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

28–965 2006

HEARING ON ‘‘YOU DON’T NEED PAPERS TO 

VOTE?’’ NON-CITIZEN VOTING AND ID REQUIREMENTS IN U.S. ELECTIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 22, 2006 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

VERNON EHLERS, Chairman 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

CANDICE MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California, Ranking Minority Member 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

WILL PLASTER, Staff Director 

GEORGE SHELVIN, Minority Staff Director 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
(1) 

‘‘YOU DON’T NEED PAPERS TO VOTE?’’ NONCITIZEN VOTING AND ID REQUIREMENTS IN 

U.S. ELECTIONS 

THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Ney 

[chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ney, Ehlers, Doolittle, Miller, 

Millender-McDonald, Brady and Lofgren. 

Staff Present: Paul Vinovich, Counsel; Audrey Perry, Counsel; 

Peter Sloan, Professional Staff Member; George Shevlin, Minority 

Staff Director; Thomas Hicks, Minority Professional Staff Member; 

Denise Mixon, Minority Communications Director; Matt Pinkus, 

Minority Professional Staff Member; Janelle Hu, Minority Professional Staff; Stacey Leavandosky, Executive Director, California 

Democratic Delegation; and Teri Morgan, Legislative Director for 

Mr. Brady. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Committee on House Administration will come to order. I would like to 

first remind members of our audience today to please silence all 

cellular phones, pagers and other electronic equipment to prevent 

interruption of the hearing. I thank you. Of course, I would also 

like you to silence your mouth if you feel an urge to scream out 

about something. We will try to maintain order at all times. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to discuss the issue of non-citizen voting and identification requirements in federal elections. 

This is in the broad context of concerns I have about fraudulent 

voting within the United States, and the basic issue is fraud, of 

which non-citizen voting can be one part. Although it is a crime for 

non-citizens to vote in federal elections, most states have no procedures in place to prevent it from happening. 

To demonstrate that non-citizen voting is a real and relevant 

threat to the elections process, I will offer for inclusion in the 

record a release from the Department of Justice that details multiple prosecutions they have brought against non-citizens who cast 

votes illegally, and it is a rather lengthy list. 

While the successful prosecution is proof this type of election 

fraud is taking place, they represent a small fraction of a larger 

problem. Our criminal justice system is not well equipped to prevent election fraud. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
2 

Inadequate processes make fraud difficult to detect. Even when 

there is evidence of a problem, the cases can be difficult to prove. 

Investigations are met with resistance and recalcitrant witnesses. 

Faced with limited resources and competing demands, prosecutors 

often, in fact frequently, do not pursue cases even when evidence 

suggests there may be a violation. Consequently, enforcement of 

violations after the fact is problematic and infrequent. 

Unfortunately, our current procedures also make it difficult to 

stop voting by non-citizens before it occurs. In most states the process amounts to an honor system, failing to recognize that we cannot rely on the honor of those among us who are inclined to commit 

fraud, especially in cases where the law has already been broken 

by individuals who choose to stay in the United States illegally. 

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 required the federal registration form to include a box prospective registrants would have to 

check to certify that they are a citizen. If the person indicates they 

are not a citizen, they are not to complete the form. If the box is 

not checked, the form is supposed to be returned to the applicant 

for completion. 

In practice, forms without the box checked are often processed, 

potentially registering non-citizens. Even when the box is checked, 

the election official is relying on the truthfulness of the certification 

and cannot verify it with any further documentation. 

A few weeks ago, a candidate for federal office was recorded advising an audience that they did not need papers to vote. This remark may have been impolitic, but it was not totally inaccurate. 

The fact is that it is possible to register and vote in this country 

without ever having to provide proof of citizenship. 

This is a problem, and it deserves thoughtful attention from this 

committee in order to explore possible solutions. Our first panel of 

witnesses today includes the Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Member of 

Congress, and the Honorable James R. Langevin, a Member of 

Congress. 

Welcome, to our distinguished fellow Members of Congress, and 

thank you for being with us today. 

Our second panel of witnesses today includes Ray Martinez, Vice 

Chairman, United States Election Assistance Commission; Patrick 

Rogers, attorney with Modrall Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk in 

New Mexico; Paul Bettencourt, Tax Assessor-Collector and Voter 

Registrar, Harris County, Texas; and Wendy Noren, County Clerk, 

Boone County, Missouri. Welcome to our second panel of witnesses. 

Finally, on our third panel today, we have Dan Stein, president, 

Federation for American Immigration Reform; Daniel Calingaert, 

associate director, Center for Democracy and Election Management; Spencer Overton, professor at the George Washington University Law School, and Christine Chen, executive director, Asian 

Pacific Islander American Vote. Welcome to our third panel, and I 

thank each of you for being with us today. 

I might comment that we have tried to make this panel of witnesses as balanced as possible. This is the first time in memory 

that I ever participated in a hearing where we had an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, and that includes my years here 

when the Democrats were in control. But we are trying to be fair 

with this and granted an equal number on all sides. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
3 

At this time, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. 

Millender-McDonald, for any opening remarks she may have. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good 

morning to you, to our colleagues, to the witnesses and to our 

guests. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just first say, thank you so much for having the requisite numbers that are parallel to the majority as well 

as the minority. I do think that you were fair, and that is why you 

have the title of honorable. 

Although the 2004 elections have passed into history, many questions are still unanswered, and important electoral issues need to 

be addressed. Our country’s electoral process is not perfect. Improvements to elections administration still need to be made, and 

I think the focus of this hearing is not at the top of the list of 

issues that we should be discussing. 

With all the problems that plagued the 2004 election, why are we 

focusing on an issue that has only been discussed through a few 

anecdotal cases at best. Of course, anyone who breaks the law by 

attempting to register to vote illegally should be prosecuted, but 

this policy of burdening our Nation with troublesome proof of citizenship requirements is not the direction our committee or the 

country should be heading. Instead, we should be looking at the 

real fraudulent acts of past Federal elections. 

Voting intimidation, threats and other forms of voter suppression 

are still disenfranchising citizens of this country. If we are to discuss voter fraud, we should include these issues which are paramount to many Americans, especially people of color. 

Shortly after the 2004 elections, this committee held a hearing 

in Ohio which was at the epicenter of the 2004 Presidential Election. We heard testimony from witnesses on many of the problems 

associated with that election. Among the extensive list of problems 

were long lines at polling stations, with the elderly sometimes 

fainting and having to leave, a shortage of machines, malfunctioning voter machines, misinformed poll workers and over 100,000 

provisional ballots going uncounted. These are the issues which we 

should be focusing on in our hearings. 

The committee also held a hearing in Wisconsin where we addressed many of the same issues being raised today. Witnesses testified that an estimated 23 percent of elderly persons do not have 

a Wisconsin drivers license or photo ID. Are we to deny these citizens their right to vote, a right that they have exercised for decades merely because they lack a photo ID? 

It has also been suggested that the populace would use a passport as proof of citizenship. However, according to the State Department, only 23 percent of Americans possess a passport and the 

cost of obtaining one is nearly a hundred dollars. This amount may 

not sound much for those of us who are in Congress but my constituents in Watts and other places that are impoverished continually struggle to pay just for housing, medicine and gas to drive to 

work. 

My constituents do not need this additional expense but what 

they do need, Mr. Chairman, is an increase in the minimum wage, 

a bill that the majority in Congress will not pass out and have the 

President sign, which is such an important bill. But requiring a 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
4 

government-issued photo ID to register and vote is not the answer 

to this perceived problem. 

I believe the Help American Vote Act, HAVA, strikes the correct 

balance between voter access and voter integrity. This committee 

worked tirelessly to enact HAVA as a solution to the problems associated with the 2000 election. As a result of HAVA, $3 billion was 

appropriated to States to improve the voting process. HAVA, in my 

opinion, is one of the greatest bipartisan efforts this Congress has 

produced. 

The question of citizenship was addressed head on in HAVA 

whereby Congress mandated that the mail-in registration form include a box and ask the question, are you a citizen of the United 

States of America? If your answer is no, your form is rejected. If 

your answer is yes and you are discovered not to be a citizen, you 

are subject to Federal prosecution. 

There are laws already on the books to prosecute those who 

knowingly and willfully sign the affidavit that they are citizens of 

the United States and yet they are not. And so penalties are stiff 

and have successfully served as a deterrent to misrepresentation. 

We must say, though, as in the State of Ohio, 2 or 3 weeks out, 

they brought in State law that trumped Federal law, and States 

must follow Federal law in conducting Federal elections. 

There are other aspects of the Federal law in place to prevent 

fraud. As the clearinghouse of all matters relating to election administration, the Election Assistance Commission, EAC and its 

commissioners have researched the issues of voting fraud and voting intimidation and believe that the establishment of statewide 

voter registration lists will curb several voting irregularities that 

occurred during the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections. Such requirements went into effect this January of 2006, calling on each 

State’s chief election officer to implement a uniform and centralized 

statewide computerized voter registration list that is administered 

at the State level, contains the names and registration information 

of every legally registered voter in the State and which assigns a 

unique identifier to each legally registered voter in the State. This 

requirement is designed with the dual goal of improving the accuracy of voting lists while also producing the possibility and reducing the possibility of fraud. 

We know, Mr. Chairman, about Kentucky and Michigan and how 

they have become models for the centralized voting registration 

data base. So I am very troubled by the increase in legislative initiatives that would require government-issued photo identifications 

at voting precincts. 

The Federal Elections Commission noted that in 1997 and reported to Congress that photo identification entails major expenses 

both initially and maintenance. Such a requirement also presents 

an undue and potentially discriminatory burden on citizens in exercising their basic rights to vote. 

Such legislation would impose an economic burden on the American voter. If you live in America’s fortunate half, the half with the 

household income that is above the median of $44,000 a year, you 

may find it easier to get a passport. However, it is possibly inconceivable that some Americans are too poor, as in the case of my district, to even own an automobile, and there are some people that 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
5 

are so disconnected from the mainstream that they have no drivers 

license or similar identifications to allow access to commercial air 

flights or checking accounts. 

Nevertheless, the entire Nation witnessed this common phenomenon as thousands of people were not able to flee New Orleans 

in the face of Hurricane Katrina because they were too poor to 

leave. We should not erect more barriers for those who have lost 

everything when it comes to this piece of legislation. Let us not forget Hurricanes Katrina and Rita forced nearly 700,000 citizens 

from their Gulf Coast States last year. 

What about the victims who not only lost houses and jobs, but 

the very documentation to prove who they are and their citizenship 

and their birth certificates all have been washed away? What about 

Americans not born in hospitals and by midwives such as the elderly African-Americans who might have not been issued birth certificates? 

We must strengthen voting rights and work to get the 40 percent 

of registered voters who did not participate in the last election to 

become participants instead of erecting new barriers to reducing 

the number of voters. In fact, we should pass the Voting Rights Act 

that has been snatched from our schedule. 

Our efforts should be spent on enfranchising voters and strengthening democracy. I believe that voter fraud is wrong, but we should 

not punish Americans, especially the elderly, the disabled or the 

poor with overly cumbersome requirements that will do nothing to 

increase civic participation. Instead, we should be devoting our resources to prosecute the rampant illegal intimidation tactics that 

continue to surface with each election cycle. 

So, Mr. Chairman, as I have done in the past, I will continue to 

fight to make our voting system one that is free from flaws and defects. Even if one voter is disenfranchised, that is one voter too 

many. 

I look forward to our colleagues’ testimony, Mr. Chairman, and 

again, I thank you for allowing both the majority and the minority 

to have the requisite number of witnesses. Thank you so much. 

[The information follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
6 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 15 here 28965.001
7 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 here 28965.002
8 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 here 28965.003
9 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for her statement. This 

is not a debating society. I would love to respond to part of it. 

Let me say that my ideal is that every person who is qualified 

to vote should be enabled to and encouraged to vote. Every person 

who casts a legal ballot also has a right to be assured that their 

vote counts, and it is not diluted by people who vote illegally. And 

so the goal is to ensure as many people as possible vote but also 

to ensure that they are voting legally. 

I am pleased to recognize Mr. Doolittle for an opening statement. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of hearing from 

our witnesses, I will forego the opening statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that, and thank you. 

Next, we turn to Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. No statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady passes. 

Mr. Ney. 

Mr. NEY. I don’t, but I think it is good to have the hearing. 

Also, when Congressman Hoyer and I put together HAVA, we debated these issues for about a year and a half about IDs or what 

works or what doesn’t and some of the concerns have been since 

then to take a look at HAVA where it could be changed or altered, 

and there has always been the concern, too, of opening up to a hundred other issues, but that is the process. 

Again, these are pretty thoroughly debated, but I think it is pretty important to air this out. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Lofgren, do you have a statement? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am anxious to get to our witnesses who have 

been patient and I know have many things to do today. I think 

that the ranking member’s comments are well taken, and certainly 

today it is a felony to register to vote if you are not eligible. And 

I think I am hardpressed to see why making a felony that provides 

5 years in prison is insufficient. As we proceed, we need also to balance the impact of this proposed law on Americans who want to 

vote and Americans who are really very poor and don’t have the 

requirements. It is absolutely clear to me that those who would 

be—who would lose if this bill were to be enacted are Americans 

who lack the credentials, the paper credentials, and we can talk 

about some of the examples that have just come to our attention; 

elderly people, the first Americans, Native Americans who in many 

cases are not born in hospitals but at home and lack the requirements that you might find than if you were an affluent person. 

