]. ‘‘Their punch cards were pre-punched 

for President Bush. I asked the male student if he took down the 

names of any Kent State students with whom he had spoken, he 

said he had not. I told him I was not certain what he could do, he 

should call the secretary of state’s office and he should call the 

Democratic Party. Stupidly, I did not take down his name. It never 

occurred to me that I might be sitting here today.’’

So you had the foresight to ask him did he take down their 

names, you didn’t take down his name, and yet you come in front 

of the Judiciary Committee in Congress, some nameless guy, with 

nameless students who had pre-punched cards for President Bush 

in 2004 and cite that in your testimony, and yet if it is that grand 

a conspiracy, how in the heck did Ken Blackwell lose so bad in 

2006? 

Ms. SANDBERG. There are two answers to that. The first is that 

I was invited here to talk about what it looked like to me on the 

ground, what did I see, what did I hear. I didn’t conduct an investigation, I wasn’t invited to do research as to what happened in the 

election. I am invited here as someone who is on the ground and 

who is able to report what I saw and heard so that you folks can 

do that investigation. 

I put that in there and I put that it was an allegation, and I put 

that it was an allegation because I hadn’t substantiated it, but it 

certainly is troubling and somebody should be investigating that. 

Mr. JORDAN. A nameless guy, with nameless students, in front 

of the Judiciary Committee. 

Ms. SANDBERG. I am sorry. If I am oversees and I am an election 

observer and someone wants their election certified, I know the 

people are trained to say, ‘‘If there are reports, give us reports, we 

will look into it, and we will see whether or not the election procedures need fixing.’’ In that same spirit, I come to you today and 

say, we heard enormously disturbing things. And my testimony 

today, again, is not the result of research on my part but to raise 

as issues that were troubling that we heard. 

As far as how the secretary of state do so poorly in this election, 

it was the same question I had previously, is the polls overwhelmingly showed that he was going to do poorly, and this time the 

Democrats were a little more prepared. They had lawyers all over 

the State. 

You folks, blessedly, and I have to say from both sides of the 

aisle, and as you know in my testimony, I said I am not saying all 

Republicans, I am talking about particular individuals who did 

81

your party, I believe, no honor, that there were folks all over the 

State who had shined a light on what was going on in Ohio. The 

difference in the polls was so great and people were prepared this 

time in a way they weren’t before so they could counter some of the 

tactics that had been used before so that the election went forward 

in a more accurate way. 

Mr. JORDAN. It couldn’t have been that maybe the people who 

won in 2004 got more votes than the other individual on the ballot, 

and those in 2006 who won got more votes than the other. It 

couldn’t have been that simple, could it? 

Ms. SANDBERG. It could have been that simple, except that there 

were so many irregularities, and I am someone who was invited 

here to inform you of all those irregularities so that if you investigate them and you find this is a pattern in other places where 

there are swing States or where there has been closely contested 

elections, that it is your job to figure out a way to prevent those 

irregularities. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. We have heard from about three Members of Congress from Ohio, so I am so happy that Professor 

Sandberg was here this afternoon. 

Our final but certainly one of our most important contributors is 

the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Artur Davis, who is recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I ask my questions, I just want to respond to my friend 

from Iowa’s comments. Earlier, Mr. King made an argument that 

you hear every now and then that we have had 42 years of improving conduct under the Voting Rights Act, so perhaps we no longer 

need it. 

A proposition, obviously we are a less racist country than we 

used to be, people don’t discriminate as much. Does anyone on the 

panel think that we don’t need title 7 because of that? 

Okay. I think that makes my point. 

Let me ask you all several questions regarding the scope of this 

hearing. Voter ID, we have a number of people who believe that 

voter ID is important. I think the Ranking Member of the Committee made some observations about the number of enforcement 

actions brought by the Civil Rights Division. 

Let me ask this question: Do any of you on the panel know how 

many prosecutions have been brought anywhere in the country, in 

the last 5 years, based on people walking into a polling place, 

claiming to be someone they are not? 

Ms. BRAZILE. I believe the Justice Department put out figures of 

11. 

