U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–312 PDF 2013

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 26, 2012 

Serial No. 112–150 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

RICHARD HERTLING, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Vice-Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 26, 2012 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution ....................... 1 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ....... 3 

WITNESS 

The Honorable Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on the Constitution .............................................................................................. 5 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the 

Constitution .......................................................................................................... 34 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Post-Hearing Questions submitted to the Honorable Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice ...... 48 

(1) 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION 

THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:38 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Franks, Chabot, King, Jordan, Nadler, 

Conyers, and Scott. 

Staff present: (Majority) Dan Huff, Counsel; Sarah Vance, Clerk; 

(Minority) David Lachmann, Subcommittee Staff Director; and 

Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. FRANKS. Good morning, and we welcome you to this Constitution Subcommittee Civil Rights Division oversight hearing. 

Without objection the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the Committee at any time. 

Last year marked the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. It was 

a chance not only to reflect on the horror of institutionalized slavery, but a reminder to all free people never to cast doubt on the 

humanity of any of our fellow human beings. And to take solace in 

at least the redeeming recognition that we fought our bloodiest war 

to end that tragedy. 

Today our soldiers again risk their lives for human freedom beyond our borders. As election 2012 nears, the division’s voting section must ensure that those defending democracy abroad can participate in it at home. 

There are approximately two million military voters, many in 

combat zones with limited access to ballots. Accordingly, in 2009, 

Congress passed the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment 

Act, the MOVE Act, which requires States to mail absentee ballots 

to all military voters at least 45 days before a Federal election. In 

an April 18 hearing before this Subcommittee, the non-partisan 

Military Voter Protection Projects expert testified that inadequate 

enforcement of the MOVE Act in 2010 disenfranchised thousands 

of service members. 

This year, it is imperative that the Justice Department address 

violations early, negotiate strong settlements that deter repeat offenses, and work with the Defense Department to ensure military 

recruitment centers and bases offer opportunities to register or request ballots, as required by law. 
2 

Unfortunately, the Justice Department seems unconcerned about 

low registration rates at military recruiting centers, even though it 

has aggressively sued States it thinks registers insufficient numbers of people at welfare offices. Similarly, it must demand better 

results from voter assistance offices on military installations. 

In North Carolina, there are 110,000 active duty military and 

spouses in the State, but only 1,860 requests for absentee ballots 

have been processed. A hundred and ten thousand active duty military spouses, but 1,860 requests for absentee ballots have been 

processed. In Virginia, out of 140,000, there have been only 874 requests processed. Either the military voting rate averages 1 percent or there is a systemic problem evident that almost certainly 

falls on the Civil Rights Division. 

The Justice Department should also insist on express mail where 

necessary to ensure military ballots are returned in time. The voting section regularly imposes far heavier costs on jurisdictions, for 

example, demanding bilingual ballots even for naturalized citizens 

who identify speaking English well. The voting section needs to 

make a first priority of protecting service members’ right to vote for 

those who have expressed and demonstrate a first priority in protecting all of us. 

Indeed, it is seeking headlines opposing voter ID laws that an 

overwhelming majority of Americans support. The Civil Rights Division is so desperate to block these laws, it has embarrassed itself 

in court. DOJ’s case against the Texas voter ID law is based on 

data provided by a Democratic data firm, whose stated mission is 

to cater to progressives. It seems progressive means Democrat. 

Then at the trial, the judges expressed shock that DOJ forbade its 

expert from counting passports or military IDs in estimating how 

many Texas voters lacked photo ID. 

There is no excuse for failing to accept a government-issued military ID, and the public deserves an answer for this today. 

Further, partisan bias is clear in the division’s National Voter 

Registration Act enforcement. It aggressively sues States under the 

NVRA for not registering enough voters at welfare offices, but it 

has not brought a single case to enforce NVRA’s requirement that 

States maintain accurate voter lists to fight fraud. 

When Florida tried to comply voluntarily by removing non-citizens from its voter rolls, DOJ rushed to court to stop them. DOJ, 

of course, lost. Over the local NAACP’s objections, DOJ forced Dayton, Ohio to lower the passing score on its police recruitment exam 

to increase diversity, even though Federal law explicitly prohibits 

altering the results of employment-related tests on the basis of 

race. It appears the division is breaking the law. 

Further, the Civil Rights Division reads Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act as requiring taxpayers to pay for costly bilingual 

ballots, even though the legislative history is clear that 4(e) merely 

exempts voters educated in Puerto Rico from once prevalent literacy tests. 

I guess I could go on, but I will stop there and look forward to 

your explanation of why laws do not appear to be faithfully executed at DOJ as required by law. 

And with that, I would now yield to the Ranking Member for his 

opening statement. 
3 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the Chairman. Today the Subcommittee 

continues its oversight of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. With the authority to enforce this Nation’s civil 

rights laws, the division is the guardian of our fundamental values—freedom of religion, the right to be treated fairly, the right to 

cast a vote in a free and fair election, the right to a job, the right 

to a home, the right to an education, and with the enactment of 

the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the right to live one’s life free 

from the threat of violent hate crimes. 

It is especially auspicious that we are meeting today on the 22nd 

anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act. That legislation was the result of a bipartisan commitment to 

the rights of the disabled, and I am pleased to note the work of the 

Disability Rights Section in making the promise of the ADA a reality. 

As our Subcommittee has documented, the division was deeply 

troubled during the Bush years. As with other parts of the Justice 

Department, career civil rights attorneys were routinely overruled 

on legal matters by political appointees. Hiring was illegally politicized. Enforcement was, in some key areas, grossly neglected. And 

morale was as bad at any time since the division’s establishment. 

The loss of dedicated career staff was alarming. 

President Obama signaled a new era by appointing as Assistant 

Attorney General Tom Perez. He is a career civil rights lawyer, and 

he has been working hard to rebuild a division that had lost many 

of its dedicated career attorneys, and that had become dangerously 

politicized. 

