```

[House Report 111-211]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    111-211

======================================================================

 
              UNIVERSAL RIGHT TO VOTE BY MAIL ACT OF 2009

                                _______
                                

 July 16, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on House Administration, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1604]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 1604) to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 
to allow all eligible voter to vote by mail in Federal 
elections, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 
pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds the following:
          (1) An inequity of voting rights exists in the United States 
        because voters in some States have the universal right to vote 
        by mail while voters in other States do not.
          (2) Many voters often have work, family, or other commitments 
        that make getting to polls on the date of an election difficult 
        or impossible. Under current State laws, many of these voters 
        are not permitted to vote by mail.
          (3) 28 States currently allow universal absentee voting (also 
        known as `no-excuse' absentee voting), which permits any voter 
        to request a mail-in ballot without providing a reason for the 
        request, and no State which has implemented no-excuse absentee 
        voting has switched back.
          (4) Voting by mail gives voters more time to consider their 
        choices, which is especially important as many ballots contain 
        greater numbers of questions about complex issues than in the 
        past due to the expanded use of the initiative and referendum 
        process in many States.
          (5) Allowing all voters the option to vote by mail can lead 
        to increased voter participation.
          (6) Allowing all voters the option to vote by mail can reduce 
        waiting times for those voters who choose to vote at the polls.
          (7) Voting by mail is preferable to many voters as an 
        alternative to going to the polls. Voting by mail has become 
        increasingly popular with voters who want to be certain that 
        they are able to vote no matter what comes up on Election Day.
          (8) No evidence exists suggesting the potential for fraud in 
        absentee balloting is greater than the potential for fraud by 
        any other method of voting.
          (9) Many of the reasons which voters in many States are 
        required to provide in order to vote by mail require the 
        revelation of personal information about health, travel plans, 
        or religious activities, which violate voters' privacy while 
        doing nothing to prevent voter fraud.
          (10) State laws which require voters to obtain a notary 
        signature to vote by mail only add cost and inconvenience to 
        voters without increasing security.

SEC. 3. PROMOTING ABILITY OF VOTERS TO VOTE BY MAIL IN FEDERAL 
                    ELECTIONS.

  (a) In General.--Subtitle A of title III of the Help America Vote Act 
of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
303 the following new section:

``SEC. 303A. PROMOTING ABILITY OF VOTERS TO VOTE BY MAIL.

  ``(a) In General.--If an individual in a State is eligible to cast a 
vote in an election for Federal office, the State may not impose any 
additional conditions or requirements on the eligibility of the 
individual to cast the vote in such election by mail, except as 
required under subsection (b) and except to the extent that the State 
imposes a deadline for requesting the ballot and related voting 
materials from the appropriate State or local election official and for 
returning the ballot to the appropriate State or local election 
official.
  ``(b) Requiring Signature Verification.--
          ``(1) Record of signature required for provision of ballot.--
        A State may not provide an absentee ballot to an individual for 
        an election for Federal office unless the individual's 
        signature is included on the official list of registered voters 
        in the State or some other official record of the State 
        connected to such list.
          ``(2) Verification required for acceptance and processing of 
        submitted ballot.--A State may not accept and process an 
        absentee ballot submitted by any individual for an election for 
        Federal office unless the State verifies the identification of 
        the individual by comparing the individual's signature on the 
        absentee ballot with the individual's signature on the official 
        list or other official record referred to in paragraph (1), in 
        accordance with such procedures as the State may adopt.
  ``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to affect the authority of States to conduct elections for 
Federal office through the use of polling places at which individuals 
cast ballots on the date of the election.
  ``(d) Effective Date.--A State shall be required to comply with the 
requirements of this section with respect to elections for Federal 
office held in years beginning with 2012.''.
  (b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Enforcement.--Section 401 of 
such Act (42 U.S.C. 15511) is amended by striking ``and 303'' and 
inserting ``303, and 303A''.
  (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for such Act is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 303 the 
following new item:

``Sec. 303A. Promoting ability of voters to vote by mail.''.