Mr. DAVIS. And that would be 11, Ms. Brazile——

Ms. BRAZILE. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. In a span of 7 years, which is an average 

of a little bit more than one a year. And, of course, normally, this 

institution doesn’t try to pass or typically we don’t try to regulate 

conduct that yields one known violation a year, as I recall. We try 

to be more conservative than that. 

Let me ask you another set of questions, and maybe I am just 

uninformed about this, so I will just ask the whole panel. We know 

82

of all of the issues raised around election irregularities in Florida 

in the year 2000, we know of the 179,855 ballots that weren’t validated. 

Looking at established democracies, I don’t mean countries having their first election, but looking at the countries around the 

world that are established democracies, do we know of another 

country in the last 6 or 7 years where the presidency or the leadership of that country has resulted from an election with so many 

questions around contamination of ballots? 

Anyone on the panel know of another? Maybe I am just not informed. 

Mr. NEAS. I certainly cannot recall one, and I think Donna, quite 

eloquently, a few minutes ago was talking about how we want to 

be a model to the rest of the world and we say we are a model to 

the rest of the world, but over the last 25 years, in particular, and 

it is certainly not just Republican versus Democrat, because I certainly am old enough to remember what it was like in the 1950’s 

and 1960’s with voter intimidation in the South and suppression, 

and we still have that in Georgia and elsewhere, and that is why 

we need the Voting Rights Act. 

But when you look at our reports that we did with the Lawyers 

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the NAACP and People 

For, they are entitled, the long shadow of Jim Crow or the new face 

of Jim Crow or Shattering the Myth, which is in large measure 

about Ohio in 2004. This is a disgrace——

Mr. DAVIS. Well, let me stop you there, because——

Mr. NEAS [continuing]. Mr. Davis, and we should reform it, and 

I hope this Committee will move forward on it. 

Ms. BRAZILE. But I think Mexico had problems in their last presidential election. 

Mr. DAVIS. And the counter to that, though, I thought someone 

might say Mexico, the only issue is there was an independent electoral commission that was appointed in Mexico that closely scrutinized the process and issued a finding that despite much controversy, there was actually no real evidence of contamination. 

Does anyone on the panel know of an independent commission that 

made that kind of assessment around the 2000 election? Because 

of time, yes or no. 

Okay. You all agree——

Ms. SANDBERG. There are many other countries. If you think of 

the recent Zambian election——

Mr. DAVIS. I am talking about established countries, not countries where they are just learning this process. I am talking about 

established democracies who have a history of at least 25, 30, 50, 

70 years. I don’t know of another instance when the election of the 

president or the chancellor or the prime minister—similar question: Do any of you know of any election in an established democracy where a judicial determination has been the dispositive factor? 

Again, major established democracy for president, chancellor? I 

can’t recall one. 

Let me end on this observation: Normally, what Congress tries 

to do and what public policy aims to do is to try to find areas where 

there are major problems and to step in and address those. That 

is what we try to do with our regulatory reach. It seems to me the 

83

biggest problem that we have with elections in this country is that 

significant numbers of people who are eligible to vote are still not 

registered to vote. 

In my State of Alabama, in your State, Ms. Brazile, Louisiana, 

your native State, 58 percent of the Blacks who were eligible to 

vote are registered. It is consistent across the South. That strikes 

me as a somewhat important problem from a policymaker’s standpoint. 

On the flipside of that, I think we have some general agreement 

in this room that we know of scattered instances where people 

walk into polling places claiming to be John Jones when they are 

Mary Smith. We know of scattered instances when people are regularly engaging in that kind of fraud that some people want to regulate with voter ID. 

Doesn’t it make sense to all of you that we should be aiming our 

laws and our policy to what appears to be the bigger problem instead of something that appears to be an aberration. 

Mr. NEAS. Absolutely. 

Ms. BRAZILE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. Thanks. 

Mr. CONYERS. I think this brings to a conclusion the beginning 

of a very important inquiry, and it is my hope that we will be able 

to move on this matter and document some of the very disparate 

numbers that have been exchanged here today. 

Wouldn’t it be nice to know accurately, to the best of our ability, 

the actual numbers of people who have committed fraud or who 

have been denied to vote or have tried to vote more than once or 

immigrant attempted voting? All these things do have some numbers behind them, and I think the Department of Justice has a 

huge responsibility in that area. 