In addition to the historically challenging work of the Civil 

Rights Division, he has been rebuilding a decimated and demoralized office, and he has done so while dealing with such monumental tasks as the decennial redistricting. 

The division has an important story to tell, and I hope that we 

will have the opportunity to review that work. Whatever the politics, the career staff of the Justice Department has worked hard to 

meet the civil rights challenges of today. 

What is most distressing is that some of the same people who 

undermined and discredited the Civil Rights Division while they 

were there have now made a career of making false allegations 

against the division. The allegations all have the same subtext, 

that the division is being used to favor minorities to the detriment 

of Whites. What they really mean is that the division is now making an honest effort to enforce in an evenhanded manner our civil 

rights laws, laws which they really do not like. It is a Willie Horton 

campaign pure and simple. 

I am especially concerned about efforts around the country to rob 

duly qualified Americans of their right to cast a vote in a free and 

fair election and to have their vote counted. We have seen the enactment of various devices having the purpose and effect of preventing people from exercising their right to vote under the pretext 

of protecting the integrity of elections. 

These efforts are not without precedent in our country. In the 

past, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and poll taxes have been 

used to keep out of the polls citizens whose voices those in power 

did not particularly want to hear. In our day, purges of voter rolls, 
4 

which include the removal of voters we know for a fact are qualified, the requirement of particular voter IDs that we know some 

segments of the population are less likely to possess, and other 

such devices are being implemented around the country. 

The pretext, and there is no other word for it, that we are interested in preventing fraud has never stood up to scrutiny. Even now 

where a voter ID law is being challenged in Pennsylvania, the 

State has already admitted in court that, and I am quoting here, 

‘‘There have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person 

voter fraud in Pennsylvania. The parties do not have direct personal knowledge of such investigations or prosecutions in other 

States. The parties are not aware of any incidence of in-person 

voter fraud in Pennsylvania, and do not have direct personal 

knowledge of in-person voter fraud elsewhere. Pennsylvania will 

not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has, 

in fact, occurred in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. The Commonwealth 

will not offer any evidence or argument that in-person voter fraud 

is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of the voter ID 

law.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent to place the July 12, 2012 stipulation 

from Vivian Applewhite v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania into the 

record. 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
5 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. So why have the voter ID at all? The 

answer comes from the Pennsylvania House Republican Leader 

Mike Turzai, who recently told the Republican State Committee to 

raucous cheers that voter ID will allow Governor Romney to win 

Pennsylvania. In rattling off a laundry list of accomplishments 

made by the GOP run legislature, he said, ‘‘Voter ID, which is 

going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania, 

done.’’ Can we go to the video, please? 

[Video shown.] 
6 

Mr. NADLER. So I do not think it goes too far to demand the Civil 

Rights Division give close and careful scrutiny to any voting 

changes likely to or intended to disenfranchise votes. 

There is clearly a national strategy to disenfranchise voters for 

partisan political purposes, and it is the most widespread and aggressive such campaign since the Jim Crow era. If our civil rights 

laws mean anything, and I know that not all Members joined the 

overwhelming bipartisan majority in voting to extend the Voting 

Rights Act, then it must be that we have an obligation to protect 

the right to vote. Too many Americans have given their lives 

around the world and here at home for us to allow it to be taken 

away. 

I am also concerned about the use of police power in cities 

around the country, including my own city of New York. The police 

must use all the tools available to make our communities safe, and 

I can report that New York’s finest do an outstanding job under 

sometimes very difficult circumstances. But they must obey the law 

and the Constitution and respect the rights of the communities 

they are sworn to serve. 

Policies such as NYPD’s stop and frisk policy would seem to have 

crossed that line. The vast majority of individuals who are stopped 

have done nothing wrong and are sent on their way. These people 

are also disproportionately from communities of color, and those 

communities now feel that they are under siege rather than being 

protected. 

I know that the Department of Justice just announced a historic 

settlement with the New Orleans Police Department. It is very 

much to the division’s credit that it has seen this important case 

through to its resolution. I hope to hear from Assistant Attorney 

General Perez about the division’s efforts to ensure that those 

charged with enforcing the law all around the country are themselves complying with it. 

I am pleased to join you, Mr. Chairman, in welcoming Assistant 

Attorney General Perez, and I look forward to his testimony. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. And without objection, other 

Members’ opening statements will be made part of the record. 

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez is here today to testify 

before the Constitution Subcommittee, and, Mr. Perez, I thank you 

for being here with us this morning. 

Mr. PEREZ. It is an honor to be here. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Perez became the Assistant Attorney General 

for the Civil Rights Division on October 8th, 2009. Prior to becoming the Assistant Attorney General, he served as the Secretary of 

Maryland’s Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation. 

Mr. Perez has spent his entire career in public service, serving 

as a career prosecutor in the Civil Rights Division, and then as a 

deputy assistant attorney general for the division. He went on to 

serve as director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department 

of Health and Human Services. In addition to his extensive Justice 

Department service, he has also served as special counsel to the 

late Senator Edward Kennedy. 

Mr. Perez is a graduate of the Harvard Law School and holds a 

bachelor’s degree from Brown University and a master’s in public 
7 

policy from the Kennedy School of Government. He resides in 

Maryland with his wife and 3 children. 

Assistant Attorney General Perez, we look forward to hearing 

your testimony today. And again, I welcome you to the hearing. 

Mr. Perez’s written statement will be entered into the record in 

its entirety. And I would ask you, Mr. Perez, to summarize your 

testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, 

there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from 

green to yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony, 

and when the light turns red, it signals that your 5 minutes have 

expired. 

