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

24–606 PDF 2006

VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTIONS 6 AND 8—THE

FEDERAL EXAMINER AND OBSERVER PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 15, 2005

Serial No. 109–77

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 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

E. STEWART JEFFRIES, Counsel 

HILARY FUNK, Counsel 

KIMBERLY BETZ, Full Committee Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Professional Staff Member 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 15, 2005

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

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

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

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

State of Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, and 

Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ..................................................... 2

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution .......................... 4

The Honorable Melvin L. Watt, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution .............. 5

The Honorable David Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Georgia .............................................................................................................. 7

WITNESSES 

Ms. Nancy Randa, Deputy Associate Director for Human Resources Products 

and Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9

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

Ms. Penny L. Pew, Elections Director, Apache County, Arizona 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13

Mr. Barry H. Weinberg, former Deputy Chief and Acting Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 17

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

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. a Representative 

in Congress from the State if Michigan and Member, Subcommittee on 

the Constitution ................................................................................................... 63

Appendix to the Statement of Penny Pew: Election Materials ............................ 65

Appendix to the Statement of Penny Pew: Prepared Statement of Penny 

Pew submitted to the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act ........... 145

Appendix to the Statement of Barry Weinberg: Problems in America’s Polling 

Places: How They Can Be Stopped; Temple Political and Civil Rights Law 

Review, Spring 2002 ............................................................................................ 146

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bradley J. Schlozman, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, 

Concerning The Voting Rights Act: Sections 6 and 8, Federal Examiner 

and Observer Programs ....................................................................................... 194

Inserted into the Record by Congressman Watt during the hearing: Letter 

from William Jenkins, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, 

Government Accountability Office, to the Honorables Joseph Lieberman, 

Henry Wazman, and John Conyers, Jr. regarding the Department of Justice’s activities to address past election-related voting irregularities .............. 197

(1)

VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTIONS 6 AND 8—

THE FEDERAL EXAMINER AND OBSERVER 

PROGRAM 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:38 p.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve 

Chabot (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CHABOT. Every Chairman should have a gavel when it was 

missing. So now we have it, we can get started. 

This is the Subcommittee on the Constitution. I’m Steve Chabot, 

the Chairman. 

I want to thank you all for attending this afternoon. This is the 

Subcommittee, as I said, on the Constitution, and the ninth in a 

series of hearings this Committee has held in the last several 

weeks examining the impact and effectiveness of the Voting Rights 

Act. 

I’d like to thank all my colleagues again for their assistance in 

making each of these hearings informative and thought provoking, 

as we continue our efforts to look closely at those provisions of the 

Voting Rights Act which are set to expire in 2007. 

Today, we will focus our attention on sections 6, 7, and 8 of the 

Voting Rights Act, each of which is set, as I said, to expire in 2 

years, in 2007, unless Congress acts otherwise and reauthorizes. 

Section 6 authorizes the Attorney General to send Federal examiners to cover jurisdictions to register new voters. 

Section 7 outlines the procedures to be followed by these examiners when registering new voters. 

And section 8 authorizes the Attorney General to send Federal 

observers into these covered jurisdictions to ensure that the rights 

afforded by Federal law are protected. 

We have another distinguished panel of witnesses with us here 

this afternoon, and we want to thank them all for being here, and 

we look very much forward to their testimony. 

The assistance provided by Federal examiners and observers in 

the election process has played an instrumental role in increasing 

minority voter participation. 

After almost a century of racial discrimination in voting and several unsuccessful attempts to curtail these pervasive practices, 

Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act back in 1965. 

2

Among the many different tools provided by Congress is the 

intervention of Federal examiners and observers. This Federal 

oversight was deemed necessary as result of the failure on the part 

of covered jurisdictions to openly accept minority voters in the political process. 

In the initial years after enactment of the Voting Rights Act, 

Federal examiners and observers were used in record numbers. 

The impact these provisions have had on minority voters is reflected in the increasing number of minority voters registering to 

vote. 

Over 112,000 minority voters have been registered by Federal examiners over the life of the Voting Rights Act. 

And while the number of examiners sent to jurisdictions has decreased in recent years, the importance of Federal oversight in protecting minority voters has not diminished. 

In the last 25 years, Federal observers have been sent to over 98 

covered counties to ensure that minority voters are protected. 

In fact, the Department of Justice just last week sent Federal observers to 16 jurisdictions in 7 States to monitor elections, to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act and other Federal voting and election statutes. 

Today, we will examine the impact that Federal examiners and 

observers have had on increasing minority participation in the political process and the continued need for these provisions in the 

future. 

Again, we look forward to hearing from all our witnesses here 

this afternoon. 

And at this time, I will recognize the distinguished Ranking 

Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers of Michigan, if he 

would like to make an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I begin, could I ask the Chair a question about the absence or withdrawal of the Department of Justice witness that was 

scheduled to have been here? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. If the gentleman will yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. And I’ll yield. 

Mr. CHABOT. We’ve been informed, and, in fact, I would note that 

the Department of Justice was scheduled to be our fourth witness 

today, but due to a scheduling conflict, they couldn’t be here. They 

have submitted written testimony, and it’s been made available to 

us, and they’ve offered to make themselves available at a later 

date, and to respond to any written questions that this Committee 

might have. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much for making that clear because their presence is very critical in how many of us will proceed 

under these—this very important consideration. 

Mr. CHABOT. Would the gentleman yield one more time, please? 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I might note 

that Mr. Weinberg is a former attorney with the Justice Department, and may be able to answer some of the questions that would 

be answered if the Justice Department were here. 

But again, they—we will be able to provide those questions to 

them in writing and maybe an appearance down the road as well. 

3

Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, you’re more than welcome. 

This is a very important part of extending the Voting Rights Act 

of 1965, and I’m very interested from hearing—in hearing from the 

witnesses about the relationships between the examiners and the 

observers. 

We’re—it seems to me, frankly, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Committee, that we may need to resort to a little rewriting of 

this section to clear up some parts of it. 

The one thing I would love to hear commented on and maybe 

we’ll do it in the questions is that we have a sent Members in for—

we have sent either observers—people have been certified to come 

in to monitor elections, but it’s usually about language barriers. It’s 

not about racial exclusion or harassment or coercion or discouraging the vote. 

For example, in the city—my city of Hamtramck, Michigan, in 

which there were some problems with Arab-Americans being harassed at the polls, and they—we sent in Federal observers, but in 

many parts of the country, where we really need somebody looking 

at some very fundamental questions, which leave it unnecessary for 

me to even discuss why we have to justify this extending and improving on these provisions 3 and 6 and 8. Every election cycle in 

our offices, we field numerous complaints involving election day 

mischief and worse from around the country—plenty of it. 

As a matter of fact, we should write a report about it or Mr. 

Weinberg or Ms. Pew should write a book about it. Baltimore, 

2002—intentions to confuse and suppress the voter turnout, where 

flyers misstated the date of the election and implied that overdue 

parking tickets, moving violations, behind in your rent were qualifications that could preclude you being allowed to vote. 

Kentucky gubernatorial election, 2003—59 precincts with significant African-American populations targeted for vote challenges by 

local campaign officials. 

May I have an additional minute, sir? 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

In North Carolina, in 1990, the Department sued over postcards 

mailed to African-American voters designed to discourage them 

from coming to polls by providing misinformation about the voter 

requirements. 

They finally—there was a consent decree. 

Now, the failure—one of the problems that were corrected from 

1957 to 1965 is that we were giving retrospective relief for interference with the right to vote. 

What we needed was prospective relief, and that’s what’s up for 

renewal now, and I hope we can gather a hardcore congressional 

group of Members that realize that that’s the heart of this—one of 

the hearts of the hearing that we’re holding here today. 

We’ve had an election day last week. The Department sent Federal observers and personnel into 16 jurisdictions in 7 States. 

In 2004, the Department coordinated and sent 1,463 Federal observers and 533 Department personnel to monitor 163 elections in 

105 jurisdictions and 29 States. 

4

So we’re here about something that is really fundamental to improving the voter process in America. 

I cannot get it out of my head that we have had two presidential 

elections in a row where one State in each election determined the 

outcome of the election, and each time more election violations and 

accusations of violations occurred in they State that provided the 

winner of the election with the presidency. 

And so I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to include it in the record. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, and so ordered. 

I would just note—the Chairman would just take a very brief not 

necessarily rebuttal, but I would just note that in the most recent 

election, the State that the gentleman was referring to happens to 

be my State, the State of Ohio, and there were many accusations 

of problems at polling places and things, and study after study 

that’s been done really indicated that it was a fair election and that 

the vote was accurate; and I believe it was 118,000 was the margin 

in Ohio. So it wasn’t like Florida, where there were 500 or something that made the difference. 

So, for the record, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, for the record—— Mr. CHABOT. Yeah. 

Mr. CONYERS. —there is a book out called ‘‘What Went Wrong in 

Ohio,’’ based on a report by the minority staff of the Judiciary 

Committee that has not been rebutted to my knowledge. 

Mr. CHABOT. Yeah. I would just note that I believe that’s the minority’s opinion on that particular book and isn’t—so I’d. But we 

could get on and on about that. But I—the one thing we do agree 

on is that the Voting Rights Act is very important and has been 

significant in protecting the rights to vote for many people in this 

country, and we’re looking seriously at reauthorizing this, and so 

I think we agree on most of what the gentleman said in his opening statement. 

And so I thank the gentleman for that. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, sections 6 through 8 of the Voting Rights Act contain the Federal Examiner and Observer provisions of the act, 

which allow Federal employees to observe polling place and voter 

counting activities and serve to document and deter inappropriate 

conduct. 

Although these provisions are permanent, the primary way these 

provisions are utilized is through the section five preclearance coverage formula, which is set to expire in August 2007. 

Federal observers have been deployed in every year, just about 

every year. From 1966 through December 8, 2003, almost 25,000 

observers have been deployed in approximately a thousand elections. 

While observer coverage in the early years was almost exclusively designed to protect the rights of Black voters in the Deep 

South, in recent years it has been approximately a 50–50 split between traditional election coverage and election coverage designed 

5

to protect the rights of minority language voters in various areas 

of the country. 

In addition, the Department has routinely deployed its own civil 

rights personnel to serve as civil rights monitors in jurisdictions 

not covered by the Voting Rights Act. 

During the 2004 election, the Department of Justice sent approximately 840 Federal observers and more than 250 Civil Rights 

Division personnel to 86 jurisdictions in 25 States to monitor general election activities to ensure voters were free from harassment, 

intimidation, and other illegal activity. 

Over the last 40 years, the nature of the Federal examiner has 

changed. The examiner now usually plays a more administrative 

role; whereas, the observer’s role has become more central to protecting voting rights. 

Observers monitor elections in any certified jurisdiction for the 

purpose of observing whether eligible voters are allowed to vote, 

and whether votes cast by eligible voters are properly being counted. 

Observers essentially serve as witnesses for what occurs in the 

polling place and during the counting of the vote. 

In the case U.S. v. Berks County, that case shows the value of 

observers in documenting problems within the polls. The United 

States won the case, based upon the court-appointed observers’ substantial evidence of hostile and unequal treatment of Hispanic 

and Spanish-speaking voters by polling officials. 

The Berks case also illustrates why observers have a deterrent 

effect, because poll workers, election officials, and others involved 

in the election process know that their actions are being observed 

and recorded, some individuals are going to be discouraged from 

engaging in inappropriate behavior. 