And so to Mr. Neas, to Donna Brazile, to Professor Sandberg, we 

are indebted to you, and all of our witnesses—but wait a minute. 

I haven’t recognized Mr. Ellison, and I apologize for that. 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, a lot of the questions that I had have 

already been asked and I have already had a chance to ask the 

first panel some questions. So I just want to say, quite clearly, I 

want to thank all the witnesses who have come forward so eloquently, and I want to thank the Chair. 

I think this is one of the most fundamental and rudimentary 

problems in our society, and we have really got to focus our attention on getting more people to participate in our democracy and not 

straining at a net on who may or may not have voted when they 

weren’t who they said they were. Because I think while that may 

be a problem, it is relatively small in the greater scheme of things. 

So, again, thank you, Mr. Chair, and, certainly, I want to thank 

all the panelists. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, thank you very much, Keith Ellison. 

Your participation on the Judiciary Committee has been welcomed by many. And I think that, although many of our remarks 

and some of the discussion went beyond the parameters of the bill 

that we have in front of us, unless we look at this in a larger scope, 

we tend to just focus on particular issues, singular issues, when I 

think all of us see that there are a great many things that can be 

done. 

84

And I intend to maximally involve the Department of Justice 

who I think that a huge responsibility goes on, not just toward enforcement and protecting the rights of citizenship, but of encouraging and making more simple the balloting process. It has been 

observed here that actually we have hundreds, if not thousands, of 

different systems going on because of the Federal-State dichotomy. 

What we want to do now is ponder, and I invite our witnesses 

who are free to continue to contact us, how we proceed next and 

how most effectively. 

This Committee’s agenda is so large that being efficient really 

counts for something here, and so we will include received statements from the NAACP, the Brennan Center for Justice, ACORN, 

the Project Vote report. And, without objection, they will all be included in the record. 

And the record will remain open for 5 legislative days for the 

submission of other materials. 

I thank you all for your devoted commitment to this subject matter and to your active substantive contributions made here at the 

hearing today. 

Thank you, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 7:04 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(85)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

86

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


Lee-1.eps
87


Lee-2.eps
88


Lee-3.eps
89


Lee-4.eps
90


Lee-5.eps
91


Lee-6.eps
92


Lee-7.eps
93


Lee-8.eps
94


Lee-9.eps
95


Lee-10.eps
96

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN FUND, COLUMNIST, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

I want to thank the Commissioners for addressing this important issue because 

we may be only three weeks away from repeating the 2000 Florida election debacle, 

although this time not in one but in several states with allegations of voter fraud, 

intimidation, and manipulation of voting machines added to the generalized chaos 

we saw in Florida. 

It’s time to acknowledge the U.S. still has in many places a haphazard election 

system that is more befitting an emerging nation than the world’s leading democracy. 

Walter Dean Burnham has called our system the world’s sloppiest electoral process. How sloppy? Just ask the residents of Maryland last month who saw their primary election thrown into chaos after electronic voting machines couldn’t be activated. Thousands of voters gave up and went home surrendering their right to vote. 

Now we have the prospect of both candidates for governor in Maryland, the Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich and the Democratic challenger, Mr. O’Malley, calling 

on voters to cast their ballots by absentee. This shows a complete lack of confidence 

in our election system, and this presents us with two possible problems. 

If Donna Brazile and others are legitimately worried about voter intimidation, the 

easiest ballots to intimidate voters over are absentee ballots because they’re cast 

outside of the purview and the authority of election officials, and we have a long 

history in this country of people being intimidated either by their spouses, their relatives, their employers, union officials, or others into casting an absentee ballot a 

certain way. More absentee ballots equals more voter intimidation. 

In addition, absentee ballots are the most easy method to commit voter fraud, 

again, because they’re cast outside the view and the authority of election officials. 

The 2000 Florida recount was more than merely a national embarrassment. It left 

a lasting scar on the American political psyche. Indeed, the level of suspicion is such 

that many Americans are convinced that politicians can’t be trusted to play by the 

rules and will either commit fraud or intimidate voters at the slightest opportunity. 

Now, the 2000 election did result in some modest reforms at the federal level, 

such as the Help America Vote Act of 2002, but the implementation has been slow. 