Before I recognize the witness, it is the tradition of this Subcommittee that he be sworn. So if you would stand, sir, to be 

sworn. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. Now I recognize Mr. Perez for 5 minutes, and do not forget that microphone button. Everybody has 

trouble with that. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS E. PEREZ, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you very much, Chairman Franks, Ranking 

Member Nadler, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 

allowing me to come and testify before this Committee. 

In the year since I last appeared before the Subcommittee, the 

Civil Rights Division has continued our vigorous fair and independent enforcement of civil rights law. It is indeed fitting that I 

come to you today on the 22nd anniversary of the ADA, a landmark 

law that represents a bipartisan tradition of even-handed civil 

rights law enforcement. Twenty-two years ago, I was proudly working in the Civil Rights Division as a career attorney under Attorney General Thornburgh. 

I want to thank the former Chairman of this distinguished Committee, Chairman Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, and his wife’s unwavering commitment to disability rights. I also commend him for 

his leadership in the most recent reauthorization of the Voting 

Rights Act. 

Civil rights indeed has a strong bipartisan history and tradition 

in this Committee, in this Congress, and across America. Thanks 

to the talented career attorneys, professionals, and support staff 

who work in the division, we continue to achieve great successes 

in protecting the civil rights of all individuals. And let me give you 

a few examples. 

Two days ago in New Orleans, the AG announced the filing of 

a compliant and consent decree in the most sweeping police reform 

case in the department’s history. This decree serves as a comprehensive blueprint for a sustainable reform, and we are handling 

more cases of this nature than at any time in our history. 

In the last Fiscal Year, the division filed hate crime charges that 

resulted in the convictions of 39 defendants, which was the largest 

number in more than a decade. In the last 4 Fiscal Years, we 

brought more human trafficking cases than in any other 4-year period in the department’s history. In the last 4 Fiscal Years, our ap-
8 

pellate section has filed more amicus briefs than any other 4-year 

period that I am aware of. 

We handled 27 new voting cases in the last Fiscal Year. We have 

never handled more new cases in one Fiscal Year, that is until this 

Fiscal Year, which is not yet done, in which we have handled 36 

new cases. 

In the last 3 years, we participated in over 40 disability matters 

in 25 States to assist people with disabilities to live in communitybased settings. We have worked with Republican and Democratic 

governors in Georgia, Virginia, and Delaware to dramatically expand opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities to 

thrive in community-based settings. 

We achieved the department’s largest recovery in a sexual harassment lawsuit under the Fair Housing Act. In the last 8 months, 

the division has resolved the 3 largest residential lending discrimination cases in the department’s history, including a $335 million 

settlement with Countrywide Financial, a $175 million settlement 

with Wells Fargo, and a $21 million settlement with SunTrust 

Mortgage. 

We reached an agreement with Colorado to provide interpreter 

services in court proceedings for individuals with limited English 

proficiency so they can meaningfully access the justice system. We 

are working with other States on this issue as well. 

We have protected the rights of individuals to worship and assemble in accordance with their religious beliefs. Just last week, we 

obtained a court order under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, directing Rutherford County, 

Tennessee to allow a mosque in the city of Murfreesboro to open. 

A few weeks earlier, a grand jury indicted an individual for making 

a threat against that mosque. 

We aggressively enforce laws that protect the rights of service 

members. Since 2009, we filed 43 cases under the Uniform Services 

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, USERRA, which exceeds the 32 cases filed under the previous Administration. And we 

obtained record relief under the Service Members Civil Relief Act 

for service members who have been victims of unlawful foreclosures. 

We protected the voting rights of service members through the 

enforcement of the MOVE Act and the Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). We filed more cases in 

the 2010 election cycle than any other time in the enforcement of 

UOCAVA—14 matters, either lawsuits or settlements. This year, 

we have already filed for more—Alabama, California, Wisconsin, 

and Georgia—for noncompliance with the MOVE Act. And we have 

legislative proposals that we have offered to strengthen those protections. 

I am very proud of these accomplishments which represent only 

a small fraction of our work. These cases are about real people and 

communities across this country who have been denied access to 

equal opportunity. 

It is about the students in Anoka-Hennepin School District in 

Minnesota, or South Philadelphia High School, who were victims of 

pervasive bullying. One of the basic rights of every parent and student is that their student should be safe in school and have a safe, 
9 

nurturing learning environment. As a result of our landmark 

agreement, these students who have been subject to harassment 

can now feel safe and focus their energies on learning. 

It is about helping the worker who was fired after telling her employer that it was wrong to deny jobs to U.S. citizens and workers 

with permanent work authorizations and give those jobs instead to 

people with temporary work visas. In some cases, we expand opportunity for a few people, while in others it may be hundreds, thousands, or even more. In all cases, we enforce the fairly, independently, and even-handedly. 

This job is a sacred trust, and I am exceedingly proud of the 

work of the dedicated career professionals in the division. We have 

made great strides in expanding opportunity in a number of critical 

ways. Civil rights, however, remains the unfinished business of 

America, and we will continue to use all the tools in our arsenal 

so that all individuals enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

Thank you for this opportunity to be here, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perez follows:] 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Perez, and I appreciate your 

testimony. 

I will now begin the questioning by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

Protecting the right of those who protect us to vote seems to be 

something that the American people strongly support. But some 

States consistently fail to get ballots to deployed military members 

in elections, systemically disenfranchising military voters, breaking 

Federal law, and disenfranchising again those who protect us. 
32 

In 2010, 14 States had counties that failed to get their ballots out 

to their State’s deployed military. New York alone failed to meet 

their agreement deadline for 43,000 military voters. 

The settlements DOJ reached with some of these States for these 

violations only perpetuated the problem since they did not provide 

sufficient time for ballots to be received before the election and 

mailed back in time. Worse, Mr. Perez, you have opined that ballots filled out after the election, which is when many military members receive their ballots under your settlements, are invalid, ensuring that their vote is still not counted. 