I think we very carefully need to consider, while I am sure it is 

not intended by the author, the elitism, that assumptions that are 

made here are misplaced and the impact on those who want to participate and have a right to participate in their American Government. And this coming on our failure to proceed yesterday on the 

Voting Rights Act that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by a wide bipartisan margin, the failure of the House to 

take up the Voting Rights Act that is so essential to protect the 

rights of Americans who are minorities and who tend to be poor 

and without power, that failure coupled with this hearing today 

that once again would ignore the situation of the impoverished is 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
10 

very disturbing to me. And I hope we can touch on that as the 

hearing progresses. 

And I thank the Chairman for allowing me to make that statement and pose those issues for our witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your comments. I can assure you 

that I believe everyone in the Congress realizes and shares in the 

belief in the importance of the Voting Rights Act, and I also look 

forward to it coming to the floor some time in the near future. 

With that, we turn to our first panel, Representative Hyde and 

Representative Langevin. We will begin with the senior statesman 

of the House of Representatives, Congressman Hyde. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate 

you—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Turn on your microphone. 

Mr. HYDE. The more silent I am, the better I am. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, especially for your extraordinary balancing act, lead-off with two witnesses both in wheel 

chairs. How you arranged that, I don’t know. Well done, I must 

say. 

Years ago, there was an old saying: Louie Armstrong was a great 

musician out of New Orleans and someone said Louie, what is jazz? 

He said, if you have to ask, you’ll never really know. And that answer holds true for this issue. If you don’t think there is a problem 

with 12 million—and nobody knows how accurate that number is— 

illegal aliens roaming the country, if you don’t think it presents a 

problem about non-citizens voting, then I guess nothing will convince you. To me, the potential and the reality is very real. The 

Constitution says a citizen shall vote, and we have an awful lot of 

non-citizens who are voting and who do vote. 

I have a prepared statement which I will abbreviate and then 

make a couple of more comments on that subject. But since states 

have made it easy for ineligible persons to register to vote, voter 

registration forms require only an attestation of citizenship. No 

proof of citizenship is required under our current honor system. 

There are many forms of vote fraud which I am sure you are all 

familiar with, including spoiled ballots, vote buying, illegitimate 

voters, both dead and alive, ballot boxes found after votes have 

been counted, ballot boxes never found and non-citizen voting. 

In the last 3 years, the U.S. Department of Justice has prosecuted voter fraud cases in several States, including Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New 

Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wisconsin. 

As an example, on July 15th, 2004, 15 non-citizens were charged 

by the Department of Justice with voting in various elections beginning in 1998 in south Florida, and four of these defendants were 

also charged with making false citizenship claims in violation of 

Federal law. Ten defendants were convicted. One defendant was 

acquitted, and charges against four defendants were dismissed 

upon the government’s motion. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
11 

I have this bill, H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 

2006, that would help guard against such fraud. It would amend 

the motor voter bill to require States to demand proof of citizenship 

for voter registration or reregistration in Federal elections. My bill 

would also require current official photo ID when both registering 

and voting. No State would be exempt from these requirements. 

States that allow citizens to register to vote at the polls would be 

required to demand proof of citizenship when voting. States that do 

not require voter registration at all would still be required to ask 

for proof of citizenship and a current legal photo ID at the polls. 

Last year I polled my district to see if voters are willing to 

produce proof of citizenship when registering and a current legal 

photo when voting. My constituents overwhelmingly supported legislation with these simple requirements. I think the country overwhelmingly supports fair and legal elections. Our voting rights 

were won by Americans who were willing to die for the freedom to 

elect our representatives, and we have a duty to safeguard that 

freedom. If we don’t, our elections become meaningless. 

Identity theft is a very popular crime these days, and it fits right 

in with fraudulent voting. A recent study by the Chicago Tribune— 

we all used to say, when I die, I want to be buried in Chicago, so 

I can stay active in politics. I say that with tongue in cheek because I think Mayor Daley has done a good job, and I don’t mean 

to be too critical of him. 

But the Chicago Tribune, December 4th of 2004, made a survey, 

and they found 186,000 dead people had registered to vote. 

There is an article in the Texas Law Review, which I have, with 

a lot of statistics. I won’t bore you with them, but it is a real problem. The law is that a citizen should vote. Most everybody has a 

drivers license. The law can also provide another photo ID of an 

official character at no cost to the registrant because the tradeoff 

for having elections of integrity as against fraudulent voting is 

worth whatever the cost would be. 

So this bill simply addresses one aspect of the problem, but our 

elections are what democracy is all about, and we ought to do everything we can to avoid the abuse of the democratic process. So 

I thank you for listening and considering this important issue, and 

I am sure it will receive thorough consideration. So I will terminate 

my statement now with thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you for your comments and your statement, and without objection, the article you referred to from the 

Texas Law Review will be placed in the record without objection. 

So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
12 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 28965.004
13 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 28965.005
14 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 28965.006
15 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 28965.007
16 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 28965.008
17 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 28965.009
18 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 28965.010
19 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 28965.011
20 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 28965.012
21 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 28965.013
22 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 28965.014
23 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 28965.015
24 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 28965.016
25 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 28965.017
26 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 28965.018
27 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 28965.019
28 

The CHAIRMAN. Next, we are pleased to recognize Representative 

Langevin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE 

ISLAND 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Millender-McDonald. I first want to begin by thanking you—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Could someone move the microphone closer? 

Mr. LANGEVIN. I want to thank you first of all for holding this 

hearing and for going to extraordinary lengths to make sure that 

the panels are balanced, and I echo the comments of my friend and 

colleague Chairman Hyde. You went to the extraordinary effort to 

make sure you had two members in chairs testifying. That is what 

I call going above and beyond the call. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Millender-McDonald and esteemed colleagues on the House Administration Committee. I do 

appreciate your invitation to testify today. I have been proud to 

work with members of the committee on matters of great significance, from election reform to continuity of Congress, accessibility 

of the Capitol complex, and I am pleased to join you today as both 

a member of Congress and as a former Secretary of State to share 

my experiences about our Nation’s election system. 

I think it might even be appropriate on this issue to invoke the 

words of another man in a chair, all we have to fear is fear itself. 

When I was elected Secretary of State, Rhode Island had the oldest voting equipment in the Nation. Beginning in 1993 when I 

chaired a special legislative commission on election reform as a 

State representative, and then, as Secretary of State, I worked 

with my colleagues in the legislature, the State board of elections, 

local canvassing authorities and the public to investigate voter 

problems throughout the State and develop an effective solution. 

We successfully upgraded our election equipment, significantly 

reducing our error rates and making our polling places and machines accessible to people with disabilities. 

I also wrote the law which implemented and brought Rhode Island into compliance with the requirements of the National Voter 

Registration Act, popularly known as motor voter, which reduced 

certain longstanding obstacles to registration. These changes were 

significant, and we ultimately met our goal of increasing the number of registered voters in Rhode Island by nearly 60,000 between 

1993 and 2000. That is significant given the facts that we only 

have just over 660,000 voters in Rhode Island. 

Now our efforts made Rhode Island a model for electoral participation and accessibility, and I was pleased to help translate those 

successes to the national level by participating in the development 

of the Help America Vote Act, a great bipartisan effort of this committee and the most recent success story in Congress’s long history 

of expanding voting opportunities to Americans. 

Congress should be proud of its record of removing barriers and 

increasing the opportunity of all Americans to vote. Though it took 

us far too long, Congress guaranteed the right to vote to citizens 

whose only disqualification was the color of their skin. It opened 

polling places to the disabled. It extended the franchise to AmeriVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:09 Sep 08, 2006 Jkt 208965 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\28965.XXX 28965

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
29 

cans living overseas. It has enabled all citizens in our mobile society to register and reregister with ease. It did all of this on a bipartisan basis. It did this while maintaining the integrity of our elections. 

Over the past five decades Congress has never seriously entertained legislation that would reduce participation. Regrettably, 

H.R. 4844 would have that effect and mark a dangerous departure 

from past efforts. Should this bill become law, fewer eligible citizens will be able to vote. 

It is easy, Mr. Chairman, to imagine individuals who would be 

disenfranchised under this bill. It could be a lance corporal in 

Tikrit whose parents failed to include a birth certificate in her duffle bag. It could be the Mississippi sharecropper born in his family 

home in a county that had no interest in recording his birth. 

It could be a fisherman in St. Bernard Parish unable to find a 

public record of his life in the wake of Katrina’s destruction. And 

it could be a naturalized citizen who, because of a government 

clerk’s error, cannot obtain a copy of his naturalization papers. And 

maybe it is an elderly Rhode Island resident who leaves her home 

of 50 years to enter an assisted-living facility, or maybe an 18-yearold student registering to vote for his first election who neglected 

to bring his birth certificate with him. 

The list could go on and on, Mr. Chairman. However, all of these 

people have one thing in common, once they are turned away from 

registering because of lack of documentation, it is unlikely that 

they will ever return. They will drop out of the Nation’s election 

system because it failed them. 

Let us be very clear, passage of H.R. 4844 would have an adverse 

impact on how our elections are administered as well as a detrimental effect on voter participation. Not only would the bill make 

it harder for nearly every American citizen to register to vote, but 

it would also add massive compliance requirements for election officials. 

How many other eligible citizens would not vote because of the 

barriers created by this bill? Is it hundreds of thousands? Is it millions? Do the sponsors know? How much fraud, if any, will this actually deter? From my experience in Rhode Island and other stories 

in the public record, the type of fraud that this bill is intended to 

deter is virtually nonexistent. Do the sponsors really have evidence 

to the contrary? 

And if the means or justification of this bill is to prevent noncitizens from voting, it is unnecessarily duplicative since Federal 

and State penalties already exist in this area and should be enforced. Under the law, fraudulent voter registration is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison. 

So as the committee considers this bill, one simple question matters, is Congress willing to disenfranchise possibly millions in an 

effort to address the elusive fraud that sponsors fear? 

Mr. Chairman, there are real threats in the integrity of our election system, and this bill addresses none of them. There are new 

registrants who, through no fault of their own, will not appear on 

the voting rolls because the State is unable to properly match the 

registrations with other public records. There are millions of eligible voters whose votes will not be counted because of unduly reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:09 Sep 08, 2006 Jkt 208965 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\28965.XXX 28965

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
30 

strictive provisional ballot rules, and there are thousands of voters 

who are not being given the opportunity as required by law to register at public assistance agencies, and similar numbers whose registrations are not transferred from the motor voter vehicle department in a timely manner. Why are those problems not being addressed? 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to a point that 

I made earlier in my statement. This Congress has wisely never 

passed election legislation which did not have substantial bipartisan support or which restricted electoral freedoms. Unfortunately, 

this hearing suggests that this fine tradition may be endangered. 

Our election laws should not be a matter of political calculation 

but a preservative of our most precious right, the right to vote. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
31 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 here 28965.020
32 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 here 28965.021
33 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank both of you gentlemen for your statements. I very much appreciate your presence here and the wisdom 

you have shared with us. I will explain for the benefit of the audience that we normally do not have questions of Members of Congress who appear, because they are here all the time, and we can 

question them any time. But I am sure you will encounter many 

questions from not just this panel, from our colleagues about this 

issue. 

Thank you both very much for being here, and I thank you for 

your testimony. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you both so very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. I invite our second panel of witnesses to come to 

the table. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, do we have written testimony from 

the witnesses? I didn’t get it? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we do. I am sorry if you did not. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Maybe I can get it from the staff. 

STATEMENTS OF RAY MARTINEZ, VICE CHAIRMAN, UNITED 

STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; PATRICK 

ROGERS, ATTORNEY, MODRALL, SPERLING, ROEHL, HARRIS 

& SISK, P.A. LAW FIRM, NEW MEXICO; PAUL BETTENCOURT, 

TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR AND VOTER REGISTRAR FOR 

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; AND WENDY NOREN, COUNTY 

CLERK, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI 

The CHAIRMAN. Our second panel consists of Mr. Martinez, Vice 

Chairman of the Election Assistance Commission; Mr. Rogers, an 

attorney with Modrall Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk in New Mexico; Paul Bettencourt, the Tax Assessor-Collector and Voter Registrar from Harris County, Texas; and Wendy Noren, the County 

Clerk from Boone County, Missouri. 

We will hear your testimony in that order, and I call upon Mr. 

Martinez for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RAY MARTINEZ 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Madam Ranking Member. 

I am honored to be before this distinguished committee once 

again, Mr. Chairman. 

After the 2000 Presidential Election, several important national 

commissions and task forces were created to study the problems in 

election administration. One such commission whose recommendations greatly influenced congressional views on election administration was the Commission on Federal Election Reform of 2001, cochaired by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. Like 

other similar entities, the Carter-Ford Commission recognized the 

essential role of State and local governments in the process of election administration. 

Speaking on the balance of authority in the U.S. Constitution, 

the commission’s final report stated, quote, The framers recognized 

the practical need to rely on local administration and State oversight, end quote. 

In passing such important voting rights laws, such as the Uniform and Overseas Citizen Absenteeism Voting Act of 1996, the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
34 

National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote 

Act of 2002, Congress carefully considered this balance of responsibility and appropriately gave significant discretion to State governments in implementing these important laws. 

As an EAC commissioner, I have strived to fully support this 

carefully crafted balance of State, Federal responsibilities. Prior to 

joining the EAC, I operated a solo law practice in Austin, Texas, 

that focused almost exclusively on representation on administrative 

law matters of county and local governments. Indeed, most of my 

professional career throughout the past 15 years has been dedicated to serving the needs of State and local jurisdictions. That is 

especially true during my term on the EAC. 

As an EAC commissioner, I have diligently worked to support 

this carefully crafted balance of Federal-State responsibilities. The 

EAC has made it a priority to build a genuine and lasting partnership with officials at the State and local level, and we have actively 

sought their essential input to guide the work of our agency. 