Sections 6 and 8 and other expiring provisions are essential to 

ensuring the fairness of our political process and equal opportunity 

for minorities in American politics. 

It’s imperative that we work together to strengthen these provisions, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, is recognized for 

the purpose of making an opening statement. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the Chairman 

again and the Chairman of the full Committee for this series of 

hearings. 

I think this is the ninth one we’ve had on the reauthorization. 

Mr. CHABOT. That’s correct. 

Mr. WATT. And I think we’re getting close to building the record 

that we need related to the expiring provisions and the necessity 

for their extension. 

Today’s hearing turns to the last set of provisions scheduled to 

expire in 2007. Although much of the media coverage and public 

interest in the Voting Rights Act has been focused largely on section 5 and section 203, the Federal Examiner and Observer Program has historically played an integral role in ensuring that voting rights are actually shielded from Election Day abuses and the 

violation of those rights are properly documented. 

6

While there is some question about the necessity of the Federal 

examiner provisions going forward, the role and continued need of 

well-trained Federal observers assigned to monitor elections in certified jurisdictions is absolutely critical. 

The value to the average citizen of a Federal presence at the 

polls in those jurisdictions with a pattern of voting irregularities 

and infractions is simply incalculable. 

Voters feel more at ease and confident when the Government 

places a high priority on election monitoring. 

Conversely, those who might otherwise commit fraud or harass 

or intimidate eligible voters are deterred from doing so. 

Despite significant gains in preventing blatant acts of discrimination at the polls, intentional efforts to undermine racial and language minority voters persist. 

Last week the Voting Rights Initiative of the University of Michigan Law School issued its final report entitled ‘‘Documenting Discrimination in Voting: Judicial Findings Under Section 2 of the 

Voting Rights Act Since 1982.’’ And I’m going to ask unanimous 

consent that we enter this report in the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. WATT. Combing through the over 700 court cases, the researchers document repeated and sometimes egregious evidence of 

intentional discrimination against Native Americans, elderly African-Americans, and others on election day. 

Just last year, at the request of Ranking Member Conyers, Congressman Waxman and Senator Lieberman, the GAO reviewed the 

Department of Justice’s activities to address—acknowledged election-related voting irregularities, including conduct prohibited by 

the Voting Rights Act in Florida and other jurisdictions during 

Election 2000, and I would ask unanimous consent that that report 

be entered into the record also. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, also so ordered. 

Mr. WATT. Although a DOJ witness could not be here today, or 

at least not a current employee of the DOJ, I would encourage the 

continued deployment of DOJ attorneys and other professionals on 

a judicious and non-political basis to supplement, but not to replace 

the work of statutorily authorized observers. 

Federal observers have statutory rights to access not shared by 

Department of Justice attorneys. 

It is important that this access to the polling place be preserved 

to guarantee every voter’s ability to cast their vote and to have 

their votes counted free of unlawful discrimination. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, one final thing I want to deal with— that’s—really we haven’t had a hearing on yet, but there’s been 

some testimony about over the course of our hearings, and that’s 

we need to make sure that the award of expert fees to prevailing 

parties in litigation is put into the reauthorization. 

The fees of experts in these cases are just—have become a real 

burden for everybody. I understand that prior to the 1982 reauthorization, there was an agreement to put this provision in, and because of the crunch at the last minute, the provision actually just 

never got put into the law. 

And I don’t think there’s really any controversy about it. Prior 

testimony has already established the incredible expense imposed 

7

on bona fide victims of voting rights violations to assemble the necessary evidence to sustain their burden of proof in a private action. 

By allowing expert fees to prevail in parties, we would bring the 

Voting Rights Act into conformity with other Civil Rights legislation and promote the continued partnership between individual 

and Government enforcement that has made the act the success it 

is today. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back and look forward to 

the witnesses; welcome them and thank them for being here. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. 

The Chair would also note the presence of a distinguished Member of the House, Congressman David Scott of Georgia, whose attendance has been exemplary at these hearings. Not actually a 

Member of this Committee, but I’d ask unanimous consent that he 

be recognized and have all the rights of a Committee Member 

today and be allowed to make an opening statement should he 

chose to do so, and also be allowed to question witnesses. 

The gentleman is recognized, if he’d like to make an opening 

statement. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like to associate my remarks with my distinguished 

Democratic colleagues who’ve spoken eloquently on the statements 

so far in the interest of time. 

But there is—and my Republican colleague, the Chairman, quite 

naturally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also recognize you first. 

If it were not for your graciousness, I wouldn’t be here with this 

excellent opportunity. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I was listening. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Well, I may add, I had already gone over 

and shaked [sic.] his hand and thanked him personally. 

Mr. WATT. I just didn’t want him to engage in that oversight, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. When all this goodwill is over. Yeah. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. And only one point that I certainly want 

to—a point that I think we would—I’m interested in is the why 

Federal observers are—you think they are—Mr. Weinberg, especially I was reading over your testimony earlier today—and your 

point about why Federal observers are necessary, but Federal examiners are not, certainly begs for some good discussion. So I look 

forward to that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I’d like to—before I introduce the panel—note that without objection all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional 

materials for the hearing record. 

And I’d now like to introduce our very distinguished panel of witnesses here this afternoon. Our first witness will be Ms. Nancy 

Randa, Deputy Associate Director for Talent Services, Human Resources, Products, and Services Division, at the U.S. Department of 

Personnel Management. 

As Deputy Associate Director, Ms. Randa oversees the services 

and support provided to Federal agencies in staffing and human reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:48 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\111505\24606.000 HJUD2 PsN: 24606
8

sources, organizational and individual assessment, training and 

management assistance, and technology services. 

Included in her responsibilities is overseeing OPM’s Voting 

Rights Program, which deploys observers to designated polling 

sites to monitor elections. 

Prior to serving as Deputy Associate Director, Ms. Randa served 

as Acting Associate Director for Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness, where she spearheaded a variety of projects that support human capital management and accountability. 

Ms. Randa is an active supporter of human resources workforce 

transformation efforts, working on HR curriculum efforts at the 

graduate school operated out of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and with the Human Resources Management Council. 

We welcome you here this afternoon, Ms. Randa. 

Our second witness will be Ms. Penny Pew. 

Ms. Pew has served as Apache County Elections Director since 

2001. She has been a certified Elections Officer with the Arizona 

Secretary of State’s Office since 2001, as well as Arizona’s League 

of Cities and Towns. 

In 2003, Ms. Pew successfully completed the Southwest Leadership Program for Local and State Government from the University 

of Arizona Institute for Public Policy and Management. 

In 2004, Ms. Pew partnered with the Navajo Nation Office of the 

Speaker on the successful Get Out the Vote 2004 Campaign. She 

most recently served as a panelist for the National Commission on 

the Voting Rights Act. We welcome you here this afternoon, Ms. 

Pew. 

And our third and final witness will be Mr. Barry Weinberg. 

Mr. Weinberg is a former Deputy Chief and Acting Chief of the 

Voting Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. 

From 1965 until 2000, Mr. Weinberg served in many key roles 

at the Department, including supervising investigations and litigation under the Voting Rights Act. 

In December 1999, the Barry H. Weinberg Award was established by the Department of Justice, recognizing an individual who 

has made an outstanding contribution to the effectiveness of the 

Federal Observer Program for monitoring polling place procedures 

under the Voting Rights Act. 

Mr. Weinberg is the author of numerous articles on the Voting 

Rights Act, including a 2002 law review article, co-authored with 

Lynne Utrecht, titled ‘‘Problems in America’s Polling Places: How 

They Can be Stopped.’’

Welcome, Mr. Weinberg, as well, as all the panelists. And I 

would—as I had noted before, the—for the record, the Department 

of Justice was scheduled to be our fourth witness here today, but 

due to a scheduling conflict, they were unable to be here. 

The Department of Justice has submitted written testimony, 

which has been made available to us, and has offered to make 

themselves available at a later date and to respond to any written 

questions that this Committee might have, and those could be submitted to the Department of Justice. 

A couple of other items I just need to mention is some of you 

have testified before; some of you may not be aware of this. We 

have what’s called a 5 minute rule. There are two sets of lights 

9

there. They’ll go for 5 minutes. For 4 minutes, they’ll be green. 

When there’s 1 minute left, it’ll turn yellow, and red light will come 

on when your 5 minutes is up. 

I won’t gavel you down immediately at that time, but we’d ask 

within reason to try to stay within that 5 minutes as much as possible. 

It’s also the practice of the Committee to swear in all witnesses 

appearing before it, so if you wouldn’t mind, if you could each stand 

and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. CHABOT. Each witness has indicated in the affirmative. 

Thank you. 

And we’ll now hear from our first witness. Ms. Randa, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF NANCY RANDA, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR HUMAN RESOURCES PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, 

U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Ms. RANDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here this afternoon to discuss the Office of Personnel Management’s role in carrying out sections of the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

OPM works closely with the Department of Justice, specifically 

the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division to assign voting 

rights observers to locations designated by the Department. 

OPM’s ultimate success with this program depends on its ability 

to recruit, train, deploy, and supervise observers of Election Day 

procedures. 

Under the Voting Rights Act, at the request of a U.S. District 

Court or the U.S. Attorney General, OPM provides for appointment 

of 1: examiners, to examine and register qualified individuals denied the right to register in covered jurisdictions; 2: hearing officers, to entertain challenges to the actions of examiners; 3: support 

staff; and 4: observers to monitor actual polling places on Election 

Day and the subsequent tabulation of the votes. 

Since 1966, we have deployed over 26,000 observers in a total of 

22 States. Prior to 1976, we sent observers to only five States—Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. 

However, in the past 10 years, as more jurisdictions have been 

subject to coverage under the Minority Language provisions of the 

act, we sent the next largest number of observers after Mississippi 

to these States: Arizona, New Mexico, New Jersey, California, 

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York. 

Voting Rights observers serve as neutral monitors, witnesses, 

who do not intervene if there are violations. They only watch, listen, and record events that occur at particular polling sites on election days. 

At present, we have a pool of approximately 900 intermittent employees, called into service on an as needed basis, who come from 

all walks of life, including Federal employees and retirees, students, and other public and private sector workers. 

We schedule 1-day classroom sessions for observers to provide indepth training on the overall process, on specific observer responsibilities, and on administrative issues. 

10

We also provide refresher training during pre-briefing sessions 

on the day before the election. Whenever possible, we do role playing in the training to demonstrate to the observers the proper way 

of handling themselves at the polling sites. 

In brief, the deployment process works this way: Prior to an election, the Department of Justice notifies OPM as to when and where 

it will need observers. 

OPM then assigns a Voting Rights Coordinator to work with Justice’s lead attorney to allocate observers to polling sites, coordinate 

logistics, and assign a captain to oversee the execution of the deployment. 

The day before an election, a Department attorney briefs the observers, specifying issues of concern and activities to be reported. 

Throughout the day, observers report such information to the captain, who passes this information to a Department attorney. Only 

the Department of Justice determines if intervention is necessary, 

and only the Department of Justice takes action. 

Toward the end of election day, the attorney determines when to 

call back the observers. The observers then return to their staging 

site and prepare a written report, one for each polling site, to document what they saw and heard throughout the day. 

This is the bulk of what OPM does. But the statute also calls on 

OPM to have an examiner for each jurisdiction where observers 

will be assigned. 

Originally, these examiners prepared a Federally-maintained list 

of voters who were denied the right to register in covered jurisdictions and they received calls from citizens regarding election day 

issues or incidents. 