This Administration’s settlements continue to disenfranchise voters. Is that perhaps because the military tends to vote heavily Republican? I would think you would suggest not. So what is your 

staff doing right now in July to ensure that all States meet their 

deadlines for getting deployed military voters their ballots in time 

to count. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman. I categorically disagree with your characterization of the work that we 

have done. When the MOVE Act passed in 2009, we immediately 

went to work working with States. And if you look at the work that 

was done in the 2010 cycle, that was the most aggressive enforcement of laws protecting military and overseas voters in the history 

of the division. 

There were 14 matters that we brought either through lawsuits 

or through out of court settlements. Some cases, there were dozens 

of people who were deprived. In New York, as you correctly point 

out, there were tens of thousands. It did not matter if it were dozens or tens of thousands. Every military and overseas voter has the 

right to receive their ballot in a timely fashion, and we were able 

to get that relief. 

And we continued that work because this year we have already 

filed 4 additional lawsuits, and we will continue to aggressively enforce those laws. 

And after the 2010 cycle, we had I think a very productive hearing in another Committee of the House in which we debated lessons learned from 2010. 

Mr. FRANKS. So what commitment do you—forgive me. What 

commitment can you give this Subcommittee that you are going to 

take proactive actions against jurisdictions who fail to meet their 

deadlines for getting ballots to the deployed service members who 

request them and who are completely at the mercy of the States 

to receive them? What commitment will you give us? 

Mr. PEREZ. We have been working very proactively on that issue, 

and we will continue to do so. And we will also work in partnership 

with the FVAP Office, the Voter Assistance Program in the Department of Defense, who plays a very important role in ensuring that 

military and overseas voters can exercise their right to vote. 

I completely agree with what you said, Mr. Chairman. This debate in this country—what we should be doing in this country is 

continuing to have this debate about the soul and the future of our 

Nation. 

And then what we should be doing is making sure that every eligible person has that right to vote. And that is why we have put 

so much time into the MOVE Act enforcement, and that is why 
33 

when somebody says, well, someone might be a Republican or a 

Democratic, that is offensive. That is irrelevant. And that will 

never play into the work that we do. 

Mr. FRANKS. But there is a systemic issue. So let me move on 

here if I can in time here. I am going to read an opening paragraph 

of a Daily Caller article from October 1st, 2011. ‘‘Top Justice Department officials convened a meeting Wednesday where invited 

Islamist advocates lobbied them for cutbacks in terror funding, 

changes in agent’s training manuals, additional curbs on investigators, and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam 

constitutes racial discrimination. ’The Department’s ‘‘civil rights 

lawyers’’ are top of the line. I say this with utter honesty. I know 

they can come up with a way.’′′ 

To redefine criticism as—I am sorry. ‘‘To redefine criticism as 

discrimination,’’ says Sahar Aziz, a female Egyptian-American lawyer. You then responded, ’We must continue to have the open, and 

honest, and critical dialogue that you saw in the robust debate.’ 

Perez responded in an enthusiastic closing speech minutes after 

Ms. Aziz made her demands at the event. ’I sat here the entire 

time taking notes.’ Perez said, ’I have some very concrete thoughts 

in the aftermath of this.’′′ 

What were the concrete thoughts after the meeting with, among 

others, a leader of an unindicted co-conspirator organization in the 

largest terror finance trial in history, after hearing a blatantly unconstitutional proposal to destroy First Amendment free speech 

rights of Americans by outlawing criticism of a religion? According 

to the article, no one at Justice, including you, objected to this call 

to abrogate free speech. 

You know, Americans would be shocked to learn that their Justice officials and unindicted co-conspirators in a terrorism trial 

huddled together to discuss ways to take away Americans’ freedom 

of speech. Will you tell us here today—and I apologize for having 

to hurry. Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never again entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir, I am not familiar with the context that you described in the article. I have not seen that article. 

Mr. FRANKS. You are not familiar with the meeting here at all. 

Mr. PEREZ. Pardon me? 

Mr. FRANKS. You are not familiar with the meeting that the article—— 

Mr. PEREZ. I would need to read the article in order the context 

of the article. What I can tell you is that the Department of Justice 

aggressively enforces all of the civil rights laws, including laws that 

protect religious minorities. And we will—— 

Mr. NADLER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. My time has expired. 

Mr. NADLER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. The gentleman will state his point. 

Mr. NADLER. We have not seen that article either, and I think 

it behooves us that before scurrilous accusations are made or at 

least at the same time scurrilous accusations are made, we see the 

article and the context so we know what we are talking about. 
34 

Mr. FRANKS. Fair enough. I would place this in the record without objection. The Daily Caller article that we mentioned, I will 

place that in the record without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
35 
36 

Mr. FRANKS. And with that, my time has expired. Thank you, 

Mr. Perez. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I now recognize the Ranking Member. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Mr. Assistant Attorney General, the 

New York Civil Liberties Union conducts an annual analysis of the 

New York Police Department stop and frisk procedures. Last year, 

the NYPD stopped and interrogated over 685,000 times, a more 

than 600 percent increase in street stops since 2002 when there 

were only 97,000 stops. 
37 

Nine out of 10 people stopped were innocent, meaning they were 

neither arrested nor ticketed. About 87 percent of those stopped 

were Black or Latino. Young Black and Latino men were the targets of a hugely disproportionate number of stops. 

Last month, a group of community advocates and elected officials 

traveled from New York City to advocate for Federal review of 

these practices. Can we expect some Federal review of stop and 

frisk practices and of their alleged—and I would say definite violations and systematic violations—of the civil rights of people in New 

York City? Can we expect some Federal review of these practices? 

Mr. PEREZ. Ranking Member Nadler, we are certainly aware of 

those allegations. I was in New York as recently as a week ago, 

and we have received a number of requests to investigate this matter. And we are in the process of reviewing those requests. 

As I think you also know, we have a very active police practices 

program. We have more civil police practices investigations that 

are currently under way than at any time in our division’s history. 