Moreover, the EAC places great value in the productive working 

relationship we have developed with such influential organizations 

as the National Association of Secretaries of State. 

In short, Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that the key to success 

from my agency is to find ways to support and enhance this balance of responsibilities over election administration that Congress 

has so repeatedly endorsed when passing laws such as NVRA and 

HAVA. However, immediately after my confirmation by the United 

States Senate to the EAC, I took an important oath to uphold the 

Constitution and the laws of the United States. While the responsibility to administer elections is appropriately reserved to State and 

local governments, it is a well-established matter of law that Congress possesses the constitutional authority to regulate elections for 

Federal offices. 

By passing significant legislation like HAVA, NVRA, Congress 

has exercised this authority. My obligation as an EAC commissioner, Mr. Chairman, is to implement these laws in the most deliberative and reasonable manner and with no regard to any partisan or political agenda. 

When any matter is brought before the EAC which in my view 

would significantly alter this carefully crafted balance of State-Federal authority, I believe I have not only a responsibility but an obligation to consider the interest not only of that particular State that 

requests such a change but the implication of that change to the 

entire country. 

In the important matter pertaining to Arizona’s recent request 

that the EAC amend its State-specific instructions to require documentary proof of citizenship for any applicant using the NVRA 

Federal form, the EAC was presented with just such a scenario. In 

other words, in carefully considering Arizona’s request to condition 

acceptance of the Federal form upon documentary proof of citizenship, we considered relevant statutory language, such as the requirement contained in NVRA that each State shall accept and use 

the national mail-in voter registration application as prescribed by 

the EAC. 

To the extent that there may have been any ambiguity in the 

statutory language, such as what Congress meant by specifically 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
35 

disallowing any notarization or other formal authentication with 

the Federal form, we as an agency turned to legislative history and 

congressional intent. 

And yet, Mr. Chairman, aside from statutory language, aside 

from legislative intent, it is also true that the EAC must also consider the practical effect of granting Arizona’s change and the impact that decision would have upon the express findings put forth 

by Congress in passing NVRA. That is, if Arizona is allowed to condition the Federal form upon documentary proof of citizenship, 

what is to prevent other States from doing the same with other eligibility qualifications? 

For example, if hypothetically 15 States were to follow Arizona’s 

lead in requiring documentary proof of citizenship, another 10 

States requiring documentary proof of age, and yet another handful 

of States requiring affirmative documentary proof of non-felon status, would this not result in a new patchwork of legislation for Federal elections? And if so, would this not defeat one of the central 

and most important purposes of NVRA, to make it easier for eligible citizens to participate in our great democracy. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I realize that it is my duty in carrying 

out my responsibilities as an EAC commissioner to keep my personal hat separate from my professional one, and yet at times this 

is difficult to do. Right now, living in a small rural town in Texas, 

there is an 86-year-old World War II veteran who was born on a 

ranch in south Texas, far away from hospitals, far away from birth 

certificates and far away from documentary proof of citizenship. 

He dutifully and proudly served his country, his community and 

his family with honor. He has voted in every election that I can remember, and I know this because he often took me with him to 

vote as a young boy. This person is my father. 

By conditioning the fundamental to right upon government documents that many citizens may not readily have available or in 

some cases that may be impossible or difficult to obtain is to fundamentally alter the delicate balance of Federal-State responsibility that has been so carefully crafted through important laws 

like NVRA. 

I have nothing but the highest regard for election officials such 

as Secretary Jan Brewer and my friend and fellow Texan, Paul 

Bettencourt, who worked tirelessly to implement the laws passed 

by the good people of their respective jurisdictions. However, when 

such significant matters as this come into play, the EAC must consider the implication of its decisions not just in regard to one important State or jurisdiction but in the full context of the entire 

country. 

Moreover, since NVRA represents the only regulatory authority 

that has been granted to the EAC, we ought to exercise this authority with extreme caution in a fully deliberative and measured 

fashion and with no regard to political and partisan agendas today. 

And I pledge to you and this committee, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to do just that as a commissioner. I thank you for the time, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Martinez follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
36 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 28965.022
37 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 28965.023
38 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

I received a note that we are likely to have votes on the House 

floor 12:15 to 12:30, so we will do our best to conclude this hearing 

by that time, if we can. If we can’t, we are going to ask you to stay 

around and come back after the votes. 

But I do want to remind everyone, we would like to have you 

limit your testimony to 5 minutes if you can, and if your testimony 

is longer than that, it will be submitted for the record regardless. 

But please summarize it in that case. 

Next, we are pleased to go to Mr. Rogers, an attorney with 

Modrall Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk in the great State of New 

Mexico. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK ROGERS 

Mr. ROGERS. My name is Pat Rogers, I am an attorney in private 

practice in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the Modrall law firm. I am 

also a member of the Board of Directors—I am also a member of 

the Board of Directors of the American Center for Voting Rights 

and Legislative Fund. I am here today because I am concerned 

about fraud in the registration and voting process, and I am concerned that legal voters have been disenfranchised by ballots illegally and fraudulently cast in our State and Federal elections. 

I was involved in the battles in New Mexico in 2000, and I was 

also involved in a host of lawsuits in 2004 concerning the election 

process, including voter ID as well as ballot access issues. 

Presently, I am counsel to three individuals in a pending Federal 

suit in which the ACLU has challenged the constitutionality of the 

City of Albuquerque’s photo ID requirements. ACVR has requested 

amicus status, and I am counsel to ACVR in that capacity as well. 

In New Mexico, the issue of non-citizens voting is not a new one. 

There was a Senate investigation concerning the Senate election of 

1952. The conclusion from that report noted that illegal aliens had 

registered and voted. The subcommittee suggested that the registration system was so loose and ineffective that it was an invitation to fraud and dishonesty in elections. 

The subcommittee concluded that the registration laws must be 

strictly enforced to encourage full participation by the citizens and 

to readily determine the qualifications of those who present themselves to vote on election day. 

I am not here today and I am not in a position to quantify or 

even begin to quantify the magnitude of the problem. However, I 

am in a position to assure you in the strongest terms possible that 

fraudulent registration and fraudulent voting is a problem. 

Attachment one to my written comments is a new voter identification card of a woman named Leticia Armijo. Ms. Armijo carries 

a valid Green Card, but she was pressured into signing a voter registration while she was in line for government assistance shortly 

before the 2004 election. 

Ms. Armijo has not voted because it is not lawful to do so, but 

it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that other persons who were 

also in line and have also been registered by these same people 

may not be so concerned about the fidelity to our Nation’s election 

laws. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
39 

In the pending suit, I represent Dwight Adkins who applied to 

intervene in the suit because, in 2004, his vote was stolen. He was 

not allowed to vote because someone had appeared at the polling 

place in his place and voted fraudulently. He was allowed to cast 

a provisional ballot, but that was not allowed because they explained to him he had already voted. Rosemary McGee of Albuquerque suffered the same fate. An additional client in the proceeding is Glen Stout, who is an Albuquerque Police Department 

officer. His 13-year-old son was fraudulently registered to vote 

prior to the 2004 election by an ACORN employee. 

In the past few days, as Mr. Martinez noted, a Federal judge in 

the pending Arizona lawsuit denied TRO and reaffirmed the critical nature of the right to vote and the need to assure eligibility 

to vote. The judge said: Determining whether an individual is a 

United States citizen is of paramount importance when determining his or her eligibility to vote. 

In fact, the NVRA, motor voter, repeatedly mentions that its purpose is to increase registration of eligible citizens. Providing proof 

of citizenship undoubtedly assists Arizona in assessing the eligibility of applicants. Arizona’s proof of citizenship requirement does 

not conflict with the plain language of NVRA. 

I would like to speak very briefly to H.R. 4844. It appears to be 

a significant step forward to address the cynicism, skepticism and 

fraud that keep many American citizens out of the voting booth. 

Requiring a person to identify themselves with photo identification 

before casting a ballot is something that enjoys very broad public 

support. 

I would submit to you that any steps Congress might take to ensure and assure voters and potential voters that only citizens and 

registered voters are allowed to vote is important, not just for the 

integrity of the vote itself but for the increasing numbers of voters 

who are skeptical or cynical about the honesty and fairness of our 

elections. 

I believe that the increased confidence in the system will establish public confidence, and I believe that elections that are fair and 

honest will significantly increase participation. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Rogers follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
40 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 28965.025
41 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 28965.026
42 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 28965.027
43 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 28965.028
44 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 28965.029
45 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 28965.030
46 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 28965.031
47 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 28965.032
48 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 28965.033
49 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 28965.034
50 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 28965.035
51 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 28965.036
52 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 28965.037
53 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 28965.038
54 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 28965.039
55 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 28965.040
56 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 28965.041
57 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 28965.042
58 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 28965.043
59 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 28965.044
60 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 28965.045
61 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 28965.046
62 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 28965.047
63 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you for keeping on 

time. 

Next we call on Mr. Paul Bettencourt, the Tax Assessor-Collector 

and Voter Registrar from Harris County, Texas. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL BETTENCOURT 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. You get to do two unpleasant things at one time. 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. In Texas, we also register all the vehicles 

there, too, so we have all three. I appreciate the levity of that. 

Again, for the members of the committee and the Chair, I am 

Paul Bettencourt, Harris County Tax Assessor and Voter Registrar. 

This is the same county that has the City of Houston in it, and I 

am honored to be here today because this is an important issue 

about citizenship requirements and also about photo ID that should 

be required for voter registration rolls. 

In Harris County, that roll totals nearly 1.9 million. That would 

make us approximately the 23rd largest State in the Union. And 

as the Chairman has mentioned, I do collect about $3.8 billion in 

taxes, but even as much as property tax bills are up in Harris 

County, I can hear from 50,000 constituents in one day alone on 

voter registration requirements. 

I was elected in 1998, and we have emphasized upgrading technology primarily due to the fact that this has been an area that at 

least in the Harris County Tax Office wasn’t significantly put into 

effect before I got into the position I hold now. It is because the 

right to vote in my mind is sacrosanct. 

When we looked at the problem of just starting off and looking 

at trying to clean up a voter roll, we found that by comparing to 

other known governmental data points, such as Texas Department 

of Public Safety, United States Postal Service, NCOA records, Social Security, death index as well as Secretary of State’s Voter Registration Roll, we found that we could delete and change 50,000 

registrations in our first attempt to clean up the roll, and that was 

due to the fact that it has not been common for governmental entities to use other technology resources to be able to look at a problem that really not only affects voter registration but affects many 

other databases. 

We have been observed by organizations like NALEAO, Texas 

Secretary of State, and many others about these procedures, and 

we were happy to find that NALEO said that we had no public 

complaints about Harris County in the 2004 National Election. 

We try to cross train our people in the Harris County Tax Office 

to handle calls because our theory is, if you can get your voter registrar on the phone, you don’t have any voter disenfranchisement. 

We answered 51,000 live calls on the election in 2004. Our response time was 3 to 4 seconds. We did that by cross-training over 

200 people in our office, and we also have an automated call system that is supported by our County Clerk, who ably conducts elections; that is Beverly Kaufman in Harris County. 

We can’t really tell you exactly the level of illegal voting and registration due to foreign nationals. We have three main checks that 

we have to rely on: First is the honor system. I think Chairman 

Hyde discussed that. Secondly, U.S. Immigration and Customs EnVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:09 Sep 08, 2006 Jkt 208965 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\28965.XXX 28965

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
64 

forcement checks before naturalization hearings, and that is a most 

efficient process to find anyone that has voted prior to their hearing. Thirdly, on a local level, my county district clerk and I exchange information on the jury wheel, because I think you will find 

how many people want to declare themselves not a citizen for jury 

service and turn around and attempt to vote. We, however, find a 

lot of people that do end up on our jury wheel because it is half 

drivers license and half voter registration that needed to be eliminated from the rolls because they are clearly non-citizens and 

shouldn’t have registered in the first place. 

Clearly, part of the focus of the hearing is the Federal Election 

Integrity Act of 2006. We could have easy access from a local government with respect to a Federal citizenship list that we could use 

to confirm our voter registration rolls. In Texas, having that ability 

to vote was determined, in 1921, to require that the voters be U.S. 

citizens. 

Harris County is a very diverse place. We have 3.7 million residents; about 1.9, half are on the voter registration roll at this point. 

And 22 percent of our county’s residents, nearly one in four, were 

born outside of the United States, and we believe over half of a million, by estimates from our surveys in the local area, are non-U.S. 

citizens. We don’t really have any way of checking that at this 

point. 

The fact is that we have had as many as 35 people that, in a survey we did in 2005, were clearly foreign nationals that had applied 

to receive voter registration cards. And when you go through an 

election in a populous county like Harris—I will give you an example, we have a home rule city, Pasadena, it is our second largest. 

We have had several elections over the last 2 cycles that have been 

decided by one or two votes, therefore every vote does count. 

We have gone through documented cases of Norwegian nationals 

voting, Brazilian citizens voting, et cetera, and what we believe the 

Federal Government could easily do is mount a project to combine 

50 States’ department of public safety records, many of which already include citizenship information. We can take that information that already has a photo ID and combine it with citizen 

records. 

In my office, I maintain a database of 7.1 million records, so I 

know that this is technically and operationally feasible, something 

we have been doing in the Harris County Tax Office for some time. 

And when you combine these records, you can make it transparent 

to the end user, specifically the voter, that the check has occurred 

because you may not have to apply for a passport, but you know 

that the people that have applied for passports have citizenship 

documentation on file, therefore that would not have to be repeated. 