This function, however, has changed over the years. No voters 

have been added to the Federally-maintained list since 1983, as 

registration barriers have largely been eliminated. 

Moreover, since there have been no challenges to registration decisions in the past 30 years, there has been no need for hearing officers. 

Also due to advances in technology, toll-free numbers now allow 

citizens to report incidents and information to these examiners remotely in real time and 24 hours a day during the election period. 

Under the act, OPM is required to publish voter registration 

qualifications of each covered State in the Federal Register, as well 

as to publish the list of examiners, places for voter registration, 

and examiner assignments. 

However, these publications requirements may no longer be necessary since they are now covered nationwide by provisions of the 

Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act, 

which set out Federal standards for voter registration. 

That concludes my testimony, and I would be pleased to respond 

to any questions the Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Randa follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY RANDA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here this afternoon to discuss the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) role in carrying out sections 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 of the Voting Rights 

Act of 1965 (the Act). 

11

Currently, implementation of the Voting Rights Act at OPM is managed by the 

Division for Human Resources Products and Services in the Center for Talent Services. This office works closely with the Department of Justice (the Department), specifically the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, to assign Voting Rights observers to locations designated by the Department. OPM’s ultimate success with 

this program depends on its ability to recruit, train, deploy, and supervise observers 

of election-day procedures. 

With regard to responsibilities assigned to OPM (prior to 1979, the U.S. Civil 

Service Commission), the Voting Rights Act provides, at the request of a U.S. District Court or the Attorney General of the United States, for the appointment of examiners to interview, ascertain qualifications, and register, if appropriate, qualified 

individuals denied the right to register by State and local officials in covered jurisdictions; hearing officers to entertain appeals and challenges to the actions of examiners; support staff as necessary to allow these individuals to perform their responsibilities; and observers to monitor actual polling places on election day and the subsequent tabulation of the votes. These provisions have not materially changed since 

initial passage of the Act in 1965. The Voting Rights Act also requires OPM to promulgate regulations on procedures for challenging the actions of examiners and to 

publish in the Federal Register individual State registration qualifications. 

Since 1966, we have deployed over 26,000 observers in a total of 22 States. Prior 

to 1976, we sent observers to only 5 States: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. In the past 10 years, as more jurisdictions have been 

subject to coverage under the minority language provisions of the Act, we sent the 

next largest number of observers, after Mississippi, to these States (in this order): 

Arizona, New Mexico, New Jersey, California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New 

York. 

Voting Rights observers serve as neutral monitors, who do not intervene if there 

are violations. They only watch, listen, and record events that occur at particular 

polling sites on election days. At present, we have a pool of approximately 900 intermittent employees—called into service on an as-needed basis—who come from all 

walks of life, including Federal retirees, students, other public- and private-sector 

workers, and some full-time employees of various Federal agencies. 

We schedule one-day classroom sessions for observers to provide in-depth training 

on the overall process, specific observer responsibilities, and administrative issues. 

We also provide refresher training during pre-briefing sessions on the day before the 

election. Whenever possible, we do role-playing in the training to demonstrate to the 

observers the proper way of handling themselves at the polling sites. 

In brief, the deployment process works this way: Prior to an election, the Department notifies OPM as to when and where it will need observers. OPM then assigns 

a Voting Rights Coordinator to (1) work with Justice’s lead attorney to allocate observers to polling sites; (2) coordinate logistics, such as arranging hotel meeting 

space and sleeping rooms for observers, leasing mobile phones, and making rental 

car and airline reservations to transport observers; and (3) assign a captain to oversee the execution of the deployment. 

The day before an election, a Department attorney briefs the observers, specifying 

issues of concern and activities to report. For example, if a jurisdiction has been suspected of hampering non-English speakers’ right to have interpreters or of not providing ballots in other languages as directed by consent decrees or court orders, the 

Department’s attorney may ask that observers witness the provided assistance and/

or make note of how many voters received language assistance. Observers may also 

be asked to note how many non-English speakers were turned away from polling 

sites or were given provisional ballots. Throughout the day, observers report such 

information to the captain, who passes this information to a Department attorney. 

Only the Department determines if intervention is necessary, and only the Department takes action. Toward the end of an election day, the Department determines 

when to call observers back. The observers then return to their staging site and prepare written reports—one for each polling site—to document what they saw and 

heard throughout the day. 

That is the bulk of what OPM does. The statute also calls on OPM to have an 

examiner for each jurisdiction where observers will be assigned. Originally, examiners prepared a Federally maintained list of voters who were denied the right to 

register by State and local officials in covered jurisdictions, and they received calls 

from citizens regarding election-day issues or incidents. This function, however, has 

changed over the years. No voters have been added to the Federally maintained list 

since 1983 as registration barriers have been eliminated. Moreover, since there have 

been no challenges to registration decisions in the past 30 years, there has been no 

need for hearing officers. Also, due to advances in technology, toll-free numbers 

12

allow citizens to report incidents and information to examiners remotely, in real 

time, and 24 hours a day during the election period. 

Under the Act, OPM is required to publish voter registration qualifications of each 

covered State in the Federal Register. It has also been required to publish the list 

of examiners, places for voter registration, and examiner assignments. However, 

these publication requirements may no longer be necessary, since they are now covered nationwide by provisions of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and ‘‘MotorVoter’’ statute (National Voter Registration Act), which set out Federal standards 

for voter registration. 

OPM’s Voting Rights Program costs have ranged from under $1 million in earlier 

years to a high of $4 million in the Fiscal Year that included the 2004 general election. Putting aside the expected increase in 2004, the overall trend has been for an 

increase in program coverage and cost, particularly for minority-language coverage. 

That concludes my testimony, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions 

the subcommittee may have.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. Ms. Pew, you’re recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF PENNY L. PEW, ELECTIONS DIRECTOR, 

APACHE COUNTY, ARIZONA 

Ms. PEW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today for the reauthorization of section 6 and section 8, as they relate to section 203 of the 

Voting Rights Act. 

As stated before, my name is Penny Pew, and I’ve been the Elections Director in Apache County since 2001. 

And one of our primary focuses has been providing the minority 

and prospective voters the necessary election materials to ensure 

that each vote cast is an informed vote. 

While this education began in the 1990’s as a mandate, we continue to provide these services to our electors so that the rewarding 

changes that we have experienced will continue. 

I would like to speak to the Federal Observer Program, which I 

believe was implemented following guidelines from the consent decree. 

The Observer Program has successfully functioned as a check 

and balance feature in the translator program. One of the threemember teams sent to the 33 precincts on the Navajo Nation 

speaks Navajo, who I view as a partner. 

During the day, these observers are able to witness poll workers 

and translators assisting the voters as they impart ballot information. The observers ask voters if they may observe the process. 

They do not interfere with the process and have never, to my 

knowledge, given any instruction to improve or to correct a process. 

The observers note different scenarios occurring during the 

course of the day to ensure that fraudulent information is not given 

to voters. In some instances, the observers report happenings to 

their DOJ central contact, who I meet with on each Federal Election Day. 

We are able to discuss the information relating to the day’s 

events at the polling places. This is absolutely the best way for me 

to know instantaneously of situations that can be rectified in a very 

timely manner. 

I explain to those poll workers that the individuals have been invited to help us do our duties. Observers are greeted by the inspector of the polling place in an attempt to put all parties at ease and 

13

to assure the poll workers that the observers should not be viewed 

as hostile. 

Identification is presented and worn by each observer throughout 

the day. Due to the rural area of Apache County and in an attempt 

to minimize their presence, observers are requested to dress casual 

to better fit their surroundings. 

In follow-up post-election meetings, these notes are discussed, 

and, if necessary, changes are made in personnel or training procedures to ensure that no repeat incidents occur. 

As you are aware, the Navajo language is unique and could be 

very easily misinterpreted. Translators who serve on these election 

boards attend exclusive training classes, which are taught by fulltime outreach workers, using written copies, flip charts, cassette 

recordings. 

During these classes, members are asked to read aloud the information together as a whole group. Open questions and clarifications are given by the outreach workers to ensure that each translator is uniform in their ballot translation, voter to voter, precinct 

to precinct. 

In 2004, Apache County extended partnership to include the 

Navajo Nation Office of the Speaker. We provided various educational materials through chapter meetings, community forums, 

fair booths, and frankly anywhere there were voters. 

I am pleased to report that this was a worthwhile project. As it 

turned out, Navajo Nation increased to 17,955 voters, comparatively to 14,277 voters in 2000. Additionally, the numbers increased 

in a precinct on the White Mountain Apache land from 44 voters 

in 2000 to 62 in 2004. 

Now, as an Election Director, I’ve spent untold hours developing 

a program that is indigenous to Apache County. I’ve spent time in 

the polls and in the communities listening to these voters, learning 

what we as election directors can do to ensure that the most fundamental right as citizens of this great nation enjoy the right to an 

informed vote, with the knowledge that it will be counted without 

worry of fraudulent actions in or out of the polling place. 

In closing, I fervently believe that is incumbent upon this Committee to use the expertise of each witness to further the Voting 

Rights Act, sections 6 and 8, Federal Examiner and Observer provision; and continuing programs such as the one used in Apache 

County. 

The observer program has proven successful for us, and has 

given us insight to the happenings at each polling place that would 

otherwise go unnoticed. 

For these and other additional reasons, which are stated in my 

written testimony, the reauthorization of these sections is critical 

to maintaining the robust program in Apache County. 

And, again, thank you for your—for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pew follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PENNY L. PEW

Thank you Mr. Chairman and committee members for the opportunity to testify 

before you today regarding the reauthorization of Section 6 and Section 8 as they 

relate to Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. 

My name is Penny L. Pew, and I am the elections director of Apache County in 

northeastern Arizona. I have had the pleasure of this position since June of 2001. 

14

My primary focus has been on providing the minority and prospective voters, the 

necessary election materials to ensure that each vote cast is an informed vote. While 

this education began in 1982 as a mandate, we continue to provide services to our 

electors so that the rewarding changes that we have experienced will continue. 

FEDERAL OBSERVER PROGRAM

Following a lawsuit charging Apache County with discrimination against Native 

Americans, as it related to election procedures and materials, a 1989 Consent Decree was entered establishing the Navajo Language Election Information Program. 

A portion of this program was the observer program which has successfully functioned as a check and balance feature to this program. 

According to the 2000 census, the total population of Apache County is 69,423 persons, of whom 53,375 are Native American (76.9%). The voting age population of 

42,692 persons, of whom 31,470 are Native American (73.7%); and that of all Native 

Americans of voting age, over one-third are limited-English proficient (11,377 persons). 

Most of the 3 member teams sent to the 33 precincts located on the Navajo Nation 

have at least one Navajo speaking member, who I view as a ‘‘partner’’. During the 

day, these observers are able to witness poll workers and translators assisting the 

voters as they impart ballot information. The observers ask voters if they may observe the process. They do not interfere with the process and have never to my 

knowledge given any instruction to correct or improve a process. The observers note 

different scenarios occurring during the course of the day to ensure that fraudulent 

information is not given to voters. In some instances, the observers report happenings to their DOJ central contact, who I meet with on Election Day. We are able 

to discuss the information relating to the days events at the polling places. This is 

absolutely the best way for me to know instantaneously of situations that can be 

rectified in a timely manner. 