              UNIVERSAL RIGHT TO VOTE BY MAIL ACT OF 2009

                       Purpose of the Legislation

    In 2008, more voters than ever participated in the 
democratic process by casting absentee ballots. This growing 
trend can be attributed to the fact that voters in 28 states 
and territories currently may exercise `no excuse' absentee 
voting, which allows citizens to vote by mail without requiring 
a reason for the request. Since Kansas started `no excuse' 
absentee voting in 1967, 28 states have followed suit and no 
one has switched back.
    However, 21 states, the District of Columbia, and all the 
territories still require voters to provide a qualifying excuse 
in order to vote absentee by mail. Requirements to justify a 
qualifying excuse differ among state laws, but some 
requirements may require the voter to go so far as to produce a 
notary's seal, a doctor's note, a list of work hours or job 
description, explanation of a religious obligation, description 
of the nature of a disability, or even signatures from multiple 
witnesses, in order to request an absentee ballot. H.R. 1604 
removes the unnecessary requirements that have created such 
barriers for voters.
    H.R. 1604 levels the playing field by removing the litany 
of restrictions imposed by these 21 states, the District of 
Columbia and the territories. The bill also removes invasive 
private information requirements from state forms; such as, 
questions about vacation destination, nature of illness, 
religious obligation, and pregnancy status. This legislation 
gives all voters the option to vote by absentee ballot in 
federal elections whether it be because of choice or need. H.R. 
1604 does not require anyone to vote by mail but merely 
provides voters the option of voting absentee without having to 
respond to intrusive and unnecessary questions that make it 
more difficult for voters to participate in federal elections.

             REMOVING BARRIERS AND EXPANDING THE FRANCHISE

    H.R. 1604 will play a significant role in expanding the 
franchise for the many voters who must work and commute longer 
hours than polls are open, who are sick or physically 
challenged, who are displaced by natural disaster, who live 
abroad, or who are stationed away from home in the military. 
For example, the bill will help eliminate barriers like those 
that the voters who were displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita faced. Election officials in Louisiana rejected absentee 
ballots from significant numbers of voters, displaced 
throughout the Gulf region, for failing to provide notary 
signatures as required by Louisiana law.\1\ Some states do not 
even allow certain travel, work, family, school, illness and 
jury duty situations to count as valid excuses to request an 
absentee ballot.\2\ Too many citizens, including parents with 
small children, caregivers, commuters, emergency personnel and 
even letter carriers--who often spend longer hours during the 
election season to deliver election materials--cannot sacrifice 
the time it takes to stand in line to vote, particularly in 
these harsh economic times.\3\ Moreover, many states do not 
require that employees be given time off to vote, resulting in 
several recent instances of lines at the polls lasting many 
hours and long delays when polling places open in the morning, 
which have led some voters to choose between going to work and 
leaving their polling place without voting.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Payton, John, Letter to Chairman Robert Brady: June 9, 2009.
    \2\Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 9-150a), Massachusetts (ALM 
GL ch. 54, Sec. 7), and Illinois (10 ILCS 5/19-1).
    \3\Young, William, Letter to Chairman Robert Brady: June 9, 2009.
    \4\Wagmen, Jake, ``Report: Long Lines Led to Lost Jobs on Election 
Day,'' St. Louis Post-Dispatch: November 20, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, notarization and witness requirements have 
created various obstacles for voters overseas and in the United 
States. It can be incredibly difficult to find an appropriate 
witness, and notarization abroad is possible only at U.S. 
embassies and consulates. Thus, overseas voters must incur a 
significant time and cost burden for individuals who do not 
live in close proximity to these U.S. government offices.\5\ 
Some states require notary signatures for voters in the U.S., 
including students, travelers, and those incarcerated but not 
convicted of a felony, to request absentee ballots.\6\ In 
addition to making the effort to locate a notary, voters in 
those states may be charged a fee for the notary's service. The 
inconvenience and cost creates a great disparity because voters 
in other states do not need to make the effort to obtain a 
notary signature if they would like to `vote-by-mail.'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Stendsland, Lucy, Letter to Chairman Robert Brady: June 6, 2009.