I mentioned New Orleans, and we have open matters north, south, 

east, and west. 

Mr. NADLER. I noted you mentioned New Orleans. Last December, 34 Members of Congress, myself included, wrote to the Department of Justice urging an investigation. And do you have any time 

frame as to when we may hear about that? 

Mr. PEREZ. It remains under active review. I cannot give you a 

specific response date. Obviously we have a lot of components in 

the department with whom we are consulting. 

Mr. NADLER. All right, thank you. A number of years ago, I think 

it was 4 or 5 years ago, when Mr. Sensenbrenner was Chairman 

of the Committee, we held I do not know, many, many hours of 

public hearings on the question of renewal of the Voting Rights 

Act, and specifically of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Some 

people said, and Congress decided to the contrary, that Section 5 

was no longer necessary because nobody discriminated anymore. 

States and localities did not discriminate. And that Section 5 was 

unfair in that it only covered certain local jurisdictions based on 

their record of discrimination prior to enactment of the Voting 

Rights Act, and did not cover others, and that this was all ancient 

history and of no current relevance. 

I note that there are a number of people saying the same thing 

again. And, of course, after those many hours of hearings, we came 

up with voluminous evidence of current discrimination and of current necessity for Section 5. And both houses on a bipartisan basis 

passed a renewal, and President Bush signed it. 

Could you comment on the current necessity of Section 5? I know 

there are some pending lawsuits against it. Could you comment on 

the current necessity of it and on the fairness of singling out some, 

but not all, jurisdictions? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sure. Thank you for your question. And at the outset 

of my testimony, I acknowledged on this anniversary of the ADA 

the important contributions of the former Chair of this Committee. 

As you know, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and I have read his 

testimony in connection with the reauthorization of Section 5. And 

if my memory serves me, he said something like it was one of the 
38 

voluminous records ever developed in his 25 plus year history in 

serving in the United States Congress. 

And that record that the Congress so vigorously and thoroughly 

developed is a record that continues to be borne out. In short, Section 5 continues to be necessary. I look at simply the period of time 

since last September where we have interposed 14 objections, 

whether in the context of an administrative review process or in 

the context of cases that were filed before a three-judge panel. And 

some cases involved statewide. In some cases they involve local jurisdictions. And it continues to be necessary. 

And the other thing, Congressman Nadler, that is very important 

to underscore is that not only is it necessary, but if there is a jurisdiction that believes that it should no longer be—— 

Mr. NADLER. They can bail out. 

Mr. PEREZ. There is a bailout. There have been 36 bailouts, I believe, since 1984, 18 of which have been in the last 3 years. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I just want to have one more question 

before my time expires. Today is the 22nd anniversary of the enactment of the ADA, and I applaud the Disability Rights Section for 

its tremendous work toward making the ADA’s promise of equality 

in access more of a reality. 

In the past several Congresses, there have been proposals, such 

as H.R. 3356, the so-called Access Act, in this Congress that would 

require a private party to notify a public accommodation before 

bringing a lawsuit under Title 3 of the ADA. 

What is the Department of Justice’s position in requiring pre-suit 

notification for Title 3, and what would the impact of such a law 

be on compliance with and enforcement of the law, in your opinion? 

Mr. PEREZ. The department’s position on that has been that, obviously as you correctly point out, we are very committed to protecting the rights of people with disabilities. However, in those particular cases that are giving rise to that legislation, we believe that 

it would burden people with disabilities seeking full access to the 

courts. 

Title 3 of the ADA is the public accommodation provision, and we 

think that as currently written, it strikes the right balance. And 

so this particular proposal is unnecessary. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I now yield to Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. And I thank the Chairman. I would be happy to 

yield to the Chairman. I have to get another venue. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Perez, I apologize. I am trying to beat the clock here. And 

the last question I am afraid that I—— 

Mr. PEREZ. No, not at all. 

Mr. FRANKS. So let me just recap here on that one. Will you tell 

us here today simply that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes 

speech against any religion? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir, as I said before, you referenced as context for 

your question an article from—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, there is no context on this question. I am just 

asking you—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, there actually was. 
39 

Mr. FRANKS. I am just asking you. Well, all right, let me ask a 

new question. Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s 

Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal 

that criminalizes speech against any religion? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again, sir—— 

Mr. FRANKS. That is not a hard question. 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, actually it is a hard question in the sense that 

when you make threats against someone, I am going to—— 

Mr. FRANKS. No, I am asking you here today, will you tell us 

here today that this Department of Justice will never entertain or 

advance a proposal to criminalize speech against any religion. 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, sir, if you have a proposal that you are considering, we will actively review that proposal and offer our—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Okay, here is my proposal. Here is my proposal. I 

am asking you to answer a question. That is my proposal. I am 

proposing that you answer this question. Will you tell us here 

today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never 

entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against 

any religion? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, sir, if you give the context of the question—— 

Mr. FRANKS. All right. 

Mr. NADLER. Will the gentleman yield for a second? 

Mr. PEREZ [continuing]. To conduct the—— 

Mr. FRANKS. I will not yield, but I will let—— 

Mr. NADLER. I think we can straighten this out. 

Mr. FRANKS. I will not yield. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, you are not interested in an answer then. 

Mr. FRANKS. I have tried to get an answer 4 times. 

Mr. NADLER. I rephrase the question, you may get an answer. 

Mr. FRANKS. I appreciate that, but I am asking my own questions. I will certainly allow you to ask yours. 

Mr. NADLER. If the Chairman is taking a second round, could I 

ask a question then of Mr. Perez? 

Mr. FRANKS. If we take a second round. 

Mr. NADLER. We just did. 

Mr. FRANKS. No, we did not. I am yielded time. 

Mr. NADLER. Oh. 