Finally, just a quick comment on using photo ID. There is simply 

no reason, no supposition of fact that you shouldn’t have a photo 

ID to vote. You have to do this to buy tobacco or alcohol in many 

States in the Union. You have to do it to board an airplane anywhere in this country, or, in most cases, using a credit card. People 

that do not have a photo ID can easily be afforded one for free by 

the government from many different points of contact; drivers license, voter registrar, et cetera. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
65 

Without the Federal Government doing something in this area to 

ask for photo ID or for citizenship to be—which I believe is a fundamental right which should be a right granted to citizens, the 

right to vote—local registrars won’t have the ability to stop this 

type of documented fraud. 

We are all aware of the argument that such a requirement will 

be a barrier or inconvenience to people that will attempt to vote, 

but with 21st Century technology, what we have proven at the 

Harris County Tax Office is that you can integrate this type of data 

and make it seamless to the voter, and this task can easily be done. 

Additional information is available on my Web site at 

hcvoter.net. And again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the 

committee’s invitation and their time and indulgence. 

[The statement of Mr. Bettencourt follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
66 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 28965.048
67 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 28965.049
68 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 28965.050
69 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 28965.051
70 

The CHAIRMAN. And I thank you as well. The last person on the 

panel, Christine Chen, Executive Director with the Asian Pacific Islander American—wrong one, sorry. 

Ms. NOREN. I am Wendy Noren. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sorry. Flipped the wrong page. Let’s try it again. 

I am pleased to introduce Wendy Noren, the County Clerk from 

Boone County, Missouri. 

STATEMENT OF WENDY NOREN 

Ms. NOREN. I am glad you said Missouri. That is great. You must 

be from there because a lot of people say Missouri. 

I want to thank the Chair, and I do believe you made great efforts to try and get a balanced view on this, and it is an honor to 

be here. I have had 28 years of experience as an election official, 

starting since 1978, and when I started we had absolutely no ID 

requirements, people just showed up and voted. And as of now, I 

am in one of those States that is trying to struggle with the implementation of a strict photo ID requirement. I really don’t believe 

in either one of those extremes. In fact, I agree when someone said, 

I think you got it pretty well right when you wrote HAVA. The 

problem is in election administration, we are constantly performing 

a balancing act between trying to prevent fraud and trying to ensure access to the polls, and this is not an easy balancing act to 

do. 

You know, if my only goal was to prevent fraud, if that was the 

only goal we had, we could do what we do with my dog, inject a 

microchip in them so we can identify everybody. My dog has got 

a microchip in him. Somebody steals him, you know, we have got 

it. It is registered. But that puts a chilling effect on people all over. 

I don’t think anybody in this room wants us going that route. That 

would be a barrier to voting. So there is a balance we have to find. 

I can also tell you from my long experience in a swing county, 

in a swing State that these kinds of obstacles to voting and efforts 

to open up the process help and hurt fairly equally across party 

lines. While I often hear certain groups are going to benefit from 

this, certain groups are going to be hurt by this, I come from an 

area where I find the barriers to voting are almost equal throughout classes, throughout groups that come in and out of my county. 

It is a very mobile area. 

You know, I think we need to look at some of the people who are 

going to have access problems in getting a photo ID. We have mentioned the elderly. You know, it is very—it is not only expensive, 

it is time consuming. You can say we will give you a free photo ID 

but the underlying documents you have to pay for. I have provided 

a listing from you all’s States, what it takes to get a birth certificate, what does it take to get a death certificate? How long does 

it take to get these items? I come from a county where 10 percent 

of the people who voted in the 2004 presidential election registered 

to vote in the last 3 days before the registration deadline. By the 

time I notify those people of their ID requirements, it is going to 

be too late to get that ID from most States. 

We need a cheap quick access to photo IDs if we are going to put 

this in place. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
71 

I have so many people who move from other counties. Also when 

you review the requirements to get a photo ID, look at this in the 

State of Michigan, honorable Chair, you have to have a photo ID 

to get a birth certificate. So if I have a senior citizen in my county 

between now and November who has no photo ID and was born in 

your State, the person has got to get a photo to get a photo ID. We 

are putting up these kinds of barriers to people. 

States are putting in the photo ID requirement to get birth certificates and divorce papers because of identity theft, but what that 

is doing is creating a barrier for people to get the photo ID they 

need for voting. Unless and until we are willing to have a national 

ID that everybody has access to across State lines, this is going to 

leave lots of people out. 

Over 3,000 Missourians last year who applied for a birth certificate could not get it because it was either not registered with the 

Department of Health when they were born or they could not find 

it based on the information provided. 

The most amount of time it took somebody was 90 days to get 

one that had been registered. Some of them they are still working 

on a year later. This is not acceptable in the timelines of elections 

that we are dealing with. 

Finally, I want to talk about students. A lot of people forget 

about them, even in my county. I have a large student population. 

I think it is very important that I have over the years hundreds 

of thousands of students had their access to democracy through my 

office. What I do and how they view elections is based on that first 

experience the rest of their life. So I think it is important. I have 

lots of out-of-state students who will not be able to get access to 

their documents in time to vote. 

I left more written—I left the information on how to get birth 

certificates, marriage license, divorce certificates. Sometimes you 

need three documents to prove who you are to get a photo ID. 

Sometimes it is cumulative. It may take 8, 12 weeks to get the supporting documents to get a photo ID in most of these States. So you 

need to think about our deadlines when you impose these things 

and how people will get them. 

[The statement of Ms. Noren follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
72 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 28965.052
73 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 28965.053
74 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 28965.054
75 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 105 28965.055
76 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you for your testimony, and I can see the 

headlines in the Boone County newspaper, County Clerk Wendy 

Noren advocates microchip. 

Ms. NOREN. That is right. 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. On dogs and humans. 

Ms. NOREN. If only they could keep my dog from running away. 

I keep having to go to court because he runs all over. 

The CHAIRMAN. In some states it might be advantageous just to 

help prevent dogs from voting, which has been known to happen. 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. Hello. 

Ms. NOREN. We have the random dog register, but you know 

what, the process has worked because they didn’t vote. They got 

caught. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Let’s get back to business here. And one 

thing I find very frustrating with this, you may or may not know, 

I am a scientist by background and training. I like to deal with 

facts and data. And what I have found frustrating on this topic is 

I hear lots of opinions, lots of anecdotal evidence but very little 

hard data. And I will ask each of you to help me out with this. Perhaps I just don’t know about it. 

But what concrete evidences are out there about fraud? I am not 

limiting this to citizenship. What concrete evidence is there about 

how difficult it might be to determine citizenship? How many people, for example, would have difficulty? Ms. Noren, you mention, 

for example, the difficulty of getting a photo ID. Well, photo ID in 

Michigan, you just ask for it and you get it, it is separate from the 

proof of citizenship. And so how many people would have trouble 

proving citizenship? What percentage? What procedures could be 

instituted to make it easier to verify whether or not someone is a 

citizen, whether or not someone is a legal resident of the jurisdiction where the vote is being held? Am I missing it? Are all these 

data out there and I just don’t know about it or is it all such a conglomeration that no one has really sorted it out yet? 

We will start with Mr. Bettencourt. He seems eager to respond. 

I will give you a chance. 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. Okay, Mr. Chairman. The problem that you 

have had is that there hasn’t been a definitive study that I know 

of. However, if you go with the philosophy of letting government do 

the work first, then you don’t have the public having to chase all 

these records down. What we have done here is in the Harris 

County tax office, and I know Ray is familiar with this, is when 

we started cross-checking all these databases we did it so that the 

public didn’t have to do the work. And if you started with some 

procedures that started with known, obviously good citizenship locations, I mean, locations of data like passport data, and you could 

build from that, obviously you have ICE data that can be used, and 

many, many of the Department of Public Safeties in the Nation ask 

for citizenship data to validate—effectively validate birth dates to 

begin with. So a lot of that data is out there. 

To your point, I started in robotics and process control. So what 

gets measured gets fixed for me. And we do know that we have a 

problem with noncitizens voting, but it takes extraordinary efforts 

because there is no national database. If there would be—to go to 

Wendy’s comments. I am sorry we know each other from—so I am 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
77 

going to refer to her as Ms. Noren. When you get that database correct, then you take the exceptions to the public, not the rule, and, 

for example, to Ray’s case and to others, to Wendy’s case, if you get 

down to the bottom of it, effectively we take affidavits right now 

to vote. That is really what a HAVA provisional ballot is, is effectively an affidavit. So you could get down to the end where you will 

find people, their records are gone, etc., and you will just have to 

take an affidavit at that point. But that should be the exception 

and not the rule. We have done enough database analysis of other 

problems to realize that there are enough good known government 

sources to start with to get—my guess is 80 percent, 90 percent of 

the way to a good citizenship list to start with. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Martinez. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it is a tremendously important question, and I don’t know that I disagree 

with anything that my good friend Mr. Bettencourt has said. Quite 

frankly, I think that part of the reason that I now, speaking for 

myself obviously, taking off my agency hat, if you will speaking as 

one commissioner, I think part of my hesitation in moving forward 

saying anything about the voter ID registration, there is not a consensus that we have the empirical data available today to make 

such important policy judgments, and I think we are hearing that 

confirmed by local administrators like Mr. Bettencourt, who in my 

opinion is one of the best in the country at what he does. And I 

think we have to find that data and I think quite frankly, Mr. 

Chairman, the idea of creating the Election Assistance Commission 

was to try to get our arms around this issue. 

In fact, if you look at section 241 of HAVA one of the issues that 

is mentioned in the laundry list of research projects is to get our 

arms around the issue of voter fraud and voter intimidation. And 

I think as Congressman Ney has said both today and previously, 

we have to give both the EAC and HAVA some time to work and 

some time to do its job but in the meantime we are seeing a lot 

of policy issues at the State level which I have nothing but respect 

for, but sometimes those policy issues bump up against our obligations to implement what are important Federal laws like the National Voter Registration Act and HAVA. 

So again, I think that we need better data and a consensus that 

there exists a body of data that we can make those important public policy decisions upon, and I will let somebody else speak to the 

issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me follow up just a moment. Isn’t a lack of 

an ID requirement—is part of the problem in getting the data? We 

just don’t have any records of—— 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, I mean I think the latest count is something—I think is probably more than 15, perhaps 20 States that 

have instituted some form of identification requirement. Now there 

is only three States that have instituted a photo ID requirement, 

but we have—I mean we have a pretty good history of States that 

have had ID requirements for some time now. Over the past few 

years in part because of HAVA, many States have extended ID requirements to all voters because HAVA imposes ID requirements 

for a small population, a small segment of voters so I think we are 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
78 

going to have a body of data to take a look at these issues, but 

again, the point is, you know from what Mr. Bettencourt said, it 

is just so important, the burden to verify citizenship, for example, 

the burden to ensure that only eligible citizens are voting, which 

I absolutely agree with. At first blush, Mr. Chairman, I think it 

ought to rest with the government. We ought to find ways that we 

can take on that burden so that we don’t have to place that upon 

the voters by coming up with a piece of paper that may be difficult 

for them to attain, and we have to look for ways—I said this 2 

weeks ago in testifying in front of this committee and our oversight 

hearing. We have to look for ways that offer the least burden upon 

the voters to ensure that we are not disenfranchising voters, and 

I respectfully submit those comments to you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and I would just simply comment, 

the American paranoia about a national ID card is what gets in the 

way of much of this. 

Quickly give Mr. Rogers and Ms. Noren time to respond. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, your question about the empirical 

data I think is I think very important. And I think that the district 

court judge in the Indiana case, which is going to be appealed to 

the Seventh Circuit, addressed those issues in detail and established I think a very solid foundation that there is really no suggestion that photo ID requirements, the ID requirements at issue in 

that Indiana case resulted in any single person becoming 

disenfranchised. And what I would recommend to this committee 

and to the Congress and just agree with Mr. Martinez, the time for 

study is over. 

In New Mexico this is a serious problem. The presidential election was decided by 366 votes in 2000 and a very minor number 

in 2004. I can guarantee the committee—and this is going into detail in my written testimony—that unless Congress enacts effective 

voter ID requirements and addresses this issue, that the presidential results, if the count is close, is going to be subject to tremendous litigation in my State and I believe other States as well. 

But the judge in the Indiana case goes into extreme detail, eviscerating all of the suggestions that ID is difficult to obtain. 

With regard to the flip side of that, what evidence do we have 

of fraud? As Chairman Hyde indicated this morning, there is a long 

list from the Public Integrity Section of the United States Department of Justice. There are examples from my home State, which 

I have provided. I guess my question is, how much fraud is tolerable? It is occurring now, and I would respectfully request Congress to act to do something to stop it because it is impacting elections now. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will be certain to take a look at that decision 

from the Seventh Circuit. Ms. Noren, do you have any comments 

on the empirical data? 

Ms. NOREN. Am I on? Okay. I am usually loud enough. Where 

does fraud occur? I can tell you where it has occurred in my State. 

It occurs in absentee ballot fraud, particularly mail absentee ballot 

frauds, and I think the Justice Department, if you look through 

their cases, you will find that is one of the largest sources of fraudulent ballots cast. We are going to have a photo ID with an absenVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:09 Sep 08, 2006 Jkt 208965 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\28965.XXX 28965

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
79 

tee ballot; that is, a mailed absentee ballot. If you want to get at 

fraud, that is one of the areas you might want to curb, but what 

are you going to give up? Again, you have your balancing act. 

The second one are vote buying schemes, and this is something 

if you want to look at something—an area that a lot of election officials, we have been discussing in the last year. Think of the technology. A vote buying scheme requires someone to know how you 

voted. So when you go in that voting booth and you do that, you 

know, before they pay you, they want to know you did the right 

thing. What have we got right now, but technology, you can walk 

into a polling place and with a cell phone, put it down, and send 

off how you are voting to somebody. It doesn’t take but a second. 