    \6\Delaware (Delaware Code Sec. 5503) and Rhode Island (Rhode 
Island Statue Sec. 17-20-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In some states, the requirement of a doctor's note to the 
elections office to qualify for an absentee ballot creates a 
significant hurdle for an ill voter who in many cases would 
have to pay for a doctor's visit and then follow up on 
paperwork. This requirement can also be onerous for doctors.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Tennessee Code Sec. 2-6-201-3(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, disclosure of personal, private information or the 
imposition of financial burdens should not be required for 
citizens to exercise their right to vote.\8\ Some states 
require that a voter list the location of his or her vacation, 
a job description, the name of a doctor and the nature of an 
illness, or even a relative's illness. In many states, this 
information remains on the public record. Doing so intrudes 
upon voters' basic principles of privacy and dignity.\9\ At the 
same time, without any question or cost, voters in 28 states 
can conveniently request a mail-in ballot. ``A federal law is 
needed to guarantee that all citizens have the same opportunity 
to vote by mail in federal elections if they so choose.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Fredrickson, Caroline, Letter to Chairman Robert Brady: June 9, 
2009.
    \9\Edgar, Bob, Letter to Chairman Robert Brady: June 9, 2009.
    \10\Fredrickson, Caroline, Letter to Chairman Robert Brady: June 9, 
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        REDUCING BURDENS AND THE COST OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

    `No excuse' absentee voting takes strain off the polls on 
Election Day as well as giving officials more time to process 
ballots. Conversely, absentee voting policies that require an 
excuse place significant administrative burdens on local 
election officials.\11\ During the November 2008 general 
election season, the election office in Fairfax County, 
Virginia denied thousands of applications because of simple 
failures to supply burdensome information. The denial rate for 
absentee applications in Fairfax County, Virginia is high 
because a considerable number of voters check a reason on their 
absentee ballot applications, but fail to supply the supporting 
information required by Virginia law. The Fairfax County 
election office staff is required to review each application 
for completeness, and when a voter fails to properly complete 
the form, the office is required to send a notice to the voter 
informing them of the deficiency and supplying a new 
application. Some voters were sent multiple applications before 
submitting a properly completed application.\12\ This entire 
process was conducted by hand, resulting in staff overtime in 
the weeks approaching election deadlines and increased costs 
for the postage and supplies needed to process incomplete 
applications. `No excuse' access to absentee mail-in ballots 
has the ability to save election offices thousands of dollars 
in processing and overtime costs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Suleman, Rokey, Letter to Chairman Robert Brady: June 6, 2009.
    \12\Suleman, Rokey, Letter to Chairman Robert Brady: June 6, 2009.
    \13\Suleman, Rokey, Letter to Chairman Robert Brady: June 6, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fact, although implementing a `no excuse' absentee mail-
in ballot system may sometimes have some upfront costs, it will 
ultimately reduce costs for many election offices. Costs of 
implementing a `no excuse' absentee vote by mail process may 
vary by jurisdiction, but most states that allow `no excuse' 
absentee voting find that it saves them money in the long run 
because of central processing and reduced costs for polling 
place expenses. Election registrars would save money on staff 
costs for checking excuses and requesting supporting 
documentation (in some instances, multiple times from voters). 
Having a high percentage of vote-by-mail voters also allows 
election officials to order ballots more accurately for the 
polls, which helps reduce the overall cost of providing poll-
based services.\14\ In many states that currently have `no 
excuse' absentee voting, it is so popular with voters and 
elections officials that they have created permanent absentee 
lists of voters who want an absentee ballot sent to them 
automatically each election. Once a permanent absentee system 
is implemented, costs go down even further due to decreased 
data entry costs and increased predictability for absentee and 
polling place supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Holland, Joseph, Letter to Chairman Robert Brady: June 8, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Expanding the eligibility pool for `no excuse' absentee 
voting by mail should not be tremendously difficult for 
election offices, because it is merely the expansion of a 
current mechanism that every jurisdiction already maintains for 
some type of absentee voting process. Moreover, claims that 
this bill creates an unfunded mandate are unfounded. This bill 
will have no impact on the federal budget, and it does not meet 
the definition of an unfunded mandate because it is a voter-
eligibility civil rights bill.