Mr. FRANKS. Yeah. Anyway, I want to get an answer to a fairly 

basic question here. If the Department of Justice cannot even answer the question whether they will entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion, then it is pretty 

late in the day. 

So I am going to change questions here. Mr. Perez, this House 

passed the Federal hate crimes legislation in October of 2009. How 

many hate crimes prosecutions has your division brought since the 

passage of the Act 2 years ago? 

Mr. PEREZ. Since the passage of the Act in 2009, 11 cases have 

been brought involving 38 defendants under the Shepard-Byrd law. 

Sixteen have been convicted; 22 are awaiting trial. 

Mr. FRANKS. All right. That seems to contradict some information we got from CRS. 

Mr. PEREZ. I am happy to work with you to provide you the specifics—— 
40 

Mr. FRANKS. Could you give us your report showing the numbers 

of cases and parties and courts for these cases that were brought, 

including ongoing cases with docket numbers and a short maybe 

one paragraph summary of each case? 

Mr. PEREZ. I would be happy to do so. 

Mr. FRANKS. And how soon could you get that to us? 

Mr. PEREZ. We will do it as soon as possible. 

Mr. FRANKS. Any estimation? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, we will do it as soon as possible, sir. 

Mr. FRANKS. All right. Well, All right. I will just tell you that our 

staff did contact CRS to call DOJ and to get this information in advance of this hearing. And the DOJ rep told CRS that there were 

approximately 300 hate crimes cases brought in just 2 years, but 

they refused to give the information to CRS. Now this, again, may 

be correct or incorrect information, I do not know. But it is public 

record, that much I know. And they urged us to file a FOIA. 

Now asking Congress conducting oversight or CRS to file a FOIA 

request to get public information seems outrageous to me. Do you 

think this was an appropriate response to that request? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, sir, our staff, I am confident, would be happy 

to work with your staff. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the 

Shepard-Byrd law, is a critically important law. We welcome congressional inquiries about the work we have done. We have had 

many investigations. I have described the number of prosecutions. 

We are very proud of those cases. And we would be happy to work 

with your staff to get you the necessary information so that you 

can make assessments based on the facts. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you for coming, Mr. Perez, today. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I will yield now to the Ranking Member of the 

full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. Good morning. 

Mr. CONYERS. And I am very pleased that you are here, Mr. Assistant Attorney General. I am going to yield the Ranking Member 

of the Subcommittee, Jerry Nadler, briefly. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I will be very brief. I want to rephrase 

question the Chairman asked a little differently. 

First of all, hate speech and hate crimes are very different topics. 

My question to you is, I assume that the department would make 

a commitment that you are not going to offer a proposal to criminalize protected speech, to criminalize criticism of religion or of 

anybody else other than in the context of a direct threat. 

Mr. PEREZ. Right. We will do this work, as we always have, in 

a way that is consistent with the Constitution. 

Mr. NADLER. Which means you cannot criminalize—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Hate speech. 

Mr. NADLER. Hate speech. 

Mr. PEREZ. Correct. And we have—— 

Mr. NADLER. Other than with a direct threat of violence or something like that. 

Mr. PEREZ. And as a matter of fact, our hate crimes laws say 

whoever by force or threat of force intimidates or attempts to in-
41 

timidate someone on the basis of race, color, all the protected classes, will—— 

Mr. NADLER. So short of intimidation and threats of violence and 

so forth, you are not endorsing a concept that says you cannot 

criminalize—I am sorry. You cannot criticize someone’s religion or 

anything else. 

Mr. PEREZ. We strongly support the First Amendment, and at 

the same time we strongly support the prosecution of people who 

use threats of violence to undermine and tear communities apart 

on racial lines, sexual orientation lines, religious lines. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. And I yield back. And I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. CONYERS. You are welcome. This is an important discussion. 

And in a way, we sort of started off on this rapid fire back and 

forth, and sometimes some of the finer and more substantive parts 

of what we are talking about get lost. 

I would like to talk with you about two areas in the few minutes 

that we have. But for me, Mr. Assistant Attorney General, this is 

an ongoing discussion that we are having. I am not racing to get 

all my questions into you. Your office and the whole department 

have been available to me, and I assume other Members of the 

Committee for whatever purposes that we want. 

So this is not a race against the clock to see how many questions 

and answers we can get in in a 5-minute period of time, which is 

a little unrealistic when we are talking constitutional rights. 

My two subject matters are the voter protection issues and the 

attempts at the State level on part of a number of States about 

making voting more difficult. And I would like to get your impression of what is going on in this climate leading up to the important 

November vote of 2012. 

Could we discuss that a bit, and give me an idea of how your 

part of the department and the whole Department of Justice is approaching this subject? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sure. And, again, our philosophy and our approach 

here has been very straightforward. We want to enforce the laws, 

and we are enforcing the laws. And we are doing in a fair and independent way. And I said to the Chair before, there is obviously a 

robust debate in this country, and we welcome that debate. That 

is the essence of democracy. 

And what we think needs to happen is we continue to have that 

debate, and then we make sure that we do our level best at the 

department to ensure that every eligible voter on the first Tuesday 

in November can cast his or her ballot and they have access to the 

ballot. That is why we have done more work than ever on behalf 

of military and overseas voters and will continue to aggressively 

enforce that. 

That is why when the facts call for them, we will interpose objections on the voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina, because 

in our judgment the facts supported them. 

I agree wholeheartedly with the views of former Attorney General Mukasey, who talked about voter identification laws and said 

earlier this year, ‘‘The Supreme Court,’’ referring to Indiana, 

‘‘adopted the department’s views that voter ID laws are not facially 

unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court held, such laws serve sev-
42 

eral compelling interests, including the interest in preventing voter 

fraud and the interest in safeguarding public confidence in representative government. At the same time, the Court acknowledged 

the undeniable fact that voter ID laws can burden some citizens’ 

right to vote. It is important for States to implement and administer such laws in a way that minimizes that possibility. And it is 

important for the department to do its part to guard against this 

possibility. We will not hesitate to use the tools available to us, including the Voting Rights Act, if these laws, important though they 

may be, are used improperly to deny the right to vote.’’ 