We may need to look at the technology being brought into a polling 

place. 

These are areas that are the real areas of fraud, the efficient 

methods of fraud. And the final area is voter intimidation, and 

again, you see that on both sides. I think the more common form 

these days is the taking of applications now that that process is 

opened up and not turning them in to election officials. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your response to that 

question. I am pleased to recognize the ranking member, Ms. 

Millender. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Martinez, I was touched by your comments with the reference to 

your father and how he really taught you the importance of democracy through the voting process. I am reminded of my father, Reverend Shelly Millender, Sr., who also fought and walked with Martin King to enable us to have the Voting Rights Act. Certainly we 

should be doing that and having that law put on the table, and the 

Congress get that law out. That should be the first thing we do before we do this Federal Electoral Integrity Act that has been placed 

before us. But when you got the Arizona notice that the Secretary 

of State had imposed that law, did all of the commissioners, albeit 

Republicans and Democrats who serve on the EAC, respond to 

that? And how did they respond to that issue? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, Madam Ranking Member. From a procedural 

perspective, we handled that request in the same way we had handled a previous or similar type of request from a different State. 

And that is to allow our professional staff and, in particular, our 

general counsel and our executive director to study the issue to get 

a sense of the commission and to issue a response, and so what you 

saw from—in responding to the State of Arizona when they submitted their request was a response from our executive director, 

Tom Wilkie, which essentially reflects a consensus if you will or a 

sense of the commission in sending that particular response. 

So I hope that is responsive to your question, but obviously the 

executive director would not be sending a letter stating the commission’s position on a matter without getting again a sense of the 

commission itself. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. So in other words, you guys were 

unanimous in the fact that the law or that proposition, I should 

say, 200 was not deemed constitutional. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, I think to be fair, there has not been a public voter deliberation of this specific issue by the full commission 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
80 

in the context of a public hearing where we can take testimony and 

vote on the particular matter. So I am hesitant to want to put any 

words or any actions or attribute them to my colleagues without 

them being able to be here and speak to the issues themselves, but 

I am trying to give you as close to a factual representation as I can, 

Madam Ranking Member. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Rogers, in your testimony, you indicated that you do not 

have quantitative numbers with reference to the fraud or the voter 

fraud that goes on with nonvoting persons. It has been identified 

through the question of the chairman that there is not empirical 

data that really suggests this, and I have many comments from 

various folks who really have not had a large percentage of this 

type of illegal voting of noncitizens. But let me ask you the question of the Federal Election Integrity Act that is before us by 

Chairman Hyde. He says that this would help guard against voter 

fraud. 

How would this law help guard against voter fraud when there 

are laws already on the books that have not guarded against that? 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I believe this law 

would be a significant safeguard because requiring photo ID in all 

Federal elections would allow us to begin to assess the numbers 

and the problems that cannot be effectively assessed at this time. 

I think it would go directly to the problems of my client in the ongoing City of Albuquerque suit. Had there been photo ID his vote 

would not have been stolen. 

But the real problem I believe is not really quantifying the numbers, but recognizing that while no one can state it is 3 percent, 

it is 10 percent, whatever it may be or even 0.3 percent, when the 

presidential election in New Mexico was decided by 366 votes, I can 

guarantee you without any doubt that this issue, the number of 

noncitizens voting had an impact on that. And more than that, 

more than that—— 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. How can you guarantee that, sir? 

Mr. ROGERS. Because of the number of voters in New Mexico, because of the 3,000 fraudulent registrations that were supplied in 

2004 that allowed 3,000 people potentially to vote. There has to be 

a connection between registration and voting, and I believe without 

a doubt that the numbers would have been different had there 

been this law in effect and certainly in 2000. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Well, you believe that, but you do 

not have empirical data. One thing for sure, it seems to me we 

have the cart before the horse. We should get some empirical data 

to justify why there should be another law, another law placed on 

the books. We already have Title 18 that speaks to citizens of the 

United States. Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to 

be a citizen of the United States shall be fined on this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years. 

Why is it that we need to get another law, sir? It appears to me 

like there needs to be some enforcement, not other laws put on the 

books. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, Representative, the reason is that 

there is no mechanism, no procedure to begin to require people to 

identify themselves that would eliminate this problem. In other 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
81 

words, in New Mexico as well as most spots, it is simply too easy 

to present yourself and vote presently. This law would not only address what I believe to be our real votes and real numbers, but I 

think it is important because the public is cynical. The public is 

skeptical of the numbers and the process. And in New Mexico we 

have lots of reasons why that would be so because of registration 

problems and because of the occasional prosecution or the occasional instance where someone voluntarily comes forward and says, 

I am a green card alien, I was improperly registered. I asked the 

person if I could register. They assured me I could. I didn’t want 

to register, and yet they pressured me into registering. That same 

person who registered, this green card alien was registering other 

people who are simply not going to have the respect for our laws 

that Ms. Armejo does. So I would respectfully submit to the committee that not only is it a real issue in the number of votes but 

beyond that, it is public confidence in the process. Thank you. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. And we understand that, but outside of that, Mr. Hyde himself said that we have 12 million undocumented immigrants. He assumed or presumed that—and he said 

himself, and the record will show, certainly some of those are voting illegally. We cannot assume that type of thing. We have to have 

some type of empirical data, sir. And outside of that, we cannot 

just say, I believe or I think. How would you do the citizens of the 

State of Oregon who have only an absentee ballot voting process? 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, Mr. Chairman, Representative, I believe that 

there are samples out there, as an example, in New Mexico there 

is a suggestion that people mail in identification with their registration, that they provide that safeguard there. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. And you will presume that the picture that is there is that of the person who submits that affidavit? 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I wouldn’t presume anything, but what I 

would suggest is that no system is absolutely fail proof, but a system is absolutely necessary at this point in our history to address 

the lack of confidence in the process. And I believe that a lot of the 

concerns today that have been identified and a lot of the concerns 

that have been identified in the Indiana case that weren’t very ably 

managed by the judge can be addressed by reasonable procedures, 

and I think there is a process. The EAC or other entities could 

come up with processes that would allow a mail-in procedure, such 

as Oregon, to address it. And I think that the Chairman Hyde’s bill 

does attempt to do that. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I don’t think so. Mr. Chairman, the 

light went so quickly. I thought we had at least 5 minutes. It is 

inconceivable to me that 5 minutes had expired when before I got 

to Mr. Martinez it was yellow. So I do need to raise some more 

questions here because, Mr. Rogers, I would like to ask you about 

this piece of legislation that seems to be headed for the courts. 

Now, as the court found in Common Cause v. Billups requiring 

photo identification at the polls amounts to an unconstitutional poll 

tax. How are we going to deal with that, given the fact that we 

have already met with a court procedure here in terms of poll taxes 

and what this will amount to, a photo identification being that of 

a poll tax because what you are suggesting that everyone has to 

have a passport, and passports are upwards of $100. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
82 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I couldn’t improve 

on the analysis of the Indiana Federal District Court judge who 

said that the comparison to a poll tax was overheated rhetoric, and 

what I would suggest is that of course the poll tax was a disgraceful era in our country’s history. I would suggest that the comparisons to this really do not apply, that the analogy is not correct, and 

the reason I would say that is because when a Federal District 

Court judge had that very claim before her and analyzed all of the 

evidence that these same parties, Common Cause, ACLU, League 

of Women Voters, wanted to present, she found that there was absolutely not a single person who could not provide that. And beyond that, I really think what you are looking at are the details 

of how it might be implemented, free photo ID, an affidavit situation for those that have religious problems with photo ID, but I believe that the analysis from Indiana and certainly the recent Arizona case establish that this poll tax argument is really not fair, 

and it really poisons the debate. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. It is still a tax, no doubt. 

The CHAIRMAN. Time has expired. Mr. Doolittle is recognized. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. And is imposed on the citizens. 

The CHAIRMAN. Come to order. Mr. Doolittle is recognized. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you 

do not have to gavel me! 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you for being here today. I opposed the 

Motor Voter Act because of the problems I could foresee. Unfortunately, I was outvoted and President Clinton signed it into law. I 

do not view it as a positive piece of legislation. It had a partisan 

edge to it in my opinion, and that has been the effect. I think we 

need to be more concerned about fraudulent voting, and we have 

documented evidence that in a close election, in 1996 in the Dornan 

and Sanchez race, the State officials found—which was, by the 

way, the winner of that, declared winner, had 984 more votes, and 

of those the State officials found that at least 300 were cast illegally by non-citizens, 300. So I would continue to believe that that 

race had more than 300, but that is what was documented. And 

that can happen again, especially now that we have more and more 

and more illegal aliens here in this country, many, many more 

since 1996, millions more. 

I would like to address a question to Mr. Martinez about this Arizona business, given the fact that they have done what they have 

done and the judge has declined to issue the TRO, doesn’t the Election Assistance Commission feel compelled at this point to reference the proof of citizenship requirement in the instructions accompanying the Federal form? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I think, Congressman, that there is no question 

that it is our obligation to carefully consider Judge Silver’s opinion 

that she issued a few days ago, and I can commit to you that that 

is happening at the Election Assistance Commission. Does it compel us to change our stated opinion? That remains to be seen. Obviously that could—that vote could be called for or something like 

that could perhaps occur, Congressman. 

Now taking off my agency hat and putting on the hat of one commissioner, I would simply point out again that what we have in the 

context of this opinion is a nonevidentiary hearing for a TRO that 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
83 

was delivered by this U.S. District Court judge who has already set 

a date, another month down the road for a hearing on the preliminary injunction. I would simply say that it is the responsibility of 

his agency to consider the context of this particular decision in its 

place in the adjudication procedure, if you will. So for the agency 

to act on this particular ruling, I think we have to look at where 

we are, and again, as I said in my statement, in my opening statement, Congressman, we have to act deliberatively, we have to act 

in a manner that considers all aspects of this particular case, and 

again, what I would emphasize is that we have to act in a manner 

that does not just consider the important matters that the good 

people of Arizona have decided through Prop 200. We have to decide how that particular request plays across the country with all 

other jurisdictions that are covered by MVRA because although I 

respectfully understand your opposition to MVRA, it was passed by 

a pretty healthy majority back in 1993 by the United States Congress. 

My obligation as one of four commissioners over this Federal 

statute is to properly implement it, not just with regard to the interests of one State, though as valid as those interests are and as 

much respect as I give to those interests, I have to implement in 

the context of all the other jurisdictions that are had equally covered by MVRA. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. To the panel at large, there seems 

to be agreement that there is vote fraud, however, disagreement 

over the scale and the extent of the problem. Existing procedures 

seem to make it difficult if not impossible to determine if and when 

fraudulent votes are being cast. And given these deficiencies, how 

do you quantify the problem? How do we know John Smith is John 

Smith if he is never required to show an ID? How do we know he 

is not voting as John Jones in the next county and John Bell somewhere else? Isn’t it the very lack of an ID requirement that makes 

it so difficult to determine indeed the very scope of the problem? 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. Well, there is no question, Congressman, that 

that is correct. The fact is that the studies I have seen, the photo 

ID is present and because the people have to use it for so many 

other things besides voting, I believe over 98 percent of the public 

could have some access to that already. And if you have photo ID, 

then you can crack down on what is clearly fraud at the polls and, 

as Ms. Noren has said, substantial mail fraud and absentee voting 

just by initiating the requirement, you will get the result. Again, 

what gets measured gets fixed. So from my point of view, in addition to that, you can back up those requirements with other known 

database sources that already exist and cross-check that information so you will know about Mr. Jones voting in multiple counties 

because it is probable that Mr. Jones doesn’t have his cars registered in multiple counties and doesn’t, you know, doesn’t have 

other accoutrements that you could find and be able to identify 

that individual. So I believe with your premise, you are absolutely 

correct. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Brady is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
84 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for Mr. Hyde’s 

knowledge, I polled my district in the City of Philadelphia. In my 

district we had a new law that said you had to show identification 

for a first-time voter. And it was overwhelmingly no. So we can 

counter his overwhelmingly yes with identification with my overwhelmingly no. I have heard about your dad. God bless him, I 

heard about your dad. I want to tell you about my mom. My mom 

is 84 years old. And for her to get a photo ID—and I keep hearing 

free photo ID. You may have a free photo ID in some places, but 

in the City of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, to get any 

kind of photo ID, you need to show other ID, and to obtain that 

other ID, whether it be a birth certificate there is a charge, a passport there is a charge, or any other ID that is required to get your 

free photo ID, there is a charge for. And again, my mom would 

have to burden that charge. And her being 84 years old, she would 

have to go someplace, somewhere, get in line, as we all have our 

bureaucracies everywhere in every State, have to get in line and 

wait and have to wait just to get a photo ID so she can wait again 

just to vote. And I think that HAVA, Help America Vote Act, that 

passed and we are trying to implement, I think that flies in the 

face by having a senior or other people for that matter have to go 

through that hardship just to allow them to vote. Again, so the free 

photo ID I just—we keep hearing, keep hearing it. Maybe it is free 

in some States but it is not free in our State or our city. And it 

is another hazard they have—or another hurdle they have to jump 

over to get. 

Mr. Bettencourt, I read your statement. I hear you say and I 

read what you wrote here that you need ID to buy tobacco, you 

need ID to buy alcohol, and you need alcohol to use your credit 

card. I don’t. I will take you to lunch, buy you a drink. 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. I will buy. 