    Many states promote in-person early voting, which certainly 
increases voter opportunity. However, in-person early voting 
should not be considered a substitute for early voting by mail 
because early in-person voting offers limited hours and 
locations, and long lines often set impediments to many voters 
and show the need for even more opportunities to vote. In-
person early voting can also be difficult to administer in 
multiple locations in states that are required to use paper 
ballots, as election officials can be responsible for preparing 
hundreds of ballot types in various jurisdictions. Expanding 
`no excuse' voting by mail to all voters offers the greatest 
opportunity to the greatest number of voters.

                 MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS

    There is no evidence that existing procedures requiring an 
excuse to vote by mail make voting any more secure than `no 
excuse' absentee voting or even voting at the polls. Although 
some have had natural concerns that any type of remote voting 
is inherently less secure than voting in person, millions of 
absentee ballots have been cast with very few security problems 
and additional security measures on absentee ballots make it 
especially difficult for those with criminal intent to 
influence the outcome of an election. Millions of ballots have 
been cast in `no excuse' states with no greater problems than 
those in states that require excuses. Oregon, a state that has 
cast its votes entirely by mail since 1998, has prosecuted just 
nine cases of mail ballot fraud involving sixteen ballots out 
of 76,393,979 ballots cast or 0.00000012% of all ballots cast 
over the past 11 years.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Cody, Amy. Assistant to the Secretary of State, Oregon 
Secretary of State's Office, Personal Interview: November 20-24, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 28 states that currently allow voters to vote by mail 
for any reason have not had serious security problems in 
federal elections because it is nearly impossible for anyone 
other than an election official to corrupt enough absentee 
ballots to change the outcome of an election. Current 
safeguards that election officials use to ensure the sanctity 
of vote by mail absentee ballots include, but are not limited 
to, the following: (1) Signature verification, where signatures 
can be checked against the voter's original registration form 
or compared to a digitized version electronically;\16\ (2) 
address verification, where ballot envelopes must be properly 
addressed and cannot be forwarded. This provides an added level 
of address authentication not available at the polls; (3) coded 
ballot envelopes and other state systems ensure no one can vote 
more than once in the same election; and (4) cameras installed 
at a registrar's office to ensure that no one tampers with 
ballots during storage and counting. In addition, mail ballots 
are counted at a secure central site rather than disseminated 
at multiple polling locations with varying levels of security. 
Further, because they are paper ballots, there is always a 
paper trail to examine and count should there be questions 
about absentee ballots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Holland, Joseph, Letter to Chairman Robert Brady: June 8, 2009. 
(``Voting by mail is more secure than voting at the polls. In 
California the signature on each vote by mail envelope is matched 
against the signature on the original voter registration affidavit. 
Only if the signature matches the original registration signature is 
the envelope opened and the ballot counted. This is in contrast to poll 
based voting where there is no checking of original registration 
signatures.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Proven cases of voter fraud are rare and the concern over 
vote-by-mail voter fraud overblown. According to a witness who 
testified before the Elections Subcommittee in May, the 
transition from excuse-based absentee voting to `no excuse' 
absentee voting in Ohio caused no problems or increased 
fraud.\17\ Burdensome requirements such as mandating a voter to 
provide job descriptions and verify pregnancy status do little 
to prevent absentee ballot fraud. Making voters jump through 
hoops to vote absentee does not increase ballot security. 
Rather, it is unnecessarily invasive, burdensome and 
discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Suleman, Rokey, Letter to Chairman Robert Brady: June 6, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      POPULARITY OF VOTING BY MAIL

    Voters want to have the option to `vote-by-mail.' In states 
with `no excuse' absentee voting, between 20 and 45% of voters 
choose to `vote-by-mail.' In recent hearings before the 
Elections Subcommittee, numerous election officials and 
advocate witnesses provided accounts of how absentee voting has 
increased across the nation.\18\ According to a recent Election 
Assistance Commission study released in February of 2007, 65% 
of Americans think all voters should have the option to `vote-
by-mail.' Support is strong across all demographic groups, 
especially among people with disabilities and low incomes.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\``The 2008 Election--A Look Back at What Went Right and Wrong: 
Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on House 
Administration,'' 111th Congress, 1st Session: 2009.
    \19\``Free or Reduced Postage for the Return of Voted Absentee 
Ballots,'' U.S. Election Assistance Commission: February 2008. 