Although I will say one positive outcome of the HAVA Act is that Donna Brazile’s 

sister, if she did not produce all of the ID that she thought she needed to produce, 

would have been allowed under HAVA to request a provisional ballot. That provisional ballot would have been counted later after she had established her eligibility. 

So under the current system if you don’t have the ID, you’re allowed a provisional 

ballot. That provisional ballot will be counted if you are, indeed, an eligible voter. 

America’s election problems go beyond the strapped budgets of many local election 

offices. More insidious are flawed voter rolls, voter ignorance, lackadaisical law enforcement, and the shortage of trained volunteers at the polls. 

Something like 70 percent of our poll workers are going to be retiring in the next 

year. It’s an old person’s occupation. We need to find some way to bring young people, college students, high school students into the process. 

All of this adds up to an open invitation for errors, miscount or fraud. Reform is 

easy to talk about, but difficult to bring about. Many of the suggested improvements, such as requiring voters to show ID at the polls, are bitterly opposed. Others 

such as improving the security of absentee ballots, which Professor Pastor mentioned, are largely ignored. 

And of course, the biggest growth sector of our election industry has been the 

turning of election day into election month through a new legal quagmire, election 

by litigation. Every close race now carries with it the prospect of demands for recounts, lawsuits, and seating challenges in Congress. Some people joke that they’re 

waiting for the day that the politicians can just cut out the middle man and settle 

all elections in court. 

That gallows humor may be entirely appropriate given the predicament we face. 

The 2000 election may have marked a permanent change in how an election can 

be decided. We need to restore public confidence. 

Ironically, Mexico and many other countries have election systems that are more 

secure than ours. It wouldn’t be possible in Mexico to have a situation that we have 

in many of our American cities where the voter roles have more names on them 

than the U.S. Census lists as the total number of residents over the age of 18. 

Philadelphia’s voter roles, for instance, have jumped 24 percent in the last ten 

years at the same time the city’s population has declined by 15 percent. Something 

is going on there, and it probably does not lead us to greater accuracy at the polls. 

In the U.S. at a time of heightened security and rules that require us to show 

ID to travel and to enter most federal buildings, only about 25 states require some 

form of documentation in order to vote. A recent Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll 

97

confirms every other poll that I’ve seen on this subject. It found that over 81 percent 

of those surveyed supported the requirement to show photo ID. This included twothirds majorities of African Americans, two-thirds majorities of Democrats, twothirds majorities of Hispanics. In fact, I will make a stipulation I normally don’t. 

If you can bring me evidence of a major public policy question which has the levels 

of support that we see on photo ID, 81 percent and greater, I’ll make a donation 

to your favorite charity. There simply, you don’t get beyond 81 percent. You simply 

don’t. 

Andrew Young, who is the former U.N. Ambassador and the former Mayor of Atlanta, makes a very good point about photo ID. Of course we have to make sure 

this is accessible. Of course we have to make sure this is accessible. Of course we 

have to make sure that it’s free to anyone who can’t afford it. Of course we have 

to make sure that it’s not another barrier. 

But there’s also an advantage to photo ID. In modern 21st Century America if 

you don’t have photo ID, you are cut out of the mainstream of American life. You 

can’t really travel. You can’t really apply for a job. You can’t really do a lot of things 

in life that, frankly, would bring you into the mainstream and make your life more 

rich. 

Andrew Young points out we are helping the poor. We are helping the indigent. 

We are helping many people out of the mainstream of American life if we get them 

a photo ID. They need to have it to be fully participatory in America’s life. 

Election fraud, whether it’s phony voter registrations, illegal absentee ballots, 

shady recounts or old fashioned ballot box stuffing can be found in every part of 

the U.S. Fraud can be found in rural areas and in major cities. If you want to find 

some interesting witnesses for voter fraud, I suggest you go to St. Louis and Detroit 

where we’ve recently had Democratic primaries for mayor. 

In these Democratic primaries, the losing candidates have presented some compelling evidence of either massive voter official incompetence or outright fraud. Freeman Hendrix, the losing candidate for Mayor of Detroit in the Democratic primary 

in the last election, says that the election was conducted under conditions of massive fraud. There’s an ongoing FBI investigation into that, and he has called for 

photo ID at the polls, and he’s a Democrat and a minority. 