Mr. BRADY. Cigarettes. And I won’t need to show any identification when I use my credit card or when I buy you a drink or when 

I go out and buy a pack of cigarettes. Some people do. Now, if you 

are young enough looking like my esteemed colleague, they may, 

but I would be honored that they would—— 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Don’t go there. 

Mr. BRADY. If they would tell me I need photo ID to buy a pack 

of cigarettes or to use my credit card or to buy alcohol. So I mean, 

that is not a fair statement. The airplane, maybe, but the three out 

of the four, when you give us a statement that says that, that is 

not accurate. 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. Well, Congressman, I beg to differ. What the 

fact is is that there are photo ID requirements there for all those 

individual specific items that we talked about. And the fact that if 

there is photo ID for some, it can easily be expanded for others at 

that point. And I do have to agree, however, that hopefully the men 

in the audience are not subject to that request. But on a serious 

note, photo ID is so pervasive it leads from the societal use and the 

fact that driver’s licenses have it. 

To go to the chairman’s comments, you could put a 2–d barcode 

on existing driver’s license and have a national ID. There is so little technology barriers left in the 21st century to having a photo 

ID that is multi-use that you could use for tobacco or alcohol when 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
85 

you happen to be at the right age for that, use for voting your entire life, and use it to board an airplane at any time in your life. 

Mr. BRADY. All right. Now we have this photo ID we are going 

to now take with us and go vote. Who do we show it to? 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. Excuse me? 

Mr. BRADY. Who do you show it to when you go vote? 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. Well, you would show the election officials in 

Ms. Noren’s case because she conducts the elections and mine. 

Mr. BRADY. She is not at every polling place. 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. Well, obviously she has clerks. 

Mr. BRADY. Forget about her. Let’s go back to my town where I 

live. Who do you show it to in Philadelphia? Do you show it to the 

election board, everyday common ordinary people that I don’t think 

have the qualifications to say whether or not you are that photo 

ID. 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. Congressman, I would say I think any person 

that is trained in the election system can look at a photo ID and 

look at the person and decide if there is a reasonable chance that 

that is that person. 

Mr. BRADY. Come back to my town. I only live in my town. 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. I have visited once during a convention back 

in 2000. I have not had a chance to vote in your town, sir. 

Mr. BRADY. Did you eat there? You didn’t show an ID. 

Mr. BETTENCOURT. That is right. 

Mr. BRADY. Go back to my town. In my town we have election 

boards. We have 3,400 of them in the City of Philadelphia. And in 

my town, these people are not schooled nor would they want to be 

schooled for an extra problem. Another problem that they have to 

sit there for 13 hours, they are not schooled in saying whether or 

not the person showing you this ID is that person. Maybe they got 

a haircut, maybe they got heavier, maybe they haven’t updated it, 

maybe they got heavier. There is a lot of problems with that, I just 

want to debate that point. It sounds good and I do want people— 

I don’t want people that are not qualified or eligible to vote to vote. 

I want the right people to vote, and I just think there should be 

another way that we can maybe do this, and I want to point out 

some of the inadequacies or fallacies that we have heard here 

today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want to get gaveled down. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are some points 

of agreement here and then points of disagreement, and I think the 

first point of agreement is only Americans ought to register and 

vote. That is the starting point we all agree. From there I think 

how we accomplish that is very much a question, and it is important that whatever we do is fair to people, to Americans who are 

not as affluent and who are not as privileged as every person sitting at this dais and most of the people sitting at that table and 

in the audience, and I think we have talked about our parents. 

I think about my late father who—I never saw his birth certificate. I think he was born at home. He was a World War II vet. 

Like most Americans he never had a passport, he never went outside the United States with a passport. He never had an airplane 

ride until he came to see me sworn into Congress. You know, most 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
86 

Americans don’t have the kind of stuff we have. So let’s think 

about who gets to—— 

I think about my grandmother who was born at home in Brooklyn. She drove a car once and drove it into the side of a bus, and 

never drove again. She didn’t have a driver’s license, she didn’t 

smoke or drink. She didn’t have a photo ID, but she worked 

throughout the Depression and was a proud American and she 

would not be able to vote under Mr. Hyde’s bill. And then when 

you think about who has—I mean it is fair—people can say well 

most people have an ID, most people just use their driver’s license. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record a 

report that I have received from the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee outlining who has driver’s licenses in Wisconsin, who 

doesn’t. And—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
87 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 28965.056
88 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 28965.057
89 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 28965.058
90 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 28965.059
91 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 28965.060
92 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 28965.061
93 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 28965.062
94 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 28965.063
95 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 28965.064
96 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 28965.065
97 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 28965.066
98 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 28965.067
99 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 28965.068
100 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 28965.069
101 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 28965.070
102 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 28965.071
103 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 28965.072
104 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 28965.073
105 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 28965.074
106 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 28965.075
107 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 28965.076
108 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 28965.077
109 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 28965.078
110 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. This study shows that among young 

adults age 18 to 24, 78 percent of African American men didn’t 

have a driver’s license, 78 percent of African American men in that 

age bracket didn’t have a driver’s license or photo ID, 66 percent 

of African American women in that age bracket did not have a 

driver’s license. And you think about—you don’t have a driver’s license if you don’t have enough money for a car. And if you take 

a look at poverty in this country, who lives in inner cities, who 

lives on an Indian reservation, it is the lack of ID that we just so 

blindly assume everyone has because we are the privileged, we are 

the elites in society. It is not the case for every element of our society. 

So you know, we don’t know very much about fraud. Presumably 

there is some in the United States, as there is in everything, but 

we do know a little bit about who is being deterred from voting. 

And I would like to ask unanimous consent to put an article into 

the record from the Los Angeles Times, if I may. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
111 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 28965.079
112 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 28965.080
113 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 28965.081
114 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 28965.082
115 

Ms. LOFGREN. And quoting from this article which will go in the 

record, in Arizona, Maricopa County, home to Phoenix, according to 

the L.A. Times, more than 10,000 people trying to register have 

been rejected for being unable to prove their citizenship. Yvonne 

Reid, spokesman for the Recorder’s Office, says most are U.S. citizens whose married names differ from the birth certificates or have 

lost documentation. And in Pima County, home to Tucson, according to this article, 60 percent who tried to register initially could 

not and all appear to be U.S. citizens, according to this article. And 

in Pima County, and again this L.A. Times article, Elections Chief 

Rhodes is concerned that people who have recently moved or don’t 

have detailed bills could be blocked from voting. Rhodes, a Republican, said many of those would be traditional supporters of Democrats, such as Native Americans, elderly people and the poor. 

Quote, the whole point of this is to reduce the turnout, unquote, 

and that is from the Republican Registrar. 

So I think we need to think about the impact of this proposal on 

suppressing the vote, and I am sorry, as I said in my opening statement, I can’t help but being mindful that we didn’t act on the Voting Rights Act yesterday, and today we are looking at this that 

would have the impact of suppressing the vote of African Americans and poor people. I do believe that we should take educational 

efforts and—for Mr. Martinez, if you could—I think that most noncitizens, if they knew that they would be subject to prosecution, be 

deported if they were to register to vote, that would be pretty 

chilling. Do you think we should do an educational effort, maybe 

some TV, ‘‘register to vote if you are not a U.S. citizen, and you 

will lose your green card’’? I think that is certainly more severe 

than any penalty I could think of. Has the commission thought 

about doing that? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. No, we have not. Obviously the funds we have 

distributed under the Help America Vote Act, particularly Title II 

funds, there is a component to that, Congresswoman, that allows 

State and local jurisdictions to spend a portion of this money on 

voter education efforts. But that is not something that we as a commission have necessarily urged. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman, 

and I appreciate the indulgence in allowing the witness to answer. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I thank this panel very much for 

your testimony. It has been extremely helpful. It seems at this 

point the only answer is a microchip, but we will keep investigating. But thank you very much for your testimony. We deeply 

appreciate it, and I call for the next panel. 

On our third panel today we are pleased to have Mr. Dan Stein, 

President, Federation for American Immigration Reform; Daniel 

Calingaert, Associate Director, Center for Democracy and Election 

Management; Spencer Overton, Professor at the George Washington University Law School; and Christine Chen, Executive Director, Asian Pacific Islander American Vote. 

I am pleased to finally have you here, Ms. Chen. Welcome to our 

panel. I appreciate having you here, and we will begin by asking 

Mr. Stein to make his statement. Once again, 5-minute limit and 

you are familiar with the red, yellow and green lights. 

Mr. Stein. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
116 

STATEMENTS OF DAN STEIN, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION FOR 

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM; DANIEL CALINGAERT, 

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND 

ELECTION MANAGEMENT; SPENCER OVERTON, PROFESSOR, 

THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL; AND 

CHRISTINE CHEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN VOTE 

STATEMENT OF DAN STEIN 

Mr. STEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate 

the opportunity to be here, and want to salute your leadership in 

holding these hearings to explore this very important issue that 

many Americans are concerned about. 

My organization, Federation for American Immigration Reform, 

primarily deals with U.S. immigration policy and issues, the Nation’s largest organization working for U.S. immigration laws, 

200,000 members and supporters all across the country, every walk 

of life, and we have developed some expertise on immigration 

issues over time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. STEIN. Now it is. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. STEIN. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why so many people from all over the world want to come to this country and see 

it as a land of opportunity is because they see in the United States 

certain things that they don’t see in their own country. One of 

them is that we have a system that works, and they believe that 

the rules are enforced, that if you play by the rules fairly you have 

an opportunity to get ahead. And fairness has always been a very 

important value, fundamentally, among American citizens and the 

American people. And in the course of becoming new citizens, they 

learn an awful lot about responsibility. 

Citizenship entails not only certain rights but responsibilities, 

and one of those responsibilities is voting. Now, a good deal of the 

hearing has dealt with this whole question of whether or not there 

is a conflict between trying to promote a large turnout, which we 

all support and naturally FAIR wants to make sure everyone who 

is eligible and is interested in voting does so, and how you balance 

that with ensuring the integrity of the process, and how to bring 

about measures to ensure that noncitizens are not voting in a way 

that does not unduly burden citizens who are eligible. And naturally, low turnout is a big problem, but you know if you really want 

to decrease turnout in this country, continue to allow the perception to be created that the registration system lacks integrity at 

any phase of the registration process. And that is the perception 

that is spreading around the country and is one of the reasons why 

we were very much involved in Proposition 200 in Arizona, why the 

overwhelming majority of the people of Arizona supported the voting registration provisions of Proposition 200, including minority 

voters, minority women voters, and other blocs that supported it. 

I think 47 percent of Hispanic American voters supported Proposition 200. Clearly it was not a class-based issue, as some might 

suggest here, but there was very strong public support for the voter 

registration provisions in Arizona. I will just reference again Judge 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
117 

Silver’s decision yesterday in which he said that the requirements 

of the National Voter Registration Act is just a starting point. 

States are free to enact measures, including proof of citizenship, to 

make sure those people who sign up to vote are in fact legally 

qualified to do so. What is at stake here is ensuring the legitimacy 

of the electoral process and the franchise of supreme importance 

given the enormous power that Congress wields in important areas, 

such as taxation. 

Now, one of the reasons why it is so hard to get empirical evidence—we have heard a lot about empirical evidence today. Well, 

if you think about it, it is almost impossible to get certain kinds 

of empirical evidence about illegal immigrants voting. If you enter 

the country without inspection, you are not going to have any kind 

of immigration record. One of the reasons why someone here illegally wants a voter registration card is because it is very valuable 

to use on the I–9 which, along with a Social Security card, can be 

used as proof of citizenship and work authorization. 

For people here illegally, there are two highly sought after documents, driver’s license and voter registration card. Those are the 

keys to the kingdom—I have been at this long enough to remember 

when William Francis Smith made the comment that our entire 

documentary structure is built on a foundation of sand. The fact is 

we don’t have a national birth registry, which we are hoping the 

REAL ID Act will begin to move us toward and this, has made it 

very difficult for States to verify false claims to citizenship. The argument that there are criminal sanctions for false claims of citizenship and that somehow that would be self-executing as a deterrent 

obviously rings hollow when you look at the high level of illegal immigration today, and you can certainly make the argument that illegal immigration is against the law, but laws, as we now know, 

that are not well enforced or enforced at all are going to be routinely abused when there is an incentive to do so. 

So what we are talking about here is gradually closing a web, a 

web that starts at the State level with a lack of birth records and 

the ability to establish native-born citizenship, trying to improve 

Federal immigration records and trying to improve the security of 

State documents, such as driver’s licenses. While there is no uniform solution to this, the legislation that Congressman Hyde has 

proposed is an important first step, and we have to start somewhere. I think the overwhelming majority of the American people 

would support the kind of documentary requirements proposed in 

this bill. 

Would there be an adjustment process? Do we have to grandfather people who are already registered? Of course. But that 

doesn’t mean we should do nothing. To do nothing is to risk jeopardizing the integrity of our electoral system, which is the heart of 

our whole republic. 

Thank you so much for this opportunity, and free to answer any 

questions you might have. 

[The statement of Mr. Stein follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
118 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 28965.083
119 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 28965.084
120 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 28965.085
121 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 28965.086
122 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 28965.087
123 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 28965.088
124 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Calingaert. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL CALINGAERT 

Dr. CALINGAERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honorable members. 

I appreciate the invitation to speak this morning. 

I had the privilege of serving as Associate Director of the CarterBaker Commission on Federal Election Reform. The commission 

noted that too many Americans lack confidence in our election 

process. Polls show about one in three Americans have doubts 

about the accuracy of the vote. The commission set out to bolster 

confidence in the election system by strengthening the integrity of 

the election process and, at the same time, expanding access and 

participation. This combination of focusing on integrity and access 

was the basis of a bipartisan package of reforms. 