I explain to the poll workers that these individuals have been ‘invited’ to help us 

as we do our duties. Observers are greeted by the Inspector of the polling place in 

an attempt to put all parties at ease and assure the poll workers that the observers 

should not be viewed as hostile. Identification is presented and worn by each observer throughout the day. Due to the rural area of Apache County and in an attempt to minimize their presence, observers are requested to dress casual to better 

fit their surroundings. 

In a follow-up post election meeting, these notes are discussed and if necessary, 

changes are made in personnel or training procedures to ensure no repeat incidents. 

Translators who serve on the election boards attend extensive training classes 

which are taught by full-time outreach workers using Power Point presentations, 

flip charts, cassette recordings as well as written copies, of the ballot information. 

Each translator and Inspector (lead poll worker) are provided a cassette and also 

written ballot information. During the training classes, each member is asked to 

read aloud the information. This is accomplished in a relaxed atmosphere where the 

class participates as a whole. Open questions and clarification are given by the outreach workers to ensure that each translator is uniform in their ballot translation, 

voter to voter, precinct to precinct. 

VOTER OUTREACH AND EDUCATION

Advertisements 

Apache County has provided bulletin boards to each chapter house facility where 

upcoming election information is posted and kept current. Voters have learned to 

use this tool in gaining the necessary election information. Periodic checks are done 

to ensure that only current information is posted. 

Radio stations and newspapers have been instrumental in distributing the necessary election information. This was originally outlined in the Consent Decree 1989 

with many additional measures added for further enrichment. 

Language Training 

As each of you are aware, the Navajo language is unique and without extensive 

linguistic training, could be misinterpreted. A Navajo Language Election Glossary 

has been developed over the years with input from outreach workers in Arizona, 

New Mexico, Utah, and the Navajo Nation in an effort to make the election terminology used county to county and state to state as uniform as possible. As times 

and technology change, the glossary is updated through proper approval. 

The outreach workers use this glossary to translate ballot issues in a Tri-County 

forum to further ensure uniformity. This is imperative, as many precincts lie on 

15

county lines where voters may see more than one county ballot, radio or newspaper 

ads or other informational materials. 

Translators/Poll workers 

Poll workers are given a detailed manual to use as a guide in fulfilling their obligations on Election Day, in a uniform manner. Additional items are distributed to 

ensure that the poll worker has all the tools necessary to assist the voter. In an 

effort to further educate, role playing was implemented and has proven to be a valuable tool in explaining ballot measures, as they are often very complicated. 

Due to the extensive land area of over 11,000 square miles, training classes are 

held in various locations throughout the county to allow the poll workers and translators easier access to training. Each individual is compensated for their time to attend these classes. 

After the training class, poll workers are encouraged to listen to their audio cassette and practice the issues. Many mentioned that they didn’t have access to a 

player. So, in 2003, we established a cassette player library for workers to check 

out a player to listen and study the information. This was well received and the 

post election remarks indicated improvement; additionally, all cassette players were 

returned to the county library. 

State and County Monitoring of Effectiveness 

Meetings are schedules on Tri-State and Tri-County levels to discuss any issues 

that may need to be remedied. Any/all issues are handled by each county official 

to keep uniformity in the informational disbursement process. Tri-county personnel 

work closely on translations and exchanges of information to better ensure uniformity in the disbursed information. NEA officials are invited and usually attend 

these meetings with valuable input on the issues. 

NEA (Navajo Election Administration) 

All information is approved by the NEA prior to distribution including but not 

limited to announcements (radio and print), ballot translations, audio tapes, and 

any other training information. All training schedules are provided to the NEA and 

an open invitation to attend any/all class. 

The following is taken from a letter written to me by Kimmeth Yazzie, Navajo 

Nation Program Coordinator/Language contact:

‘‘The purpose of the minority language Consent Decrees has generated a 

much greater cooperation and assistance to provide the necessary election and 

voter registration services to the Navajo Nation within the counties, much more 

than was anticipated from the beginning. Although the Consent Decree specific 

to Apache County expired in 1992, the county and the Navajo Nation continue 

to strive forward to this day to make voter registration and elections easier for 

the citizens in Apache County. Such services as situating outreach offices and 

Navajo speaking personnel in local areas with additional personnel when it becomes necessary, has made voting easier for the people of Apache County. An 

example, the development of the Navajo Glossary has opened doors to better 

communication with the Navajo Nation citizens as well as other tribes seeking 

development of the same methods of outreach. Developments of graphic materials and video and audio recordings provide our people with a better understanding of the elections. Bringing voter registration to the local area eliminates 

the long distance travels just to register to vote for outlying areas. Setting up 

and coordinating events together with the Navajo Nation and the county provides voters with two services at one location and a better understanding of the 

two distinctive elections. The clearance of all materials and information through 

the Navajo Election Administration provides assurance to the Navajo Nation 

that the proper and sufficient election information is provided to the people of 

the Navajo Nation, thus developing trust and alliance. Ideas to better provide 

services are always being exchanged between the county and the Navajo Nation. We learn from each other. Since the expiration of the Consent Decree in 

1992, the relationship between the tribe and the county has grown and advanced beyond the bounds of the Consent Decree requirements. 

In closing, I can honestly say that the language program has been positive 

for our county in educating and promoting our most fundamental right . . . the 

power of our vote.’’

Outreach/Satellite Offices 

Apache County has two county district offices which are on Reservation Land; 

District I in Chinle houses a satellite office. District II in Ganado houses a second 

16

office. Voters and residents of surrounding areas visit to check voter registration 

and to receive any election updates. 

Regular meetings are scheduled and appear on agendas for the chapter visits at 

which time presentations are given using flip charts, PowerPoint presentations, 

audio aids as well as other means to convey the necessary information. Presentations are given in the Navajo language. 

All political views of the outreach workers are kept unbiased and neutral at all 

times. Implementation to ‘piggy-back’ with the jurisdictions has been effective in 

that the outreach worker gives factual ballot information and the jurisdictions are 

available to answer any additional questions that the public may have. 

Deputy Registrars 

Deputy Registrars have proven valuable in assisting the voters in the ongoing 

voter registration and education process. Each Deputy Registrar is trained in current procedures. Each chapter office, Navajo Election Office and other Navajo Nation officials are trained and have provided further election information. Each chapter maintains a current voter listing, voter registration forms and during election 

cycles, early voting request forms. 

Collect Phone Calls 

Apache County happily accepts collect calls to assist the caller in election-related 

information. In an effort to better serve the people, an ‘800’ number is advertised 

on all out-going materials and advertisements as well as the website. 

Voter Education 

Numerous items with voter information in distributed to spark interest in what 

has been viewed as boring in the past. Colorful brochures and interactive community meetings have been the focus in gaining voter recognition. For instance, during 

the Presidential Preference Election, February, 2004, in an effort to better explain 

who may vote, an informational brochure was produced in English, receiving positive input. A mirror copy was then distributed in the Navajo language. This helped 

gain further notice among the voters, with the outreach workers receiving community comments for further ideas in education. We also provide ‘‘I Voted’’ stickers in 

the Navajo language and it has been spectacular. 

VOTER TURNOUT

In 2004 Apache County extended partnership to include the Navajo Nation Office 

of the Speaker in an effort known as ‘‘Get the Vote Out’’. Due to the low voter turnout experienced in past elections, we provided various educational materials at 

chapter meetings, community forums, fair booths, and anywhere there were going 

to be voters. I am pleased to report that this was a worthwhile project as turnout 

in precincts on the Navajo Nation increased to 17,955 voters casting ballots in 2004, 

comparatively 14,277 voters participated in 2000. Additionally, on the White Mountain Apache Lands, Apache County has one precinct where 44 voters participated 

in 2000, rising in 2004 to 62. This is due in part to the education at school and 

community meetings. 

Political Protocol 

During the 2002 election cycle, a non-Native American entered several polling 

places without the proper clearance. While inside the polling place, he intimidated 

the poll workers and voters, creating chaos as he progressed to various polls. For 

this reason alone, we implemented a Political Protocol presentation and accompanying brochure. The brochure is included in each candidate packet and a personal 

invitation to attend a short meeting outlining the proper protocol when campaigning 

on Native Lands. This is sent to each candidate, county, state or federal. We had 

great success and I am pleased to report that during the five elections which were 

held in Apache County in 2004, we had no reported violations in or around the polling places. 

Early Voting 

Ballot request forms are given to the Chapter Officials, County District offices on 

the Navajo Nation, State offices and the NEA. Outreach workers keep forms with 

them at all times while traveling and presenting throughout the county. These 

forms can also be accessed using the website www.co.apache.az.us/recorder. 

Early Voting drives are unique in Apache County. After specified advertisements 

in newspaper and on radio, a trailer which has been painted in a patriotic motif 

travels to scheduled locations throughout the rural areas. This trailer can be found 

many places such as on fence lines, shopping lots, trading posts, and post offices 

to name a few. 

17

Election Day 

Apache County employs trained bilingual poll workers at each of the polling 

places on Native Lands. These poll workers are recruited with the help of chapter 

officials, postings and word of mouth. 

Where joint elections are held between the Navajo Nation and the County, where 

polling places are shared, all efforts are made to make certain that the poll workers 

are trained and that a good working relationship is established between the Navajo 

Nation and the County officials to provide an enjoyable election day. The NEA and 

the County exchange poll worker lists to ensure that no candidate or close relative 

appears on either ballot. 

Each polling place is monitored for effectiveness by a ‘Troubleshooter.’ This person 

is a county employee who has received training in the election process and is able 

to identify and correct irregularities on-the-spot. This person is the liaison between 

the county elections director and the polling place. 

CLOSING COMMENTS

As election director, I have spent untold hours developing a program that is indigenous to Apache County. I have spent time in the polls and in the communities listening to the voters, learning what we as election directors can do to ensure that 

the most fundamental right as citizens of this great nation enjoy . . . the right to 

an informed vote with the knowledge that it will be counted without worry of fraudulent actions in or out of the polling place. 

In closing, I fervently believe that it is incumbent upon this Committee to use the 

expertise of each witness to further The Voting Rights Act: Sections 6 and 8—Federal Examiner and Observer Provisions, in continuing programs such as the one 

used in Apache County, Arizona as it relates to the Native Americans. The observer 

program has proven successful for us and has given us insight to the happenings 

at each polling place that may otherwise go unnoticed. For these and other additional reasons, which are stated in my written testimony, the reauthorization of 

these sections is critical to maintaining the robust program in Apache County. 

Again, I thank you for this opportunity.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Ms. Pew. 

Mr. Weinberg, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF BARRY H. WEINBERG, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF 

AND ACTING CHIEF, VOTING SECTION, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. WEINBERG. Thank you very much, and thank you for asking 

me to come here. 

I may be one of the few witnesses that you have who is not connected with any office or organization, and probably one of the 

fewer witnesses that you’re going to have that was there at the inception of the Voting Rights Act and saw the Federal examiners 

listing people to vote and saw the Federal observers when they 

first started. 

But I know I’m the only one here among the witnesses who was 

a supervisor of the Federal Examiner and Observer Program in the 

Justice Department for 25 years, and it’s from that vantage point 

that it seems to me that there are at least three questions that 

ought to be addressed now when we’re thinking about the reauthorization of these provisions. 

The first question is whether the provisions for Federal observers 

and Federal examiners are still needed. I think that the answer to 

that question is that the provisions for the Federal observers are 

crucial to the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, and need to be 

reauthorized, maybe even made permanent; but the provisions for 

the Federal examiners not so much. 

The Federal examiners’ functions—most of them are outdated. 