Investigations of voter fraud are inherently political because they often involve 

touchy situations which people, frankly, don’t want to address fully, conditions that 

harken back to the great debates we had over the civil rights struggle in the 1960s. 

And I want to address that because we fought a great civil rights hurdle in the 

1960s to make sure that poll taxes and other barriers to voting would be dropped 

and would never again stain America’s conscience. We need to continue that struggle. It’s one of the reasons we just extended the Voting Rights Act for the next 25 

years. 

But I would remind people that there is another civil right at stake here. When 

voters are disenfranchised by the counting of improperly cast ballots or outright 

fraud or, frankly, the incompetence of election officials, their civil rights are violated 

just as surely as if they had been prevented from voting. The integrity of the ballot 

box is just as important to the credibility of elections as access to the ballot box is. 

Voting irregularities have a long pedigree in America, stretching back to the 

founding of the nation. Many people thought that those bad, old days had ended, 

just as many people think that there no longer is any form of voter intimidation. 

That’s not the case. Voter intimidation does continue. Voter fraud does continue. 

Let me give you an example of how historical ghosts can come back to haunt us. 

In 1948, pistol packing Texas sheriffs helped stuff ballot box 13, stealing a United 

States Senate seat and sending Lyndon Johnson on his road to the White House. 

That’s been documented in Robert Caro’s biography. 

Amazingly, 56 years later came the 2004 primary election in that same part of 

Texas with Representative Sero Rodriguez, a Democrat and chairman of the Hispanic Caucus in the U.S. House, charged that during the recount a missing ballot 

box once again appeared in south Texas with just enough votes to make his opponent, the Democratic nominee, by 58 votes. 

Political bosses, such as Richard J. Daley or George Wallace, may have died, but 

they do have successors. Even after Florida 2000, the media and others tend to 

downplay or ignore stories of election incompetence, manipulation or theft. Allowing 

such abuses to vanish into an informational black hole in effect legitimizes them. 

The refusal to insist on simple procedural changes, such as requiring a photo ID, 

improving absentee ballot procedures, secure technology, and more vigorous oversight, accelerates our drift towards more chaotic and contested elections. 

In conclusion, I would remind you that I never expected to live in a country where 

officials in places like Miami and other cities would hire the Center for Democracy, 

which normally oversees voting in places such as Guatemala or Albania, to send 

98

election monitors to south Florida and other places in the 2002 and 2004 elections. 

Scrutinizing our elections the way we have traditionally scrutinized voting in developing countries is unfortunately a necessary step in the right direction. 

Before we get the clearer laws and better protections, we need to deal with fraud 

and voter mishaps. We need to have a sense of the magnitude of the problem we 

have. I hope and trust that you as Commissioners of this body can help in that process.

99

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM RALPH G. NEAS, PRESIDENT AND

CEO, PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY


Neas-1.eps
100


Neas-2.eps
101


Neas-3.eps
102

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM DONNA L. BRAZILE, CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S VOTING RIGHTS INSTITUTE, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY


DB-1.eps
103


DB-2.eps
104

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, FROM THE WASHINGTON POST AND THE WESTSIDE GAZETTE, 

SUBMITTED BY DONNA L. BRAZILE, CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S

VOTING RIGHTS INSTITUTE, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY


DB0001.eps
105


DB0002.eps
106


DB0003.eps
107


DB0004.eps
108


DB0005.eps
109


DB0006.eps
110


DB0007.eps
111


DB0008.eps
112


DB0009.eps
113


DB0010.eps
114


DB0011.eps
115

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HILARY O. SHELTON, DIRECTOR,

NAACP WASHINGTON BUREAU


NAACP1.eps
116


NAACP2.eps
117

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LILLIE CONEY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY

INFORMATION CENTER (EPIC), COORDINATOR NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR VOTING

INTEGRITY


EPIC0001.eps
118


EPIC0002.eps
119


EPIC0003.eps
120


EPIC0004.eps
121


EPIC0005.eps
122


EPIC0006.eps
123


EPIC0007.eps
124


EPIC0008.eps
125


EPIC0009.eps
126


EPIC0010.eps
127

Æ


EPIC0011.eps