One of the most noted recommendations of the commission was 

for voter ID. The commission recommended voter ID to ensure that 

each person who appears at the polls is the same person who is 

listed on the voter registration list. 

This is simply a basic and fundamental check on the integrity of 

the system. We have had lots of discussion earlier about fraud, and 

in the Commission’s perspective fraud is probably not extensive, 

but it does occur and the main concern is that in close elections, 

fraud can affect the outcome. If we are trying to increase confidence in the election process, we need to have safeguards in place 

to detect and deter fraud and to verify the identity of voters. 

The Carter-Baker Commission’s recommendations differ from 

many other proposals on voter ID in significant respects. Others 

have talked about issuing free ID’s to citizens who do not have 

driver’s licenses. What the Carter-Baker Commission recommended 

was to base the voter ID on the REAL ID Act, so that driver’s licenses issued under REAL ID would double as a voting card. 

What this does is combines the process of issuing photo ID with 

the process of voter registration. In other words, when citizens are 

issued a REAL ID driver’s license, they are automatically registered to vote, so if they go to the polling station, if there are 

issues with their voter registration, the fact that they would have 

a REAL ID card under the system would be proof that they are eligible to vote. 

More importantly, the Commission recommended proactive measures from States to reach out to voters who aren’t registered, who 

don’t have ID, so that they could be issued free ID’s and they can 

be registered. This is a very significant change in how things are 

done. Now states essentially play a passive role in voter registration. They wait for citizens to come to them. 

What the Commission recommends is that States begin to take 

the initiative to reach out to voters, for instance, using mobile offices as they do in Michigan to go to college campuses, to nursing 

homes, to the key audiences who lack ID at the moment. 

This combination of voter ID requirements with proactive, new 

measures to expand voter registration and to make free ID’s available are what distinguishes the Carter-Baker Commission’s recommendations, and I think this is a sound basis for bipartisan 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
125 

compromise and a way to move forward in building an election system that will give confidence to all Americans. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Dr. Calingaert follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
126 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 28965.089
127 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 28965.090
128 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 28965.091
129 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Overton. 

STATEMENT OF SPENCER OVERTON 

Mr. OVERTON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am a law professor at 

George Washington University. My specialty is voting rights. I 

served as a commissioner on the Carter-Baker Commission. I am 

the author of this new book: Stealing Democracy, The New Politics 

of Voter Suppression. There is a chapter in this book on voter identification and its implications. 

I am also the author of this academic paper that will be published in the University of Michigan Law Review entitled Voter 

Identification. I have submitted it as my written testimony for the 

record. 

Mr. Chair, basically, political sound bites and political correctness have shaped this photo ID debate rather than facts. As a result, many people have embraced flawed assumptions by relying on 

a couple of false stories about voter fraud. 

For example, in August of 2005, legislators in Wisconsin held a 

press conference claiming that a photo ID requirement was needed 

because they found that nine people who voted in Milwaukee in 

November 2004 also cast ballots in Chicago, Minneapolis, or Madison. The Republican-appointed U.S. attorney investigated all nine 

claims and found that none involved fraud, all involved different 

people with similar names or clerical errors. 

Research shows that photo ID advocates regularly throw out 

broad examples of voting irregularities without knowing the details 

of the stories they cite. 

Photo ID advocates, like John Fund of The Wall Street Journal, 

cite stories of multiple registrations, vote buying, improper absentee balloting or voting by ineligible former felons. Research shows 

that these stories were missing critical facts and that a photo ID 

wouldn’t have prevented these problems. 

One example here would be Fund claims that several of the 9/ 

11 terrorists were registered to vote in Virginia. Virginia election 

officials have investigated that claim, they haven’t found evidence 

of that assertion. But even if they were registered, a photo ID requirement wouldn’t prevent the 9/11 hijackers from voting because 

the 19 terrorists had 63 drivers licenses between them. 

There are many other examples in my paper, the Michigan Law 

Review paper, of misleading claims of fraud. 

Now while fraud may be rare here, data shows that this bill 

would suppress the legitimate votes of millions of Americans. 

About 20 million voting age Americans don’t have a State-issued 

ID. That is more people than in New Mexico, Delaware and 14 

other States combined. Representative Lofgren talked about Wisconsin, which is an important study, and I won’t repeat that. 

Now, some photo ID advocates ignore this data and instead they 

rely on rhetoric that legitimate voters won’t be excluded, because 

photo IDs are needed to board a plane and buy cigarettes. This 

compares apples and oranges. So, for example, it makes sense to 

prevent a thousand legitimate travelers from flying who don’t have 

ID if we can stop one terrorist who will blow up the plane. But it 

doesn’t make sense with voting to exclude a thousand legitimate 

voters just to stop one possible fraudulent voter. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
130 

Businesses charge money for airline tickets and cigarettes, but charging just $2 to vote is unconstitutional. Why? Because it excludes certain citizens and thwarts the will of the people. 

Let me also say as a law professor, a court would likely find this 

particular bill before us unconstitutional because it would likely exclude so many legitimate voters and so few fraudulent ones, it 

wouldn’t be appropriately tailored and would be found to be an 

undue burden on the right to vote. Also, because the bill provides 

no funds for photo identification cards and documents like birth 

certificates and passports and naturalization papers, the bill constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax. 

We have got real problems in our democracy and Americans 

want us to fix those problems by using real tools that work. Mr. 

Bettencourt mentioned a number of tools they use to prevent fraud 

in Texas that already work. Unfortunately, this bill would throw 

the baby out because the baby has a drop of bathwater on the 

baby’s arm. 

In our Nation we need to spread democracy around the world, 

that is absolutely right, but we also need to protect democracy here 

in the United States for people at home. Our voter participation is 

very low. We are in the bottom 19 percent of all democracies in the 

world in voter participation. 

The excessive regulation and unfunded Federal mandate in this 

current bill would suppress voter participation and undermine the 

integrity of government of, by and for the people. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Overton follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
131 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 here 28965.092
132 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187 here 28965.093
133 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 here 28965.094
134 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 here 28965.095
135 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 here 28965.096
136 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 here 28965.097
137 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 here 28965.098
138 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 here 28965.099
139 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 here 28965.100
140 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 here 28965.101
141 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 here 28965.102
142 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 here 28965.103
143 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 here 28965.104
144 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 here 28965.105
145 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 here 28965.106
146 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 here 28965.107
147 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 here 28965.108
148 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 here 28965.109
149 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 here 28965.110
150 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 here 28965.111
151 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 here 28965.112
152 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 here 28965.113
153 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 here 28965.114
154 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 here 28965.115
155 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 here 28965.116
156 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 here 28965.117
157 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 212 here 28965.118
158 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 here 28965.119
159 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 here 28965.120
160 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 here 28965.121
161 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 here 28965.122
162 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 here 28965.123
163 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 here 28965.124
164 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 here 28965.125
165 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 here 28965.126
166 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 221 here 28965.127
167 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 222 here 28965.128
168 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 223 here 28965.129
169 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 224 here 28965.130
170 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 225 here 28965.131
171 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 226 here 28965.132
172 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 227 here 28965.133
173 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 228 here 28965.134
174 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 229 here 28965.135
175 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 230 here 28965.136
176 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 231 here 28965.137
177 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 232 here 28965.138
178 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 233 here 28965.139
179 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 234 here 28965.140
180 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 235 here 28965.141
181 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 236 here 28965.142
182 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 237 here 28965.143
183 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 238 here 28965.144
184 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 239 here 28965.145
185 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 240 here 28965.146
186 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 241 here 28965.147
187 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 242 here 28965.148
188 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 243 here 28965.149
189 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 244 here 28965.150
190 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 here 28965.151
191 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246 here 28965.152
192 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 247 here 28965.153
193 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 here 28965.154
194 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 249 here 28965.155
195 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 250 here 28965.156
196 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 251 here 28965.157
197 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 252 here 28965.158
198 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Chen. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE CHEN 

Ms. CHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and distinguished members of the Committee on House Administration. I 

am Christine Chen, the Executive Director of the Asian and Pacific 

Islander American Vote. I appreciate the opportunity to present to 

you the views of APIAVote regarding identification requirements in 

U.S. elections. 

I am privileged to represent organizations, partners and volunteers from my community who continue to promote democracy by 

expanding access to the electoral process by submitting testimony 

before the committee this morning. 

APIAVote is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that 

encourages and promotes civic participation of Asian Pacific Islanders in the electoral and public policy processes at the national, 

State and local levels. By working with national and local partners, 

APIAVote focuses on coordinating activities related to voter registration, education, outreach, mobilization and voting rights and 

advocacy. We have been able to build and establish relationships 

in communities where voter turnout as been traditionally low. 

Participating in the electoral process is a relatively new concept 

for the Asian Pacific Islander community. It was only with the enactment of the 1952 McCarren-Walter Act, also known as the Immigration and Nationality Act, that racial barriers and ethnic barriers to naturalization were listed to allow Asian immigrants to be 

naturalized for the first time in history. 

As a largely immigrant community, APIA’s were deeply impacted 

by the anti immigrant sentiment during the legislative wave of 

1996. Awakened to the need to become a politically engaged force, 

electoral organizing in the APIA community hit groundbreaking 

levels. Between 1990 and 2000 Asian American voters grew from 

less than a million to 1.98 million, a 118 percent growth; and in 

2004 3.2 million APIAs registered to vote, with an 85 percent turnout rate. 

But the Asian Pacific Islander community still faces many challenges in accessing and understanding the electoral system. In 

2004, 6.3 million Asian Americans were eligible to vote but only 3.2 

million registered. The APIA community has not historically been 

reached out to by mainstream voter mobilization activities, and the 

capacity of many nonprofits and volunteers working with the APIA 

and largely immigrant community is very low. This is one of the 

main challenges that APIAVote faces as we focus on building the 

capacity to outreach to the community and help them access the 

ballot box. 

Our partners across the country have implemented common practices and successful strategies to register potential voters by implementing voter registration drives at community events and festivals. Many of these first-time registrants were people filling out 

registration forms onsite and were not likely to be carrying around 

passports, birth certificates and naturalization papers. H.R. 4844 

would have a chilling impact on similar outreach activities in the 

future and ultimately depress Asian Pacific Islander voter registration. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
199 

In addition, these voter registration efforts are implemented by 

members of our community, most of whom are volunteers. These 

nonprofit organizations do not have the equipment and resources 

to obtain a photocopier and outdoor power source to make copies 

of these documents. In addition, these volunteers are not document 

experts and may not know what documents are required to comply 

with this proposed legislation. 

Proof of citizenship places onerous requirements on voters as 

well as voter registration and voter engagement organizations. A 

citizenship requirement to register and a photo ID to vote are so 

unrealistic and administratively burdensome that civic engagement 

will be the only activity effectively discouraged. These requirements undermine the legislative intent behind both the MVRA and 

HAVA, who sought to minimize barriers to vote and facilitate access to the ballot. Further election reform will promote greater participation in and turnout for elections. 

APIAVote understand and advocates that we maintain the integrity of the United States electoral process, but we also understand 

that current law laws are extremely tough on individuals who try 

to vote illegally. It is already a Federal offense for falsely claiming 

citizenship and for voting fraud. 

In addition, ever since U.S. immigration laws were reformed in 

1996, noncitizens who try to vote are automatically given a oneway ticket out of the country, with no criminal conviction necessary. 

These nonprofits must decide whether or not the goal to promote 

democracy outweighs potential criminal penalties. Instead, civic 

participation organizations should be encouraged to support methods that strengthen democracy and ensure that the voice of every 

American is heard. 

So with that, APIAVote stands in strong opposition to requirements for proof of citizenship documents and the barriers to voting 

that this law will create for all Americans. 

So, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and the members of the 

committee, thank you for providing me this opportunity to present. 

[The statement of Ms. Chen follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
200 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 258 here 28965.159
201 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 259 here 28965.160
202 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 260 here 28965.161
203 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 261 here 28965.162
204 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 262 here 28965.163
205 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 263 here 28965.164
206 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 264 here 28965.165
207 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

It is striking in listening to your testimony and all the testimony 

we have heard today what incredible diversity we have across this 

country and dramatically illustrating the difficulty in establishing 

one national procedure; and I think that is why the point was 

made with the previous panel about accommodating these differences are important. 

The bells have just rung and we have votes. We have approximately 15 minutes to get there to vote so we will try to proceed 

rapidly. I doubt if we can finish before we have to go vote, although 

it would be nice. We always have the option of sending you questions by mail, if necessary, but we will proceed as rapidly as possible. 

Dr. Calingaert, just a quick question about the Carter-Baker 

Commission that you served on. There were what, 20 members? 

Dr. CALINGAERT. Twenty-one. 

The CHAIRMAN. Twenty-one. Was it evenly split between the two 

parties, or where did the extra one come from? 

Dr. CALINGAERT. It was about a third independent, and the 

Democrats and Republicans were otherwise evenly split. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. On this issue of an ID you took a vote, do 

you recall what that was? 

Dr. CALINGAERT. Well, there was a dissent that Spencer Overton 

authored, and two other members of the commission signed on to 

that dissent. 

The CHAIRMAN. So the other 18—— 

Dr. CALINGAERT. Eighteen out of 21 approved the recommendation on voter ID. 

The CHAIRMAN. I see. Thank you. 

Mr. Overton, I have a question for you which—I am not trying 

to negate what you have said, but I want your comment on it. 