That is not Attorney General Holder. That was Attorney General 

Mukasey. And I completely and utterly agree with him. And that 

embodies the approach we have taken, Congressman Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. I will continue our discussion outside of this important hearing. And I thank you for your coming. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Scott, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Perez, in the 1960’s in southern States, hospitals were routinely segregated, and they were integrated because President 

Johnson conditioned receipt of Medicare and Medicaid on a policy 

of non-discrimination. 

Is the policy of non-discrimination without exception as a condition of receiving Federal money still a good idea? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, I am very familiar with Title 6, which prohibits non-discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national 

origin. And we have a section that aggressively enforces Title 6. 

Mr. SCOTT. What about religious discrimination? 

Mr. PEREZ. As I think we have discussed before, the Administration continues to be committed to ensuring that we partner with 

organizations in ways that are consistent with both the laws and 

our values. And we will continue to evaluate issues that arise on 

a case by case basis. 

Mr. SCOTT. From 1965 to 2001, there could be no religious discrimination when you are receiving and spending Federal money. 

Was that a good idea or a bad idea? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again, we respect the judgments of Congress, 

and we enforce the judgments and the laws and regulations that 

are in place. And so that is the job of the Department of Justice. 

Mr. SCOTT. If Congress had said it is a good idea to be able to 

discriminate, do you agree with that? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again, as I said before, in the context—and I 

think we have had this conversation a few times, and we will continue to have this conversation—we will continue to make sure 

that we enforce the laws in a manner that is consistent with both 

the Constitution and our values. And we will continue to evaluate 

these questions, and they are undoubtedly important questions and 

challenging questions. And we will continue to evaluate how the 

facts apply to laws in a particular context. 

Mr. SCOTT. If a faith-based organization were running a government program, could they have as an articulated policy we do not 

hire Catholics and Jews with the Federal money? 
43 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again, we have had many conversations with 

you about anti-discrimination laws. And we have enforced cases involving discrimination based on religion in the employment context 

and in other contexts. 

We have a case actually in Arizona that we have brought involving discrimination. 

Mr. SCOTT. I am a little confused. Can an organization have as 

an articulated policy we do not hire Catholics and Jews with Federal money? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, we are having this conversation with you 

about how to treat the issues of ensuring that we partner with 

faith-based organizations in ways that are consistent with all of 

our laws and all of our values. And we will continue to evaluate—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Do the laws that you are enforcing prohibit discrimination or allow discrimination with Federal money? I mean, could 

an organization have an articulated policy we do not hire Catholics 

and Jews with Federal money? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, every situation is fact specific. We have, in 

fact, prosecuted—or not prosecuted. We have brought civil suits in 

cases involving discrimination based on religion, and we will continue to evaluate specific facts of particular cases. And if the 

facts—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I just gave you a fact situation. If a faith-based 

organization is running a Federal program with Federal money and 

has an articulated policy we do not hire Catholics and Jews, can 

they get Federal money? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again, we will evaluate the full context of every 

case that we have, and we will make the appropriate judgment. 

And when the facts demonstrate that there is, in fact, discrimination occurring, we will not hesitate to take appropriate action. And 

if you look at the cases—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Is it not true that your policy is that a faith-based 

organization can, in fact, have an articulated policy we do not hire 

Catholics and Jews, and still receive Federal money? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again, sir, we look at particular situations, and 

we evaluate the specific facts in a particular situation, and make 

the appropriate judgment as to the application of the facts to the 

law in that particular case. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are you ashamed of saying, yes, they can, in fact, discriminate legally with the laws that you are enforcing? 

Mr. PEREZ. Every case is fact specific. Just as when the Chairman asked me about threats cases, every threats case is very fact 

specific. 

Mr. SCOTT. What is the barrier to discrimination by a faith-based 

organization? What law prevents them from discriminating? 

Mr. PEREZ. I am not sure I understand your question. 

Mr. SCOTT. If a faith-based group is taking Federal money, what 

law can you apply that prevents them from discriminating, from 

having articulated policy we do not hire Catholics and Jews? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again, we would have to look at the particular 

circumstances of a specific case to determine whether there is either a reg from a department so that an agency of that particular 
44 

office might be able to take a look at that, or whether there is a 

law of more general application. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Scott. And I recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I recognize and appreciate the testimony, Mr. Perez. I cannot 

help but reflect back on some dialogue that took place in this Committee between a former Member of this Committee from New 

York when he asked along the lines of the gentleman from Virginia, is there a particular Christian way to ladle soup. And I 

thought, yes, there is. That is ham and beans soup. It is particularly Christian within the context of the gentleman from Virginia’s. 

And I know that in the vein that it is delivered. 

But I would like to take this to the opening video that you 

viewed that was delivered by Mr. Nadler, another gentleman from 

New York. And the statement that if there is voter ID, then Romney wins the presidency. And make this point that what that really 

says is if you have an election that is a legitimate election, where 

you have a higher assurance that the people going to the polls actually are American citizens and are legitimate voters, then the Republican side of this wins, and the Democrat side of this loses. That 

is how I heard and saw that video. 

That is my statement. I am not going to ask you to comment on 

that. But I would ask you to comment on something else that we 

have seen, and that is the video of the young gentleman going into 

the polls in Virginia and asking for the Attorney General’s ballot. 

And did you see that video, Mr. Perez? 

Mr. PEREZ. No, I have not. I read about it in the newspaper, but 

I have not seen the video. 

Mr. KING. Does it trouble you? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, first of all, I believe it is in the District of Columbia. I think the Attorney General lives in the District of Columbia. You referenced Virginia. 