The procedures are cumbersome and archaic, and I don’t think they 

18

serve any real purpose anymore. And so my conclusion would be 

that they’re not needed anymore in the Voting Rights Act as it 

stands today. 

The second question I think is whether there should remain a 

link between the certification of a county for Federal examiners 

and the later assignment of Federal observers to the county. 

Under the Voting Rights Act, the certification of a county for 

Federal examiners is a prerequisite to the assignment of Federal 

observers. 

But the functions that they perform, the link that they had, 

doesn’t exist anymore. When Federal examiners first registered 

people to vote, those people had to go to polling places where there 

were hostile election officials. You had African-American voters facing hostile White polling place workers and voters for the first time 

in many, many rural areas across the South. The Federal observers 

were written into the act to watch what happened to those newly 

enfranchised voters and to allow the Justice Department to take 

action to assure their safety in the polling places. That situation 

just doesn’t exist anymore, and I think the linkage is cumbersome 

and ought not to exist either. 

The third question I think is whether the Federal observers 

ought to be continued as a law enforcement function under the Voting Rights Act, which is what they perform; or whether it’s possible 

to make the reports and information from the Federal observers 

public after the election, as is done overseas. 

I just got back last week from being an international observer in 

an election in Azerbaijan, and I’ve done that a few other times. The 

organizations that do that kind of work do it in order to publicize 

the information that they get from the polls immediately after the 

election. 

But I think that would be a real mistake. I think that the use 

of Federal observers in law enforcement is important and ought to 

be continued and the publication of the information they get immediately would be detrimental. 

All this revolves around what I consider the most important 

point, which is that the existence of Federal observers is crucial, 

and it’s irreplaceable in the Voting Rights Act. After all, there’s no 

other way for the law enforcement function of the Justice Department to be able to be performed with regard to harassment and intimidation and disenfranchisement of racial and language minority 

group members in the polling place on Election Day. And that’s because State laws are written to keep other people, including Federal investigators out of the polls. 

State laws, almost all of them—and they vary, but invariably 

they allow in the polls on Election Day the voters and the polling 

place officials, and they keep everybody else out. They allow police 

in if there’s a disturbance, but mainly it’s to have this safe harbor 

for voters on Election Day. But the effect of that, from a law enforcement point of view, is it keeps the law enforcement officers 

out. There is no way that the Justice Department lawyers could 

know about this harassment and this intimidation without the Federal observers, because the Voting Rights Act allows the Federal 

observers in. Federal observers are witnesses. They are the eyes 

19

and the ears of the Justice Department attorneys in the polling 

places. 

Without them, the law, the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act 

would be much abused, and so I would—my conclusion is that the 

observer provision is necessary. It ought to be reauthorized. It 

ought to be continued, and I think there should be some consideration given to making it permanent, taking it out of the special 

provisions and making it adjunct to sections 2 and 203 of the Voting Rights Act. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weinberg follows:]

20

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARRY H. WEINBERG


BHW0001.eps
21


BHW0002.eps
22


BHW0003.eps
23


BHW0004.eps
24


BHW0005.eps
25


BHW0006.eps
26


BHW0007.eps
27


BHW0008.eps
28


BHW0009.eps
29


BHW0010.eps
30


BHW0011.eps
31


BHW0012.eps
32


BHW0013.eps
33


BHW0014.eps
34


BHW0015.eps
35


BHW0016.eps
36


BHW0017.eps
37


BHW0018.eps
38


BHW0019.eps
39


BHW0020.eps
40


BHW0021.eps
41


BHW0022.eps
42


BHW0023.eps
43


BHW0024.eps
44


BHW0025.eps
45


BHW0026.eps
46


BHW0027.eps
47


BHW0028.eps
48


BHW0029.eps
49


BHW0030.eps
50


BHW0031.eps
51


BHW0032.eps
52

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The panel up here is bound by the same rule as the witness 

panel is, and it’s a 5 minute rule, so we will each have 5 minutes 

to ask questions at this time, and the Chair recognizes himself for 

that purpose. 

And the question I’m going to ask—I’ll just go down the line and 

let each of you deal with it. 

And some of you have already touched on this in your testimonies obviously, but much of what we’re doing is setting a record 

here, and so some repeating I think is probably good. It’s been suggested in some of the written testimonies that the Federal Examiner Program may no longer be necessary. 

Mr. Weinberg’s written testimony further suggested that Congress should amend section 8 to make certification for the deployment of Federal observers independent of Federal examiners. 

Would each of you comment on the Federal Examiner and Observer 

Program and why the assistance of Federal observers is still necessary or not. 

Ms. Randa? 

Ms. RANDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We play—we at OPM 

play a very limited support role to the Department of Justice in 

this program, and I have testified to the fact that the role of Examiner has evolved over the years and changed. But beyond that, I 

would think we would defer to the Department of Justice to make 

any decisions about exactly what changes should be made in the 

future. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Pew? 

Ms. PEW. I can speak to the Federal Observer Program and believe that it is well worth the time spent. It is my—those are my 

eyes and ears inside the polling places. I have very limited examiner contact. But I can speak to the Federal Observer Program; 

that it has been absolutely phenomenal. It’s been a great boon in 

our county. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Mr. Weinberg? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Thank you. I mean I think Ms. Pew’s response 

is somewhat indicative. She’s been intimately involved as a county 

election official with the results of the work of the Federal observers, and has no knowledge of what the Federal examiners do. 

And I think that’s not her fault. It’s because the Federal examiners just don’t do much anymore. I think OPM, if we were being 

candid in the back room, would say they have to maintain all these 

lists of federally registered voters. They have to keep them current, 

keep the addresses up. Mostly now, they’re removing people’s 

names from those lists of federally registered voters, because 

they’re dying. 

Yet, the counties can’t take those voters off their voting rolls 

without an okay from the Office of Personnel Management. I mean 

I think to some extent it is now getting—what were protections are 

now getting in the way of several functions, and I think they’re not 

needed. 

As far as the certification, and you know I think observers are 

important. As far as how to get them into a county the first time, 

I do think a certification procedure is important. I think it assures 

53

everyone that there is a need for this law enforcement function to 

go on. 

But as it stands now, the Attorney General has to personally 

sign the certifications. I think that’s unnecessary. I think that function could be delegated to the Assistant Attorney General, much 

the same way as the Assistant Attorney General has authority delegated to object to voting changes under section 5 of the act, and 

I think that it could go on as a provision on its own. 

I think it should. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. And my second question, Mr. Weinberg 

and Ms. Randa, if you want to comment on it, you could as well. 

How does the Department of Justice determine whether Federal 

observers are necessary? 

Mr. WEINBERG. There’s sort of two tracks on that. And, you 

know, I must qualify everything I say by saying I haven’t been at 

the Justice Department for almost 6 years. I don’t know what’s 

changed and what’s not. I doubt that it has changed very much. 

One track is where there’s an investigation before the election 

that starts 6 weeks before an election, and is described in some detail in my extended remarks. It’s an investigation. It starts out 

with telephone calls to local officials, to minorities who are knowledgeable in the area about election matters and devolves down to 

field investigation by attorneys who relay information up to a central person in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, who 

then combines the information; is talking with OPM; puts together 

a memorandum setting out the facts for each site, and recommending how many observers are needed. 

So it’s a very intensive, a very detailed law enforcement investigation. That’s how it usually works in Southern areas. Where the 

concern is with language minority provisions of the Voting Rights 

Act, it’s a little bit different. There still is an investigation, but because the problems involved with violations of the Language Minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act usually are systemic and 

do not depend on any particular election contest in a city, county, 

or school district——

Mr. CHABOT. Do you do that before each election? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Yes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. WEINBERG. In the specially covered areas. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. 

Mr. WEINBERG. Yes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. You can continue. 

Mr. WEINBERG. Because of the language violations of the Language Minority provisions usually are more systemic, an initial investigation is what’s needed. Usually, these days, there’s litigation 

that results and a court certifies the county. So you have everything you would have leading up to litigation, which is a lot of 

work and a very intensive effort. 

After that, the first election, however, the observers could be assigned again and again without repeated investigations. It’s the information really one gets out of the polling places for the language 

minority coverage that would recommend going or not going again 

to the next election. 

54

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much. My time has expired, 

but, Ms. Randa, is there anything that you want to—— Ms. RANDA. I would just confirm what Mr. Weinberg said that 

our involvement is to coordinate on the number sent to each polling 

site. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

The Ranking Member of the overall Committee, Mr. Conyers, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Chabot. 

Three considerations. I start with Mr. Weinberg. There’s been 

only one certification by the Attorney General to section 6, Titus 

County, Texas. Does that mean a lot are coming through the courts 

under section 3 or does it mean there need to be a lot more? 

My second consideration—and I’ll go over these again—is this 

linkage between certification of observers and its validity. 

And then finally, I had one of the witnesses tell me that Federal 

observers are kept out of the polls by State law, so it’s frequently 

hard for them to see anything that’s happening. It’s hard to be an 

observer if you can’t get into the polls under State law. 

Can you help put some of these things into context? 

Mr. WEINBERG. I can help with some of them I think. 

Taking the last one first, State law would keep most people out 

of the polling places, but Federal observers get to in the polling 

places because the Voting Rights Act lets them. It’s the authorization of the Voting Rights Act that lets Federal observers in. Otherwise, the Federal observers are like people off the street, and just 

can’t walk into a polling place on Election Day. 

As far as the certifications go, as I haven’t been involved in that, 

I don’t know. I went onto the Justice Department website a couple 

days ago to see if I could tell what’s been going on in the last few 

years, and there have been a lot of court certifications it looks like 

as a result of litigation under the Language Minority provisions of 

the Voting Rights Act. And observers are being assigned to watch 

elections in those areas. 

I don’t know why there have been few, if any, certifications by 

the Attorney General of counties. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, from everything I’ve been hearing, you know 

we’ve got piles of complaints that come in. Unless all of them are 

invalid, I mean this doesn’t add up, Mr. Weinberg. 

Let me put it like this: Are attorneys who are Federal observers 

precluded from coming into the voting booths? 

Mr. WEINBERG. The Justice Department attorneys in most States 

would be precluded from going into the polling places because 

they’re neither registered voters there nor polling place officials. 

The Federal observers, however, can go into polling place where 

they’re assigned—any county jurisdiction that’s been certified. 

Mr. CONYERS. Ms. Pew, do you or Ms. Randa, want to add anything to this discussion. 

Ms. PEW. I will add that in Arizona, observers, with prior approval, are welcome into our polling places. We ask that they submit something in writing to me by the Friday prior to the election, 

so that I can send that to the poll workers. 

Given that a lot of them are non-Native American, and then 

poses a threat. We did have an incident in 2000 that prompted 

55

quite a chaotic sense in about 17 of our precincts, and, for that reason, we began a political protocol that is mandatory for our observers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could you get a little outdated considering the 

way the process is working now? 

Ms. PEW. I can’t respond to that, because in our county the Recorder’s Office and the Elections Office are separate. The Recorder’s 

Office maintains the voter rolls, as far as purging those, as Mr. 

Weinberg has spoken to, so I can’t respond to that. 

Mr. CHABOT. Ms. Randa? 

Ms. RANDA. I wouldn’t want to hazard a conclusion about whether it should or how it should change, but I will confirm what Mr. 

Weinberg said about there having been very little activity other 

than removing names from the list of registered voters. So that 

part of the role is what has evolved. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Weinberg, let me ask you a little more specifically, just from 

a practical point of view, if a local civic organization suspects problems in a certain area, how do they get an observer into that area 

now, and how would you propose changing that mechanism? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Getting in touch with the Justice Department 

about the need for Federal observers is the easiest thing on earth. 