Priscilla, Southwell, ``Five Years Later: A Re-assessment of Oregon's 
Vote By Mail Electoral Process,'' University of Oregon: 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Allowing those who choose to vote from home to do so 
without unwieldy administrative burdens also increases the 
quality of the vote for many voters who need extra time to 
review their choices and do not want to feel pressured by their 
schedules and the line of people behind them at the polling 
place. Examples of these include first-time voters, those with 
disabilities and voters in states with exceptionally long 
ballots with complicated initiative questions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Tokaji, Daniel, ``Absentee Voting by People with Disabilities: 
Promoting Access and Integrity,'' pg. 1017, McGeorge Law Review: August 
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some opponents of absentee voting argue that absentee 
voters often turn in their ballots before the dialogue between 
the campaigns is concluded and that absentee voters could 
potentially miss something which would cause them to regret a 
vote. This is not a compelling argument, since absentee voters 
determine when to turn in their ballot, just as they determine 
which candidates and campaigns they will support. Ballots are 
sent out in advance to make sure they arrive in time, not to 
force voters to turn in their ballots before they wish. Voters 
can even drop ballots off on Election Day if they want to wait 
until the end of a campaign. It is also worth noting that `no 
excuse' absentee voting has been shown not to benefit one 
political party over another.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Paul Gronke ``Early Voting Reforms and American Elections,'' 
pg. 10, Reed College: 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  THE JUSTIFICATION FOR FEDERAL ACTION

    The federal government has a significant interest in making 
sure every eligible voter who wants to cast a ballot in a 
federal election has that opportunity. ``Historically, the 
federal government has opened the doors to those shut out of 
the voting process and our country has been much the better for 
it. We should be proud of our nation's history of removing 
obstacles for voters who have been left out of the voting 
process intentionally or unintentionally, whether they be 
women, racial minorities, members of the military, Americans 
living overseas, 18 to 21 year-olds or voters with 
disabilities. But, our work is not done. The next step is to 
give hard-working Americans with busy lives who want to 
participate the best chance to vote no matter what comes up on 
Election Day.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\``Meeting before the Committee on House Administration,'' 111th 
Congress, 1st Session: June 9, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1974, a Fulbright professor and his wife who were 
travelling to Iran during an election were denied an absentee 
ballot in their state. They were not trying to commit fraud; 
they just wanted to vote. In Prigmore v. Renfro the court held 
that this couple had no right to an absentee ballot under their 
state law and that in order for them to vote, Congress would 
have to pass a law. The need for a universal right-to-vote-
absentee law is even stronger today, now that `no excuse' 
absentee voting has been proven successful in half the country 
while the other half has fewer opportunities.
    Under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution, 
Congress has the authority to regulate elections. As it has 
historically, Congress should step in to strengthen our 
democracy when significant disparities in voting opportunities 
for voters among different states exist. Congress should focus 
on expanding voting opportunities in federal elections. By 
giving all voters the same ability to `vote-by-mail,' 
regardless of state residency, H.R. 1604 provides a critical 
step toward encouraging the full participation of our 
citizenry.

               Section-by-Section Summary of Legislation

Section 1.--Short title

    (a) Entitles the bill ``Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act 
of 2009''

Section 2.--Findings

    (1) Finds that an inequality of voting rights exists 
because voters in some States have the universal right to vote 
by mail while voters in other States do not.
    (2) Finds that many voters often have work, family or other 
commitments that make getting to polls on the date of an 
election difficult or impossible.
    (3) Finds that there are currently 28 states that allow for 
universal absentee voting and it has proven to be effective as 
no state has ever switched back.
    (4) Finds that voting by mail gives voters more time to 
consider their choices.
    (5) Finds that allowing voters to vote by mail can lead to 
increased voter participation.
    (6) Finds that allowing voters the option to vote by mail 
can reduce waiting times at the polls.
    (7) Finds that voting by mail has become increasingly 
popular and many voters prefer voting by mail over going to 
polls.
    (8) Finds that no evidence exists suggesting that the 
potential for fraud in absentee balloting is greater than the 
potential for fraud by any other method of voting.