Mr. KING. I am happily corrected with that detail. Does it trouble 

you that a young man, I think 23 years old, could walk in and be 

offered the ballot of the Attorney General of the United States? 

Does that trouble you? 

Mr. PEREZ. What is interesting about that is the individual did 

not vote, and really the question presented is, what is the extent 

of voter fraud in the United States? I can tell you, Congressman—— 

Mr. KING. If I could just ask a question. My time is—— 

Mr. PEREZ [continuing]. That in the context of the litigation—and 

I comment too much other than what is in the public record—in 

South Carolina—— 

Mr. KING. Let me point out that we know why the individual did 

not vote is because he did not want to break the law. 

Mr. PEREZ. And that is why voter fraud—— 

Mr. KING. And so my point is that there are a lot of individuals 

out there that do not mind breaking the law. They maybe do not 

even understand it does violate the law. They are offered a motor 

voter sign up here and a little checkbox, are you a citizen. Maybe 

they cannot even read that in English. Maybe they cannot even un-
45 

derstand it in whatever language it is offered in. But it is offered 

to them, and we are seeing voter registration fraud, and we are 

seeing voter fraud. 

In fact, we know that ACORN admitted to at least 440,000 false 

or fraudulent voter registrations. So that is pretty prevalent out 

there, and I cannot imagine that none of those 440,000 actually 

went and voted. And we have evidence to the contrary. 

So one more point. Do you know Donna Brazile? 

Mr. PEREZ. I am sorry? 

Mr. KING. Do you know Donna Brazile? 

Mr. PEREZ. I do not know her personally. I know of her. 

Mr. KING. You know of her, and know that she was managing 

Al Gore’s campaign in the year 2000? 

Mr. PEREZ. I do not recall that, but—— 

Mr. KING. I just say that is my recollection. And recall this statement when it was pointed out to her that her campaign was four 

and a half points down in the polls. And this is from memory, so 

it could be refined to precision. Her answer to that was, I am not 

worried about being down four and a half points in the polls. I can 

pick up 6 points on the street. 

I happened to think of that when I saw the gentleman from New 

York’s video that he put out here. He sees the world from an entirely different view than I do, at least on this subject. And so we 

are interested legitimate voters, and I would make the point to you 

that there is a bedrock underneath our Constitution, and that is 

America’s confidence in legitimate elections. It really is not whether or not we have legitimate elections. If they believe they are legitimate elections, then they will have confidence in them, and they 

will accept the decisions made by their elected officials with this 

constitutional republic that we have. 

And we have secretaries of state around the country that are 

working to try to clean up the voter registration rolls, and they 

have had great difficulty in getting access to the SAVE Act, the 

Systemic Alien Verification Entitlement, that is by law to be provided to them. And they are looking to Justice for recommendation, 

particularly Iowa. And I would ask if you are prepared to make 

that list available to the Secretary of State Matt Schultz, who has 

been working diligently to have legitimate voter registration rules 

in Iowa, as you for a recommendation. 

Mr. PEREZ. As I understand it, DHS is working with the Secretary of State. And DHS—— 

Mr. KING. But asking you for a recommendation. They have 

kicked it off to you. They pass it over to—— 

Mr. PEREZ. No, actually I believe, as I understand the program, 

it is a DHS decision, and DHS will indeed make that decision. 

Mr. KING. DHS has announced—if you do not mind, the clock is 

running down. But DHS has announced that they are looking for 

guidance from DOJ. Is that not you? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, I would love to see that reference that they are 

looking from DOJ. I can tell you that in the State of Arizona, we 

pre-cleared an arrangement, I think 6 years ago, so that the State 

of Arizona is actually making use of the SAVE database in their 

verification process. 
46 

Now, of course, if in the course of making use of that SAVE database they do so in a manner that impacts or implicates the voting 

rights laws, then we would step in. 

Mr. KING. Okay. But Iowa is not a covered district. 

Mr. PEREZ. Arizona is, in fact, doing that. 

Mr. KING. So could you list any reason that in Iowa that does 

not have a covered district in it, that simply wants to use the 

SAVE list in order to clean up their voter registration rolls to provide legitimate elections, can you imagine any reason why DOJ 

would recommend to the Department of Homeland Security not to 

provide that list? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again, as I understand that process, the SAVE 

database, the key thing—and Arizona does that, as I understand 

it—is you have to have the requisite underlying data, including 

alien registration numbers of the individual. If you are not collecting the requisite underlying data, then the SAVE database will 

not be helpful. The State of Arizona has done it that—— 

Mr. KING. Could you cite the statute that prohibits that? 

Mr. PEREZ. Pardon? 

Mr. KING. Could you cite the statute that prohibits? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, the Department of Homeland Security, sir, is 

the Department that administers the SAVE database. 

Mr. KING. I understand, and they look to DOJ for recommendations. 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again, the Department of Homeland Security is 

the entity that administers that database. And as I understand it, 

if you do not collect the requisite data, then the database is useless. Arizona collects the data. 

Mr. FRANKS. The gentleman can finish the answer. Go ahead. 

You are finished on that? 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Okay, all right. 

Mr. KING. In which case then, Mr. Chairman, I would just point 

out that this has been passed back and forth between DHS and 

DOJ for too long. And it is time to get a resolution to this matter. 

And I would yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. And without objection, all 

Members will have 5 legislative days to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, for the witness in this 

case, which will be forwarded. And we will ask the witness to respond as promptly as he can so that the answers may be made part 

of the record. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record. 

And with that, Mr. Perez, thank you and those that have attended you today for coming to the hearing. And thank the Members and observers. 

And this hearing is now adjourned. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(47) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
48 

*The Subcommittee had not received a response to its questions by the time this hearing 

record was submitted for printing on February 4, 2013. 

Post-Hearing Questions submitted to the Honorable Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of 

Justice* 
49 
50 
51 
52 

Æ