All you need to do is call. A telephone call will do it. 

In fact, the Justice Department attorneys rely very, very greatly 

on information and input from people who are in the counties, 

whether they are victims or witnesses or just concerned citizens. 

We always were open to those kinds of contacts. If somebody has 

a particular problem in any county, we always encouraged to call 

us, let us know what the concern is, and we will investigate. 

If the investigation reveals facts that show violations of the Voting Rights Act and need for observers, the observers will be sent. 

Now, in Virginia, there are no certified counties, so that whole 

certification process we were talking about before, where there has 

to be an investigation, and then a recommendation to the Attorney 

General to sign a piece of—he actually signs a piece of paper that 

says I hereby certify, and then that’s published in the Federal Register before Federal observers can be assigned. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. And that’s the process now? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. And are you proposing any change to 

that process? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Yes. I’m proposing that in my imagined the new 

process there would be an investigation and the Assistant Attorney 

General would agree to a recommendation and then sign a piece of 

paper that says that Federal observers would be needed to watch 

proceedings in the polling place in order to enforce the Voting 

Rights Act. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Now, how long does that certification 

stay active? 

56

Mr. WEINBERG. Now, it stays active forever. A jurisdiction can 

petition under section 13 of the Voting Rights Act to stop the Federal examiner appointment. I don’t think anybody ever has. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Do the observers have any specific qualifications? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Observers, by and large, OPM, as I understand 

it tries to have observers be OPM personnel where that’s possible; 

in some instances, where language minority voters are concerned, 

there may not be sufficient numbers of OPM personnel who speak 

that language, especially in Indian country. And so people from 

other agencies are taken in. 

But the Federal observers are personnel who are trained. There 

are periodic trainings through the year, and then there are on-site 

trainings that are specific and briefings of the observer before the 

election. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. If you didn’t have the observers, how 

would you investigate complaints? 

Mr. WEINBERG. When I started in the Justice Department, I was 

law clerk in the summer of 1965. The Voting Rights Act passed in 

early August, but we still had many lawsuits that were pending. 

They were terribly cumbersome. They’re very difficult to investigate. The records alone are very difficult to get, and I think the 

Court, in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, which found the Voting 

Rights Act special provisions constitutional, recognized how difficult it is to mount a standard garden variety lawsuit against violations of the Voting Rights Act. 

So, absent the Federal observers, it would be terribly, terribly 

difficult. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I’d ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given one additional minute, if he would yield to me for a moment? 

Would the gentleman from Virginia yield to me? 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Yes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. I just wanted to follow up with one question, 

Mr. Weinberg. What criteria would you envision for certification of 

observers? 

Mr. WEINBERG. I think the criteria would be that there is evidence of probable violations of the Voting Rights Act. I mean I 

don’t know that one needs much more. 

The certification procedure now is just about that. It’s—for examiners. It’s not a detailed certification. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. 

Mr. WEINBERG. And I would think it shouldn’t—certainly not be 

more detailed and possibly a little less. But it would be keyed to 

possible violations of the Voting Rights Act. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Well, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Reclaiming my time, when do they certify it now? 

Mr. WEINBERG. They certify—now the certification is it’s necessary to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments. 

Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman would yield? Isn’t it also or 20 

written complaints? 

57

Mr. WEINBERG. Yes. There’s an alternative that if you get 20 

written complaints. That, however, triggers the Attorney General’s 

consideration. And so it all devolves pretty much to the same point, 

which is we in the Justice Department had to figure out that there 

were violations of the law that were probable and usually were 

happening and persuade the Attorney General of that. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, let me defer to Mr. Scott, if I can. I’m 

trying to see whether there are any things I need to question 

about. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. All right. We’ll just start from scratch here 

then, and yield to the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes, and then we’ll come back to Mr. Watt. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Weinberg, I wanted just start for a moment with your suggestion that we move away from the Federal examiners, because 

I—given your history, you were there at the beginning. You understand the whole make up and need for both examiners and observers. I’m not quite convinced, just from my own preliminary investigation of this that we may need to do away with examiners. 

And your reason for saying we may need to modify or do away 

with the examiners was that the link doesn’t exist. And I think 

your meaning of the link that I got was your quote was that there 

were no more hostile elected officials. 

Can you elaborate on that, because there is still, in my estimation, hostile elected officials in various pockets of the South, 

and, a matter of fact, all across this nation. And if that is the link 

that you think doesn’t exist, I am here to assure you that it does 

still exist. 

I’m always of the opinion that we move with and err on the side 

of caution. In Georgia, for example, there are still 300,000 eligible 

African-Americans that are unregistered to vote, and time after 

time and case after case, we have documented hostility. Crosses are 

still being burned. In some of these areas, voters are being intimated. 

So I’m very concerned about doing away with that, and especially 

in view of the fact that the Federal examiners are used as the trigger to determine whether or not to send these observers in. So how 

do we replace that trigger? But would you mind elaborating on that 

linkage? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Sure. I’d be happy to. 

I agree with you a hundred percent that there are hostile polling 

place officials throughout the country, and that’s one of the reasons 

that I think the Federal Observer provision is so important. 

The link I was talking about is it was a specific link to newly 

federally registered voters, as it existed between 1965 and 1972 in 

the South. As the Voting Rights Act was constructed, the observers 

were to watch specifically to see if those particular voters were 

being hostilely treated in the polls. And the complaint structure of 

the Federal examiners was as to complaints as to the mistreatment 

of those newly enfranchised voters. 

58

The passage of time has taken care of many of those situations. 

Certainly, some of those same areas are areas where Federal observers still would be assigned. 

But it’s not because those African-American voters have just 

been put on the roles by a Federal examiner. The problem is both 

broader and deeper than that. And I think Federal observers are 

necessary for that. 

The Federal Examiner function for registering voters, however, 

has been—it hasn’t been used in 30 years. There were a couple of 

isolated instances of Federal registration in 1982 and 1993, but 

apart from that, it hasn’t been used since the 1970’s, in some part 

because of the success of the Voting Rights Act, but also because 

of the enactment of new laws that make voter registration a lot 

easier—the restrictive hours and locations that people were faced 

with in the ’60’s. Now, you can register by mail. 

So there are improvements in the voter registration process, and 

it is the voter registration process and the maintenance of the 

names of those people who were listed in 1965 to 1972 that the examiner provisions of the Voting Rights Act are geared to. 

So it has nothing to do with the need for Federal observers to 

get information on violations in the polling places—discrimination 

against racial or language group members. That’s going on nationwide, and I think the observers are necessary for that. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Mr. Weinberg, why are then—why was 

the Federal Examiner certification a prerequisite for bringing in 

the observers in the first place? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, but you can answer the question. 

Mr. WEINBERG. All right. The Voting Rights Act after the Selma 

to Montgomery March brought everything to a head in early 1965. 

The big focus was on getting people registered to vote. It was—we 

were talking total disenfranchisement. And so we needed to allow 

people to get on the voting rolls, and the way that the Voting 

Rights Act is constructed, if you read the sections 6 and 7, you’ll 

see a very, very intricate pattern of getting people to—into the examiners, to list them, to turn the lists over, and this was a big deal 

because you were taking a Federal employee, a Federal examiner, 

and inserting that Federal examiner into what is a State and local 

process, which is voter registration. The principles of federalism 

were very, very strong, and this was an extraordinary remedy, the 

first time ever in this country, that you had these Federal officials 

coming in and just taking over, just taking over and without a 

court order. It was just an administrative decision. In order to 

make that administrative decision have the import that it needed 

to insert those Federal people into the State function, the Voting 

Rights Act drafters had the Attorney General personally sign a certification that this was necessary to enforce the 14th amendment 

and 15th amendment. 

And that’s how this came to be. The reason they’re linked is because the drafters then thought, well, we have all these newly enfranchised voters coming into these terribly hostile polling places, 

we can’t just let them wander in there. But what are we going to 

do? They say, well, we’ll have authorized Federal observers to 

watch what happens and get the information back to the Attorney 

59

General so the Justice Department could take action if it was needed. 

Mr. SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman 

from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Randa, when observers are sent out—have been sent out in 

the past, has there a history of anybody complaining about the observers. And, if so, what do those complaints normally consist of 

and who normally makes them? 

Ms. RANDA. Any incidents or issues that come up during a given 

exercise or observation would be put in the report and it is then 

passed to Department of Justice, who maintains that and decides 

whether to take any action on it. 

We don’t actually maintain that information, historically, so I 

couldn’t speak to the record on that. I know anecdotally, years ago, 

there were sometimes issues getting access and getting friendly 

treatment. But I don’t believe that’s been a problem in recent 

years. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Weinberg, to some extent, what you are proposing 

is constructing a new model for sending out observers, which I 

think probably is a reasonably good idea. The prior model applied 

that the observers to cover jurisdictions, select jurisdictions for 

sending observers to; isn’t that right? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Right. The observers in all the specially covered 

jurisdictions. 

Mr. WATT. Is there—in the construction of the new model that 

you are proposing, if you were constructing a new model that didn’t 

apply only to covered jurisdictions—it applied in some triggering 

fashion that triggered based on complaints or suspicions, how 

would you articulate what the standard would be? You said at one 

point I think in your testimony that you thought maybe the observer provisions ought to be applied nationally. But how would 

you articulate the standards that you would use to trigger it? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Yes. My idea would be to keep the Federal observers tied to the Voting Rights Act enforcement. And you would 

need a finding by the Justice Department that the provisions of the 

Voting Rights Act are being violated or actions are happening 

which would constitute violations of the Voting Rights Act. You 

need that finding before——

Mr. WATT. Are being violated or—I mean it’s too late after 

they’ve been violated. The election is taking place. So you’d—I 

mean you’d have to be looking at some imminent danger. 

We presumed under the old framework that there was imminent 

danger because there was a history, and we know that there is 

some imminent danger going forward, because people are engaging 

in this—or appear to be engaging in some conduct. But I’m just trying to figure out how you would articulate what the standard 

would be for the Justice Department to trigger the observer provisions? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Yes. The law now talks about circumstances that 

appear to be reasonably attributed to violations of the 14th and 

15th amendments. 

60

All along, before a certification can be made and even now, before 

Federal observers are assigned, the Justice Department makes a 

determination that racial and language minority group members 

are facing circumstances in the polling place that would violate the 

Voting Rights Act. We get that information by conducting investigations, conducting interviews in the normal way one would investigate a possible violation of a Federal law. 

When you reach that conclusion, you don’t have to have proof by 

a preponderance of the evidence in a structured way that the violations have occurred. What you need is information that indicates 

that those violations are occurring, and that’s basically what happens. 

Mr. WATT. So it would be some kind of good faith determination 

by the Justice Department that a violation of the 14th or 15th 

amendment has or is about to occur? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Right. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s——

Mr. WATT. May I ask unanimous consent for one additional 

minute——

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. WATT. —just to ask one additional question of Mr. Weinberg. 

The reports of the observers—you testified you don’t think they 

ought to be made public, published, unlike when we’re observing 

elections in other countries. 

What’s done with those reports now? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Those reports are used by the Justice Department attorneys to determine whether more legal action is needed, 

if there’s already a lawsuit pending or if there’s no lawsuit, whether a legal action is needed. And I should say also that these reports 

are not always kept from public view. They’re—the redacted 

versions have been released under the Freedom of Information Act. 