    (9) Finds that many of the current absentee ballot 
requirements are an invasion of privacy and do little to 
prevent fraud.
    (10) Finds that state laws requiring notarizations only add 
cost and inconvenience to the process, not security.

Section 3.--Promoting ability of voters to vote by mail in federal 
        elections

    (a) Amends the Section 303A of the Help America Vote Act to 
prohibit States from imposing any additional conditions or 
requirements on the eligibility of an individual to cast his or 
her vote by absentee ballot, except to the extent that the 
State imposes a deadline for requesting and collecting absentee 
ballots as well as implementing signature verification.
    (b) Prohibits States from providing absentee ballots to an 
individual unless the individual's signature is on file as well 
as requiring States to verify a voter's signature before they 
accept and process an absentee ballot.
    (c) Declares that nothing should be construed in this bill 
to affect the authority of States to administer elections at 
polling places.
    (d) Makes this section effective with respect to federal 
elections held in 2012 and thereafter.

               Committee Consideration of the Legislation

                       INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL

    On March 19, 2009, Mrs. Davis of California, along with 
fifty Members of the House, introduced H.R. 1604, which was 
referred to the Committee on House Administration.

                                HEARINGS

    On March 26, 2009, the Committee on House Administration 
Subcommittee on Elections held a hearing entitled ``The 2008 
Election: A Look Back on What Went Right and Wrong.'' The 
following Members were present at the hearing: Subcommittee 
Chair Zoe Lofgren, Representative Charles A. Gonzalez, 
Representative Artur Davis, Representative Kevin McCarthy, and 
Representative Gregg Harper.

Panel One Witnesses

    1. The Honorable Gineen Beach--Chairwoman, U.S. Election 
Assistance Commission
    2. The Honorable Gracia Hillman--Vice-Chairwoman, U.S. 
Election Assistance Commission
    3. Mr. George Gilbert--Director, Guilford County Board of 
Elections, North Carolina
    4. Mr. Keith Cunningham--Director, Allen County Board of 
Elections, Ohio

Panel Two Witnesses

    1. Ms. Melanie Campbell--Executive Director, National 
Coalition on Black Civic Participation
    2. Ms. Patty Ferguson Bohnee--Native Vote Election 
Protection Coordinator, National Congress of American Indians
    3. Mr. Arturo Vargas--Executive Director, National 
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials
    4. Mr. Eric Eversole--Former Attorney, Civil Rights 
Division, U.S. Department of Justice
    5. Mr. Doug Chapin--Director, Election Initiatives, Pew 
Center on the States

                                 MARKUP

    On June 10, 2009, the Committee met to mark up H.R. 1604. 
The Committee favorably reported H.R. 1604, as amended, by a 
roll call vote of 4 ayes to 2 noes. A quorum was present.

             Matters Required Under the Rules of the House

                         COMMITTEE RECORD VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of House rule XIII requires that the results of 
each record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together 
with the name of those voting for and against, be printed in 
the committee report.

Amendment One--Offered by Mr. Harper

    The first amendment considered was offered by Mr. Harper, 
which would remove the finding that no evidence exists that the 
potential for fraud in absentee balloting is greater than other 
voting methods as well as the finding that some absentee ballot 
requirements do nothing to prevent voter fraud or increase 
security. Following debate the amendment was not agreed to by a 
voice vote.

Amendment Two--Offered by Mr. McCarthy

    An amendment was offered by Mr. McCarthy, which would add 
the requirement that states have the voter's signature on file 
before sending out an absentee ballot as well as require states 
to verify signature matches when receiving absentee ballots. 
Following debate the amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.

Amendment Three--Offered by Mr. Harper

    The final amendment considered was offered by Mr. Harper. 
This amendment would allow states to opt out of the bill 
requirements if implementing this legislation would increase 
costs and federal grant monies are insufficient to cover the 
cost of compliance with the bill requirements. Following debate 
the amendment was not agreed to by a voice vote.
    Following the consideration of all amendments the Committee 
voted to favorably report H.R. 1604, as amended. The vote to 
report favorably was approved by a recorded vote of 4 ayes to 2 
noes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Member                     Ayes       Noes     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Lofgren............................          X  .........  .........