In September 2005 an article appeared in the Atlanta Journal 

Constitution when Andrew Young, former Atlanta mayor, civil 

rights pioneer—I am sure you know him; I know him—wrote, ‘‘At 

the end of the day a photo ID is a true weapon against the bondages of poverty. Anyone driving through a low-income neighborhood 

sees the ubiquitous check-cashing storefronts, which thrive because 

other establishments, such as supermarkets and banks, won’t cash 

checks without a standard photo ID.’’ 

Why not enfranchise the 12 percent of Americans who don’t have 

driver’s licenses or government-issued photo ID’s. Won’t those who 

don’t currently have ID’s benefit from getting them? 

I wanted to give you a chance to respond to that. 

Mr. OVERTON. Thank you very much. I would like to point out 

that 18 members did not vote for a photo ID. Certainly a majority 

were in favor of it but we didn’t have a vote. And there were several members who felt uncomfortable, frankly, dissenting from a 

President who did not join our dissent. 

But there were not 18 members of the commission; indeed there 

were some Republicans who did not support photo ID in terms of 

our commission and our commission’s recommendations. 

In terms of your particular question—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Just a quick question. You mentioned the President. Was that President Carter or President Ford? 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
208 

Mr. OVERTON. President Ford was an earlier commission. Ours 

was chaired by President Carter and Secretary of State Baker. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. OVERTON. In terms of your particular question, Mr. Chair, 

my understanding is that actually Andy Young has retracted and 

pulled back from some of his statements; and in addition to that, 

certainly it is good for everyone to have an ID. It is not a situation 

where we want to say, well, your incentive to get an ID has to be 

for us to condition your right to vote on that ID. 

Again, widespread participation is key, Mr. Chair. 

We have heard about the perception of corruption here, and 

fraud, but again, just a lack of data in terms of how that perception 

of fraud reduces voter turnout; indeed, perception of voter suppression is maybe just as likely to discourage people from participating. 

We have heard about one case of fraud determining a close election, and from the data that we have, a photo ID is more likely to 

erroneously determine an election than a lack of photo ID because 

we are excluding so many legitimate voters. 

And then it is just so easy to get a photo ID. In USA Today they 

reported that using the Internet, anyone willing to break a few 

laws can be a mass producer of fake IDs. I have got a headline here 

that says, quote, ‘‘Bush daughter used fake ID to buy alcohol.’’ 

Certainly legitimate voters may be restricted, but criminals 

would still be able to vote with a photo ID requirement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. You have made your point, clearly, 

both before and now. 

In the interest of time, I will stop and yield time to the ranking 

member. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When we speak about the Carter-Baker Commission and their 

photo ID that they brought forth, irrespective of the fact that many 

of those on that commission did not vote for it, the use of their 

REAL ID would allow a driver’s license to double as a voting card, 

so it was not as draconian as what we are talking about today. 

And, Dr. Calingaert, when we speak about the driver’s license 

doubling as a voting card, Mr. Hyde’s bill asks for a photo ID, it 

does not speak about a driver’s license, but a driver’s license does 

not present itself as proof of citizenship. So how are we going to 

deal with the whole notion of this REAL ID that can double as a 

driver’s license and Mr. Hyde’s bill that says and speaks to a photo 

ID, and, of course, a driver’s license is not a proof of citizenship? 

Dr. CALINGAERT. Under the REAL ID Act, a driver’s license 

would, in effect, require proof of citizenship. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. So one would have to get an additional photo ID even with this REAL ID that your commission 

spoke of? 

Dr. CALINGAERT. Well, the commission’s recommendation is different from the Hyde bill. 

By essentially piggy-backing on REAL ID, the process of obtaining a REAL ID card would entail proof of citizenship and we would 

use that exact same process as a voter registration; and it also 

means that you have a one-step process of registering to vote and 

getting the required voter ID card. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
209 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. You can see how difficult this will 

be for the average citizen having to go through all of these hoops. 

You are talking about this, but then you are talking about that you 

have to have photo ID even though you have a driver’s license with 

a picture on it. 

If we talk about the Hyde bill again, the Hyde bill will trump 

provisional ballots that are required through the HAVA Act. Again, 

do we need unnecessary legislation when we have legislation already on the books? It is a matter of enforcement, would you agree 

with that? 

Dr. CALINGAERT. First, if I could just comment very quickly. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Provisional ballots. 

Dr. CALINGAERT. For provisional ballots, what the Carter-Baker 

Commission recommends is that voters who don’t have the required ID should be allowed to cast a provisional ballot, and until 

2010, if the signature matches the signature in the voter registration data base, that that provisional ballot would be counted. 

I just want to clarify on the earlier comment, the Carter-Baker 

Commission piggy-backs on the REAL ID Act because it is already 

enacted into law, and so—under current law, obviously, the regulations for implementation are still being developed, but under the 

REAL ID Act, individuals who get a driver’s license that is recognized by the Federal Government will have to prove citizenship 

and will have to provide these documents. 

We are not calling for an additional requirement for voting, we 

are simply saying, since citizens will already have to do that under 

the REAL ID Act, let’s simply use that card as a voting card. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I want to get to others. It is so convoluted, extremely convoluted, here. 

Mr. Stein, you are over the Federation for American Immigration 

Reform. Here we are trying to get an immigration—comprehensive 

immigration reform. Why aren’t you helping all of us with that, as 

opposed to this that certainly does go at the core of discriminatory 

practices in the bill that Mr. Hyde has? Why aren’t you working 

on a comprehensive immigration law that we sorely need? We sorely need that. 

Mr. STEIN. I am glad you asked me that question because we 

have been working on that for almost 30 years now; and we have 

been actively involved in working with many Members of the 

House, and we would welcome an opportunity to work with you on 

comprehensive legislation which fundamentally is somewhat different from what the Senate passed, candidly. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Those are the key issues that are 

before us now that the voters are asking for, calling on all the time. 

I get hundreds of calls with people asking about a comprehensive 

immigration bill. And to me these are the critical issues that we 

have before us, and certainly not anything that a law, where other 

laws are already on the books. But we are talking about enforcement of laws that are already there. 

Mr. STEIN. We are never going to get this problem solved, the immigration issue, unless we deal with the document demolition 

derby going on in this country. This is a step forward. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. We must have immigration reform. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
210 

Mr. Overton, he has given me the red light. I don’t want him to 

gavel me, as he has done before, and so I am quietly trying to get 

back and sit quietly in my seat and be respectful as the ranking 

member. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

We will have to recess and return. I hope you will be able to 

stay—we should be back in 15 minutes. I would hope we would 

wrap up shortly after 1:00. 

With that, the committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I apologize for the interruption of the votes, plus 

I have a meeting in the room next door, which I will, of course, interrupt for this because this is the highest priority. 

Our next questioner is Ms. Lofgren. I yield 5 minutes for her 

questions. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thanks to the witnesses for your patience in allowing us to run off for more than 15 

minutes to continue our voting. 

Getting back to our failure on the Voting Rights Act yesterday, 

I can’t separate in my own mind some of the issues that have 

merged here today, and that unfortunate circumstance. 

And I was wondering, Professor Overton—you are an expert on 

voting, as I understand it; and I didn’t know you had written a 

book. I will probably go get a copy of it and read it. 

I am wondering, taking a look at some of the facts that are in 

the Wisconsin report that we have offered into the record—I mentioned the fact that African American men, 78 percent in an age 

group, don’t have a license and there is other information in that 

report that indicates a differential based on race on who would be 

subject to the requirements in the Hyde bill. 

For example, to reregister—when you move you have to reregister. So who is moving and going to be subject to that provision 

is of interest. According to this study, 60 percent of African American adults in Wisconsin are without a car or truck, so that is a 

differential. 

But also the differential on who moves when is very high. African Americans, 63 percent moved in the 5-year period studied, and 

Asian Americans, 75 percent, whereas Anglos, only 44 percent. 

In your knowledge of the Voting Rights Act, would the fact that 

what appeared to be, on its face, race-neutral actually trip up this 

act because of its application and the fact that we are aware of as 

it is being proposed? 

Mr. OVERTON. Well, let me start out by noting that section 2 of 

the Voting Rights Act applies nationwide, and a possible section 2 

claim could be brought against a photo ID requirement in, let’s say, 

Wisconsin if that was passed on a State level. But section 5, which 

is expiring, or will expire in 2007, does not apply at this time to 

Wisconsin. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I knew that, but it is like a poll tax. 

I remember back in 1964–65 our ranking member’s father 

marched with Martin Luther King. I was out in California, and we 

joined and tried to provide support for the fight of African Americans to gain the right to vote; and one of the issues was, what is 

wrong with a literacy test, except that the people who didn’t have 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
211 

access to education because of discrimination were the ones that 

would not be permitted to vote. 

Wouldn’t this be the same type of thing? 

Mr. OVERTON. I do think that there is a close tie here. The question is, why can’t these people bring ID? Everyone has ID. Voting 

is not a test. The objective of voting is to obtain the will of the people, to hear from everyone here, the will of all citizens, not just 

some, government of, by and for the people. 

Representative, when we look at McDonald’s and we look at 

Starbucks, they don’t say, well, why don’t our customers just bring 

photo ID to use their credit card? They know they will lose money, 

but they will go out of business if they erect barriers. They try to 

make things easy for people to participate. Even though there 

might be some danger of fraud, they know they will lose more 

money by excluding legitimate customers. 

The existing data suggests that is going to be the case, and it is 

a slippery slope. At first we said, oh, ID is reasonable. Well, certainly many people thought, we need to pay for elections and, 

therefore, we need a poll tax. Some folks thought, well, we want 

intelligent voters to make intelligent decisions; it is reasonable to 

have a literacy test. 

So it certainly is a slippery slope. 

Just a note in terms of Mr. Bettencourt from the earlier panel, 

he mentioned that they did a registration list match, and out of 1.9 

million registered voters there were 35 foreign nationals that were 

found. Well, if we were to use a photo ID to determine those people, rather than the match that he did, we would end up excluding 

about 5,400 legitimate voters for every single non-citizen who was 

voting. 

So that is antidemocratic, yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It just seems to me—I used to teach immigration 

law, and one of the things I have noticed is that most people who 

come over here, they are not sneaking across the border to vote; 

they are sneaking across the border for a job. 

If they felt that any kind of compromise on this would make it 

harder for them, that is the last thing you want. 

I see my red light is on. You have been very indulgent. I appreciate it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

We have kept you a very long time here, and I would like to 

wrap this up. I am willing to forgo my further questions and submit them in writing if the rest of the panel is willing to do the 

same. I see Members nodding. 

The CHAIRMAN. So given that, I want to thank you very, very 

much for your participation. I can’t speak for the entire panel, but 

I have to say for myself it has been very, very enlightening, the entire hearing, from the two Members with different viewpoints to 

the first panel, to the second panel; and I really appreciate your 

contributions. 

I even more deeply appreciate your conviction that we have to do 

the right thing on this. I refer to all of you on that point. I am delighted that you spent that much time studying it because clearly 

Members of Congress can’t afford that much time, although our 

staff does. But all of you have added to the mix here. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
212 

We have some serious things to think about here. And in particular, what I have become impressed with is our responsibility as 

a government that whatever we do, we have to try to make it easy 

to do. 

And I think, Mr. Overton, you said something like this in your 

report as part of the Carter-Baker Commission, something to the 

effect that our job as a government is to ensure that everyone who 

wishes to vote, may vote. And also it is our responsibility to ensure 

that everyone who does vote, votes legally. 

Those are both admirable goals. Those have always been my 

goals. 

But I also understand that there can be a conflict there, and our 

job then is to mediate that to make sure we achieve both goals in 

the most fair and equitable manner possible and that would be my 

objective on this committee, and I believe that is shared by all the 

Members as well. 

So thank you again for being here. I thank my committee Members for being here and I have some formalities to go through. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just one moment. Did you have a question to 

ask? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I wanted to ask unanimous consent 

to submit some letters from members for the record and to also 

state that if we may have 7 legislative days during which to submit 

testimony, comments and extraneous matters for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will be taking care of that right now. I have 

thanked everyone here. 

I ask unanimous consent that members and witnesses have 7 

calendar days to submit material for the record, including additional questions of the witnesses, which I presume you would answer, and for those statements and materials to be entered into the 

appropriate place in the record. Without objection, the material will 

be so entered. 

[The information follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
213 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 280 28965.166
214 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 281 28965.167
215 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 282 28965.168
216 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 283 28965.169
217 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 284 28965.170
218 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 285 28965.171
219 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 286 28965.172
220 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 287 28965.173
221 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 288 28965.174
222 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 289 28965.175
223 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 290 28965.176
224 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 291 28965.177
225 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 292 28965.178
226 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 293 28965.179
227 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 294 28965.180
228 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 295 28965.181
229 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 296 28965.182
230 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 297 28965.183
231 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 298 28965.184
232 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 299 28965.185
233 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 300 28965.186
234 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 301 28965.187
235 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 302 28965.188
236 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 303 28965.189
237 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 304 28965.190
238 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 305 28965.191
239 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 306 28965.192
240 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 307 28965.193
241 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 308 28965.194
242 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 309 28965.195
243 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 310 28965.196
244 

The CHAIRMAN. I also move that we enter the Department of Justice report that I referred to earlier into the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING
245 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 312 28965.197
246 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 313 28965.198
247 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 314 28965.199
248 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 315 28965.200
249 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 316 28965.201
250 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 317 28965.202
251 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 318 28965.203
252 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 319 28965.204
253 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 320 28965.205
254 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 321 28965.206
255 

The CHAIRMAN. I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized 

to make technical and conforming changes on all matters considered by the committee at today’s hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

Having completed our business for today and for this hearing, 

the committee is hereby adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:26 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with HEARING