I mean there are ways to see them. Often, they’re not all that illuminating since they’re——

Mr. WATT. But wouldn’t it serve some deterrent effect for—to future voting rights violations to publish the reports of the observers? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Yes. I think the deterrent effect is in the legal 

action by the Justice Department, and I think that’s been shown 

to be very effective. 

And since these reports often are also used if a court has certified a county, the report goes to the court. And the reports are 

used in those instances to determine liability of the defendant or 

the county and whether the relief has been adequate. So they are 

in that sense used right away, and I think the deterrent effect is 

really adequate the way it exists now. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair, in light of the fact that this is the ninth hearing in 

this—on the Voting Rights Act and we have more to come at some 

future point has been avoiding second rounds. However, the Chair 

would like to ask one question. And it’s my understanding the 

Ranking Member has an additional question as well, so I would 

recognize myself for a minute. 

And if I could, Ms. Pew, ask you a question, and this is again 

establishing—one of our principal goals here is to establish a record 

61

in light of the fact that this may well be before the Supreme Court 

some day. 

Let me ask you what types of discrimination do minorities sometimes continue to experience in polling places that you’re aware of? 

Ms. PEW. Well, it’s my experience that given the outline and the 

guideline that was given to us in the consent decree that we’ve 

complied with and continue to, even though it is now outdated and 

we’re not made to do that, we continue to do that, and we’re not 

seeing discrimination. We are—we’ve got a robust program that is 

reaching out and based on the numbers of the voters that are increasing, we’re not seeing the discrimination. 

Mr. CHABOT. Yeah. What were the discriminations based upon in 

the consent decree that you——

Ms. PEW. They were based on denial. They weren’t able to read 

the ballot. They weren’t able to understand the ballot. Things were 

posted in the newspapers by statute, but they couldn’t understand 

them, and that’s definitely a disadvantage to someone who is not 

only maybe language non-speaking, but very language limited as 

far as even in their cultural, their native language. They don’t read 

Navajo a lot of them. 

And so it is a verbal language. It is important that all of these 

things be looked at. And I believe that given the outline we have 

in the consent decree and the things that we’re still following that 

it needs to continue. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for two additional 

minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Weinberg, you’ve noted that there haven’t been any complaints regarding federally listed voters over the last 20 years. But 

do we need new tools to deal with the sometimes large-scale purges 

of eligible voters from the voting rolls? How do we keep voters on 

the voter rolls if we eliminate examiners and observers—as I understand are only at the polls on election day. 

Mr. WEINBERG. The Federal Observer provisions don’t address all 

of the violations that could occur with regard to voter registration 

and voting. It’s really—it really has to do with what happens inside 

the polling places on election day. But the law certainly is adequate 

as it stands to deal with other discriminatory actions and that 

would include discriminatory purges of the rolls. 

Mr. CONYERS. Who would do it? 

Mr. WEINBERG. The Justice Department could do it. 

Mr. CONYERS. But they wouldn’t have to be observers? 

Mr. WEINBERG. No. No. 

Mr. CONYERS. They would be what kind of personnel? 

Mr. WEINBERG. It would be investigations in the normal course 

of business at the Justice Department, investigations by attorneys, 

by the FBI. That’s how it works. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Conyers. 

That concludes this hearing, and I want to thank the witnesses 

again for their testimony. It has been very, very helpful. 

If there’s no further business to come before this Committee, 

we’re adjourned. Thank you. 

62

[Whereupon, at 2:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(63)

/1/ Consent Decree in United States of America v. North Carolina Republican Party, No. 91–

161-CIV-5-F (Feb. 27, 1992). 

/2/ Alabama (22 counties), Arizona (3), Georgia (29), Louisiana (12), Mississippi (50), New York 

(3), North Carolina (1), South Carolina (11) and Texas (17). 

/3/ California (6), Illinois (1), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (1), Michigan (1), New Jersey (1), 

New Mexico (2), New York (3), Pennsylvania (1), South Dakota (1), Texas (1), and Washington 

(1). 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR. A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE IF MICHIGAN AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE

CONSTITUTION

Despite the optimistic tone struck by our witnesses and members of this Committee, racial and language minorities still face serious obstacles to equal participation in the electoral process. During every election cycle, my staff fields numerous 

complaints involving election day mischief from around the country. While many 

simply involve hardball campaign tactics, a troubling number cross the line into 

questionable race politics that raises the issue of systematic suppression of the minority vote. 

During the 2002 election, I referred a complaint to the Department of Justice concerning fliers circulated in African-American areas of Baltimore, Maryland, that 

were intended to confuse and suppress voter turnout in those communities. The flier 

misstated the date of election day and implied that payment of overdue parking 

tickets, moving violations and rents were qualifications for voting. Similarly, During 

the 2003 Kentucky gubernatorial election, I referred a complaint to the Department 

concerning reports that 59 precincts with significant African-American populations 

had been targeted for vote challenges by local campaign officials. 

These kind of tactics have been the target of injunctive relief by the Department 

under provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1957. For example, in 1990, the Department sued over a so-called ‘‘ballot security’’ program in North Carolina, where postcards were mailed to African- American voters that were designed to discourage 

them from coming to the polls by providing misinformation about the requirements 

for voters. As a remedy to these allegations of voter intimidation, the parties entered into a consent decree, but the damage was done, with the major African-American candidate losing a close election./1/ 

The failure of the 1957 Act to bring prospective relief for interference with the 

right to vote was the main reason behind the enactment of Sections 3, 6 & 8 for 

the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These provisions give the federal courts and the Attorney General the authority to monitor the procedures in polling places and at sites 

where ballots are counted to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendments. Unlike, mere attorney coverage or election monitoring by the 

advocacy community, these provisions give federal monitors the legal authority to 

enter all polling places, and even the voting booths themselves, to provide the closest scrutiny of the elections process. 

To date, a total of 148 counties and parishes in 9 states have been certified by 

the Attorney General for election monitoring pursuant to Section 6./2/ In addition, 

19 political subdivisions in 12 states are currently certified for election monitoring 

by federal court order, pursuant to Section 3./3/ 

On election day last week, the Department sent federal observers and Justice Department personnel to 16 jurisdictions in seven states to monitor elections, including 

Hamtramck, Michigan, a jurisdiction partly within my district which had an ugly 

episode of discrimination against Arab-Americans at th polls in 1999. In 2004, the 

64

Department coordinated and sent 1,463 federal observers and 533 Department personnel to monitor 163 elections in 105 jurisdictions in 29 states. 

I believe that the monitoring of elections by federal observers is an important aspect of the Voting Rights Act that should be reauthorized. As prior witness testimony has clearly shown, discrimination at the polls remains a problem. Where jurisdictions have a record of discrimination or current threats exist to ballot access, minority voters should not have to wait for federal assistance to come after the fact. 

Monitors play the important role of addressing concerns about racial discrimination and ensuring compliance, so that voters can rely on a fair process now, rather 

than waiting for litigation later. 

Given the fact that the Department has trumpeted its ‘‘voter protection’’ programs, I am disappointed that they did not appear today at today’s hearing. In numerous press releases, the Department has appeared to express a strong commitment to the monitoring program, especially in the area of Section 203’s bilingual 

election requirements. There are questions, however, about the rising emphasis on 

attorney coverage, the limited number of certifications under Section 6, and whether 

there has been a shift in enforcement priorities. While Mr. Weinberg can act as an 

able proxy for the Department in most areas, only the Department can definitively 

respond to these questions. 

Before closing, I must commend the work of the Office of Personnel Management, 

whose efforts at recruiting, training, and supervising election monitors is the key 

to the program’s success. Ms. Randa, I look forward to your testimony and hope that 

you address ways of improving the long-term viability of the monitoring program.

65

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF PENNY PEW: ELECTION MATERIALS


pew1.eps
66


pew2.eps
67


pew3.eps
68


pew4.eps
69


pew5.eps
70


pew6.eps
71


pew7.eps
72


pew8.eps
73


pew9.eps
74


pew10.eps
75


pew11.eps
76


pew12.eps
77


pew13.eps
78


pew14.eps
79


pew15.eps
80


pew16.eps
81


pew17.eps
82


pew18.eps
83


pew19.eps
84


pew20.eps
85


pew21.eps
86


pew22.eps
87


pew23.eps
88


pew24.eps
89


pew25.eps
90


pew26.eps
91


pew27.eps
92


pew28.eps
93


pew29.eps
94


pew30.eps
95


pew31.eps
96


pew32.eps
97


pew33.eps
98


pew34.eps
99


pew35.eps
100


pew36.eps
101


pew37.eps
102


pew38.eps
103


pew39.eps
104


pew40.eps
105


pew41.eps
106


pew42.eps
107


pew43.eps
108


pew44.eps
109


pew45.eps
110


pew46.eps
111


pew48.eps
112


pew49.eps
113


pew50.eps
114


pew51.eps
115


pew52.eps
116


pew53.eps
117


pew54.eps
118


pew55.eps
119


pew56.eps
120


pew57.eps
121


pew58.eps
122


pew59.eps
123


pew60.eps
124


pew61.eps
125


pew62.eps
126


pew63.eps
127


pew64.eps
128


pew65.eps
129


pew66.eps
130


pew67.eps
131


pew68.eps
132


pew69.eps
133


pew70.eps
134


pew71.eps
135


pew72.eps
136


pew73.eps
137


pew74.eps
138


pew75.eps
139


pew76.eps
140


pew77.eps
141


pew78.eps
142


pew79.eps
143


pew80.eps
144


pew81.eps
145

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF PENNY PEW: PREPARED STATEMENT OF PENNY PEW

SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT


Pew0001.eps
146

APPENDIX TO THE STATEMENT OF BARRY WEINBERG: Problems in America’s Polling 

Places: How They Can Be Stopped; Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review, 

Spring 2002


Weinberg0001.eps
147


Weinberg0002.eps
148


Weinberg0003.eps
149


Weinberg0004.eps
150


Weinberg0005.eps
151


Weinberg0006.eps
152


Weinberg0007.eps
153


Weinberg0008.eps
154


Weinberg0009.eps
155


Weinberg0010.eps
156


Weinberg0011.eps
157


Weinberg0012.eps
158


Weinberg0013.eps
159


Weinberg0014.eps
160


Weinberg0015.eps
161


Weinberg0016.eps
162


Weinberg0017.eps
163


Weinberg0018.eps
164


Weinberg0019.eps
165


Weinberg0020.eps
166


Weinberg0021.eps
167


Weinberg0022.eps
168


Weinberg0023.eps
169


Weinberg0024.eps
170


Weinberg0025.eps
171


Weinberg0026.eps
172


Weinberg0027.eps
173


Weinberg0028.eps
174


Weinberg0029.eps
175


Weinberg0030.eps
176


Weinberg0031.eps
177


Weinberg0032.eps
178


Weinberg0033.eps
179


Weinberg0034.eps
180


Weinberg0035.eps
181


Weinberg0036.eps
182


Weinberg0037.eps
183


Weinberg0038.eps
184


Weinberg0039.eps
185


Weinberg0040.eps
186


Weinberg0041.eps
187


Weinberg0042.eps
188


Weinberg0043.eps
189


Weinberg0044.eps
190


Weinberg0045.eps
191


Weinberg0046.eps
192


Weinberg0047.eps
193


Weinberg0048.eps
194

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRADLEY J. SCHLOZMAN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CONCERNING THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTIONS 6 AND 8, FEDERAL EXAMINER AND OBSERVER PROGRAMS

Chairman Chabot, Ranking Member Nadler, distinguished members of the Subcommittee: 

I am Bradley Schlozman, the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the 

Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. As I have underscored in previous testimony before this Subcommittee, the President has directed the full power 

and might of the Justice Department to enforcing the Voting Rights Act and preserving the integrity of our voting process. This Administration looks forward to 

working with Congress on the reauthorization of this important legislation. 