Mr. Capuano............................          X  .........  .........
Mr. Gonzalez...........................  .........  .........  .........
Ms. Davis (CA).........................          X  .........  .........
Mr. Davis (AL).........................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Lungren............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. McCarthy...........................  .........          X  .........
Mr. Harper.............................  .........          X  .........
Mr. Brady..............................          X  .........  .........
                                        --------------------------------
    Total..............................          4          2  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

                General Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states, with respect to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that 
the goal and objective of H.R. 1604 is to increase voter 
participation by removing unnecessary barriers to absentee 
voting.

                        Constitutional Authority

    In compliance with clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the 
Committee states that Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. 
Constitution grants Congress the authority to make laws 
governing the time, place and manner of holding Federal 
elections.

                         Earmark Identification

    In response to the requirements of clause 9 of rule XXI, 
the Committee reports that H.R. 1604 does not include any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

                        Preemption Clarification

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a committee statement on the extent to 
which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state 
or local law. H.R. 1604 is intended to apply in all States and 
preempt laws to the contrary in their application to Federal 
elections.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, the following estimate and comparison 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                                     June 12, 2009.
Hon. Robert A. Brady,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1604, the 
Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2009.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
Pickford.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1604--Univeral Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2009

    H.R. 1604 would amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to 
prohibit states, beginning in 2012, from imposing any 
additional conditions on eligible voters who request a mail-in 
ballot for federal elections other than deadlines for 
requesting and returning such a ballot. States also would be 
required to verify the signature on the absentee ballot by 
cross-checking it with the voter's signature on the official 
list of registered voters. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 
1604 would have no impact on the federal budget.
    Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from 
the application of that act any legislative provisions that 
enforce the Constitutional right of individuals. CBO has 
determined that H.R. 1604 would fall within that exclusion 
because it would protect individuals' voting rights. Therefore, 
we have not reviewed the bill for mandates.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew 
Pickford. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                     HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is 
as follows:
     * * * * * * *

    TITLE III--UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY AND 
                       ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

                        Subtitle A--Requirements

     * * * * * * *
Sec. 303A. Promoting ability of voters to vote by mail.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   TITLE III--UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY AND 
                      ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

Subtitle A--Requirements

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 303A. PROMOTING ABILITY OF VOTERS TO VOTE BY MAIL.

  (a) In General.--If an individual in a State is eligible to 
cast a vote in an election for Federal office, the State may 
not impose any additional conditions or requirements on the 
eligibility of the individual to cast the vote in such election 
by mail, except as required under subsection (b) and except to 
the extent that the State imposes a deadline for requesting the 
ballot and related voting materials from the appropriate State 
or local election official and for returning the ballot to the 
appropriate State or local election official.
  (b) Requiring Signature Verification.--
          (1) Record of signature required for provision of 
        ballot.--A State may not provide an absentee ballot to 
        an individual for an election for Federal office unless 
        the individual's signature is included on the official 
        list of registered voters in the State or some other 
        official record of the State connected to such list.
          (2) Verification required for acceptance and 
        processing of submitted ballot.--A State may not accept 
        and process an absentee ballot submitted by any 
        individual for an election for Federal office unless 
        the State verifies the identification of the individual 
        by comparing the individual's signature on the absentee 
        ballot with the individual's signature on the official 
        list or other official record referred to in paragraph 
        (1), in accordance with such procedures as the State 
        may adopt.
  (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to affect the authority of States to conduct 
elections for Federal office through the use of polling places 
at which individuals cast ballots on the date of the election.
  (d) Effective Date.--A State shall be required to comply with 
the requirements of this section with respect to elections for 
Federal office held in years beginning with 2012.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                         TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. ACTIONS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DECLARATORY AND 
                    INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

  The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any 
State or jurisdiction in an appropriate United States District 
Court for such declaratory and injunctive relief (including a 
temporary restraining order, a permanent or temporary 
injunction, or other order) as may be necessary to carry out 
the uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and 
administration requirements under sections 301, 302, [and 303] 
303, and 303A.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL E. LUNGREN, THE HONORABLE 
             KEVIN McCARTHY, AND THE HONORABLE GREGG HARPER

    For reasons of security, fraud prevention, and community 
engagement, 22 states have determined that in their particular 
circumstances those individuals seeking to vote by absentee 
ballot must have an approved justification. H.R. 1604 would 
replace the judgment of those 22 states with a one-size-fits-
all congressional mandate and make significant changes to their 
voting procedures. The bill would undermine the procedures the 
legislatures of these states have put in place to protect 
election integrity.
    We understand that 28 states have adopted no-excuse 
absentee voting, and that the system has widespread support. 
Some of us would support it for our own states. However, we do 
not believe that Congress should step in and dictate this 
policy to all states.
    By passing this legislation, this committee made a 
determination that any possible reasoning for justified 
absentee voting is inadequate and baseless. Yet the committee 
made this decision without consulting local election officials 
and the organizations that represent them.
    The committee has approved sweeping findings that demean 
the judgment of states that limiting access to absentee ballots 
is warranted to protect election integrity. By contrast, we 
believe states have, at the least, adequate basis to reach that 
judgment. For example, ``None of the protections of the privacy 
of the voting booth are guaranteed to individuals casting mail 
ballots. Moreover, individual mail voters can be more easily 
subjected to improper influences such as intimidation or 
bribery.'' John Hardin Young, Ed., International Election 
Principles: Democracy and the Rule of Law (American Bar 
Association, 2009) at 222. We supported Mr. Harper's amendment 
to remove the most extreme findings from the bill, and are 
disappointed the committee rejected this amendment.
    The committee also has approved findings that variations 
from state to state in rules governing access to absentee 
ballots create an inequity of voting rights. An inequity of 
circumstances does not in and of itself constitute an inequity 
of rights. The United States Supreme Court has held that, ``The 
right to vote is unquestionably basic to a democracy, but the 
right to an absentee ballot is not. Historically, the absentee 
ballot has always been viewed as a privilege, not an absolute 
right.'' Prigmore v. Renfro, 356 F.Supp. 427, 432 (D.C.Ala., 
1972), aff'd 410 U.S. 919, 93 S.Ct. 1369, 35 L.Ed.2d 582 
(U.S.Ala. Feb 20, 1973).
    The committee's approval of the amendment by Mr. McCarthy 
regarding signature verification is an improvement to the bill 
(thought not sufficient to move us to support the legislation 
as reported). The amendment requires that election officials 
have a voter's signature on file before transmitting an 
absentee ballot to the voter, and the election officials match 
a signature on the absentee ballot to the one on file before 
accepting the ballot for processing. We believe that if 
Congress is to embark on mandating the availability of absentee 
ballots, it should also ensure the presence of these safeguard 
measures.
    The National Conference of State Legislatures expressed 
``grave concerns'' in a letter commenting on this legislation's 
predecessor, H.R. 281 in the 110th Congress. In addition to 
asking this Committee to consider the many financial costs this 
unfunded mandate would bring to already overburdened election 
officials, the NCSL stressed that there has been no showing 
that state systems' utilizing procedures other than no-excuse 
absentee voting are dysfunctional or broken. In their letter 
they asked this committee to reconsider its decision to move 
this bill without consulting those who would bear the burden of 
implementing this legislation. Again this year, the committee 
has failed to consult those who will be affected most by this 
bill.
    At a time when so many state budgets are strained, we all 
know that election offices, most already operating on 
shoestring budgets, are one of the first agencies under the 
knife. It is highly doubtful that adequate resources would be 
allocated on the state level to accommodate the new federal 
mandates created by this legislation. That is why we supported 
Mr. Harper's amendment to allow states to avoid the bill's 
mandate if they certified that it would impose additional costs 
for which no HAVA requirements funds were available. The 
committee's rejection of this amendment shows a disturbing 
indifference to the financial strains being put on state and 
local election jurisdictions by expanding federal mandates and 
controls.
    Before we tell local governments how to run their 
elections, we should let them tell us what they think about our 
ideas. Currently, H.R. 1604 looks like a solution in search of 
a problem. We hope the majority will reconsider their support 
of this legislation before taking further action.
                                   Daniel E. Lungren.
                                   Kevin McCarthy.
                                   Gregg Harper.

                                  

```