Weinberg0049.eps
195

1 42 U.S.C. 1973d, 1973f. 

2 42 U.S.C. 1973c. 

3There are also 19 political subdivisions in 12 States currently certified by court order. With 

two exceptions, all of these certifications pertain to language-minority issues. An additional 14 

jurisdictions in eight States previously were certified for Federal examiners by Federal courts 

under section 3(a), but the designations have since expired. 4The complete list of counties certified by the Attorney General, along with dates of certification, can be found on the website of the Department of Justice’s Voting Section. See http:/

/www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/examine/activ—exam.htm. 5 42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq. 

It is my privilege today to provide you with an overview of the Justice Department’s use of sections 6 and 8 of the Voting Rights Act,1 which pertain to Federal 

examiners and Federal observers. As you know, these provisions, like section 5,2 are 

slated to expire in August 2007. 

FEDERAL EXAMINERS

Let me begin by explaining what ‘‘federal examiners’’ are within the meaning of 

the Voting Rights Act. Federal examiners are essentially officials assigned to a particular political subdivision to whom certain complaints of voting discrimination can 

be made. Governed by section 6 of the Act, the authority to appoint Federal examiners was first designed as a congressional response to the racially discriminatory 

voter registration practices that existed throughout the South at the time of the 

Act’s original passage in 1965. Examiners are charged with processing (or ‘‘examining’’) applicants for voter registration and making a list of those applicants who 

meet State eligibility rules; the list is then given to the local county registrar, who 

is required to put those names on the county’s voter registration rolls. Those on the 

examiner’s list are commonly called ‘‘federally registered voters.’’ The Voting Rights 

Act also requires the examiners to be available during each of the jurisdiction’s elections, and for two days afterward, to take complaints from any federally registered 

voter claiming that he/she had not been allowed to vote. 

Federal examiners can be appointed in two separate ways. The first route is 

through section 6’s empowerment of the Attorney General to ‘‘certify’’ for the appointment of Federal examiners any jurisdiction falling within the coverage of the 

Voting Rights Act in which there is reason to believe that voters have been denied 

the right to vote on account of their race or status as a language minority. In particular, the Attorney General must certify that either: (i) he has received complaints 

in writing from twenty or more residents alleging that they have been denied the 

right to vote under color of law on account of race or color or because they are a 

member of a language minority and he believes such complaints to be meritorious; 

or (ii) in his judgment, the appointment of examiners is necessary to enforce the 

guarantees of the 14th or 15th Amendments. The second method by which Federal 

examiners may be appointed is for a Federal court to do so pursuant to section 3(a) 

as part of an order of equitable relief in a voting rights lawsuit to remedy violations 

of the 14th or 15th Amendment. Judicial certifications, unlike those of the Attorney 

General, are not restricted to those political subdivisions covered by section 4 of the 

Voting Rights Act. Regardless of who makes the formal certification, once the determination is made, the actual selection of the examiner is undertaken by the Director 

of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), who then oversees the examiner’s 

activities. 

The Voting Rights Act’s ban on literacy tests and other discriminatory practices 

has mitigated many of the voter registration problems that made examiners so important. As a result, the need for, and role of, Federal examiners has greatly diminished over time. Although there are still 148 counties and parishes in 9 States that 

the Attorney General has certified for Federal examiners,3 nearly all of these certifications were certified shortly after the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 when 

conditions were radically different from today.4 Moreover, many of the counties/parishes have not been the source of any race-based voting registration complaints for 

decades. 

According to OPM, there have been no new ‘‘federally registered voters’’ (i.e., voters registered by Federal examiners) added in any jurisdiction throughout the country since 1983. Nor has the Department of Justice received any complaints about 

covered jurisdictions refusing to register Federal voters in decades. 

In addition to the great advances in minority access to the franchise today as compared to 30–40 years ago, the decline in registration-related complaints is also attributable to the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 

which made voter registration dramatically more accessible.5 Prior to this 1993 Act, 

196

6 42 U.S.C.1973f. 

7 42 U.S.C. 1973aa–1a. 

there were few Federal standards for voter registration. Through the NVRA, however, Congress established specific, uniform requirements for voter registration and 

State maintenance of voter registration lists. All of these requirements are applicable across the United States, not just in those jurisdictions certified for Federal examiners or otherwise covered by the Voting Rights Act. The reality today is that 

the only real importance of the Federal examiner provision from a practical standpoint is its function as a statutory prerequisite to the Attorney General’s ability to 

call upon OPM to assign Federal observers to monitor particular elections in certified jurisdictions. 

FEDERAL OBSERVERS

At any time after a Federal examiner has been appointed to a particular jurisdiction, the Attorney General may request under section 8 that the Director of OPM 

assign Federal observers to monitor elections in that jurisdiction.6 These observers 

are Federal employees who are recruited and supervised by OPM. They are authorized by statute to enter polling places and vote-tabulation rooms in order to observe 

whether eligible voters are being permitted to vote and whether votes casts by eligible voters are being properly counted. 

The OPM observers work in conjunction with attorneys from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Department of Justice attorneys assist OPM with the 

observers’ training, 

brief the observers on relevant issues prior to the election, and work closely with 

them on election day. Federal observers are instructed to watch, listen, and take 

careful notes of everything that happens inside the polling place/vote-tabulation 

room during an election. They are also trained not to interfere with the election in 

any way. After the election, Justice Department attorneys debrief the observers, and 

the observers usually complete written reports on their observations. These reports 

are sent on to the Civil Rights Division and can be used in court if necessary. 

Most Federal observers dispatched to cover elections find no irregularities. Still, 

problems occur. Over at least the last decade, most of these have related to compliance with the language minority requirements of section 203.7 Where problems are 

discovered, a variety of actions may be taken depending on the relevant circumstances. On occasion, Justice Department personnel will assess the situation 

and work with county/parish officials on election day to clarify Federal legal requirements and immediately resolve the identified problem. Other times, the Department 

will send a letter to the jurisdiction following the election in which we identify certain incidents or practices that should be addressed or improved in the future (e.g., 

removal of certain poll workers, additional training for election-day officials, etc.). 

Department attorneys likewise may recommend further investigation. If no Federal 

issues are identified, the matter may be referred to State authorities. If necessary, 

the Department will commence a civil action (or contempt motion if applicable) to 

enforce the protections of the Voting Rights Act. 

Notwithstanding the general overall compliance with the Voting Rights Act, the 

Department of Justice has taken full advantage of the Federal observer provisions 

to help avoid slippage or complacency by covered jurisdictions. In 2004, for example, 

the Civil Rights Division worked with OPM to send 1,463 observers to cover 55 elections in 30 jurisdictions in 10 different States. Meanwhile, already in 2005, Federal 

observers have been dispatched to 21 elections in 17 jurisdictions in 10 different 

States. 

In areas of the country where Federal observers cannot be sent, the Civil Rights 

Division will send it own staff lawyers to monitor elections if it has received complaints or has uncovered credible evidence of possible violations of the Voting Rights 

Act. In fact, the great bulk of our recent enforcement cases since, say, 1993, have 

involved jurisdictions (e.g., Massachusetts, California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Washington, and Pennsylvania) where there is no statutory authority to send 

Federal observers. We have expended substantial resources in this endeavor. For example, in 2004, the Department of Justice sent 533 departmental personnel to monitor 108 elections in 80 jurisdictions in 27 different States. So far in 2005, the Department has sent 186 personnel to cover 24 elections in 21 jurisdictions in 9 different States. Those monitors helped account for the record-setting work we have 

done in enforcing the Voting Rights Act in recent years. 

As I have said before to this Subcommittee, the Civil Rights Division has made 

the vigorous enforcement of voting rights a primary objective, and we have been 

very successful in doing so. Our election monitoring and observer coverage is just 

197

one small part of that effort. I thank the committee for the opportunity to submit 

this statement.

INSERTED INTO THE RECORD BY CONGRESSMAN WATT DURING THE HEARING: LETTER

FROM WILLIAM JENKINS, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE ISSUES, 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, TO THE HONORABLES JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, 

HENRY WAZMAN, AND JOHN CONYERS, JR. REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS PAST ELECTION-RELATED VOTING IRREGULARITIES


GAO0001.eps
198


GAO0002.eps
199


GAO0003.eps
200


GAO0004.eps
201


GAO0005.eps
202


GAO0006.eps
203


GAO0007.eps
204


GAO0008.eps
205


GAO0009.eps
206


GAO0010.eps
207


GAO0011.eps
208


GAO0012.eps
209


GAO0013.eps
210


GAO0014.eps
211


GAO0015.eps
212


GAO0016.eps
213


GAO0017.eps
214


GAO0018.eps
215


GAO0019.eps
216


GAO0020.eps
217


GAO0021.eps
218


GAO0022.eps
219


GAO0023.eps
220


GAO0024.eps
221


GAO0025.eps
222


GAO0026.eps
223


GAO0027.eps
224


GAO0028.eps
225


GAO0029.eps
226


GAO0030.eps
227


GAO0031.eps
228


GAO0032.eps
229


GAO0033.eps
230


GAO0034.eps
231


GAO0035.eps
232


GAO0036.eps
233


GAO0037.eps
234


GAO0038.eps
235


GAO0039.eps
236


GAO0040.eps
237


GAO0041.eps
238


GAO0042.eps
239


GAO0043.eps
240


GAO0044.eps
241


GAO0045.eps
242


GAO0046.eps
243


GAO0047.eps
244


GAO0048.eps
245


GAO0049.eps
246


GAO0050.eps
247


GAO0051.eps
248


GAO0052.eps
249


GAO0053.eps
250


GAO0054.eps
251


GAO0055.eps
252


GAO0056.eps
253


GAO0057.eps
254


GAO0058.eps
255


GAO0059.eps
256


GAO0060.eps
257


GAO0061.eps
258


GAO0062.eps
259


GAO0063.eps
260


GAO0064.eps
261


GAO0065.eps
262


GAO0066.eps
263


GAO0067.eps
264


GAO0068.eps
265


GAO0069.eps
266


GAO0070.eps
267


GAO0071.eps
268


GAO0072.eps
269


GAO0073.eps
270


GAO0074.eps
271


GAO0075.eps
272


GAO0076.eps
273


GAO0077.eps
274


GAO0078.eps
275


GAO0079.eps
276


GAO0080.eps
277


GAO0081.eps
278


GAO0082.eps
279


GAO0083.eps
280


GAO0084.eps
281


GAO0085.eps
282


GAO0086.eps
283


GAO0087.eps
284


GAO0088.eps
285


GAO0089.eps
286


GAO0090.eps
287


GAO0091.eps
288


GAO0092.eps
289


GAO0093.eps
290


GAO0094.eps
291


GAO0095.eps
292


GAO0096.eps
293


GAO0097.eps
294


GAO0098.eps
295


GAO0099.eps
296


GAO0100.eps
297


GAO0101.eps
298


GAO0102.eps
299


GAO0103.eps
300


GAO0104.eps
301


GAO0105.eps
302

Æ


GAO0106.eps